FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
Eric Knight (KB1EHE)
on
December 8, 2005
View comments about this article!
[This is a follow-up to Mark Derby's (K8MHZ) fine post on this subject.]
LOVE IT, OR HATE IT, I'm the fellow you can attribute to the www.NationalSOS.com Web site and the recent discussions about using "FRS Channel 1" as an emergency calling frequency for FRS users.
The communication chaos that occurred after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting massive loss of life, really got me upset. Seeing people die from thirst and hunger -- simply because they had no way to tell rescuers where they were -- inspired me to try to figure out a way to help avoid or minimize future catastrophes. Because, unfortunately and inevitably, there will be another national emergency (whether natural or manmade). And I just couldn't sit idly by...and watch more people die.
The idea came to me when I noticed the density of hams in just about every town in America. Just type in town names or zip codes at
http://www.qrz.com/i/names.html and you'll see what I mean.
As far as FRS radios, there are millions of them. By some estimates, 100 million in the U.S. So there are essentially dozens in almost every town in America. And they're being sold at a rate of 12.2 million PER YEAR.
Yes, as has been pointed out in messages in the original message thread, they DO have very limited range. But I did a little real-world research. I've found (albeit with some very crude, non-scientific testing) that ham radio HTs can receive the 500mW FRS signals at surprising ranges...far beyond what the companion FRS radios have been able to receive. Even driving around my town (which is quite hilly), I was able to hear my wife's test messages on FRS 1 for up to a couple of miles. I was listening via my Alinco DJ-V5 HT that I purchased about four years ago. Here's a link to the HT's specs:
http://www.wavehunter.com/DJ-V5T.html
I should mention that I was NOT using a roof-mounted antenna on my car with my HT. Just had the Alinco, with its manufacturer-supplied little whip antenna (about 6.5" long), sitting on the passenger seat of the car (so I could listen as I was driving). I'm sure with a car roof-mount antenna or, better yet, with an HT hooked up to an antenna on the roof of a house, the reception range would even be better.
Anyway, after my range-test experiment, I thought I'd put this idea out in the public to energize a debate. I registered the NationalSOS.com domain name...and then started writing HTML code and preparing the Web site. It's all my words on the Web site. It's even my hand you see in the photo on the home page holding the FRS radio. ;-)
It's a total one-man operation. Just me. So I apologize in advance if I don't respond promptly to posts in this forum. I have my hands full responding to all the posts, e-mails, Web changes, etc. on www.NationalSOS.com. I don't get much sleep anymore. Kind of like a continuous, online Field Day. ;-)
But I believe there is a germ of an idea here. An idea that can save lives in times of crisis. So I'm game to stick my neck out with the idea...and see what comes of it.
I've been a ham for 31 years. I got started when my dad saw a newspaper story about Ham Radio classes being held at the American Red Cross in New Haven, CT. Since then I've always admired how this hobby brings out the very best in people. People who give up their time and energy -- and are always at the ready to help in times of emergency. I admire you all. And I hope that I can contribute in some small way with this concept.
In case someone thinks there might be some money motivation: nope. Helping to save lives is far too important to profit from. I could care less if I even get a mention about this idea...or whatever it evolves to. I just want ** something ** like this to take shape -- so we can give people the power to help save their own lives.
F.Y.I., the concept as it is currently envisioned is not to change the use of FRS radios in any way. Only when a crisis strikes would hams (and others) tune to listen for emergency communications on FRS 1. I have recommended FRS 1, with no tone, as this is the default power-on configuration for most FRS radios out of the box. (I think we have to assume that the ordinary citizens have extremely limited radio knowledge...so operations have to be very simple.) A bunch more information on the basic logic and recommendations is available on my Web site (particularly in the forums).
I chimed in here at eHam.net simply to say "thank you" for the vigorous discussions and ideas. Even the negative comments and critiques are appreciated; only with a free flow of ideas will the best overall plan emerge.
Ham radio operators have the spirit, knowledge, and -- most importantly -- the "can do" attitude when confronted with tough challenges. The bottom line is to come up with a solution that helps save lives.
I KNOW THIS CONCEPT HAS LOTS OF FLAWS. It's far, far from perfect. But I'm hoping the brilliant minds out there can help come up with a real, workable solution to an important problem.
In my mind, the ideal solution would be something that:
(1) uses currently available resources,
(2) involves and mobilizes the general public as part of the solution to their particular predicament (vs. relying on government agencies to perform),
(3) doesn't require new laws or legislation, and
(4) can be implemented quickly (ideally, in some rudimentary form, before next year's hurricane season).
Again, I apologize if I don't respond quickly to posts here. I'm maxed out over at my Web site. Feel free to visit and contribute to the forums there. Your ideas will be extremely appreciated! Here's a short cut:
http://nationalsos.com/ideas/viewforum.php?f=3
Also, I've recently (yesterday) updated the site with a scrolling page of incoming suggestions, critical points, and rapidly evolving ideas for "guidelines": http://www.nationalsos.com/guidelines.html
And the home page www.NationalSOS.com has a good, general overview of the project.
Thanks, in advance, for your brainstorming and ideas. Together, let's make a difference!
73
Eric Knight
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K0BG on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't want to sound like a wet blanket here, but FRS and amateur radio are in different places with respect to saving lives. I have never heard of an FRS radio being used to save a life, although I don't doubt that it might have happened. However, when compared to amateur radio in the same life-saving light, FRS isn't much more than a glint.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As you stated, the FRS has very limited range. And a more sensitive radio (such as an Amateur Radio H-T , as you state) may receive the signal at a greater range than the companion FRS radio, but that does NOT constitute communication! It would ONLY be one way; you might hear a distress call, but there wouldn't be any (legal) way to respone, to even let the people know their distress call was heard. Limited usefulness, I'm afraid. That's just not what the FRS is meant to do. (Otherwise, there'd be a "panic button" just for FRS1 emergency calls built into the latest FRS radios.)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WF7A on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm surprised that FRS radios don't have a means of attaching or plugging in an external antenna to them; using an external antenna would greatly increase their transmitting and receiving range.
"I can't wait to make a fan dipole for my FRS rig!"
Ciao,
Rich
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AA4PB on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The reason there is no external antenna connection on FRS radios is because the FCC doesn't permit it in order to limit the range.
Yes, the range is limited and if you use a ham transceiver you can't legally have 2-way communications. If a family is stranded and an FRS radio is all they have then certainly they should use it anyway. If there happens to be a ham within a mile or so monitoring he can inform a rescue agency and perhaps save some lives. What is wrong with that? No one is suggesting that FRS replace ham radio or that rescue agencies use FRS in lieu of their own equipment. Its a simple matter of a tool being readily available (no matter how limited) so why not monitor it during a disaster? For many people it may be the only communications tool they have available.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6CRR on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You make some very good points, but there is another framework under which FRS should be considered as a useful tool to be deployed alongside amateur radio during disaster relief operations. My thinking on this topic came after recently completing CERT (Citizens Emergency Response Team) training.
In the class I attended, there was a heavy emphasis for as many people attending the class as possible to become licensed amateur radio operators who could support CERT operations in case of a disaster. While this is a noble goal, it sort of ignores some realties which will face disaster operations.
1)The number of Amateurs who will be able to respond to a disaster may be limited, and the number of repeaters and other resources which are normally expected may be scarce. There may also be some operational issues associated with some of the members of society who craw out from what ever rock they live under and cause problems with radio communications, but nothing can be done about that I suppose.
2)There will be many people turn out for a disaster who want to help, but will be lacking in either the technical skills or the ability to use amateur radio resources, but do know how to use simple FRS radios, and might even own a few with working batteries.
So how do those two realities converge?
Let's say Los Angeles is hit by a major earth quake.
A disaster center is set up, people report in, some have Amateur Radios, some have FRC and all or most have some sort of search and rescue training and skill.
Search teams are sent out, some with FRS radios, some with Amateur radios, all communications going back to the disaster relieve command center. As a team searches a home, office or other buildings, status, results, requests for assistance, etc. can be effectively communicated back to the command post via either Amateur services, or FRS or combinations of both. FRS or amateur radios can also be used in the actual search of a building, or group of buildings also.
As you point out, in lots of modern HT�s you can program in FRS frequencies for RX only. In my mind, one way communications is better than no communications.
In my point of view, all communications devices are valuable in a disaster, and you are pointing out another resource. Something to consider.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by W5HTW on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a strong advocate of "use what is available in an emergency." That will include FRS, GMRS, CB, ham radio, flashlights, smoke signals, message runners, reflective mirrors.
One of my scenarios, as DEC of this county, is that one of us equipped with ham radio mobile, would park in the parking lot of our Central Dispatch, and contact hams in their mobile units, or who may be riding in ambulance, fire truck or police units. That would be in case the Dispatch repeaters fail, as they have. But 911 calls would still come in to the Dispatch center. Therefore, the informatin would be relayed via FRS from inside the Dispatch center to the ham in the parking lot. He would then pass that message, via ham radio, to the ham riding with the ambulance.
Fine? We have FRS radios available for exactly that purpose. Another scenario would include a ham with an FRS radio in his vehicle, and he would be assisting stranded motorists, due to a snow storm closing Interstate Forty. Yes, that happens too, and rather frequently.
So use what is there.
But here is the rub.
DO NOT CALL FRS "HAM RADIO!" Stop it! It isn't ham radio. If one ham calls another on the phone, the phone does not become HAM RADIO! Stop automatically blending ham radio with cell phones, internet, FRS, GMRS, marine, CB, and other non-ham communications methods. A smoke signal is not ham radio, even if two hams are doing it.
There is this "need" this incredible, irrestibble urge, by hams, mostly new, but a few old ones, to think that anything that communicates should be included in ham radio. No, No, No, No, No!
Use it. Use CB, FRS, homing pigeons. But they aren't ham radio. They can interface with ham radio. Nothing wrong with that. But they aren't ham radio!!
And neither is the internet
Ed Brooks, W5HTW
DEC
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by W5HTW on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In fact, this is EXACTLY what is hurting ham radio in the eyes of first responders, and others who would use us, but don't, for they are confused as to just what and who we are. "Those damned CBers," and that is indeed a comment I have heard. They are not talking about hams who sound like CBers. They are talking about CBers because they don't know the difference.
They also know that FRS takes zero skill, no license, is short range, and, in metro areas, is full of kids seeking/selling drugs, arranging teeny-bopper dates, discussing the latest video and rock music. A
And they don't know the difference. When we start in with how we can help with ham, FRS and CB, they go blank. They already "know" what that is, and they don't want some.
So be sure ham radio is HAM RADIO.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KX8N on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""Those damned CBers," and that is indeed a comment I have heard. They are not talking about hams who sound like CBers. They are talking about CBers because they don't know the difference. "
And this point is why we need to educate the public about who we are and what we do. There's nothing wrong with what we are doing, and it's not the public's fault that they don't know who we are - it's OUR fault.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K2LES on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the middle of winter late at night, driving down the interstate in the snow - CB is the way to go. Listen to Channel 19 (that's 27.185 MHz) and you'll get more helpful information from the truckers regarding road conditions and what's ahead than you will from hamsexuals or Feeble Radio Service users.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ignoring all the drivel some folks post here, another point to remember that in an emergency you can use and radio on any band to asisit in life saving efforts, so FCC say its ok if you have a true emergency to talk to FRS or CB or MARS or anything else if its assisiting in an emergency.
This changes things..
as for the rest of the nay sayers, PhTTTTTTTTT.. ( the noise that sounds like a rasberry)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ignoring all the drivel some folks post here, another point to remember that in an emergency you can use and radio on any band to asisit in life saving efforts, so FCC say its ok if you have a true emergency to talk to FRS or CB or MARS or anything else if its assisiting in an emergency.
This changes things..
as for the rest of the nay sayers, PhTTTTTTTTT.. ( the noise that sounds like a rasberry)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ignoring all the drivel some folks post here, another point to remember that in an emergency you can use and radio on any band to asisit in life saving efforts, so FCC say its ok if you have a true emergency to talk to FRS or CB or MARS or anything else if its assisiting in an emergency.
This changes things..
as for the rest of the nay sayers, PhTTTTTTTTT.. ( the noise that sounds like a rasberry)
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRS may be a viable concept.
If you consider how some of the other services have been used over the past 25 years, it may make sense for disasters like Katrina:
CB radio:
Back in the 70's, I recall Massachusetts State Police equipping their cruisers with CB radios in order to catch late breaking emergencies on the road.
Ham Radio:
Between approx. 1973 and 1985, (pre-cellular days) hams in Massachusetts were able to convince the state Police to set up 2 meter stations on 146.52 simplex in various state police barracks, allowing hams to call in emergencies and communicate directly with the State Police. I'm not exactly sure how/who manned these stations and I'm sure some troopers were probably hams. (maybe someone reading this knows the details better than I do.)
Now I think you realize where I'm going with this.
Maybe the FRS Channel 1 idea needs to be refined a little more.
Using Katrina as an example, what if FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams were required to monitor FRS Channel 1, along with the State and local police, National Guard, RACES, etc.?
By virtue of their superior receivers and UHF antennas, Hams could provide a valuable service by remote or mobile monitoring, then relaying any emergency calls via ham radio to a local EOC or other means.
The most difficult part would be getting all the various agencies, local, state and federal on board - but it's not impossible.
I hope something constructive comes out of this.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K3TJ on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9SVD points out that responding to an emergency call with an amateur radio is illegal. Key word is emergency call.
My friends, review the rules. Simply put, if it is a real life or limb threatening emergency the rule is you can transmit anywhere, anytime and anyway you can.
Case in point, during Katrina, The National Communications System allowed amateurs with emergency traffic to enter its SHARES nets. Health and welfare was politely referred to SATERN. Keep in mind SHARES is NOT in the Amateur band.
Folks, the original post is an idea. It won't bite anyone, but maybe in a true emergency it could help someone.
How come people are so quick to discount a simple idea? Some one mentioned smoke signals... I never heard a story about a chief banning them because they had a drum. (before anyone suggests that a "cross spectrum" QSO between smoke signal and drum WAS illegal... I already thought of the joke, so save it)
Respectfully, Ed k3tj
PA ARMY MARS TRAINING DIRECTOR
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KC2IJI on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2lles brings up a good point. Radio "communities" exist regardless of assignments. In my area, CB channel 23 is the official parkway channel. 19 for truckers, and in Dutchess County, NY there's a group on CB 17.
Likewise, some of the GMRS repeaters in my area have a "cluster", in the same way some repeaters are always on and some are just wasted band co-ordination.
FRS, by it's weak design, can't form a cluster. Save a few bootleggers in the NY metro area using old taxi radios, no one can really call up and talk with others not related.
I've called for hams on roadways on .52 more times than I can count. Useless for that purpose.
We do not have a radio system that crosses all societal and interest boundries, unless we think cell phone, but that's useless in any real emergency.
CB was universal until it became trash band.
Ham can't.....the requirements for admission are too high.
FRS is crippled on purpose-even if you can make a 10 mile QSO in the mountains, I would not want my life to depend on that system.
GMRS is really niche...if you care, you go ham, otherwise you use it to dispatch your drivers.
MURS could be that service, but no one makes "specific" radios for it. A Vertex Standard marine radio included MURS channels in one Marine band rig, and the FCC made them remove the MURS assignments in later radios. It is almost like you can't go there, unless you buy custom programmed Motorola.....and that's a high bar.
Australia may have the right idea...a CB service in the 460 mhz band, it would have some range, be useful, no skip, etc.
Much of our current society is designed so that people don't talk. They might then form groups to change things.
I have often wondered why there was no "replacement" for CB on 11 meters. Today, a car to car system with ten watts and ten channels (would not need more) would be trivial, and cheap. I'd like to be able to ask the car ahead of me to let me pass, or to ask directions, without a nine foot antenna, Ancient Modulation, and gutter mouth truckers 15 miles off. Simple FM would do fine.......
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric, I think using FRS-1 as an emergency channel is doomed to failure. It is a flawed concept because all FRS radios power-up to channel 1, which means that every kiddie and virgin user who picks one up and figures out how to turn it on, USES CHANNEL 1 ALL THE TIME.
A friend of mine grabbed a pair to keep in touch at a convention center and, of course, did just that. Constant traffic on FRS-1, and in comparison almost none on the other channels.
How are you going to explain to "everyone" using FRS as it defaults, that they should change channels because you want to monitor "their" channel for emergency traffic? Ain't gonna happen.
Now, if you could convince the MANUFACTURERS to agree on an emergency channel and all to add a dedicated "EMG" button that switches to it and switches the tones off (as Audiovox does) then you'd stand a chance on at least having a useable channel.
Of course, then you'd still have the problem that no one seems to understand the difference between an emergency and an inconvenience. Jo Public would be pressing that "EMG" button all day anyway. This is the problem that led to the USCG dropping all non-emergency responses back in 1985(?) in favor of private services. People just don't understand that "I'm cold wet cranky miserable and hungry" isn't an emergency.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K6AER on December 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What was the most used radio during the Hurricane Katrina disaster? I’ll give you a hint…almost everyone has one. You guessed it, it was the cell phone. Today’s cell phones have a built in GPS that gives the 911 dispatch your exact position. These phones have been in production for the last three years. No other communication device has the interoperability various services require. Not commercial radios, not ham radios and not military radios and certainly not FMRS handhelds. Digital cell phones can run days on a single battery. Most two-way radios are analog and die after 5 hours of hard usage. Oh there are antidotal stories to be had but not that I would consider on a large scale and if I was doing serious disaster planning, FMRS is of little more use than semaphore flags.
