[RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side"

[Kai]

Joe,
Let's let the EMMCOMM people speak for themselves regarding the
need, or not, for PACTOR-3 or -4 on HF.

My experience supports the need for those digital modes.
My wife, a ham who's volunteered to worked these emergencies,
also agrees.

73
Kai, KE4PT


On 12/11/2013 2:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> No, the "get serious" issue with emergency communications is that
> there is *no need* for PACTOR III or PACTOR IV on *HF* for EMMCOMM.
> In every major emergency - including Superstorm Sandy - the long
> haul traffic for which HF is suited was handled by internet.  The
> heavy volume traffic for which PACTOR III/IV would be used was
> confined to VHF *where the higher signalling rates are legal*.
> One need only read the after action reports of emergency after
> emergency - including the one from New Jersey ARES after Sandy
> to see this pattern.
>
> Safety of Life and other *short messages* are more than adequately
> handled by PACTOR I or PACTOR II *in a 500 Hz bandwidth* at HF.
> The *only* "need" for higher bandwidth protocols at HF is for the
> blue water sailing crowd who are *looking to avoid the cost* of
> commercial (marine) SSB equipment and high cost e-mail services.
>
> The high bandwidth is necessary for emergency communications
> argument is a red herring - it is the equivalent to asking
> "Kai, when did you stop beating your wife?" - there is logical
> response because the premise itself is *illogical* and assumes
> facts not in evidence.
>
> Were amateur radio ever faced with providing long haul emergency
> communications in the volume that required the bandwidth of which
> PACTOR II/IV is capable, the emergency would be so geographically
> large and so much infrastructure would have been destroyed that
> the communication would be futile - there would not be enough
> amateur manpower and equipment - or there would not be enough
> responders left to generate and use the data.
>
> Winlink 2000 as an emergency communications tool is a canard and
> those who build their response plans around it for long haul data
> traffic simply fail to understand the nature and scope of their
> mission.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 12:02 PM, Kai wrote:
>> Bill
>> This one is in the "let's get serious" category. I've handled several
>> thousand of pieces of
>> message traffic by voice in ONE of our hurricane emergencies in Florida.
>> I mean voice messages *copied by hand, with re-reads for clarity*. There
>> are serious safety
>> of life issues!
>> I do not recommend voice. Digital would be faster, more accurate, and
>> can be archived for
>> resolving continuing emergency and field-hospital issues. At the time
>> reliable digital was simply
>> not available.
>>
>> If you want to try what "copyby hand" feels like, I urge you to enter
>> your next RTTY contest
>> using just a hand written log. I think you'll get the idea pretty quickly.
>>
>> But, I'm sure you really did not mean "use voice" for messages in a real
>> emergency seriously.
>>
>> 73
>> Kai, KE4PT
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2013 11:36 AM, Bill Turner wrote:
>>> In a real emergency, just use voice.
>>>
>>> No special equipment required, fast and effective, less battery power,
>>> anyone can copy.
>>>
>>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTTY mailing list
>>> RTTY at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>