[TNham] It looks like the EMCOMM "requirement" is trying to make a return...

[bfarnham]

Paul, I think you make a good point, as does Sam.

I feel the need to share some thoughts on these issues, and thank you for 
offering the thoughts you did.

I'll begin by saying that being a volunteer in any organization does NOT mean 
you should expect to be free from requirements of training and some means of 
objectively verifying competency at whatever the mission of the volunteer 
organization is supposed to do. Volunteer firemen are expected to have 
completed training so they are competent at whatever aspect of firefighting 
they engage in, and they are (rightfully) expected to have demonstrated that 
competency and to have it objectively verified by some process. Same applies 
for rescue squad members. There are varying levels of competency and training 
required for the various jobs that a volunteer fireman or rescue squad member 
may be required to do. Why should it be otherwise for volunteer emergency 
communicators?

Think of the worst 3, 4 or 5 ham operators you know of have heard. Are they 
emergency communicators? Would YOU want a message involving the safety of 
yourself or your family in the hands of that operator? I wouldn't. So if 
there's nothing to objectively verify some minimum level of competency as an 
emergency communicator, then all hams are on equal footing to the outside 
world as "consumers" of emergency communications by ham radio operators. In my 
experience, having a license from the FCC and a radio with a "Mash To Mumble" 
button does NOT equate to being an emergency communicator. Bear in mind I'm 
not saying that ham operators who are not proficient emergency communicators 
are bad persons. I'm just saying that, in reality, merely being a licensed 
amateur operator does not make one a proficient emergency communications 
operator.

That being the case, I see no problem with the consumers of ham radio 
emergency communications (folks like our TEMA, FEMA, local EMAs etc) voicing 
the need and requirement to have some sort of objective verification of 
competency as emergency communicators. Being NIMS compliant is DIFFERENT. Many 
people - such as firefighters, rescue squad members, hospital personnel, and 
others - are NIMS compliant without being emergency communicators. They are 
specialists in their own fields.

Am I saying ARRL's EmComm courses are the best way to provide that objective 
verification of minimum competency of emergency communicators? Nope. I don't 
have a perfect answer. I do know, for instance, that Level 1 EmComm as it is 
currently constituted, is not NIMS compliant in that it promulgates the use of 
special codes and jargon in emergency communications, which NIMS is completely 
contrary to. ARRL just put out a letter bragging about making EmComm 3 NIMS 
compliant. To me, that is a backwards approach: the first course made NIMS 
compliant SHOULD have been EmComm 1 - the BASIC course!

How do we set up some means of providing non-ham consumers of emcomm some 
objective verification of at least a minimum level of competency as emergency 
communicators? I dn't know all the answers. But I do know it is NOT 
unreasonable for served agencies to expect that. And if you believe that 
simply holding a ham ticket automatically makes one a proficient emergency 
communicator, we must not be listening to the same repeaters and/or operators.

If the ARRL's EmComm course(s) are not the right sources to provide the public 
with assurance of minimum levels of competency of emergency communicators, 
then, as I see it, we should do one of two  things: Devise a method that WOULD 
provide that minimum competency documentation, OR fix the EmComm courses so 
they WOULD be acceptable.

In the current realities in which we live, it is not unreasonable to expect 
people that may have a role to play in saving our lives to have demonstrated 
and documented some objective level of competency in what they offer to do for 
us. We no longer let physicians who have the minimum level license to practice 
"medicine and surgery" do open heart surgery without special training in that 
field. We no longer allow police officers who only have minimum level training 
that gets them certified as a basic police officer to run SWAT teams. We no 
longer allow everybody that volunteers for a rescue squad or a volunteer fire 
department to run the Jaws of Life or to operate a multi-stage pump on a fire 
truck. It is no different in recognizing that having a license from the FCC 
and a radio does not make a competent emergency communicator.

So - rather than a condemnation of all efforts to document minimum competency, 
perhaps we could concentrate some efforts on devising a method that can work 
for both hams who want to do a high-quality job and for the served agencies 
that might consume our services? And maybe we could give up on the infighting 
and backbiting that so easily takes the place of constructive work. We don't 
need much more anger injected into the process. We need some hard work to fix 
it.

73,
Bill
KI4FZT

>===== Original Message From Paul Chapman <kf4yuz at knology.net> =====
>Greg
>
>All of the course that are required by FEMA do not cost anything but time
>and they are basic course that all must take, even the Red Cross volunteers.
>I as a professional trainer I believe that all training that you receive to
>prepare you to perform a function, even as a volunteer will benefit you,
>those you are helping and the organization you are working with. I do not
>know for sure, but I believe if the clubs would work with the local and
>state governments founding could be obtain to pay for the course, there is a
>lots of grants available for such activities. Part of the fact that we are
>volunteer's means to me that we absorb the cost of volunteering, so if the
>training is mandated and it prepares you to do the function you are
>volunteering to perform you should be proud to do it. Also since it is a
>volunteer function in many cases you can dedicate the cost from you taxes,
>another benefit.
>
>This is not the first time I have seen training required for a volunteer
>function which the volunteer had to pay for out of their own pocket.
>
>I just received a quote, sent to me by Lynn Lamb(W4NL)and quoted by Sam
>Brown (WA4IUM) that I believe is just right.
>
>"Ostensibly, this is a hobby about communication by the electronic
>transmission of radio waves. The truth of the matter is that this is a
>fraternity of brothers who find it much better to give than to receive."
>
>    de Sam Brown, WA4IUM
>
>Paul
>
>KF4YUZ