After the Hurricane Katrina disaster the number one priority given by the federal agencies was to get the cell systems up and running. Sprint, Nextel, Cingular, T-Mobil, Verizon and others had almost two thousand people down in the disaster area doing repairs and had the network cellular system up to 85% operational coverage area after only 7 days. None of this made the news. They were to busy looking for bodies in the Super Dome. Fifty miles north of New Orleans trailer cities by the various companies were set up to support this massive undertaking. In a forty eight hour period crews were arriving from all over the United States. Some crews drove up to 30 hours with stocked service vehicles and brought all their own food, water, tents and other necessary support equipment. Personal were rotated in and out of the New Orleans area every week. Some day this story will be told but I can tell you it was all done on private company money with out any help from the federal government.
Bottom line is serious disasters require serious communications and FMRS radios is a fantasy best left for a Disney kid’s movie.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K3TJ on December 8, 2005
WA9SVD points out that responding to an emergency call with an amateur radio is illegal. Key word is emergency call.
My friends, review the rules. Simply put, if it is a real life or limb threatening emergency the rule is you can transmit anywhere, anytime and anyway you can.
===========================================
I'm well aware of the "emergency provisions" but I believe there is a bit of a gray area in your statement, and it has to do with the definition of "Emergency" and the extent of an emergency. �97.403 does say that any means may be used in the case of "imminent danger to life or property" emergencies, WHEN normal communications are not available.
I certainly believe that applies to someone IN THE EMERGENCY situation, but not necessarily to anyone else who hears the call. Again, the key words are when normal communications are unavailable. That also (IMHO) means that if you hear an emergency communication, you can not just jump on the air outside an Amateur Band. If there are other services that are assigned to the frequency, it is their right and responsibility to respond. Only if a call goes unanswered would it be acceptable (or legal) for the listening station to operate out of band. And yes, that is also permissible under �97.405(b)
�97.405 (b) also points out that such out of band operation would be an "exceptional" case.
So, as an example, in a life or death situation, (when no other means of sommunication is availableto him/her) Ham "A" could jump onto a Public Service frequency (Police, Fire, etc.) to summons help. But Ham "B" could NOT respond to Ham "A" unless no one from the Public Services answered, (which would probably be highly unlikely.) Ham "A" could justify out of band operation, but not Ham "B." And if Ham "B" had other communications means (cell phone, landline, etc.) available at his location, he would have to use that means to call for assistance, before resorting to out of band operation.
My original point was that FRS in particular is a low power, very short range service (by design) and shouldn't be relied upon for "life or limb" communications, especially to summons emergency help. Certainly, if that's all that's available, use it, but don't bet your life on it.
Once an emergency has actually occurred, and whatever response is set in motion, it certainly will have a place within the response teams, for short range communications by non-licensed individuals.
Another problem is that most Amateur radios won't be very compatible with the FRS anyway; the channels can't be programmed into many H-T's, and the deviation standards are different.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric,
for various reasons already posted here and in the previous threads, I really don't see FRS
Channel 1 (or any other FRS channel) being a viable solution in an emergency situation.
I've listened to FRS channel 1 and most of the other channels over the last 2 years since
I bought the radio, and have yet to hear anyone out here (Berwyn, IL. EN61). But, listening
to the CB channel 9 (REACT) or channel 19, I've always been able to raise and talk to
someone. My understanding is that CB's REACT organization has been around for
over 40 years. Wouldn't it be easier to simply add support to an existing and apparently
quite successful organization then limited range FRS ???
George ...
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear All,
Thank you for the comments, suggestions, and critiques of my www.NationalSOS.com idea. All feedback -- both positive and negative -- is welcomed and encouraged.
I see a lot of posts saying "it won't work" -- but I see very few ideas that pose solutions to a continued serious problem.
I've said that my NationalSOS idea of using FRS radios is far perfect. But it's better than the status quo of dysfunctional emergency communications that will lead to the same chaos and loss of life when the next natural (or manmade) disaster strikes.
I've been a ham for 31 years. Proudly so. I know there are brilliant minds in the ham community that can help come up with a workable solution. A way to mitigate the loss of life when these tragic situations occur.
I know CB radio has been mentioned as an alternative. It's an intriguing idea. But how many homes that were in the swath of Hurricane Katrina had a CB radio? Certainly few. The same would be true if there was an earthquake in California. How many of those people would have a CB radio in their home or apartment? Compare that to the many thousands of FRS radios that exist in almost every community in America.
The key is to find a way to empower the public that is being stricken by a disaster -- so they can be part of the solution. Many of the questions posed on this forum (limited FRS range, interoperability, legality, etc.) have been addressed in the many fine posts over at my Web site's forum. Take a look: http://nationalsos.com/ideas/viewforum.php?f=3.
For instance, I think you'll be surprised to read the report from a ham radio operator and emergency communication coordinator during Hurricane Wilma who continuously monitored FRS frequencies. In the midst of a serious event like that, he found that there was no "kiddie chatter" on FRS 1. Before you speculate further on the congestion of FRS 1, check out that real-world experience during an actual emergency situation.
I must say that I'm a little disappointed at the swagger of some ham radio operators in some postings. There's an inference that they are "above" using any other communications tools...and that everything else (FRS, GMRS, CB, etc.) is inferior. Heck, if I had a chance to save a life, I'd use anything at my disposal -- even a so-called "toy".
BOTTOM LINE: The FRS idea is akin to a signal flare. If there's a national emergency, and someone is in a dire and desperate situation (like the stranded folks during Hurricane Katrina), an FRS radio could be their last lifeline to help. I'm simply suggesting that during a declared federal or state emergency that ham radio operators monitor FRS Channel 1 in case they hear a plea for help. If monitoring a non-ham frequency is beneath the ham community, then maybe our hobby has changed...and not for the better.
Again, I am totally open to suggestions and alternatives. ANYTHING that will help us reduce the loss of life in the next inevitable crisis. The solution should:
(1) use currently available resources,
(2) involve and mobilize the general public as part of the solution to their particular predicament (vs. relying on government agencies to perform),
(3) not require new laws or legislation, and
(4) be able to be implemented quickly (ideally, in some rudimentary form, before next year's hurricane season).
If you're satisfied with the status quo...and are comfortable with a repeat of this year's humanitarian crisis...then I have nothing more I can say. But if you believe we can do better, like I do, then let's find a way.
Let's see that legendary ham radio creativity and brainpower in action. Jot this forum with your ideas that meet the above basic four criteria. I look forward to your thoughts.
73
Eric Knight
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Between approx. 1973 and 1985, (pre-cellular days) hams in Massachusetts were able to convince the state Police to set up 2 meter stations on 146.52 simplex in various state police barracks, allowing hams to call in emergencies and communicate directly with the State Police. I'm not exactly sure how/who manned these stations and I'm sure some troopers were probably hams. (maybe someone reading this knows the details better than I do.)<<<
This is still supported by P.A.R.T. WB1GOF in the
Westford region of MA (the NE segment of the 495belt) using a 3 second * tone (DTMF) on .52.
Regarding FRS CH1, it's better than nothing at all.
There are no qualifiers, if there's no cell, no CB,
no ham its a good tool. It may make sense to have
a few along with a flashight and batteries in ones
kit.
I've toured region (Middlesex county MA) and my findings of FRS CH1 are dismal. Range in the area due
to terrain and buildings is under a mile FRS to better
GMRS. It's maybe 2 miles using a mobile 1/4W whip on
the roof of the truck and a decent radio. Maybe that's
enough but some fo the malls are nearly that long. The other was the clutter, little kids screaming on the
radio, chatter and the profanity I've heard would peel
paint. If I had to compare it to anything, it's worse
than CB Ch19! The noise is there and it's absolutly devoid of any information content where CH19 I've
heard useful traffic reports and even gotten directions.
Whats wrong with FRS? It's totally undiciplined and
like or unlike CB theres no reason for it to be. I
can say that CB at one time was diciplined and has a history of useful service despite abuses. FRS I'm still a bit jaded about. There is no comparison to commercial, civil service or Ham radio, they are diciplined.
Generally speaking I have FRS for two reasons. They
are cheap so if it gets dropped off a tower or what
not, its no loss. The other is if I'm with a non ham
and need short range comms at greater than yelling
distance I can hand them one with the "push there,
talk here, release to listen" 1 minute training. In
those roles they serve well. Works great when I'm in
the attic pulling wires and the like where yelling is
not always effective. For those reasons like a good
flashlight batteries and a leatherman tool I suggest
having them in your kit (their cheap enough too).
Like most tools they have many uses when you need
them.
Allison
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N3HKN on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am amazed at the amount of space consumed with people "knocking" FMRS. The author was careful to point out that it ain't perfect. Yet, out of the woodwork, comes the usual negative cathartic stuff that, it is a horrible system to use. Why do Hams become so defensive and negative when anything other than Amateur Radio is suggested for communications?
Is it so difficult to understand that IF FMRS saves one life it was worth it? Why not try to see if there are ways Hams can HELP people with an unconventional approach. You may save a life instead of your darn Ham ego! Stop the negative drivel. We have heard it before. Stop mocking a system that MIGHT SAVE A LIFE!!!
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WW0H on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cell phones are great for one to one communication; as long as the cell towers are not overloaded or go down themselves.
If you are working in an EOC and need to make an announcement to all your workers, cell phones aren't going to cut it. By time you make the last call, the situation probably would have changed.
Each technology has its uses and limitations in an emergency. We should not dismiss any of them because of the limitations, but know how to use what each can do.
John - WW0H
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric,
First I would like to thank you for taking the initiative to put forth the effort to educate people in a manner that can aid them in the worst of times. Talk is cheap, and I know from experience that maintaining a web site can be a great deal of effort.
I still maintain that the value of FRS 1 for emergency calls needs improvement. You seem to be making that effort, kudos.
My last post in the other thread mentioned making fridge magnets, some sponsored by businesses, with instructions for such use.
I am sure there is more we can do. As skilled radio operators we would be remiss in either putting too much faith in FRS or dismissing them altogether. I surely don't see where the unmitigated paranoia arises from some ill perceived threat that FRS is ham radio.
Those true in their quest to serve in emergencies will use all at their disposal. FRS just may be one of the tools we have at that most unpredictable time. How many of us are assuming we will be near a ham rig when a life threatening emergency arises? Or will have a rig that is left intact after a catastrophe?
FRS or CB may be all we have at the time. Knowing the systems and their limitations may save a life, your own or you kid's perhaps.
Thanks Eric,
Keep up the good work.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great job on the web site, too, BTW!!
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE5GAE on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As a new ham, I'm real put off by the snotty responses I see to so many postings around here. I'd like to think that hams were classy people, which means agreeing to disagree without trying to put down others with ideas you disagree with. Almost makes me embarassed to be a ham.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AA4PB on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I might also add that during a real emergency involving safety of life and property it would be quite legal for a ham to use a ham rig with an external antenna on FRS when there are no other means of communications available. In a real emergency the FCC does not expect you to let a call for help via FRS go unanswered because your ham rig is not certified for use on FRS.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is a great idea to utilize FRS as a means to do close type communications during emergencies.
How hard is it to set your DUAL BAND transciever to also scan FRS CHANNEL #1. Then you will be able to hear signals well (I do this while convoying with family) talk back with FRS TRANSCIEVER, once you hear the call.
Maybe we could write to FRS manufactures to print on their brochures some info about using the channel #1
for this use.
500mu is a bit low power, it would be nice if FCC could bump it up to say 3-5 watts though.
There is some prime examples of this type communications actually working.
One that I recall, is the AIR SHOW here in Oregon has the volunteers for crowd control use FRS. They don't interfere with 118.100 or VHF - UHF radio that the tower and planes are using, and they don't have enough range to be bothering other users outside the area.
I carry FRS radios in my glove box at all times. When I take someone to the Portland City Center, or the Air Port, I have used FRS to let them know when I am out front to pick them up. Works great.
I recall a time when I was on the road a lot (outside sales) I would listen to CH 17 on the CB to hear the truck drivers about road conditions etc. I pulled into a truck stop and heard a female soliciting her services. She was using a small walkie talkie, so as to only be heard in the area of the truck stop, and I realized that sometimes Low Power has advantages...
Nothing to do with Emergency radio use, but in situations like searches, and rescues, where you want volunteers to keep contact with each other without using Net Frequencies, Sherif Frequencies, Helicopter Frequencies and maybe Ambulance radio. This could be the case when searching floods and anywhere you use many people close to each other yet need to use ham or public service radio. Nextel doesn't always work in these situations..
73's KE7AKS
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While FRS radio's may be used in exceptional circumstances to save someone's life or to alert the outside world to an emergency situation that is NOT what the FRS service is designed for.
By advertising to the technologically unsophisticated public that FRS radios are usable for emergency communications, a great disservice is being done to that very public. Some, and perhaps a great many, people may take that advertisement to heart and think they are making useful preparations by having an FRS radio available in case of a disaster - AND that is all they need.
Pushing a message that -- if an FRS radio is all you have, try it -- may be useful to someone in some circumstance. Anything beyond that is skirting the line of being irresponsible, at least in my opinion.
People would be much better off investing the money in a quality CB radio and portable antenna than in an FRS radio if the system is to be depended upon in an emergency. The range for the CB is much, much greater.
BTW, someone suggested using FRS in a building. I think for search teams. I tried that in a hotel building. With the FRS radio's we had it did not work worth spit. It might work in a two-story wood frame house. Using it in a concrete and steel building is a totally different matter.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought of one more point to make. For 80.00 you can be licensed for 5 years on GMRS, then you can use 50 Watts power and an external antenna (mobil).
In Oregon City, Oregon, there is a REACT repeater on CH 19 GMRS uses offset, You can look it up on the internet.
GMRS and FRS use the same CHANNELS, just less power for FRS, and GMRS gets 24 channels (I think ), but FRS only 14 channels. If you look at the small GMRS radio, you will notice the hi power drops automatically on most of them from ch 8 through ch 14,
then back up on ch 15 - 22. GMRS gets to use more power but shares all FRS channels, then gets more that FRS does not get.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In a dire emergency I`ll use whatever band, mode, frequency I have to to get through. Part 97 clearly states that you may use any means at your disposal to get through in a life or death emergency or disaster. If all I had was FRS so be it. ANY radio in times of crisis can be a lifesaver. Of course FRS is very limited, but it beats nothing.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ANY radio in times of crisis can be a lifesaver. Of course FRS is very limited, but it beats nothing. "
It is this mindset which could be a killer for someone, someday.
In fact, the FRS radio may be worse than nothing.
If you know its limitations, you can make a decision to take other actions when the FRS is outside its limitations.
Advertising the FRS radio as an emergency communication device to people that do NOT know of its limitations, however, may put them in a situation of depending on something that will not work in their situation. They will then NOT make the correct decisions for saving their life or the life of others. They may delay taking the proper steps or may not take them at all.
I would not advertise the FRS radio to be any better than a survival whistle when the chips are down. People can easily compare those and will be better able to make the right decisions. It's ok if it works but don't wait to make decisions any longer than you would with a whistle.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by W1WJB on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It never ceases to amaze me how knee-jerk negative hams can be. The "perfect" is always the enemy of the "reasonably useful". Hairs are split, regs are quoted, The Point of a modest and useful proposal is totally buried in the long recitation of All That's Wrong With It.
Too many of us just... don't... "get it".
Is it any wonder Amateur Radio is dying out, and with it the public service aspect of it---the public VALUE of it?
Look around you at the next club meeting. How many young people do you see?
Do you suppose there's any corelation between what you see, and the pervasive negativeness?
Why not try taking a reasonable idea and simply WORKING WITH IT, instead of pointing out the 10,000 ways it's unworkable, or the 10,000 (hopelessly complex) ways it could be made "perfect"?
Enjoy Amateur Radio, ladies and gentlemen: for we are its Final Generation, unless this attitude changes.
W1WJB
CT
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by W5ESE on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've carried a Motorola FRS radio on backpacking trips
when I've gone with companions who aren't hams. As
others have pointed out, their range is limited, but
I've found them to be pretty useful at times
nonetheless.
I think they could have some utility in emergencies,
and even for coordination at Field Day sites, etc.
They're much smaller and lighter than my 2m HT.
Keep up the good work, and don't let the naysayers
get you down.
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One wonders why there is not an organization for emergency communications, or at the very least, why there is not a web site to discuss emergency communications.
One also wonders why there are not web sites to discuss FRS and GMRS or CB.
I hope some kind soul will start a web site for FRS/GMRS emergency communications.
Bob
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Neighborhood Hero
|
|
|
by KN4AQ on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How it might work:
As the neighborhood ham, I set up to be able to monitor FRS (channel 1, whatever works) in a local emergency. I have battery and generator power.
I distribute leaflets around the neighborhood, about a one-mile radius, explaining that if there is a communications disruption (landlines out, cell phone overloaded), try calling me on FRS to relay an emergency message out via ham radio.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I see some potential additional benefits: My antennas are seen as a neighborhood asset. Neighbors are introduced to amateur radio, and a few might stop by to learn more.
I might even use an outdoor antenna and a "modified" ham radio for longer-range communication in a bona-fide emergency, but a simple FRS handheld could do most of the job.
I think it's a brilliant concept. Hope it catches on, but even if it doesn't become a nationwide movement, any ham can implement it in his/her neighborhood.
73,
Gary KN4AQ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Neighborhood Hero
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A quick "THANK YOU" to the open-minded individuals in this forum. And I'd like to say a particular thank you to Mark K8MHZ who kicked off this discussion a couple of weeks ago with his original posting.
As a sidebar, I agree with the comments made that Amateur Radio has gotten away from its roots. We very well could be the last generation that supports this hobby. Counteracting all the many virtues of Amateur Radio is a growing trend of negatively and close-mindedness. It's changed far from what it was when I first got started 31 years ago...
In 1974, we had a ham radio club of young teenagers mentored by a handful of hams in their early 20's. But now look around you? Who do you see at the Hamfests or in the club meetings?
And before you say it's the "Internet's fault" that youngsters are no longer involved...that's not a good excuse. Amateur Radio has to evolve with the times -- to become attractive to a new generation -- or it will simply become obsolete and fade away.
