[MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

Sun Mar 25 11:39:04 EDT 2018

I didn’t really see much of a low level conspiracy, Just an edict one day from the government.  Making it applicable to CAP was probably the responsibility of some non-rated USAF junior officer at Gunter.  Why would anyone expect any different?  BTW, it did drive off many talented, dedicated people from the CAP, and now you have what it is today..

Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ

5111 E. Sharon Dr.

Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636

H (602) 953-5779

C (480) 550-2358

 <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net> scottjohnson1 at cox.net

 <mailto:scott.johnson at ieee.org> scott.johnson at ieee.org

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of jeepp
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:18 AM
To: mkdorney at aol.com
Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

Looks like you got the right memo....!

K3HVG

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: mkdorney at aol.com <mailto:mkdorney at aol.com>  
Date: 3/23/18 12:45 (GMT-05:00) 
To: jeepp at comcast.net <mailto:jeepp at comcast.net>  
Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net>  
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995 

>From all I've gathered about some any equipment "list" , this sounds more like some excuse the brass at CAP came up in order for them to maintain their individual little fiefdoms rather than some national standard.  Knowing that a Federal Agency cannot endorse any one manufacturers specific product, and that any "list" would be impractical to maintain on a national level, and that furthermore equipment that may have originally been designed to meet NTIA standards may, over time, not meet those standards due to normal wear and tear, I would be very suspicious of any one authority at CAP denying the use of any piece of equipment because it is not on some fictional NTIA equipment list ( since NTIA disavows any "equipment list" anyway ).   And since CAP has no means to test equipment to meet anybody's standards....

I'm not all that surprised that some stuff shirt at CAP NCS complained about "unauthorized stations".  I mean, damn, you probably woke this guy out of the nap he was taking and made him actually work.

Mark

WW2RDO

In a message dated 3/23/2018 11:15:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, jeepp at comcast.net <mailto:jeepp at comcast.net>  writes: 

Oh... sorry about the misunderstanding.  There are sufficient and arguably well motivated CAP "operators", and fairly well trained in the C.O.I.  Its just that if a PL-259 comes loose, there's nobody around to fix it.  With that, I'll be quiet.  Now about the ARC-5......

Jeep - K3HVG

On 3/23/2018 11:04 AM, Murray, Conard wrote:

I was active in CAP as a communicator from 1978 to the early 90s. It was a lot of fun and a useful outlet for radio skills. I was frustrated towards the end by encroaching ‘thou shalt nots’ that made no sense and just hampered our efforts. I was the net control for our 4 Meg state SSB net one night each week. The Florida net was the half hour before mine. In the winter, the 4 Mhz band would go long before net time and I couldn’t hear any stations in TN and the NCS for Florida couldn’t hear any of his, but of course we could hear each other fine … so we just swapped duty. I would call the Florida net and he would call TN. This served us well and went on for over a year .. then the Florida wing commander issued an order that Florida stations were prohibited from contacting stations outside of Florida. No reason given or obvious to anyone.

The last time I was on a CAP net was at a squadron campout. I was asked by the squadron commander to put on a commo class and have the members with Radio Operator Cards and callsigns check in to the evening SSB net from the campsite. The class went well and the net started up .. the NCS got to our group and all my students checked in in order doing a wonderful job. The NCS was one of the old elite guys that had been in CAP since the war and got all upset asking who were all those stations checking in? I told him I was having a class and they were all with me and he replies that didn’t matter. They were ‘not authorized for HF operation.’  I told him back that they passed the same test that I did and they had the same radio operator card that I did. He said that didn’t matter.. they were not authorized …. So I told him (on the air ) that I guess that meant I was not authorized as well and gave my full callsign and asked him to show my station closed. Out. I switched off the power and never went back. CAP was a great thing but, like the BSA .. has been brought down by legislation.

73,

Conard, WS4S ex Blue Chip 196

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

  _____  

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net>   <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of Peter Gottlieb  <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com> <kb2vtl at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:19:06 AM
To: mkdorney at aol.com <mailto:mkdorney at aol.com> 
Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net> 
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995 

I was able to show that my RF-350K met specs, and that the Micom 2 did not, but to no avail. The CAP NTIA list is not based on tests but manufacturer spec sheet and no exceptions were being granted. There was supposed to be a grandfather clause but that was at the discretion of each wing I heard and in any case I was out. As I was involved in the early MARS-ALE development effort I was able to run ALE as well, and indeed for a while later operated in receive-only mode logging activity.  

As for VHF, at one point they changed freqs and then wouldn’t let anyone know them, but eventually they got out and some of us bought cheap surplus radios (like the Motorola Visar) that we’re on the approved list and resold to other members at cost. CAP did accept those for use. I used an Astro Saber which I programmed for CAP P25 as well (which was a learning curve and effort!) but despite many missions never used that capability.

They would assign the EFJ portable

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20180325/902fedc8/attachment-0001.html>