[Fwd: [WARC] criticism of skywarn net saturady june 7, 2008]

[Leslie Hittner]

I didn't hear the discussion about the Skywarn net on the WEPNet
the other night, but I gather from the discussion on this
reflector that our net was compared to those in the Metro area.
I was able to listen in on one of their "nets" on my way to
North Dakota last week (Wednesday night). Here are my thoughts:

The 146.850 repeater went into "Skywarn" mode and a "Net
control" station called the Skywarn net to a controlled mode. He
then received many logins - probably 20 or more. These stations
identified with their "Skywarn number" and their location. They
were not dispatched to specific places. I don't know if they all
went to pre-arranged locations or if they just logged in from
wherever they were. After all stations were logged in, the NCS
stated the rules of the net and stopped transmitting. Those
rules were then repeated every 15 minutes or so.

The rules: Stations were instructed to identify by Skywarn
Number and to state "reportable conditions" using as few words
as possible (3 or 4 words).

If there were no reportable conditions, there were to be no
transmissions. At the end of the net, the NCS station
transmitted an "all clear" and the tail message was changed from
"wx" to the normal beep.

That was it.

It was not really a net in the sense that we run a net here. No
stations were dispatched to areas of interest. I assume this is
because they have such a large number of stations that
"coverage" is not something they have to go after. Since no
stations were dispatched, it was not necessary to obtain
periodic status reports and it was not necessary to clear them
from the net when they got "home" because that is probably where
they were all along!

With 20 - 30 or more stations in the net, it is wise to keep
discipline tight. With 5-10 stations in the net, we can afford a
bit of chit-chat - especially if nothing is happening and we are
merely waiting for stations to get back home.

The amount of communications that is to be allowed is the NCS'
call. If the NCS is willing to allow chit-chat, then so be it.
If conditions get serious, the NCS can always put a stop to the
chit-chat and tighten it up..

The only observation I would care to make about our Skywarn nets
is that net discipline with respect to complying with NCS
directives is rather poor. I don't like to see stations argue
with the NCS. I guess it's my military communications
background, but I believe that when the NCS gives an order, it
should be complied with. There is always a "better way" but the
NCS, by virtual of that position, is the station that makes that
call. Other "better ways" can wait for other times and other NCS
stations.

If we train our NCS operators well enough, then their "better
ways" will most likely be "good enough."

-Les, K0BAD


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Brom" <ewbrom at hbci.com>
To: <Litvan at acegroup.cc>; "Winona Amateur Radio Club general
discussion" <warc at lists.w0ne.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 23:12
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [WARC] criticism of skywarn net saturady june
7, 2008]


> And the game plan can change at any time.
>
>
> At 10:01 PM 06/12/08, you wrote:
> >Dan,
> >
> >Good point.  The EOC is our customer.  We need to provide the
type
> >of information and detail they request.  It follows that net
control
> >informs net participants of the "game plan" for a particular
event
> >and enforces the plan.
> >
> >Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> >I'm learning....
> >
> >73,
> >Len
> >
> >Dr. Daniel L. Goltz wrote:
> >>
> >>Thanks for your comments.  Under the circumstances, "water
levels
> >>normal", "no run off", "no mudslides" etc. were very useful
> >>reports. They helped to determing the scope and location of
the
> >>problems we were dealing with.  I think it is nearly
impossible to
> >>give a blanket statement of what is appropriate to report
for any
> >>given event. It is up to net control or the EOC to help
provide
> >>guidance to the people in the field as to what to report at
any
> >>given time.  At the EOC we asked LSE WX what they wanted us
to
> >>report to them so as not to over burden them with unwanted
reports.
> >>Thanks to all for participating.
> >>
> >>Dan, WK0W
> >>
> >>Quoting James Jarvis <jj at aprsworld.com>:
> >_______________________________________________
> >WARC mailing list
> >WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> >http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date:
6/16/2008 7:20 AM