That's my two cents.
Again, thank you for the continued feedback in this forum. I appreciate your ideas and suggestions.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Neighborhood Hero
|
|
|
by KC0KBH on December 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A quick thought-
How many people pick up an frs ht and switch it to channel one because they figure they don't need the extra frequencies? I have heard a lot of people talking on channel 1, just as personal communicators. The Cobra Microtalks use channel 8 and 12, thankfully not one.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tim, I dont recall "advertising " anything as being the be all of lifesaving radio. However I would hope that anyone, ham or not would have the common sense to take other action if the FRS radio fails to get any help. Thats a no brainer isnt it? Perhaps youd rather send smoke signals?
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN:>"Tim, I dont recall "advertising " anything as
>being the be all of lifesaving radio."
I didn't quote you as saying anything was the "be all of lifesaving radio".
To your quote of: "ANY radio in times of crisis can be a lifesaver. Of course FRS is very limited, but it beats nothing."
I said: "Advertising the FRS radio as an emergency communication device to people that do NOT know of its limitations,"
>ke4zhn:"However I would hope that anyone, ham or not
>would have the common sense to take other action if
>the FRS radio fails to get any help. Thats a no
>brainer isnt it? Perhaps youd rather send smoke
>signals?"
Really? I have seen people at an accident scene try their cell phone over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum even when it was obvious that they were out of range. If you wait to evacuate assuming that you can call for help on your FRS radio in case something happens, you could wind up in a very, *very* bad situation.
And before you denigrate smoke signals, think back to Katrina. Every time a puff of smoke appeared in the sky all the TV cameras focused on it. Can you think of a *better* way to get attention in an emergency like that?
And to those people *WHINING* about "negative" comments on this thread I say: GROW UP!
You are indulging in freshman debate tactics by trying to intimidate others with different opinions by claiming they are somehow being detrimental to ham radio or that they have a bad attitude. It's nothing more than an indirect ad hominem attack.
Pointing out problem areas and limitations of any system is the responsible thing to do, especially when you are speaking of using the system in a crisis situation.
If you don't agree with somebody's opinions then say so and then say why you don't agree. STOP WHINING!
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You can extend the range of a FRS radio by building a YAGI antenna with the FRS radio mounted where the driven element would have been. This also allows it to determine the general direction of the transmitting radio. Simply using an external speaker/microphone allows elevating the antenna/transceiver combo above your head. It's not perfect by any means but it is an easy and legal way to increase the range as no physical connections or modifications are made to the radio.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim / AB0WR:
I respectfully disagree with your comment that an "FRS radio may be worse than nothing". Here's why:
FRS is like a signal flare fired from a sinking ship. The fact is, by some estimates, up to 100 million FRS radios are in the public's hands. That's a lot of "signal flares". I'm simply suggesting that during a declared federal or state emergency that ham radio operators monitor FRS Channel 1 in case they hear a plea for help from someone in the general public. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And, regarding your comment about people "whining": It's the superiority complex and general arrogance that *some* ham radio operators have that rubs people the wrong way. Pointing that out is not a "freshman debate tactic" as you say. It's the reality. It's the sad truth. But some people just can't bring themselves to recognize it. IMHO, it's the fundamental reason why today's youth don't get involved in this hobby. And why this hobby has the very real chance of fading away.
As an example, just look at the previous comment from KE5GAE: "As a new ham, I'm real put off by the snotty responses I see to so many postings around here. I'd like to think that hams were classy people, which means agreeing to disagree without trying to put down others with ideas you disagree with. Almost makes me embarrassed to be a ham." That's a well expressed, common perception. But some hams just don't see the light.
I also have to respectfully disagree with your thought: "People would be much better off investing the money in a quality CB radio and portable antenna than in an FRS radio if the system is to be depended upon in an emergency. The range for the CB is much, much greater."
I disagree with you not because a CB radio doesn't have superior range (which it does in most circumstances); I disagree because CB radios don't meet the very basic requirements of an improved, widespread emergency-communication system. Millions of people in the general public are simply not going to start spending hundreds of bucks to buy and install CB radios and antennas.
A practical and viable solution, as I posted previously, should:
(1) use currently available resources,
(2) involve and mobilize the general public as part of the solution to their particular predicament (vs. relying on government agencies to perform),
(3) not require new laws or legislation, and
(4) be able to be implemented quickly (ideally, in some rudimentary form, before next year's hurricane season).
Tim, do you have any suggestions that would meet the above four criteria?
Whether it's mirrors...FRS radios...or car horns tapping Morse Code...I could care less what the actual solution is. As I've said before, I am totally open to suggestions and alternatives. ANYTHING that will help us reduce the loss of life in the next inevitable crisis.
Do you (or anyone) have any thoughts that would meet the above four basic criteria that would comprise a workable, practical, and viable solution?
Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts.
73
Eric Knight
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Scott / N4ZOU said:
"You can extend the range of a FRS radio by building a YAGI antenna with the FRS radio mounted where the driven element would have been. This also allows it to determine the general direction of the transmitting radio. Simply using an external speaker/microphone allows elevating the antenna/transceiver combo above your head. It's not perfect by any means but it is an easy and legal way to increase the range as no physical connections or modifications are made to the radio."
Now ** that ** is the out-of-the-box thinking hams are legendary for! Neat idea. Thanks for your contribution, Scott.
73
Eric Knight
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This proposal may just need to be re-focused a bit in order for it to have a chance of being integrated into today's emergency communications structure.
In response to Allison's point about the amount of traffic on Channel 1 from kids, etc., on a normal day, that's very true. But during a declared state of emergency, I doubt very much you would hear many kiddies yapping or campers and hunters conversing in the woods.
Here's a couple of ways of improving FRS integration:
1) Using FRS Channel 1 is probably not a good idea in case there is general chit-chat going on. In general, it would be much better to designate a separate emergency channel, similar to CB channel 9 so that people know ahead of time to keep the channel during emergencies.
2) Ham radio operators could be the group that ties FRS to other emergancy agencies. By virtue of our superior communications-grade receivers and our experience using directional antennas, hams could *remotely* monitor FRS channels for emergency calls, then relay them to local emergency management officials via ham radio or other means;
3) Extend the integration to other agencies such as FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams, local and state emergency management, RACES, ARES, etc.
Taking Katrina as an example:
What if the citzens of New Orleans knew in advance that FRS Channel "X" was being monitored for emergency calls and the FEMA US&R teams and hams were set up as described above. Would it not have been possible for many of the people stranded for days in flooded homes under life threatening conditions to have been located faster with an emergency communciations system like this??
This is a viable approach to public emergency communications, especially given the low cost and popularity of these transceivers and extended monitoring range hams can provide with high gain directional antennas.
Eric, KB1EHE, you can certainly prove or disprove this concept by running some simple tests.
Good luck with this, I think it's worth exploring.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Chris / WA1RNE.
You've put forth some ** great ** thinking. And your example regarding Katrina is perfect.
As you said, more research & testing are warranted. I'll do my best to follow-up in the ways you suggested.
Thanks for the common-sense perspective. It's refreshing.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
****************************************************************************
wa1rne:
"This proposal may just need to be re-focused a bit in order for it to have a chance of being integrated into today's emergency communications structure.
Here's a couple of ways of improving FRS integration:
2) Ham radio operators could be the group that ties FRS to other emergancy agencies. By virtue of our superior communications-grade receivers and our experience using directional antennas, hams could *remotely* monitor FRS channels for emergency calls, then relay them to local emergency management officials via ham radio or other means;
*****************************************************************************
The use of directional antennas to monitor emergency channels is problematic because you don't know which direction to monitor. If you are far enough outside the disaster area to use a directional antenna to cover the entire disaster area you are probably also far enough away to make copying the FRS signals problematic.
************************************************************************
wa1rne:
"3) Extend the integration to other agencies such as FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams, local and state emergency management, RACES, ARES, etc. "
************************************************************************
I'm not sure what integration you are speaking of. You mean these agencies should all also monitor the FRS emergency channel?
*********************************************************************
wa1rne:
Taking Katrina as an example:
What if the citzens of New Orleans knew in advance that FRS Channel "X" was being monitored for emergency calls and the FEMA US&R teams and hams were set up as described above. Would it not have been possible for many of the people stranded for days in flooded homes under life threatening conditions to have been located faster with an emergency communciations system like this??
****************************************************************************
It may have just been more confusing and made things worse. In this kind of disaster, centralized monitoring of weak signals on an uncontrolled channel may or may not have provided faster location of people in trouble. What can you offer to suggest that it would have helped?
********************************************************************************
This is a viable approach to public emergency communications, especially given the low cost and popularity of these transceivers and extended monitoring range hams can provide with high gain directional antennas.
*******************************************************************************
Again, monitoring for very weak signals using highly directional antennas is counter-productive. Most high directional antennas are not made to be continually rotated like a radar antenna. This makes it necessary to be a sufficient distance away that the angle subtended by the antenna covers the entire disaster area. This makes monitoring weak signals much, much harder.
*****************************************************************************
Eric, KB1EHE, you can certainly prove or disprove this concept by running some simple tests.
Good luck with this, I think it's worth exploring.
******************************************************************************
I would be very interested in hearing about the test setup, the test procedure, and the results.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Tim / AB0WR.
You have lots of thoughts on why things won't work. It would be great if you could apply that same energy and brainpower to help come up with a solution that would work. Something that would meet the four basic criteria previously described. Any ideas?
Thanks.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WQBG900 on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone mentioned external FRS antennas and "building a dipole"
This is *exactly* the problem many GMRS operators see as a problem with this whole idea!
FRS stands for "Family Radio Service" This is a "family" communications service. FRS and GMRS are *personal* services.
External antennas are forbidden under FRS regulations.
Use of an external antenna is permitted under GMRS regulations. However, you require a GMRS license. FRS channel 1 is shared with GMRS. To use that external antenna and "dipole" you will need a GMRS license.
A major area of concern is that people will operate outside of regulations, using modified equipment not type accepted for FRS/GMRS, and operating without a license.
While the majority of those participating in the program are honest, law abiding persons, you will always have those out to do what they want, when they want.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi John / WQBG900. Good to hear from you.
In the previous post, when WF7A mentioned...
"I can't wait to make a fan dipole for my FRS rig!"
...that was certainly heavily sacastic. I don't believe anyone would seriously suggest doing such a thing.
BTW, did you see the post from Scott / N4ZOU, who said:
"You can extend the range of a FRS radio by building a YAGI antenna with the FRS radio mounted where the driven element would have been. This also allows it to determine the general direction of the transmitting radio. Simply using an external speaker/microphone allows elevating the antenna/transceiver combo above your head. It's not perfect by any means but it is an easy and legal way to increase the range as no physical connections or modifications are made to the radio."
Now *that* is an intriguing and 100% legal way to increase the *reception* range -- which is what Scott had in mind, as he was offering an idea to help with direction-finding.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Board Members of the Personal Radio Association have been debating this plan of Eric's ever since we discovered his website. Eric's proposed method is doomed to failure and may even set expectations in such a way that people are injured or killed.
We applaud efforts to use FRS and GMRS in ways that make sense, particularly where training and expectation setting are part of any localized neighborhood program. That doesn't exist in the NationalSOS proposal. Eric also advocates ideas from readers of his bulletin board that involve petitioning the FCC to allow Amateurs to modify their Ham equipment to transmit in FRS and GMRS. That we cannot condone or support period.
The Personal Radio Assn Board is comprised of people like myself who are proponents of the FRS and GMRS used the right way. Many of us are current and former law enforcement and a few have even been active in disaster planning. Some of our members are indeed Director's of OES/OEM, many are Ham's whose families use the GMRS and FRS on a daily basis to communicate with each other. We banded together to protect the continued usability of the GMRS, FRS, MURS, and CB from deleterious rulemakings. We speak on behalf of member licensees and others that use the Personal Radio Services.
As Eric continues to imply we are not simply broadcasting negatives. We are talking common sense, using a certain clarity of thinking that apears to be basent from his proposal. This has nothing to do with leave-it-as-it-is thinking, stubborness or anything else he might dream up to diminish those that disagree with him. We have argued consistently why his proposal can't work and why a planned response can work. That's a positive.
I encourage you to read the PRA's document regarding this proposal.
That document is located at:
http://www.popularwireless.com/pra/RadioEmergencyOpinion.pdf
We have seen places where use of FRS in local areas has already worked with planning. During hurricane Isabel my brother-law's community in Shadyside, MD encouraged neighbors to buy and use FRS radios. These were used during and after the weather to check on neighbors. Very localized, planned, and organized, expectations set.
The Fremont, CA Police Department already has a organizaed program you can read about on the Internet. It appears to be planned and organized as well. A Neighborhood Assn in San Francisco contacted us, the PRA, about their PLAN to use FRS between it's members. Good bunch of folks going about this the right way so that their use of FRS works.
The idea to use FRS and GMRS has been on the books and in the OES/OEM plans for years. What's different about Eric's flashy proposal is that people just buy radios and start transmitting on FRS channel one calling for help with no prior planning, neighborhood organization, or expectation setting. I fear already that the uninitiated may have read his site, purchased a radio, and are already planning to stick it through the next hurricane thinking they can call out on FRS and get, "instant and reliable crisis communication." It isn't going to happen.
Before the last hurricane I went through in Maryland the State Police went door-to-door warning neighbors where I lived to evacuate because emergency services would not respond to calls for assistance immediately after the hurricane. What makes Eric think an FRS radio would help if the police or fire or rescue people were unable to respond to a call from a telephone? He does not understand how public safety responds, and how its response is triaged after a major disaster.
My belief is that FEMA's CERT volunteers are the logical out growth of the need that Eric describes. (One of the good ideas we have suggested and support.)Plain ole citizens trained to help their neighbors after a large or small disaster event can use FRS or GMRS as they have PLANNED to talk to potential victims or arrange searches. This can be done during and immediately after an event. Hams can show CERT volunteers how to effectively use two-way radios as can the licensed GMRS operators in the neighborhoods. Eric completely left out the licensees of the General Mobile Radio Service and their potential for contribution in his proposal. He does not advocate licensing by license by rule which will bring GMRS to its knees in complete anarchy. FRS already suffers tremendously from license by rule.
Let me also establish my credentials:
1. Police Dispatch 911, 12 years. Six years of that time I supervised a California 911 Center in a community of 125 thousand people, 13 dispatchers and eight assigned RACES volunteers, light duty law enforcemnt. I wrote Contra Costa County's very first RACES plan based on the great work done by the State of California OES. (These folks understand planning and so does Contra Costa OES.) I used their model. During this time with teh city I was also a California Level 1 Reserve Police Officer. I was actively involved with teh City's OES rep in planning the City's use of the Amateurs assigned to us as RACES. I had the great fortune to be on duty during the 96 earthquake to watch our local ham community do the right thing. They made the difference.
2. Five years Red Cross Chapter Assistant Emergency Coordinator. Helped build a chapter Amateur Radio Station. Trained in Damage Assesment, First Aid/CPR.
3. Twenty nine years in Amateur Radio. Some of that time serving in one of the finest and best organized RACES/ARES groups in California located in Contra Costa County California. A few years as Board Member of a radio club. The Hams in Contra Costa are some of the best organized, most highly trained, and incredibly cooperative groups anywhere in the USA.
4. Project Manager for a computer company serving police and fire departments. Senior Producer for a consumer software company. Manager of multiple retail stores after the dot com crash.
5. Eight years on the Board of Directors of my homes association in California where we did everything we could to interest neighbors in disaster planning.
6. Owner of a GMRS repeater I have made available to my neighbors if they want to license and use it for CERT activities.
Planners need to look very carefully at this idea. It cannot work as envisioned.
Doug Smith
WA6GON
KAF9830
President, Personal Radio Assn
http://www.praweb.org
Owner PopularWireless.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N8BOA on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any radio is better then no radio and it does'nt have to be a Ham to lend assistance in fact it might be better then Ham radio since lets say at Yellowstone at any givin moment there are more people with a FRS radios than a Ham Radio and your chances of being herd are greater at 5 watts Line Of Site.
Sean
N8BOA
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N8BOA on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any radio is better then no radio and it does'nt have to be a Ham to lend assistance in fact it might be better then Ham radio since lets say at Yellowstone at any givin moment there are more people with a FRS radios than a Ham Radio and your chances of being herd are greater at 5 watts Line Of Site.
Sean
N8BOA
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N8BOA on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any radio is better then no radio and it does'nt have to be a Ham to lend assistance in fact it might be better then Ham radio since lets say at Yellowstone at any givin moment there are more people with a FRS radios than a Ham Radio and your chances of being herd are greater at 5 watts Line Of Site.
Sean
N8BOA
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE7G said
"One wonders why there is not an organization for emergency communications, or at the very least, why there is not a web site to discuss emergency communications.
One also wonders why there are not web sites to discuss FRS and GMRS or CB.
I hope some kind soul will start a web site for FRS/GMRS emergency communications.
Bob"
Bob, you are most welcome to vist the forums at http://www.popularwireless.com the home of the Personal Radio Assn http://www/praweb.org
This FRS/GMRS personal radio magazine began in 1995 and we are still kickin!
Doug
WA6GON
KAF9830
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Doug:
First off, I have not, and will not "advocate ideas from readers of (my) bulletin board that involve petitioning the FCC to allow Amateurs to modify their Ham equipment to transmit in FRS and GMRS." This is plain false. You may want to take the time to *read* the posts in my bulletin board before you make unsubstantiated claims. Feel free to paste those messages here in which I personally have done what you claim. Show me where I've said: "Hey, that's a good idea." You can't. Because I haven't. Please stick to the facts.
