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

[jarvis at jarviscomputer.com]

Tnx Les,

I appreciate your observations and commentary.

Clare




> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc
>