If you take the time to read my Web site, you'll even see posts where I scold readers from even considering doing anything in any gray area. For instance, in a recent post, I said to one user:
"I don't believe you're actively promoting that people go out and break the law. But some people may construe your post that way. It's critical that we uphold ALL FCC laws in every circumstance. We have to set a very high standard. To condone, promote, or suggest any "gray area" is okay is a terrible precedent."
People on my Web site express all sorts of opinions. It's an uncensored forum. And it's a free country. I can't possibly read every post in every topic on my Web site. And I certainly can't respond to every post. I'm a one-man operation. But I've done my best to tell people to adhere to all FCC regulations. And I do so repeatedly.
Again, Doug: Take the time to *read*. False allegations about me will not be tolerated.
Doug, you've taken the time to author a rather lengthy composition here -- and at the .pdf link on your Web site. BUT I CAN SHORT-CIRCUIT YOUR ENTIRE LOGIC RIGHT HERE, AS I DO NOT, AND HAVE NOT, PROPOSED AN "EMERGENCY CALLING CHANNEL" AS YOU SUGGEST. (Sorry for the all-caps, fellow readers. But it seems necessary here to definitively make the point to Doug.)
Doug, if you'd just take a moment to *read* what I've said, maybe you will be able to comprehend what is being proposed. Just a few posts above in this thread I said:
"FRS is like a signal flare fired from a sinking ship. The fact is, by some estimates, up to 100 million FRS radios are in the public's hands. That's a lot of 'signal flares'. I'm simply suggesting that during a declared federal or state emergency that ham radio operators monitor FRS Channel 1 in case they hear a plea for help from someone in the general public. Nothing more. Nothing less."
Now compare that to what you spout in your "PRA Position One" in your .pdf link:
"The PRA believes that twenty-four by seven three hundred sixty five day per year FRS emergency channel will fail as few if any persons will ever be heard making an urgent broadcast for assistance. The PRA maintains its stance that no emergency-only or designated-channel rule be considered by the FCC or by private public-service organizations."
Doug, you're so far off it's laughable. No one is proposing a 24 x 7 x 365 day per year FRS emergency channel. Get with reality, sir. I certainly appreciate an honest exchange of ideas. But twisting the facts to serve your agenda is clearly a smokescreen for your personal FRS / GMRS goals. The folks on this Web site are a lot smarter than you give them credit for -- and can see right through your agenda.
I see no need to pick apart any of your other thoughts -- as your primary logic and argument is inherently flawed. I'm NOT proposing any sort of calling channel. So the rest of your dissertation is moot.
I'd be glad to discuss -- to whatever length you'd like -- the virtues and flaws of using FRS as a "signal flare" in a declared emergency. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. But all this other baloney is simply a figment of your imagination. And I really don't have the time to be distracted by such nonsense.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You have lots of thoughts on why things won't work. It would be great if you could apply that same energy and brainpower to help come up with a solution that would work. Something that would meet the four basic criteria previously described. Any ideas? "
Yep, I gave one in an earlier message.
Who on here can explain the differences between FRS and CB?
I think that once the differences between the two systems are enumerated and understood, it will become obvious what a usuable emergency communications system should consist of for people who do not want to become licensed hams.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I stand by my arguments and my understanding of your proposal as presented. You have not thought it through.
You criticise anyone that disagrees with you and completely ignore modifications to your proposal that will work. There are people out there with good FRS based programs but you ognore those.
You didn't explore the GMRS and FRS community first to see who was out there. You just had an artist create a flashy site to solve a major problem your way. Your way or the highway as I see it.
You completely ignore managing your forums to a standard of behavior in line with FCC Part 97 and Part 95. It has nothing to do with censorship. Your readers are exploring ways to get around the rules and you are acknowleding as much in your banter with them. You said it wouldn't be a rules violation if the FCC was petitioned to allow modifcations to Ham equipment. I can read Eric! You're steadfastly behind everything you've written until you're called on it.
Not one intelligent argument either against or modifying your proposal has budged you an inch. You just don't get it. You don't want to get it.
The ONLY way an FRS based program will work is through public education, training, expectation setting, and sponsorship by OEM/OES or CERT. Creating a public expectation as you have through your website is not responsible.
Most people would weigh the arguments pro and con and modify thir proposal to suit the facts and the prevailing wisdom governing the proposal. What you call keep-it-as-it-is thinking. Your proposal has been given a thorough examination on lots of sites and at each place you have met with the same thoughtful arguments against it. There have been some thoughtful suggestions and presentations of FACT that should have sent YOU off to answer tough questions. Still you persist by attacking anyone that disagrees with you. It isn't productive. If you believe so strongly in something work to make it happen.
You need to establish if every county in the country has an Amateur Radio base to staff such a concept. You need to figure out what you're going to do with communities that don't have Hams. How are you going to move them in to help? Are public safety personnel willing to carry radios on pre-planned basis to talk to the public? You didn't even explore this. Are there GMRS licensees that you have so far ignored willing to help? What's out there that is working and why?
The most important thing you need to do if you are serious about this idea is to explore ways it will work. Something you so far are unwilling to do. You need to sit down with disaster planners and find out what happens in the first 24-72 hours of a disaster at a minimum. Next, why don't you get CERT training and set up something in your neighborhood to make sure it's viable. Get the experience you need before you make open declarations on flashy websites that lead the public to believe they can holler on FRS 1 after the damn breaks and get, "Instant reliable crisis communication."
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KA1ILH on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doug,
I finally got to your site and found some highly inaccurate statements made in your "official position" pdf.
The most disturbing statement is that NationalSOS is some how advocating amateurs use or modify their radios for illegal use. Listening to FRS channels is one thing but transmitting is another. Also, I do not understand where you drew the conclusion that amateurs get GMRS rights from any of the discussions on this forum.
A NationalSOS forum is a discussion of ideas, and concepts not as you describe in your pointed pdf. I do not think you speak for all GMRS ops, as well as Eric speaking for all amateurs.
Just the small likelyhood that one life could be saved should be enough to "discuss" options using technology available to the public - yes without paying GMRS fees unless one uses GMRS freqs. But just because someone buys a license doesn't remove the fact that they too could operate badly.
Stay legal - oh BTW - emergencies concerning life or death permit bypassing some laws but they had better be used only in case of life threatening situations.
No one has said the idea is perfect but it has brought about discussion. I for one hope that everyone tries to help out folks that might not have the resources that us amateurs have at our disposal.
Ideas take time to work and the more constructive ideas and comments that we have the better - it is called brainstorming.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim Said:
"Yep, I gave one in an earlier message.
Who on here can explain the differences between FRS and CB?
I think that once the differences between the two systems are enumerated and understood, it will become obvious what a usuable emergency communications system should consist of for people who do not want to become licensed hams.
tim ab0wr"
Tim I appreciated your response. It is consistent with others that have made the same points only to be shouted down.
Some of the major points about FRS and CB as I see them are:
1. More children use FRS as a toy than adults use it for family communication.
2. FRS is still easier to use for family communication because of the FM capture effect. If you are close to the intended recipient you may still get through even if little Johnny is singing into his radio a few blocks away from you.
3. FRS is very short range. The illegal CB operators destroyed CB using amplifers to increase range over hundreds of miles. Illegal amplifier use IS a problem on FRS channels but even then the same kind of propogation is not possible.
4. FRS and CB both are complete anarchy.
5. There is more consistent interference and bad behavior is more prevalent on CB than in FRS. In some areas, rural mostly, FRS and GMRS are better palces for families to communicate.
6. The FCC allowed text messaging on FRS which could exponentially cause complete ruin for FRS. If the Hasbro text messaging toy takes off we're doomed in urban areas. Both FRS and CB may become completely useless.
7. CB is not a radio service I would want children listening too. The adults that abuse it are too numerous to make it a viable family medium. This is less of a problem on FRS but even then some adults act like FRS is a party line and no one else can hear them.
8. There are many families that DO use FRS for family communication moreso than CB.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Doug:
I will not waste another calorie of energy discussing your flawed logic, twisted facts, and misstatements regarding the proposal under discussion.
If you (and all 65 members of your "Personal Radio Association" as listed on your Web site) are offended in some way by people simply monitoring FRS Channel 1 during a declared emergency...well, then, you have much bigger issues that I could possibly address here.
I encourage other people to visit my Web site and form their own independent opinion.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I finally got to your site and found some highly inaccurate statements made in your "official position" pdf.
The most disturbing statement is that NationalSOS is some how advocating amateurs use or modify their radios for illegal use. Listening to FRS channels is one thing but transmitting is another. Also, I do not understand where you drew the conclusion that amateurs get GMRS rights from any of the discussions on this forum."
There is nothing inaccurate about our statement.
Amateur rights: It was a suggestion made by one of the writers in the forum. Several of us read that brilliant idea. It was a continuation of a group of ideas that are inconsistent with the current FCC Rules. Why would anyone even think of such a rule change. It's beyond bizarre.
GMRS licensees already have Hams calling in using Ham call signs on local GMRS repeaters. I heard one here in Southern Maryland! There are already numerous Hams using modified Ham gear at Hamfests and the like. Expressing opinions are fine but moderators of these bulletin boards must lead by example and remind particpants of the rules governing the service. I get email from Hams asking me if they can transmit on GMRS. None of tehse folks has probably ever read Part 97 or Part 95! There is a complete lack of disciplined idea brainstorming.
Modification: Go back and re-read it. There is quite a bit there on the subject not the least of which was Eric's view that if the FCC made it legal there would be nothing wrong with it.
Now why don't you stick to the issue. Will Eric's proposal work as he describes it or does it require tweaking that many of us have suggested. I'm of the view the idea is unworkable on its face and I have provided ways in which such an idea through CERT or neighborhood watch might actually work.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA6GON on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric Said:
"Dear Doug:
I will not waste another calorie of energy discussing your flawed logic, twisted facts, and misstatements regarding the proposal under discussion.
If you (and all 65 members of your "Personal Radio Association" as listed on your Web site) are offended in some way by people simply monitoring FRS Channel 1 during a declared emergency...well, then, you have much bigger issues that I could possibly address here.
I encourage other people to visit my Web site and form their own independent opinion."
Well actually, on the average all 66 of us have from 5 to 10 active, voting age family members behind every GMRS licensee member so the total of represented political votes might be closer to 600. Many of our members are already part of VERY LARGE, and I mean VERY LARGE GMRS repeater groups across the USA. (Service groups and private groups.)
Many folks are still waiting to see how we do. That's fair. We've been forming up since February and people from all over the US that recognioze GMRS and FRS are in trouble and at risk signed up to volunteer and support the effort. A concerned member is financing the cost of of our attorney ee have doing our 501c3.
We have met formally once with the Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau about GMRS enforcement and I think we impressed them. As a result of our efforts FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth was assigned to GMRS Enforcement. Festering interference cases and blatant rules violations across the US are finally being addressed after years of neglect.
We will meet with the WTB and FTC at some point to take on issues of broad concern for FRS, GMRS, and CB. I'm not too too worried about numbers at the moment. We have some real good people that you have met on line. People that should have made a difference in your tone and your way of thinking, managing conflict, and arriving at a constructive result.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>kb1ehe:"I respectfully disagree with your comment
>that an "FRS radio may be worse than nothing". Here's
>why:
>FRS is like a signal flare fired from a sinking ship.
>The fact is, by some estimates, up to 100 million FRS
>radios are in the public's hands. That's a lot
>of "signal flares". I'm simply suggesting that during
>a declared federal or state emergency that ham radio
>operators monitor FRS Channel 1 in case they hear a
>plea for help from someone in the general public.
>Nothing more. Nothing less."
I have no problem with this. Certainly someone could be trying to use an FRS radio to get help.
My objection is to anything that would advertise to the public that FRS could be depended upon in an emergency to obtain emergency help.
I was really not kidding when I said they would be better off with one of the newer, plastic, LOUD survival whistles. It will last longer, does not need batteries, and has a similar range.
>And, regarding your comment about people "whining":
>It's the superiority complex and general arrogance
>that *some* ham radio operators have that rubs people
>the wrong way. Pointing that out is not a "freshman
>debate tactic" as you say. It's the reality. It's the
>sad truth. But some people just can't bring
>themselves to recognize it. IMHO, it's the
>fundamental reason why today's youth don't get
>involved in this hobby. And why this hobby has the
>very real chance of fading away.
It *is* whining. *Stop it.* You can't tell who on here has a superiority complex or is arrogant and who actually has something to contribute. All you can do is judge the contents of the posts they make and if you don't agree, give the reasons why and let the readers decide.
All you are doing is indulging in the use of indirect ad hominems to justify your dismissing of their posts and opinions without having to provide any opposing reasoning. That *IS* a freshman debate tactic.
>As an example, just look at the previous comment from
>KE5GAE: "As a new ham, I'm real put off by the snotty
>responses I see to so many postings around here. I'd
>like to think that hams were classy people, which
>means agreeing to disagree without trying to put down
>others with ideas you disagree with. Almost makes me
>embarrassed to be a ham." That's a well expressed,
>common perception. But some hams just don't see the
>light.
So what? This is exactly the same thing. What is the name of Pete is a "snotty response"? What is "trying to put down others"? If you have a problem with what someone said, post the quote and say exactly what problem you have with the statement. The claim above is nothing more than a freshman debate tactic of trying to dismiss an argument by making generalized statements about the attitudes of others --- like that has any bearing on the actual facts and opinions stated by someone.
*******************************************************************************
>I also have to respectfully disagree with your
>thought: "People would be much better off investing
>the money in a quality CB radio and portable antenna
>than in an FRS radio if the system is to be depended
>upon in an emergency. The range for the CB is much,
>much greater."
>I disagree with you not because a CB radio doesn't
>have superior range (which it does in most
>circumstances); I disagree because CB radios don't
>meet the very basic requirements of an improved,
>widespread emergency-communication system. Millions
>of people in the general public are simply not going
>to start spending hundreds of bucks to buy and
>install CB radios and antennas.
********************************************************************************
I disagree totally.
I'm not sure where you are coming from speaking of "hundreds of bucks to buy and install CB radios and antennas". A good quality Midland handheld CB radio can be had for about $45 *new*. A *very* good quality Cobra handheld CB radio can be had for around $85. They both come with BNC antenna connectors so external antennas can be easily attached. The Cobra comes with both a shorty antenna as well as an external magnetic mount antenna.
There are HUGE numbers of CB radios in use in this country with many more sitting in closets. Most over-the-road truckers still have CB installations. That's a huge number of people to monitor CB Channel 9. In fact, there are still a large number of cities in this country with CB React groups that still monitor Ch 9 for emergency requests. Many police vehicles in this part of the country (e.g. hiway patrol and county sheriff) are equipped with CB capable radios.
For two years my Boy Scout troop tried to use FRS radios as convoy communication devices on our treks to Colorado and Arkansas. They are so poor that you cannot reliably communicate between vehicles that are 1/4 mile apart but still in sight! We have gone back to using CB radio as our communication system of choice.
******************************************************************************
>A practical and viable solution, as I posted
>previously, should:
>(1) use currently available resources,
>(2) involve and mobilize the general public as part
>of the solution to their particular predicament (vs.
>relying on government agencies to perform),
>(3) not require new laws or legislation, and
>(4) be able to be implemented quickly (ideally, in
>some rudimentary form, before next year's hurricane
>season).
Tim, do you have any suggestions that would meet the above four criteria?
************************************************************************************
My first recommendation would be getting a Technician license and a good, basic 2m handi-talkie. Something like an Icom T2H Sport model that uses 8 AA batteries. I think they are still less than $100 and provide all the emergency capability that is needed. Basic, no frills - that's the way to go. Get a cheap speaker mic so you can hold the radio over your head to maximize range.
My second recommendation would be a Midland 75-785 handheld CB radio. Get a cheap mag mount antenna. It might come in handy.
Both of these meet all four requirements. The CB radio would require less effort and would probably be acceptable to most people. It can be run off the lighter socket in a car or can be used with the internal 9 AA batteries.
1- use available resources - both solutions are easily implementable using readily available, inexpensive equipment.
2- involve and mobilize the general public as part
>of the solution to their particular predicament : go to www.arrl.org and www.reactintl.org. Both sites have huge amounts of resources. The reactintl site has lists of existing teams and councils that will be more than willing to help set up a REACT team in your location. ARES can do the same for anyone who has a ham license. Both aveneues make the individual the focus, not the government.
3-not require new laws or legislation: Both have been around for a LONG time. They are legal under current law.
4-be able to be implemented quickly : How fast can you get to Radio Shack? How fast can you get your ham license? A REACT team can be implemented as quickly and easily as a CERT team. This shouldn't be a problem.
>Do you (or anyone) have any thoughts that would meet
>the above four basic criteria that would comprise a
>workable, practical, and viable solution?
The biggest problem you are going to run into sure as all-get-out ain't the equipment or organizations! It's the apathy of the people. How many people in your neighborhood keep a jar of rice and beans in the basement and a simple propane backpacking stove? Or even a couple of gallon jugs to put water in from the hot water heater? Or a monkey wrench to use in turning off the water and gas?
Most of the people in my neighborhood EXPECT someone to *come* rescue them. Out of the blue I guess. No amount of talking does any good. If we have a major earthquake that takes out electricity, communications, and transportation (i.e. no food in the grocery stores and no gas at the stations), they would have a hard time surviving overnight let alone 2 or 3 days till help could get through. No amount of communications is going to help that at all.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WQBG900 on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric says:
"BUT I CAN SHORT-CIRCUIT YOUR ENTIRE LOGIC RIGHT HERE, AS I DO NOT, AND HAVE NOT, PROPOSED AN "EMERGENCY CALLING CHANNEL" AS YOU SUGGEST. "
*Ok... Then why did you say this:
"LOVE IT, OR HATE IT, I'm the fellow you can attribute to the www.NationalSOS.com Web site and the recent discussions about using 'FRS Channel 1' as an emergency calling frequency for FRS users. "
or this?:
"tune to listen for emergency communications on FRS 1. I have recommended FRS 1, with no tone, as this is the default power-on configuration for most FRS radios out of the box."
That looks like you are advocating an official FRS emergency channel to me.
Doug:
Since you posted the link to the Official PRA position on this subject, can I assume that is the go ahead to post it everywhere?
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Doug:
"Will Eric's proposal work as he describes it?"
Finally...a legitimate and pertinent question!
I've repeatedly said my idea is not perfect. I've repeatedly said that I'm open to ANY idea that can mitigate the tragic loss of life. To that end, I've offered four brainstorming guidelines to help foster the dialogue and thinking.
To describe why I think it would work would require reiterating the two months of discussions on my Web site. Obviously, that's not practical here. But let me summarize the big idea:
It's all about numbers:
How many licensed amateur "ham" radio operators are there? Per calls to the FCC, their staff said there are "approximately 780,000 current ARS (Amateur Radio Service / ham) license holders". I also ran a search using the FCC's online "Universal Licensing System" (ULS) database. Including only ACTIVE amateur radio licenses, the database query indicated 734,495. Here's a link to the search tool: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. For conservative reference, the number I've listed on my Web site is 700,000.
How many licensed GRMS radio operators are there? I inquired with the FCC (on the same phone calls that he received the ham data), but the representatives did not have a number that was easily accessible. Using the same ULS search tool as above, again selecting ACTIVE licenses as the search parameter. The result: 72,110.
How many FRS / GRMS combo radios exist in the marketplace? This is a tough question to answer. An article in Outdoor magazine's April 2004 issue indicated that there are "12.2 million FRS / GMRS units being sold annually". http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200404/walkie_talkie.html Some anecdotal estimates put the number of FRS / GMRS units are between 50 - 100 million, but it is difficult to more accurately quantify.
How many ham radio operators / licensed GMRS operators are there in an average town in America -- within easy listening range to the public's 500mW FRS radios? The answer: LOTS. Just visit http://www.qrz.com/i/names.html and punch in a town name or zip code. It's impressive to see the number of hams that could monitor FRS Channel 1 in case of a declared emergency -- which is the pillar of this concept. And that doesn't take into account the many GMRS operators that could be listening as well.
Now, would it take a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign to "connect the dots"? To have hams and GMRS owners know to listen to FRS Channel 1 in case of a declared emergency? To have the public, with it's 12.2 million FRS / GMRS radios, know that as a MEASURE OF LAST RESORT that they could at least *try* FRS Channel 1 -- like a "signal flare" when a ship is sinking? The answer is NO. It WOULDN'T take a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign.
Why is the answer NO? Do you remember the huge national & world press that occurred this summer surrounding the suggestion that people program "I.C.E." into their cell phones? There are now tens of millions of people with their cell phones programmed with "In Case of Emergency" phone numbers.
How did this grand I.C.E. idea start? Simply by one person -- Bruce Brotchie -- an ambulance paramedic in the UK. And -- thanks to the efficient spread of information via the Internet -- now the concept is "backed by governments, emergency services and giant corporations the world over." (Here's a little bit of the history, in case you're interested: http://www.britishparamedic.org/news/ice )
I believe the NationalSOS concept -- based on people monitoring FRS Channel 1 during a declared emergency -- could similarly catch on.
Again, the above very quick summary leaves out MANY of the details of why I -- and many, many emergency-communication experts -- believe this could work. I can't possibly type in all of the nuances and answers to obvious follow-up questions here. Many of the details, fine points, and support by emergency communication experts are at my Web site: www.NationalSOS.com.
Do I feel it is the "be all, end all" solution. Absolutely not. Do I believe there is a germ of an idea here that should be explored? Positively so. Otherwise, I wouldn't be applying a ridiculous amount of my days and nights putting this information in the public for it to be discussed. It's exhausting. But I believe we need a solution to an obvious problem...before the next humanitarian crisis strikes. So I am willing to make the personal sacrifice -- and allow myself to be whipped along the way. ;-)
I hope I've filled in a few blanks regarding the idea.
Have a good afternoon, all.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is not a Ham issue. However FRS/GMRS maybe the future breeding grounds for hams. Same as a CH-14 H-T was my "gateway" rig when I was five years old.
One feature that may give FRS some legs is the NOAA 4 channel scanner built into the Motorola 6200 radio's.
I have found the emrgency beep/auto RX QSY a REAL feature. The alarm goes off within minutes of a major storm.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wa6gon:
Well, the differences I was thinking of are more like this.
1. CB - Surface wave propagation
FRS - Line of sight propagation
CB has a theoretical range of about 28 miles between low antennas using the tranmsitter power level and frequency. The maximum theoretical distance for FRS is about 6 miles assuming two people 6 feet tall holding the radios at ear/eye level. The CB signal will still propagate using surface waves even if intervening obstacles are encountered, the surface wave is just following the surface of the earth and will travel up a hill as well as down one. The FRS signal will not do so. Any obstruction that is absorptive or reflective to VHF radio waves will disrupt the LOS propagation path. This could include hills or steel/concrete buildings.
2. CB - uses AM or SSB
FRS - FM
While the FRS signal may sound more noise free, it is NOT as good for weak signal reception. An FM signal will degrade quickly once the signal drops below the capture level of the discriminator. The CB AM or SSB signal will remain usable through significant noise and signal degradation where the FRS signal will not.
3. CB - 28Mhz
FRS - 460Mhz
While it might be considered part of the propagation argument, FRS frequencies are significantly impaired by building structure while CB frequencies are not. Two handheld CB radios are more likely to work inside a steel/concrete building than two FRS radios. The CB signal will propagate around corners and through windows/doors while the FRS signal will be reflected and attenuated.
4. CB - heavy
FRS - light
This is a significant advantage for the FRS radio. They are much less of a hindrance to carry and use in a situation requiring physical activity.
I do like your idea of couching the use of FRS within a team concept. That team could be at a block level or even a neighborhood level. Calling for assistance among the team would be a good use for the FRS - as long as it has been pre-tested and is known to work. Each member of the team should test out all emergency retreats in their house for both transmission and reception - in the bathtub, in the tornado room in the basement, in the root cellar, even under the bed in the upstairs bedroom. If two way communication of a distance and quality acceptable to the team can be had using FRS, then HEY!, have at it.
I do *NOT* like the idea of couching the use of FRS as a method for contacting external agencies during emergencies. There are too many variables and the service is not designed for to be useful for this purpose at all. You really would be better off with a loud survival whistle - or maybe a flare gun and a good supply of flares (although I don't advocate that because of the safety issues!).
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kb1ehe:
>Now, would it take a multi-million-dollar advertising
>campaign to "connect the dots"? To have hams and GMRS
>owners know to listen to FRS Channel 1 in case of a
>declared emergency? To have the public, with it's
>12.2 million FRS / GMRS radios, know that as a
>MEASURE OF LAST RESORT that they could at least *try*
>FRS Channel 1 -- like a "signal flare" when a ship is
>sinking? The answer is NO. It WOULDN'T take a multi-
>million-dollar advertising campaign.
Exactly how do you propose to advertise something as a "MEASURE OF LAST RESORT" without also raising expectations that it will *work* as a measure of last resort?
"A MEASURE OF MAYBE IT WILL WORK BUT DON'T DEPEND UPON IT" would be a much better way to advertise it.
Your advertising motto is exactly the problem I have with the concept.
>Why is the answer NO? Do you remember the huge
>national & world press that occurred this summer
>surrounding the suggestion that people
>program "I.C.E." into their cell phones? There are
>now tens of millions of people with their cell phones
>programmed with "In Case of Emergency" phone numbers.
>How did this grand I.C.E. idea start? Simply by one
>person -- Bruce Brotchie -- an ambulance paramedic in
>the UK. And -- thanks to the efficient spread of
>information via the Internet -- now the concept
>is "backed by governments, emergency services and
>giant corporations the world over." (Here's a little
>bit of the history, in case you're interested:
>http://www.britishparamedic.org/news/ice )
I think I am seeing you propose the concept that because some "thing" can be propagated around the world that the "thing" being propagated actually *IS* a good thing.
That's called a non sequitur. The premise doesn't support the conclusion.
>I believe the NationalSOS concept -- based on people
>monitoring FRS Channel 1 during a declared emergency -
>- could similarly catch on.
Your motto is exactly the problem with this concept. Advertise it as the "FRS SURVIVAL WHISTLE" and not a NATIONALSOS concept along with an explanation that it will work about as well as a survival whistle, and I could probably live with it. Otherwise you are raising expectations far beyond what the FRS service can legimately be depended upon to provide.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6ATF on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Arguing aside, can an eHam administrator set up a front page survey for this question (or something to the same effect):
"Is 462.5625 MHz (FRS Ch. 1) included in your radio's memory scan?"
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6ATF on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nevermind, I submitted it to the Survey Manager.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Tim / AB0WR.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think we might be in agreement. ;-)
I really like what you said here:
"I do like your idea of couching the use of FRS within a team concept. That team could be at a block level or even a neighborhood level. Calling for assistance among the team would be a good use for the FRS - as long as it has been pre-tested and is known to work. Each member of the team should test out all emergency retreats in their house for both transmission and reception - in the bathtub, in the tornado room in the basement, in the root cellar, even under the bed in the upstairs bedroom. If two way communication of a distance and quality acceptable to the team can be had using FRS, then HEY!, have at it."
And I'm intrigued with your notion:
"Advertise it as the "FRS SURVIVAL WHISTLE" and not a NATIONALSOS concept along with an explanation that it will work about as well as a survival whistle, and I could probably live with it."
Again, I'm just tossing ideas out there. I'm GREATLY relying on other minds to contribute and fine-tune the concept.
One issue that I'm still not in sync with you on is the CB radio thing. When I mentioned "(1) use currently available resources" -- I should have been clearer. I meant resources that people in the public currently have in their possession. Car horns, mirrors, flashlights, etc. With 12.2 million FRS radios circulating in the public, to me that's a currently available resource. Asking people to go out and purchase a CB radio, and trying to build up a base of tens of millions of CB radio installations in households across America, that just doesn't seem feasible or practical, or could be achieved in a way that wouldn't take years.
Maybe some entrepreneurial person at Midland or Cobra could pick up on the idea, and get his or her company to design and mass-produce a no-frills CB handheld that's very inexpensive (~ $15, like an FRS / GMRS handheld) with reasonable output power. If they were smart, one of those companies could make a * huge * PR splash by giving them away to neighborhoods across America -- or something like that. However, with the popularity of FRS / GMRS radios accelerating like crazy, and manufacturing resources being devoted to fulfilling the trend, I don't see that happening. But, hey, you never know.
Thanks for your ideas, Tim. Our goals are the same. And we're getting closer to talking on the same wavelength. ;-)
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi John.
You asked why I said this:
"LOVE IT, OR HATE IT, I'm the fellow you can attribute to the www.NationalSOS.com Web site and the recent discussions about using 'FRS Channel 1' as an emergency calling frequency for FRS users."
Well, that's because people in recent discussions ARE indeed referring to it as an emergency calling frequency.
As I've typed so many times I have blisters on my fingertips, I do NOT recommend FRS Channel 1 as a 24 x 7 x 365 day per year FRS emergency channel.
You also asked why I said this:
"tune to listen for emergency communications on FRS 1. I have recommended FRS 1, with no tone, as this is the default power-on configuration for most FRS radios out of the box."
Well, we have to come to agreement on what channel to recommend in case of that declared "signal flare" emergency. Otherwise, it would be like giving someone a real signal flare and not putting any instructions on the stick. They wouldn't know whether to eat it, bang on a trash can with it, or throw it in the air. People without any radio experience need at least some rudimentary guidance. Or are you even opposed to that?
One more time:
I'm simply suggesting that during a declared federal or state emergency that ham radio operators, or GMRS operators, or scanner operators monitor FRS Channel 1 in case they hear a plea for help from someone in the general public. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It defies logic as to why GMRS users are in a panic over such a simple thing. Is there some level of GMRS insecurity that I should be made aware of? Gosh, it almost sounds like you'd rather let people die rather than allow people to listen to FRS Channel 1. Unbelievable.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6ATF on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've never used any CB radio - I'm saving up for a SSB model, which is a new and great mode from my research, even if I can only use it on 11 meters. But a $15 handheld AM CB would be a must-buy, for me. Damned if it doesn't come out though.
Not to be a bitcher, but... how does the lack of a ground plane with the CB "rubber duck" antennas affect transmission range? I think a distinction has to be made between mobile and handheld CBs. Has anyone ever gone out and done range tests with a FRS handheld in one hand and a CB handheld in the other?
I'd like to see the range of at the very least:
Outdoors-to-outdoors flat
Outdoors-to-outdoors low-rise obstructed
Outdoors-to-outdoors mid-to-high-rise obstructed
Outdoors-to-outdoors hilly/mountainous obstructed
Then all the variations of outdoors-to-indoors, using varying building materials that have been mentioned to affect both radio's propagation.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K4EAT on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""FRS is like a signal flare fired from a sinking ship. " KB1EHE
--
More like a firecraker instead of a signal flare. A signal flare is desined to be seen for up to 20 miles -- With FRS having a range of less then a mile in the best of conditions and probably a few hundred feet within buildings at best even if someone has a radio the odds of picking them up are virtually zero unless you are right on top of them.
It would in fact be better to revert back to everyone having a 5 watt CB radio and monitor channel 9 as they have for 40 years.
And for you to use the "it would have worked in Katrina" argument, lets face it, if the idiots are too stupid to leave after being warned for 5 days a CAT V hurricane is coming, then they are probably also too stupid to operate a radio.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear K4EAT:
Regarding your comment:
"[An FRS radio is] more like a firecraker instead of a signal flare. A signal flare is desiged to be seen for up to 20 miles -- With FRS having a range of less then a mile in the best of conditions..."
You may want to check out the forum on my Web site entitled:
"FRS Radios: 100+ Mile DX? You bet!"
I came across a very interesting post from Charles / KC8VWM in another forum regarding transmission-distance records by FRS radios. I didn't know there was such a DX contest -- but there is!
This is not entirely relevant to "NationalSOS" -- but I thought it was such an unusual and fun nugget of information, I thought I'd pass it along here.
Some current DX records with FRS (or country-equivalent) radios at 500mW:
* England to Netherlands, 535.8km (333 miles)
* In Spain, the record is 326km (202 miles)
* Poland, May 2004: 224km (140 miles)
* Wed Aug 06, 2003: Jersey (British Isles) - 214km (133 miles)
* March 30, 2001 - North Carolina, USA: 123.5 miles (198.7km)
Here's the link to the Web site with the DX records & rules: http://www.geocities.com/euro446/dx.html
I certainly ** DO NOT ** suggest that people should expect miles and miles of radio coverage with $10 FRS radios. But, as I've mentioned in the forums here, I've been able to receive FRS Channel 1 for MILES around my hilly town...as I was monitoring the frequency with my Alinco DJ-V5 HT.
Side note: I've personally had numerous 2,000-mile CW QSOs at just 250 - 350mW with a homebrew transmitter comprising a 2N2222 transistor! I've covered the entire North America with this little beauty. Some of you older hams will recall this was the famous "Tuna Tin 2" project that was first described in the May 1976 issue of QST. I built one way back then...and still have it. The QSOs were on 40 meters with much different propagation characteristics, of course. But it still goes to show you that power isn't everything. If you're curious about this little rig, check out this URL with photos and link to the schematic: http://www.njqrp.org/tuna/tuna.html
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>One issue that I'm still not in sync with you on is
>the CB radio thing. When I mentioned "(1) use
>currently available resources" -- I should have been
>clearer. I meant resources that people in the public
>currently have in their possession. Car horns,
>mirrors, flashlights, etc. With 12.2 million FRS
>radios circulating in the public, to me that's a
>currently available resource. Asking people to go out
>and purchase a CB radio, and trying to build up a
>base of tens of millions of CB radio installations in
>households across America, that just doesn't seem
>feasible or practical, or could be achieved in a way
>that wouldn't take years.
I'm still not sure where you are coming from. In the mid 70's to early 80's sales figures were 7 million or more CB's a *year*. Over 100,000 CB units are still sold every year. Although I don't know about total sales, my guess is that there are over 50 million CB radios sitting somewhere out there in the public. That's four times the number of FRS radios you mention.
That means there isn't any "base" that needs to be built up. There might need to be a "push" to get people to dig them out and use them, but they *are* out there.
>Maybe some entrepreneurial person at Midland or Cobra
>could pick up on the idea, and get his or her company
>to design and mass-produce a no-frills CB handheld
>that's very inexpensive (~ $15, like an FRS / GMRS
>handheld) with reasonable output power. If they were
I'm not sure you understand the engineering required and the costs involved in creating a 27Mhz AM or SSB handheld unit versus a 460Mhz FM handheld unit. The $45 Midland CB unit (I've actually seen them as low as $35 new) represents a pretty good price point for what you are getting. That's a full powered (i.e. 4 watt) output) 40 channel unit with a high/low power switch to save batteries, a 12v power cord, a power jack for use with a charger if you have nicad batteries, jacks for a remote speaker-mic, and a BNC antenna connector.
If the manufacturers need to bring something out it would a gel-cell+shortyantenna+carryingpack that could be used to make an exising 23 or 40 channel mobile unit into a portable emergency communication unit.
Then put out a training brochure outlining the need for people to LISTEN, and listen for a long time, before transmitting in order to save the gell cell and see if someone is using Channel 9 before using up the battery making calls no one will hear.
The infrastructure IS out there. I don't know why you keep saying it isn't. Even if it was NOT out there, it would be more responsible to tell people to purchase equipment better able to meet their needs in an emergency rather than mislead them that inadequate equipment they might have on hand is worth depending on. That is just setting up people for bad, bad things to happen.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I certainly ** DO NOT ** suggest that people should
>expect miles and miles of radio coverage with $10 FRS
>radios. But, as I've mentioned in the forums here,
>I've been able to receive FRS Channel 1 for MILES
>around my hilly town...as I was monitoring the
>frequency with my Alinco DJ-V5 HT.
Wait a minute!! You are being misleading!
If you don't want to suggest that people should expect this kind of performance then why do you post the records?
Almost all of these records were accomplished during periods of tropospheric ducting or between people several hundred meters above the ground.
*NEITHER* of these conditions can be expected during emergencies.
Posting DX records in an discussion about emergency communications can only be considered as a non sequitur. The premises you give don't support the conclusions.
BTW, we've tried FRS radios in hilly country - around the Spanish Peaks Boy Scout camp, in particular. We did not find them particularly helpful at all. The consistent range was less than 1/4 mile in the pine and aspen trees there. We found exactly the same thing at Camp Jayhawk in Kansas. It is the *consistent* communiation range that you must use to evaluate the use of a system for emergency communications. Anything else is just raising expectations to levels that can't be depended on.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim / AB0WR:
Hello? Hello? Is there anyone in there?
In my posting I said: "This is not entirely relevant to "NationalSOS" -- but I thought it was such an unusual and fun nugget of information, I thought I'd pass it along here."
I'm trying to pass on a little fun, here. Geez.
And I followed up everything I said with:
"I certainly ** DO NOT ** suggest that people should expect miles and miles of radio coverage with $10 FRS radios. But, as I've mentioned in the forums here, I've been able to receive FRS Channel 1 for MILES around my hilly town...as I was monitoring the frequency with my Alinco DJ-V5 HT."
Do you know the meaning of ** DO NOT ** ?
I thought ALL CAPS and ASTERISICS would do the trick.
And, as much as you might not like to accept, I HAVE received FRS Channel 1 signals for MILES around my hilly town with my Alinco DJ-V5 HT. And no external antenna, either. Just the few-inch whip that came with it.
Hello? Hello? Would you prefer Morse code? Dit dit dah dah dit dit How should I communicate this information to you? I can use Babelfish to translate my posts into any number of languages you might prefer. http://babelfish.altavista.com/ (Just a little joke, there, in case THAT'S misunderstood as well.)
As far as your CB radio comment:
"In the mid 70's to early 80's sales figures were 7 million or more CB's a *year*. Over 100,000 CB units are still sold every year. Although I don't know about total sales, my guess is that there are over 50 million CB radios sitting somewhere out there in the public."
Oh, now you're really stretching the limits of credibility. Sure, I (like lots of folks) had a CB radio decades ago. I think I was 12 years old. Before I got my ham license. But that CB unit's long, long gone to the big garbage bin in the sky.
Do you think these radios are still stashed in people's attics? They're long gone, baby. Just ask any average (non-radio-trained) person in your neighborhood like I did a few weeks ago when I was doing my baseline research. I couldn't find a single (repeat: single) soul with a CB...not even one stashed somewhere. However, the vast majority (repeat: vast majority) of the people I spoke with had an FRS / GMRS radio -- and readily available, too. People had them for hiking. Biking. Talking to their kids in the malls. For communicating with their fishing buddies. For all sorts of reasons.
Even if someone could dig up and dust off an old under-dash-mount CB radio from their attic, do you then expect them to drive to Radio Shack to purchase a 12v converter, some coax, and an antenna for their house? Or for their car? You're dreaming. It's just not going to happen. Certainly not in the MILLIONS of units we need to make an emergency concept operational.
The reality is that people's perceptions about CB are that it's a tool of days gone by. The stereotyped 70's of "breaker, breaker...good buddy" are long, long gone. And we should all be thankful for that.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings Tim:
wa1rne:
"This proposal may just need to be re-focused a bit in order for it to have a chance of being integrated into today's emergency communications structure.
Here's a couple of ways of improving FRS integration:
2) Ham radio operators could be the group that ties FRS to other emergency agencies. By virtue of our superior communications-grade receivers and our experience using directional antennas, hams could remotely monitor FRS channels for emergency calls, then relay them to local emergency management officials via ham radio or other means;
--- The use of directional antennas to monitor emergency channels is problematic because you don't know which direction to monitor. If you are far enough outside the disaster area to use a directional antenna to cover the entire disaster area you are probably also far enough away to make copying the FRS signals problematic.
* Answer>> Problematic? Come on, Tim, you know what we�re talking about here. If a half watt FRS radio can be used to reliably communicate between a half mile and 1 mile in a residential area, any decent UHF yagi with 10dbi or more gain mounted in the clear could be used within 5 miles or more to obtain an approximate heading. From there, the rescue teams take over and do their job. Hey, I didn�t say this was proven to work 99.99 percent of the time. It will obviously depend on terrain, the location of the receiving site, etc., etc. That�s the reason I suggested to Eric that he make some trials. Even if it does work well enough to take the concept further, Emergency Management teams would need to perform monthly exercises to determine weak coverage areas.
wa1rne:
"3) Extend the integration to other agencies such as FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams, local and state emergency management, RACES, ARES, etc. "
--- I'm not sure what integration you are speaking of. You mean these agencies should all also monitor the FRS emergency channel?
* Answer>> The US&R, Police and Fire rescue teams, etc. would monitor and emergency channel while patrolling or searching for others.
wa1rne:
Taking Katrina as an example:
What if the citizens of New Orleans knew in advance that FRS Channel "X" was being monitored for emergency calls and the FEMA US&R teams and hams were set up as described above. Would it not have been possible for many of the people stranded for days in flooded homes under life threatening conditions to have been located faster with an emergency communications system like this??
--- It may have just been more confusing and made things worse. In this kind of disaster, centralized monitoring of weak signals on an uncontrolled channel may or may not have provided faster location of people in trouble. What can you offer to suggest that it would have helped?
* Answer>> Given the fact that these radios WILL on average communicate a half mile to 1 mile over residential terrain, consider this scenario: if one of your family members was stranded inside the attic of their home because it was filled with 7 feet of water and the fire department was patrolling 2 streets away, MONITORING FRS CHANNEL �x�, do you think there�s a good shot of being heard and rescued?? I think so��and you confirmed it �may� work, so evidently there is a slight chance it might.
This is a viable approach to public emergency communications, especially given the low cost and popularity of these transceivers and extended monitoring range hams can provide with high gain directional antennas.
--- Again, monitoring for very weak signals using highly directional antennas is counter-productive. Most high directional antennas are not made to be continually rotated like a radar antenna. This makes it necessary to be a sufficient distance away that the angle subtended by the antenna covers the entire disaster area. This makes monitoring weak signals much, much harder.
* Answer>> Sure, tell that to an experienced VHF/UHF operator, especially a contester. He�d get a good chuckle over that one.
Eric, KB1EHE, you can certainly prove or disprove this concept by running some simple tests.
Good luck with this, I think it's worth exploring.
--- I would be very interested in hearing about the test setup, the test procedure, and the results.
>> Me too���
73, Chris
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>As far as your CB radio comment:
>>"In the mid 70's to early 80's sales figures were 7
>>million or more CB's a *year*. Over 100,000 CB units
>>are still sold every year. Although I don't know
>>about total sales, my guess is that there are over
>>50 million CB radios sitting somewhere out there in
>>the public."
>Oh, now you're really stretching the limits of
>credibility. Sure, I (like lots of folks) had a CB
>radio decades ago. I think I was 12 years old. Before
>I got my ham license. But that CB unit's long, long
>gone to the big garbage bin in the sky.
>Do you think these radios are still stashed in
>people's attics? They're long gone, baby. Just ask
>any average (non-radio-trained) person in your
>neighborhood like I did a few weeks ago when I was
>doing my baseline research. I couldn't find a single
>(repeat: single) soul with a CB...not even one
>stashed somewhere. However, the vast majority
>(repeat: vast majority) of the people I spoke with
>had an FRS / GMRS radio -- and readily available,
>too. People had them for hiking. Biking. Talking to
>their kids in the malls. For communicating with their
>fishing buddies. For all sorts of reasons.
>Even if someone could dig up and dust off an old
>under-dash-mount CB radio from their attic, do you
>then expect them to drive to Radio Shack to purchase
>a 12v converter, some coax, and an antenna for their
>house? Or for their car? You're dreaming. It's just
>not going to happen. Certainly not in the MILLIONS of
>units we need to make an emergency concept
>operational.
>The reality is that people's perceptions about CB are
>that it's a tool of days gone by. The stereotyped
>70's of "breaker, breaker...good buddy" are long,
>long gone. And we should all be thankful for that.
ROFL!!! You couldn't find any of your friends with a CB? And that is supposed to be a good baseline study?
That may be a good baseline study for where you live. I don't think it can be extrapolated to the entire country.
Certainly none of the parents or Scout leaders in our troop had to go out and buy CB's when we decided to go back to using those for convoy communications - they all had them. Mine was an old Cobra 23 channel unit - still works fine.
I know the Florida REACT council still assumes REACT teams will be equipped with CB radios monitoring Channel 9 - it's in their Emergency Operations Plan. Those folks must all have CB radios. Same with Illinois.
And as I pointed out, there are still 100,000 CB's sold annually in the US. That's nothing to sneeze at.
And do I expect people to go out and buy what they need to in order to be able to communicate effectively in an emergency? **** YES ******.
2.5Ah gel-cells can be had new for $12. If you only use it for dire emergencies like you are speaking of, it would work fine. So would a cigarette lighter power cord. Most CB antennas *come* with coax already attached. Add in a solar charging panel for $20 and you'll have a real disaster communication setup.
You worry about other people demonstrating condescending attitudes and then you say something like "The stereotyped 70's of "breaker, breaker...good buddy" are long, long gone. And we should all be thankful for that."
Heal thyself, physician.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>* Answer>> Problematic? Come on, Tim, you know what
>we�re talking about here. If a half watt FRS radio
>can be used to reliably communicate between a half
>mile and 1 mile in a residential area, any decent UHF
>yagi with 10dbi or more gain mounted in the clear
>could be used within 5 miles or more to obtain an
>approximate heading. From there, the rescue teams
>take over and do their job.
You are missing the point. How will you know to point that high gain yagi in the right direction to pick up that FRS station so you can tell what direction it is coming from?
Are you going to sit at your station all day long continously spinning your rotator while listening for FRS emergency calls? Or are you only going to sit there spinning your rotator continuously when a national emergency has been declared?
In either case, your rotator is going to take a huge amount of wear and tear. And unless it is an extremely fast rotator, what are the chances of you missing a call while it is pointed in the wrong direction?
>* Answer>> The US&R, Police and Fire rescue teams,
>etc. would monitor and emergency channel while
>patrolling or searching for others.
As I said, you would be better off having one of the good survival whistles. No batteries, probably as good of a range. Some of them even come with a toothpick!!!
>What if the citizens of New Orleans knew in advance
>that FRS Channel "X" was being monitored for
>emergency calls and the FEMA US&R teams and hams were
>set up as described above. Would it not have been
>possible for many of the people stranded for days in
>flooded homes under life threatening conditions to
>have been located faster with an emergency
>communications system like this??
Probably not. It's not obvious to me that very many of them made any advance preparations at all. Why would anyone expect they would have an FRS radio ready to go with charged up batteries? And who would have been around to hear them anyway? With the limited range it's not like the city EOC was going to be able to pick up very many of them. If they had a good, loud whistle to blow every so often, it would have worked as well with roving patrols.
>* Answer>> Given the fact that these radios WILL on
>average communicate a half mile to 1 mile over
>residential terrain, consider this scenario: if one
>of your family members was stranded inside the attic
>of their home because it was filled with 7 feet of
>water and the fire department was patrolling 2
>streets away, MONITORING FRS CHANNEL �x�, do you
>think there�s a good shot of being heard and
>rescued?? I think so��and you confirmed it >�may� work, so evidently there is a slight chance >it might.
I don't accept your premise of operating range. I know from experience that 1/4 mile between cars is pushing the limits. These things are straight line of sight. *ANY* residential terrain will block the signals. Edge diffraction is the only way for signals at this frequency to propagate in residential terrain and that causes severe attenuation.
And no, I would rather my wife and kids have one of the survival whistles we have here.
>This is a viable approach to public emergency
>communications, especially given the low cost and
>popularity of these transceivers and extended
>monitoring range hams can provide with high gain
>directional antennas.
I don't agree it is a viable approach.
You still haven't answered the question of how you will hear those signals using high gain antennas. I honestly can not see someone sitting at a rotator console continuously swinging the rotator from stop-to-stop 24/7 listening for an emergency call. Lacking that, your scenario falls apart since low cost and popularity are meaningless metrics.
>>Again, monitoring for very weak signals using highly
>>directional antennas is counter-productive. Most
>>high directional antennas are not made to be
>>continually rotated like a radar antenna. This makes
>>it necessary to be a sufficient distance away that
>>the angle subtended by the antenna covers the entire
>>disaster area. This makes monitoring weak signals
>>much, much harder.
>* Answer>> Sure, tell that to an experienced VHF/UHF
>operator, especially a contester. He�d get a good
>chuckle over that one.
I'm sorry, that's not an answer. That's a joke. Even a contester doesn't sit there continually rotating his antenna from stop to stop listening for someone to call him.
How many hams do you think there are in this country that are going to sit at their station all day and all night, continually rotating their antennas from stop to stop listening for emergency calls on FRS Channel 1? Especially hams inside a disaster area like Katrina?
My guess is zero.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Look around you at the next club meeting. How many young people do you see?"
Over half. Including a young Mom whose son got her interested. Your point is????????
|
| |
|
PRA Opinion on S.O.S. Initiative
|
|
|
by WQBG900 on December 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Personal Radio Association has approved the following opinion on the National SOS initiative.
Much debate and thinking has gone into this position. This is considered the official stance of the PRA.
Link here:
http://www.popularwireless.com/pra/RadioEmergencyOpinion.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: PRA Opinion on S.O.S. Initiative
|
|
|
by KINGBOLETE on December 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> As you stated, the FRS has very limited range. And a more sensitive radio (such as an Amateur Radio H-T , as you state) may receive the signal at a greater range than the companion FRS radio, but that does NOT constitute communication! It would ONLY be one way; you might hear a distress call, but there wouldn't be any (legal) way to respone, to even let the people know their distress call was heard. Limited usefulness, I'm afraid. That's just not what the FRS is meant to do. (Otherwise, there'd be a "panic button" just for FRS1 emergency calls built into the latest FRS radios.)
If I am remembering things correctly from my Technician exam material, a ham can respond to a distress call on any frequency.
|
| |
|
RE: PRA Opinion on S.O.S. Initiative
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>If I am remembering things correctly from my Technician exam material, a ham can respond to a distress call on any frequency.
Absolutely right.
Here's the Q&A from the official question pool:
T4C01 [97.405a]
If you hear a voice distress signal on a frequency outside of your license privileges, what are you allowed to do to help the station in distress?
A. You are NOT allowed to help because the frequency of the signal is outside your privileges
B. You are allowed to help only if you keep your signals within the nearest frequency band of your privileges
C. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges only if you use international Morse code
D. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges in any way possible
CORRECT ANSWER: D. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges in any way possible
The questions contained within this pool must be used in all Technician examinations beginning July 1, 2003, and is intended to be used up through June 30, 2006.
T4C Providing public service; emergency and disaster communications; Distress calling; Emergency drills and communications; Purpose of RACES.
|
| |
|
RE: PRA Opinion on S.O.S. Initiative
|
|
|
by K2LES on December 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the one thing everyone here is missing is this:
The Lowest Common Denominator... what the average Joe understands, owns and actually uses.
If you're out in the middle of nowhere and you have an emergency (whether it be your own or someone elses)... what are you going to use to get help?
Ham, MURS, FRS, GMRS, CB, etc... they're all fine and dandy when used for their intended purposes - but they won't do you any good if no one is listening. Let's face it - there's no central monitoring station scanning every frequency available to us listening for an SOS or May Day call.
Plain and simple - get a cell phone... get one with a carrier that has the most coverage... a tri-band/tri-mode phone. You have an emergency, dial 911 and you have a much better chance at getting help than you would with any of the consumer-based radio systems. You don't even need to subscribe to a celluar service... just about all of them will dial out to 911. Get the same model phone, but in CDMA and TDMA flavors in case one doesn't work where you are (so you can use the same 12-volt adapter in your car). Used cell phones are cheap... I end up giving mine away because a 2-yr old cell phone isn't worth the time or expense of eBay anymore.
As for the radio services out there:
Ham Radio - most people aren't hams, and god forbid a non-ham encroaches on a ham frequency in a life or death situation only go receive a nastygram from Hollingsworth for his transgression. The service requires a good deal of technical know-how beyond the means of the average Joe.
GMRS - most people don't hold GMRS licences... as someone said before, niche service. With the number of "bubble pack" GMRS radios out there, it's FRS with more channels and power.
MURS - most people don't have MURS radios, nor would they know what MURS was.
FRS - very popular, small, lots of channels. Problem? 546 channel combinations, limited range (I don't care what the distance records are - those were made under controlled situations), lots of kids and annoying roger beeps. Maybe if you lost your kid in the mall, campground or fesitval site you could get some assistance, but for everyday life or death emergencies? Don't count on it.
CB - still popular - an American icon. Truckers listening all the time to channel 19 and giving traffic/weather reports to each other - so on the highway you have a good chance of contacting someone. Handhelds have limited range... but the ones with the mag-mounts are good for several miles. No guarantees that someone's listening to channel 9, so I wouldn't count on that. Would I entrust my life to some half-crazed trucker who hasn't been home in weeks? Probably not, but of all the radio services out there... CB is probably the best bet for the average Joe short of a cell phone.
Now for those of you who like to hike in the mountains where cell phone coverage is spotty at best... unless you have some emergency survival skills under your belt (in addition to provisions to keep you dry, fed and reasonably warm and from getting lost)... stay at home. Most of these wilderness areas have a ranger station of some sort - make sure they know where you are going to be and when you are expected to return.
As for the Hurricane Katrina scenarios... if the gov't tells you to evacuate... pack a bag and leave.
Many "emergency" situations are caused by our own stupidity - and no radio can save you from that.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AI4KK on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I do search and rescue with Civil Air patrol and we do carry FRS radios with us if there is any chance that the victims may have them. There is at least one documented instance of lost hikers being found after an FRS-equipped aircraft flew over the area calling for them; I have no idea what channel was used. In this context, it would make sense to publicize that if anyone is there to help in an emergency, it will be on channel 1. The FRS radios were also used by our ground team to find the hikers and guide them to safety.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KD7YVV on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, after reading all the responses in this
thread, I've come to the conclusion that even though
it is a good idea to monitor FRS channel one, I don't
think it is going to happen. Hams supposedly have
a nationwide 2 meter simplex calling frequency of
146.520. How many hams actually monitor it?
When I was young in the 70's my dad had a CB radio.
He had one in the house, one in both cars, and
had a huge base antenna up with guy wires and everything.
He now lives in TX and hasn't been on
CB in 30 years.
Anyone remember "CB Magazine"? I looked for it recently
on my local newsstand and didn't see it.
I also remember how CB'ers would dread every Christmas
because all the kids would get walkie-talkies smack
dab on CB channel 14. Anyone remember the old
Star Trek communicators and the commercials on TV?
(Kevin this is Scott....send me a signal so I can
find you.) Then they moved to 49.860 mhz AM out of
the CB band entirely. How many of you still have an
old channel 14 kids walkie talkie or one on the
49 mhz band? Show of hands? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Truth be told, I still have the Star Trek communicators
still wrapped in their original packaging. :)
Now, let's fast forward to the 21st century.
Live one day. How many CB's do you see being used in
those 86400 seconds? How many FRS/GMRS? How many
ham radios do you see? Zero? Now, how many cellphones
do you see? Remember when pagers were all the rage?
How many do you see of those?
The point is, if we as hams who are "into radio"
don't even take the time to monitor our own 146.52
simplex frequency even for 5 minutes a day at the
top of the hour, then how can websites such as
the National SOS Radio Network expect the public to
automatically pick up an FRS radio in an emergency?
In EMCOMM training we are taught, use any means needed
to get the message through in an emergency, and while
FRS has set some incredible distance records under
controlled conditions, people aren't going to jump
onto FRS. They'll try a regular phone first if
available, or if they're out on the road, they'll
try their cell. THEN if they have an FRS radio
they MIGHT try it, but for the general public at
large, the thought to use the "toy radio" to try to
reach someone won't even occur to them.
In many major metropolitan areas, FRS is overcrowded
and as some have pointed out, quite unusable.
The public at large generally fall under the KISS
crowd. Keep it simple stupid.
They don't need or want to know how to format a
hard drive, or what frequency their cellphone uses,
they just want to turn on the computer, or place a
cell call and have the damned thing work.
How many in the general public actually turn on
their radio in the car when they see a sign that
says "tune to 1520khz for highway information"
Not many I'll bet.
The National FRS idea is a good one, but if noone
is listening, (two ears, one mouth) then you can
transmit until the batteries are drained. If noone
is listening, it will do no good at all.
It would take a MAJOR ad campaign on commercial
television and radio to make the public aware
that FRS is an option in an emergency.
OTOH, as previously stated, in many metro areas
FRS is so overcrowded, it is practically unusable.
But how many of the users will take an emergency
call seriously? You'll probably be greeted with
profanity and told to get the **** off the channel.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, Washington
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi KD7YVV.
You've raised some very good points, indeed. I can appreciate the time and thought you put into your posting.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with you when you said:
"It would take a MAJOR ad campaign on commercial television and radio to make the public aware that FRS is an option in an emergency."
Please scroll up the page in this forum to see how this issue has been previously discussed. For instance, I mentioned:
"Now, would it take a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign to "connect the dots"? To have hams and GMRS owners know to listen to FRS Channel 1 in case of a declared emergency? To have the public, with it's 12.2 million FRS / GMRS radios, know that as a MEASURE OF LAST RESORT that they could at least *try* FRS Channel 1 -- like a "signal flare" when a ship is sinking? The answer is NO. It WOULDN'T take a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign.
Why is the answer NO? Do you remember the huge national & world press that occurred this summer surrounding the suggestion that people program "I.C.E." into their cell phones? There are now tens of millions of people with their cell phones programmed with "In Case of Emergency" phone numbers.
How did this grand I.C.E. idea start? Simply by one person -- Bruce Brotchie -- an ambulance paramedic in the UK. And -- thanks to the efficient spread of information via the Internet -- now the concept is "backed by governments, emergency services and giant corporations the world over." (Here's a little bit of the history, in case you're interested: http://www.britishparamedic.org/news/ice )
I believe the NationalSOS concept -- based on people monitoring FRS Channel 1 during a declared emergency -- could similarly catch on."
>>> VERY IMPORTANT FOLLOW-UP THOUGHT: The key is NOT "continuous monitoring" of FRS. For a lot of the reasons you've eloquently expressed, that's not going to happen. As a matter of fact, I do NOT even remotely encourage that to be the practice. However, should a flood, hurricane, or other natural or manmade disaster occur -- an event that would draw the attention of the entire country -- then I really do believe hams, GMRS owners, scanner operators, and other fine people in the radio community, would pitch in to monitor the frequency for pleas of help from the public.
Thoughts?
Thanks, again, for your feedback.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AD5KS on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm. This is the first time I have posted to this site and may be the last. A couple of points to ponder.
I think both the PRS and the NationalSOS thing go too far either direction. Here's why:
I read what appeared to be a royal 'decree' issued by the PRS group. I agree that there does need to be coordination by local authorities all the way down to the neighborhood level. Truth is you won't get that in most places and you ceratinly won't get it where the population is poor (read "disadvantaged" for you P.C. freaks). I disagree that the public would be put at risk by creating an emergency channel on FRS talkies. Really no one I have ever talked to has ever realistically expected to get assistance from channel 9 on CB. That has not prevented them from attempting to use it in an emergency. Having said that I am in favor of an instant emergency channel button on all FRS handies. For one I use them to talk to my family in and around the neighborhood. Second I would like a simple button for my kids to push in the event of a problem and they need my help or someone elses in the neighborhood. The argument has been made that someone has to be listening and that is true. However some form of emergency comms is better than none. Most of the time no one is listening to CB channel 9 save REACT but even they aren't everywhere. It's there just in case. Take for instance a situation in which a tornado or strong straighline wind has pushed your house over and your stuck in the basement (it happens). Or a flash flood in the neighborhood runs you up a tree. In both or any situation really I would be calling my head off on whatever method of comms is available. I carry both my Alinco DJ-G5TH and an FRS radio. Sometimes I will throw a MURS rig in just for good measure. My car has a CB in it as well. Again this is all just in case. I do not rely on Cell for reliable comms even in an emergency nor do I expect that any one mode of emergency comms will yield assistance. It's just good practice not to rely on public comms infrastructure to be there when you need it most (practical experience living in Oklahoma).
Someone made the point that cell service was restored in the Katrina debacle rather quickly. Uh...I don't think that really enters the argument even at the periphery (see last paragraph). 911 service to the major metropolitan areas still took days to restore. You cannot pinpoint someones location on cell and NO most phones do not have GPS in them. They use a triangulation and a couple of other tricks to figure the general area where you might be not where you actually are. In a metro area with lots of tall buildings locating someone on a cell is nearly a futile effort for a whole host of reasons.
Now on to the the NationalSOS site. Nice idea however I don't think it can be coordinated to the level that was expressed on the site. Nor do I agree with many of the views expressed therein. I do however agree that emergency crews should carry FRS or at least listen to FRS while on patrol or during search and rescue opps (MURS and CB as well). Especially for people like me who carry multiple forms of radio comms. I think perhaps NationalSOS would better server as a site that educates on emergency preparedness. Yes lobby for an emergency channel button on FRS radios (but not channel 1). Also put up information on things to keep on hand like food, water, a good heavy sharp knife, something to start a fire with, a first aid kit and alternative method of communicating with the outside world (I carry all of that - have a 2 hour drive to work everyday through some deserted locale). Educate everyone that there is no one method for getting help that will always work, teach some survival techniques and impress upon the great unwashed masses that they should expect their government to attmept to assist when bad things happen but they should never ever count on it.
That is all.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AD5KS on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ooooh. One more thing. I was thinking that if a S&R worker in close proximity to a person with and FRS talkie would more easily be able to locate the victim or at least call in someone with T-hunting equipment (a simple yagi would do). Probably the closest thing to a PELT (personal emergency location transmitter - or something like that) that an economically challanged individual could afford. During emergencies it is highly unlikley that there will be anyone in the area using FRS other than emergency responders. Again experience with Oklahoma storms provides the basis for my comments. Perhaps there should be a new channel for special PELT equipment that everyone could afford rather than the expensive PELTs now available. That would probably require extra training for S&R personnel but this could probably be something Hams could help with. Just an idea. Again something is better than nothing.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KC8EMH on December 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've been a ham for almost 10 years, and I've been a CBer longer. I'm also a licensed GMRS user. While hams have the capabilities to reach out farther, more citizens use CB and FRS. I scan the FRS/GMRS frequencies just in case, and although I've never had an emergency call from FRS like I've had from CB, I have given directions to travelers over my GMRS rig. My UHF ham radio has a lot more power, but it's illegal to transmit on my UHF rig unless it's actually an emergency. Every ham should know that in an emergency, it's legal to transmit on any frequency. I've contacted the police on their frequency to alert them of a life-threatening accident on a couple of occasions, legally. Rambling aside, more people have FRS and CB than they have ham radio, and whether it's a truck driver in distress on 19 or 9, or hikers in the wilderness on FRS 1, I scan all of those frequencies and those hams who want to help those in distress should scan them, too. Most citizens that buy the bubble-wrap toy FRS/GMRS radios have no idea that the message on the package is usually a lie. That when a radio says "8 mile range" in reality in most areas you'll be lucky to reach 2 miles, and people like us (radio operators) that know better should be looking out for those that don't. That's my story and I'll stick to it. 73's
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KD7YVV on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't see a problem with hams etc monitoring FRS 1,
what I am saying is, if it is not something that is
already a habit, or something that is common knowledge
the general public isn't going to take to it right
away. Do you remember the 911 campaign of the early
80's? You saw it everywhere. "In case of emergency
dial 911." Phone companies were putting little stickers
on their phone books, you heard it on radio, saw it on
TV. I'm not saying your idea isn't a good one, I'm just
saying that the general public at large isn't going
to automatically grab an FRS radio and start calling
for help when a cell isn't available. It will take a
large ad campaign such as the call 911 one in the 80's.
In 20 years or so, I can see it happening, but off the
bat? I don't think so. As previously stated, even our
own 146.520 calling frequency sits idle most of the time.
I like your idea, your idea is a good one, I just
don't see it happening right away, but I applaud your
efforts. You may want to contact news media like
Fox or CNN. I seem to remember on CNN a call for a
nationwide frequency that could be used by police/fire
etc. after the Katrina storm. You've got a wonderful
idea and you seem to be running with it.
Having a father who worked in the news industry for
30 years, I can tell you that CNN and other news
outlets are always looking for "filler". Filler being
human interest stories. With the current attention
being focused on disasters, your site and idea should
become quite popular. However, I cannot stress the
importance of differentiating FRS and GMRS. :)
We as hams get it, but the general public doesn't.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, Washington
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N4NYY on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
With all due respect, this FRS emergency channel is a waste of time. I do admire your concern, but it is impractical. I use FRS for hunting, and is range is severly limited, especially in wooded areas. If you are in a combination of a rural and wooded area, you will not have any range to get help. Your best bet is a cell phone with GPS location services, and a separate GPS to carry along with you in case you need to find your way to a road or something. Don't get me wrong, I am not against what you think, I just don't think it would work in many instances.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K5KTD on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Seeing people die from thirst and hunger -- simply because they had no way to tell rescuers where they were -- "
I don't recall any reports of deaths attributed to thirst and hunger. Would you kindly cite your resources for this claim?
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Contrary to what a lot of HAMS with their little BOW TIES on think! CB RADIO IS NOT DEAD.....
Here in OREGON most every 18 wheeler truck has co-phased antennas on their mirrors. If you drive a log truck into the WOODS you BETTER have a CB to find out if a loaded rig is comming down the mountain, RIGHT-OF-WAY is determined by how high up your are and by the TON. My point is the trucks on our roads have CB RADIOS..if you are PREPARED for EMERGENCY communication, really you NEED to hav acess to CB.
In evacuation of cities during floods, on highways during earth quakes, it is likely a big help to be able to talk to, and listen to truckers...
As I mentioned before, FRS and GMRS could be useful as well, there is a GMRS REACT REPEATER in OREGON CITY, OREGON on CH 19 467.575 in and 462.575 out.
Check GMRS REACT in your area in the internet.
I say that I want 2M - 440 - FRS - GMRS - ( CB ) and a scanner for SARS 155.08 the FIRE DEPT, and STATE POLICE etc., for my emergency preparedness vehicle..
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why don�t we simply have all CB rigs contain built in FRS and GMRS radios.
Then, the bow tie people only have to modify ham gear to transmit on CB frequencies, or where the pirates hang out.
If there are enough CBers and pirates running converted ham rigs, we hams might not even have to modify our rigs for out of ham band usage.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KD7YVV on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2NXV,
Having travelled cross country twice by train,
I can say that there are still a lot of areas that
are not covered by cellphone. I believe that is the
point the gentleman is making about FRS radios.
True, the range sucks, but put enough of them in
a chain and it could work. As previously stated
however, FRS isn't going to be the first thing the
general public reaches for. It doesn't hurt to monitor
once in a while if you've got one with you and you're
hunting etc etc. There is an experssion, everything old
is new again. FRS today is what CB was to the people
of my time. I'm sure this discussion will come up
again when some other new technology comes along. :)
It has been stated that it takes 21 days to form a
habit. With computers and internet and cellphones and
PDA's and the newer cellphones that have photo capability
and text messaging, FRS is going to be just one more
thing. Emergency comms are an ongoing evolution of
processes. What works once may not work next time.
As previously stated, I admire the initiative the
gentleman has taken in trying to better EMCOMM.
It's not just ham radio, or cellphones, it's about
what it takes to get a message through. If it's FRS,
then so be it. Whatever works. When we had the
Nisqually earthquake a few years ago, I was listening
to my scanner and heard the 800 trunk system activity
jump. Conventional systems will become overloaded in
a disaster if they work at all. FRS is just one more
method of communication.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
|
| |
|
RE: PRA Opinion on S.O.S. Initiative
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KB1EHE on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend! >If I am remembering things correctly from my Technician exam material, a ham can respond to a distress call on any frequency.
Absolutely right.
Here's the Q&A from the official question pool:
T4C01 [97.405a]
If you hear a voice distress signal on a frequency outside of your license privileges, what are you allowed to do to help the station in distress?
A. You are NOT allowed to help because the frequency of the signal is outside your privileges
B. You are allowed to help only if you keep your signals within the nearest frequency band of your privileges
C. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges only if you use international Morse code
D. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges in any way possible
CORRECT ANSWER: D. You are allowed to help on a frequency outside your privileges in any way possible
The questions contained within this pool must be used in all Technician examinations beginning July 1, 2003, and is intended to be used up through June 30, 2006.
--------------
We've gone over this already in this thread. The actual FCC rules take precedence over the question pool answers. First, there's the point of "outside your privileges." That does NOT state "outside the Amateur Bands."
And yes, in a true emergency, you may operate even out of band. But does that apply to the station in an emergency, or also to any station that hears a "life or limb" distress call? If you hear a distress call on a Police frequency, can you respond? That could be a "life or death" situation. (And "HElp, my car broke down; I'll be late for work" isn't considered enough of an emergency to justify operating even out of privileges.)
The RULES (not the question pool) states that you may operate out of privilege or out of band ONLY if no other means of communication is available. So if YOUR landline or cell phone works, you had better use that to call for assistance. And if the out of band call is on a frequency used by other services, it's their first priority and duty to respond, not a Ham to just jump in.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by 4X1DA on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Europe has a similar license-free service called PMR446. Internet gateways for these radios are becoming popular, which allow for world-wide communications the same way IRLP, Echolink and eQSO work.
See more info here:
http://www.446user.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=12
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by N6ATF on December 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would appear PMR446 already has eQSO gateways for it. And has anyone in the states used PMR446 radios here? The freqs are
1. 446.00625 MHz
2. 446.01875 MHz
3. 446.03125 MHz
4. 446.04375 MHz
5. 446.05625 MHz
6. 446.06875 MHz
7. 446.08125 MHz
8. 446.09375 MHz
|
| |
|
Kidding?
|
|
|
by K4III on December 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRS? You must be kidding! When out in Miss. setting up state commuications during Katrina, I couldn't even get the local 2 meter emergency net to assist in searching for a missing S&R employee!
The only response I received was, "no we don't want or need your assistance, you're not a club member, we don't need any volunteers, and we are too busy with other check-ins to take your call." Is this a joke? Hams are willing to assist the Red Cross, EOC, & S&Rescue teams with their own personnel but not to support the teams themselves, even in an emergency using their communications capabilities?
I am on a payroll and CAN'T volunteer when performing a duty, CAN'T afford time to drive 80 miles away to assist hams, and ONLY wanted assistance in finding a S&R team member who was last reported working the area that had gone missing. I'm not even trying to join the ham club!
Search & Rescue team members simply could not contact the member using any other means. I believed we could obtain some assistance on the net through the hams directly working with this S&R team that were checking into the net. Why couldn't the net operators relay a simple message and/or assist in locating a missing person working with their ham volunteers?
Sorry, but before we talk about using public means of comms within the public, lets improve the ham response first!
Florida S&R Communications Team Unit Leader
|
| |
|
RE: Kidding?
|
|
|
by AI4KK on December 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Where were you at? We were in Hancock Co (Waveland, Bay St Louis etc) working with the FL State EOC and we got very little response at all from the local hams; they acted like they'd just been hit by a hurricane. If you were in Hancock Co, I don't believe this would have been when we were there as it doesn't sound like anything I heard. Fr that matter, I really doubt it was us because you mentioned Red Cross, and we didn't ahve any RC folks working in our area...I think it was too much like a disaster zone for them.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by W1WJB on December 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2005
W1WJB wrote:
"Look around you at the next club meeting. How many young people do you see?"
K4JF:
Over half. Including a young Mom whose son got her interested. Your point is????????
====================================
My best congratulations! No kidding. Your club
is doing more to preserve Amateur Radio than many.
Good on ya!
73,
W1WJB
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 16, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before we get too hyped on FRS-1, try this:
Take an FRS HT and make sure the tone is ON for channel 1. Then change the channel to 7.
Now, hand the HT to someone that does not use radios and tell them to set the HT to FRS-1, no tone. Tell them this is what you do in an emergency, so they need to hurry up.
Let me know if you get the same results that I have. Me results indicate that FRS-1 can't be used without training on each individual radio.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AI4KK on December 16, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Better yet, set the radio up the way you want it and then either set the key lock if it has one or tell them not to change anything.
"It's real simple. Make sure it's on channel 1, Hold it like this, mash to talk, release to listen"
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 16, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great idea.
Are you going to go around your neighborhood and do this for everyone?
If we decide to go this route, we must now instruct all that would be using FRS-1 NT to prepare and store a radio set up to this channel. This radio is not to be used on any other channel. So to be safe, many will just keep the radio on FRS-1 NT and talk on it for any reason.
Anyone see a problem here?
If there are only 1 or 2 radios in a home the above is a quite possible scenario.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K9EZ on December 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I can say to AB0WR is HORSE HOCKEY. Why do you think they have a survial whistle??? Dont you think that it has a use? Yes it does! I know we carry one when we hike. So could FRS have a use. Think "out of the box" for a while here.
As others have said, ANYTHING that works should be used. With the proliforation of FRS radios, I say lets give it a try. I know I have some of the FRS channels programmed in to listen. You never know when someone may be asking for help.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KD7KTF on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've read most of the posting of on this topic. Here is a way I think the FRS can be helpful in an emergency.
Let's take the Katrana example. The rescures come into a neighborhood on boats. Call on FRS Channel 1, and say" We are so and so urban rescue. Is anybody trapped, do you need help?"
People who are in range and have a FRS radio can reply, "I'm stuck in my attic, rest of my house is underwater. I'm at address bah bah bah."
Or the trapped people can just keep calling for help on their FRS until somebody hears them and can respond.
It wouldn't take the teams too much to add the extra call out on FRS as they search an area.
Using FRS channel 1 would not be used to coordinate rescues or teams, it would be used for Joe Sniffy who doesn't know crap about radios but has a FRS to call for help.
I think it's a good idea. I don't think it would be too much trouble for Hams to also monitor that channel when it was needed.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k9ez:"All I can say to AB0WR is HORSE HOCKEY. Why do you think they have a survial whistle??? Dont you think that it has a use? Yes it does! I know we carry one when we hike. So could FRS have a use. Think "out of the box" for a while here.
As others have said, ANYTHING that works should be used. With the proliforation of FRS radios, I say lets give it a try. I know I have some of the FRS channels programmed in to listen. You never know when someone may be asking for help. "
Well, I tell you what. You take a 5hp go-kart to the next Baja 1000 race and see if you can think "out of the box" well enough to win.
My guess is that all you'll get is a lot of sand in your teeth.
The tool needs to be matched to the job. FRS is a 5hp go-kart at the Baja - it just isn't the right tool.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KI4MOH on December 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing you must remember is that you are going in to a disaster area. Therefore anyone with a radio is going to be screaming out that they need help if you come in and say you are here to rescue people. There will not be an orderly approach to "checking-in" to let the responders know where you are. There will be a lot of talking over each other and screaming on the radio. Any first responder that goes to a multiple trama accident can tell you that everyone and their families are going to be screaming about how they need help right now. The first responder is responsible for assinging priorities and assisting those that need the most help first. If and this is a very big IF, you could get everyone to act in an orderly fashion, then the FRS might be useful. Of course, if they had listened and gotten out when the storm was coming in the first place this wouldn't have been as bad. If you can't get them to heed warnings of a massive storm, how will you get them to listen to regulations on a radio they bought at Walmart?
Just something to think about.
|
| |
|
Let me quote KI4MOH
|
|
|
by K4III on December 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Of course, if they had listened and gotten out when the storm was coming in the first place this wouldn't have been as bad. If you can't get them to heed warnings of a massive storm, how will you get them to listen to regulations on a radio they bought at Walmart? "
Exactly, AND for those who say people couldn't afford to leave? Hitch-hike or call a friend! And for those who say they have no friends or say hitchhiking is illegal, just remember, pushing vehicles out of gas down the highway is also illegal! I'm sure somebody would have given someone a lift if they asked or requested it before the storm. I guess people think that it would be "cool" to "ride out the storm" because THEY are prepared. But they seem to forget that their life depends on OTHERS. No, Citgo, Walmart and McDonalds most likely will not be open for a few weeks and you cannot get gas for your vehicle to travel. Unless you have a stockroom of MRE's, medical supplies, and gas, and a high-powered generator, you will be stuck in your home like a prisoner in jail but without food, tv, medical assistance, and others company! And even if you are stocked with gas, you can only travel so far and back on 1 tank which is not enough to seek medical assistance or food and supplies in most cases.
The first thing to ask yourself is NOT "Am I prepared to ride it out?"
but
"Are local businesses and my city prepared to stick it out and stay open?" If not, get out!
As far as radios go, they're nice, but first-responders do not have time to "play-radio". They have their duties which include Search & Rescue missions which take priority and they have their own communications that they use. Trying to decode static transmissions on top of each other and the like will only confuse things and hold up operations. It is fine if you know someone who uses them regularly like ham radio repeaters, ch 19 on CB, and frequencies where you can call or contact someone you know may be monitoring. I often bring a ham radio when assisting S&R teams and scan ALL FRS frequencies and 146.520 and local ham repeaters. Not once did I hear anyone requiring assistance on any of the 5 major hurricanes in the last 2 years here in the SE USA. In Mississippi, the ham repeaters were active, but assisting only the Red Cross Comms with their personnel.
The only people who should be in a disaster area after it hits are people in serious medical conditions or in hospitals receiving special care. Those are the people who should have the first doctors, care and disaster assistance after a disaster.
I stand down.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KG6OHK on December 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must say, I do love this idea. Quick, simple, and easy for the non-radio-elite to use. If I didn't have fifty watts of VHF at my disposal, didn't really know which end of an HT was "up," I'd at least be happy knowing that if I turn on this dinky little thing and press the PTT someone is going to hear me, and maybe rescue me.
I don't love FRS' inherent poor range and the lousy sound quality that you're gonna get from a $30 radio. John Q. Public couldn't give a snot though.
If he does, let him go to any truck stop and pick up a CB HT. They can be had for about $70 and push four watts out the door: pretty good range on one of these little buggers. Tune it to CB9 and there you go.
And if you're really serious, get yerself a callsign and something made by Yaesu.
It's all about the right tool for the right job, IMHO. No, I personally will never own an FRS, I have something vastly better and will use that instead. Bob over here, OTOH, needs /something/...let's let him use it. And by all means, let's listen for him.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on December 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've gotten confused over the whole issue, which has become long and drawn out.
1. I don't think monitoring FRS-1 on a 24/7 basis is reasonable, just waiting for an emergency call to magically appear, unless a person has nothing better to do.
2. In the event of an actual emergency occuring, listening on FRS (and not just FRS-1) may have some utility.
3. The average citizen is NOT going to go out and buy a FRS, GMRS, CB, or any other service radio "just in case." And in the event of a catastrophic event, the average citizen will probably NOT choose to take along any type of radio at the expense of loved ones or cherished belongings.
Let's get REAL> The average citizen is NOT preoccupied by their radios/communications ability. And they ARE more likely to try to save/retrieve a cell phone (working or not) than a FRS, GMRS, CB, or even Ham Radio. And in an event such as the disaster in New Orleans, most of even the ham gear (and emergency power/batteries) ended up under water, when the people were stranded on rooftops clinging for their lives. Radios (in ANY service) were probably their LAST worry!
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K3XR on December 25, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The intent of the original post is well meaning, however, from a practical standpoint there are some incredible obtacles that would need to be overcome. We have seen what a lack of discipline has made the former 11 meter amateur band commonly referred to as CB. The original post mentions "millions" of FRS radios in use, can you imagine the lack of discipline in a widespread emergency. There are large numbers of the population that don't even purchase, install, or maintain smoke detectors in their homes, even when they are given away for free by the local fire department (government). It seems to me, that for the general population, the time and money would be better spent in "disaster proofing" the cell phone system. It is my observation that even the poorest among us seem to have the ability to afford these marvels of communication.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by VK3TSN on December 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi all,
I think this is not bad idea, however people already invented a simple mobile phone, which is, at the end of the day, transmitter and receiver at the same time. Everyone has a mobile phone today (poor and rich), and having additional device in your pocket (beside i-Pods, PDA's, keys, wallets, cigarettes, lighters, etc, etc) could be just another annoying thing.. and expensive for someone.
In disaster situations like whole city being without electricity, or even without backup electricity system, it wouldn't be a problem to put a mobile phone repeater in some kind of specialized 4WD vehicle, or the better idea, in a helicopter hovering some 500-1000ft above the ground and just collect all 911 calls. No need to talking to the operator at all.
With 2 or more helicopters + mobile phone repeater, using triangulation method it is possible to detect an area of 911-caller, and send emergency crew to the site. Some of modern mobile phones are already have in-built GPS system.
Has someone been in a pile-up when 5-10 people talking at the same time (either amateur radio or cb) ? I can't imagine what would happened if there are 100.000 calls at the same time. I think there wouldn't be any benefit from that.
All these technologies are in use today and there is no need to reinvent a wheeel.
Cheers,
Stjepan
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on December 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not just a matter of being able to "afford" an FRS or whatever. The real question is whether it is reasonable or feasable for EVERYONE in the general public to have a FRS radio. Iin the event of an emergency, will they know how to use it. and how to distinguish between the thousands (or more) of signals on the same frequency at the same time.
And as far as "disaster proofing" the cell phone system, I'm sure the cell phone companies will assure you that that has already been done, (and certainly doesn't or shouldn't take government dollars to strengthen a commercial venture) and the cell systme is indeed "disaster proof." Until the next, unexpected, unforeseen disaster, which they could not predict.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by K2LES on December 28, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Put an FRS into the hands of every Joe Sixpack with instructions on to tune to Ch 1 in an emergency and the result will be utter chaos.
Bottom line...
* Get a cell phone with good coverage - doesn't even have to be an activated phone, all cell phones will dial out to 911.
* Make people aware of your plans if you are going out on an adventure (and carry the requisite equipment in case you run into problems).
* If a Category 5 hurricane is bearing down on you and the important people in charge order you to evacuate - pack a bag and get out of dodge.
Don't put yourself in a situation where you'll be relying on an unreliable FRS radio to save your life.
The F in FRS stands for Family - ergo its intended use. There's n "E" in FRS. 'Nuff said.
|
| |
|
FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KD5PSH on January 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, this might be the seed of a good plan. If the public were educated to use a specific FRS channel to call for help, AND Ham volunteers were to monitor for those calls to relay them to responders, a serious public service could be performed. The Hams would not monitor except in times of serious need, such as the Hurricane situations that we've all just witnessed.
Hams could also "cruise" areas in boats or cars or whatever, and pick up location information etc. from people in need of help. The information, relayed to a ham base station with telephone etc. could be invaluable when the cell phones and all other communications are not available to the general public.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB1EHE on January 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear all,
As we turn the page to a new year, I want to thank everyone for their ideas and suggestions regarding my concept of the National SOS Radio Network -- www.NationalSOS.com. I even appreciate the negative feedback; after all, brainstorming requires a free exchange of ideas.
Just to summarize some of the key points that have been raised over the last month in this thread:
(1) FRS would be used as an absolute "last resort" in case of emergency -- when ALL other communication systems have failed. It's akin to the use of a signal flare on a sinking ship.
(2) FRS frequencies would ONLY be monitored during an obvious national emergency (hurricane, flood, other national / manmade disaster). Critical to mention: The National SOS concept has NOT been put forth as a system that is monitored 24 / 7 / 365. (Beware of mis-information that has been disseminated by a few individuals who have expressed other monitoring requirements.)
(3) The FRS system, as described, is already in place and functional in numerous locations throughout the U.S. by emergency-communication professionals. For those readers here who say "it won't work", you may want to read how it IS working in ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATIONS and successes as described in my Web site's forums. For your convenience, here's a direct link: http://nationalsos.com/ideas/viewforum.php?f=3
IMHO, the alternate recommendation of using CB radios is well intentioned, but CB is a tool with decades of negative stereotypes that may be impossible to undo. Sure, CBs are still being sold. But typical purchasers are not families or homeowners -- and those are the people who we're trying come up with an emergency plan for.
Also IMHO, the alternate recommendation of using cell phones is also well intentioned, but cell service was one of the first systems to fail during the hurricanes. Not only did the cell infrastructure fail (towers, etc.), without electrical power to recharge cell-phone batteries, cell phones quickly stop functioning. In contrast, the AA batteries that can power most FRS radios are very common, cheap, easy to stockpile, and have long shelf lives. Additionally, cell service can be quickly overloaded; I helped relay emergency communications traffic via ham radio during 9/11, as people in New York could not reach their loved ones by their cell phones. Until cell carriers can "disaster-proof" their systems, and provide enough bandwidth to handle traffic during widespread emergency situations, cell phones have a way to go before they can be considered a reliable mass-emergency communication tool.
I agree with those who say a lot of work would have to be done to educate people on the use of FRS in case of a national emergency. However, I DON'T believe it would take a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign; the reasons why have been previously discussed in this forum (with examples including the rapid worldwide spread via the Internet of the cell phone "I.C.E." concept). I've received many e-mails and have seen many notes in my Web's forums expressing the idea that one of the national emergency organizations like FEMA (yes, FEMA) could begin to untarnish its image by promoting a public-based system like this. That's intriguing. Hey, you never know...
THE BOTTOM LINE: There are up to 100 million FRS radios currently in the public's hands...and they're being sold at a rate of 12.2 million PER YEAR. They're cheap, available, and simple to use by the ordinary public.
And there are plenty of people with the technology to LISTEN for emergency calls for help during a national emergency -- including hams, GMRS operators, scanner owners, etc. The desire to save a human life would engage many of us if we knew we had a tool that might help. (I emphasized the word "LISTEN" as the National SOS concept is NOT intended to provide a two-way communication system with victims. The concept is based upon listening for emergency messages and relaying those messages to appropriate rescue personnel.)
Regarding FRS range -- yes, FRS is severely limited. But I have found that ham radio HTs can receive the 500mW FRS signals at surprising distances. I've driven around my hilly town and heard my wife's broadcasted FRS test messages for up to a couple of miles on my Alinco DJ-V5 HT and its little whip antenna.
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth mentioning again: Check out the volume of hams in just about every town in America by typing in a town name or zip code at http://www.qrz.com/i/names.html
>>> I'll wrap up my discussion in this forum with something I've stated for months about this concept:
I KNOW THIS CONCEPT HAS LOTS OF FLAWS. It's far, far from perfect. But I'm hoping the brilliant minds out there can help come up with a real, workable solution to an important problem.
To me, the ideal solution would be something that:
(1) uses currently available resources,
(2) involves and mobilizes the general public as part of the solution to their particular predicament (vs. relying on government agencies to perform),
(3) doesn't require new laws or legislation, and
(4) can be implemented quickly (ideally, in some rudimentary form, before the next hurricane season).
If you have further ideas and suggestions, the best place to continue this discussion is on my Web site: www.NationalSOS.com As many of you know, the Web site is a one-person operation (just me). I'll do my best to incorporate as many of your thoughts as possible as the concept evolves.
Thanks, again, for the lively discussion. Thanks, Mark (K8MHZ), for kicking off the topic a couple of months ago. And thanks, eHam.net, for providing this great venue.
73
Eric
KB1EHE
www.NationalSOS.com
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by KB9QDC on January 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good on ya, Eric.
I applaud your efforts to help people. Keep it up.
"Illegitimus Non carborundum!"
Matt
KB9QDC
|
| |
|
More emergencies handled by FRS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.reactintl.org/nuz/pr20000703a.htm
More emergencies initiated by FRS calls.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS Channel 1 -- Important Follow-Up
|
|
|
by WD4JZO on March 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe that Midland Radio has tried to get users and other companies nationally to use Channel 1 for emergencies only on FRS,GMRS, and CB and that they put logos on the box and material inside with this info. I've been licenced 40 years and I think it is a good idea. when the SHTF use whatever you have. The REGS say that if it is a LIFE THREATENING SITUATION you can call anyone on any frequency available.
73,
Jim-WD4JZO
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Hams Heard at Hurricane Conference
Our Finest Hour?
Emergency Use of Hams in Massachusetts
Calling All Hams: Don't Disappoint
In Terror Attack, Jam Communications?
Other Emergency/Public Service Articles
DHS: Ambitious Multi-Band Radio Project
Heat, Wind, Smoke and Fire
ARES-RACES Support of Inauguration
In Terror Attack, Jam Communications?
Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!
|
