Date   
Re: no hamlib on r pi 3b

David Ranch
 


Hello Randy,

When you built  hamlib and installed it, where did you put it?  In /usr/local/?  If you don't have that library path configured in your LDPATH, you can
tell fldigi to find it at "./configure" time with the shell variable:

     HAMLIB_LIBS

There are various threads out there about this:

   https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82853
  

--David





On 09/09/2018 03:59 PM, Randy McGill via Groups.Io wrote:
I installed fldigi 4.0.18 on a r pi 3b and it does not have hamlib included in the compile.  After I configure the program it says hamlib - no.   I installed and compliled the latest version of hamlib (3.2.1) prior to installing fldigi.  What am I missing?

Re: previous page next page FLDIGI -> SCU-17 -> OSX [Setup Help] #arhab

Pete Moscatt <pgmoscatt@...>
 

G'Day Mark,

I uninstalled the drivers as I was a little concerned that I wasn't seeing them under System Information.
Re-installed and it all looks good.



So, I now see pretty much what you see now. Haven't tried it as yet but will do so in the next few hours.
Hopefully all will go well from now.....  fingers crossed  :-)


Pete

Descriptions of WEFAX and SITOR-B for the Sights and Sounds page

Dave
 

Received from Mike Agner, KA3JJZ

I know that you're probably just trying to stick with showing the
various amateur modes, but since FLDigi also handles some non-ham modes,
i thought you might want to add links to these pages for 2 that are
likely real popular right now, given that Florence is about to clobber
the Carolinas

https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/SITOR-B

https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/WEFAX

Best Regards

Mike

Can fldigi Send CAT Commands to IC-7300?

WA7SKG <wa7skg@...>
 

I am on a few nets that use voice and data on the same net. When I need to send data, I have to change the radio to USB-D, then back to USB after the data is sent. Is it possible for fldigi to do this via CAT commands? I know it can change frequency and key the radio, so the basic capability is there. I would just like to build into my macros a command string that went something like

<USB-D> <TX> (send traffic)  DE <MYCALL> <RX> <USB>

Is this doable? If so, suggestions on how to accomplish this would be appreciated. Actual, usable, answers, please, don't waste everyone's time with "Yes" or "RTFM".

tnx es 73,
Michael WA7SKG

Re: Can fldigi Send CAT Commands to IC-7300?

WA7SKG <wa7skg@...>
 

Partial answer to my own question. Yes, I see in the macro lists there are macros like <RIGMODE:mode> and <FLRIG:hex hex> which, I guess, incorporate flrig. I'm just not smart enough to figure out how to use them.

Thanks for any elucidation.

Michael

Re: Can fldigi Send CAT Commands to IC-7300?

Dave AFA2HV
 

For me I have found it useful to use FLRIG with FLDigi with the IC7300, but it might be easier to send these cat commands using the Macro buttons when dealing with a mixed mode net....

DIGITAL ON
<RIGCAT:FE FE 88 E0 26 00 01 01 FD>

DIGITAL OFF
<RIGCAT:FE FE 88 E0 26 00 01 00 FD>

I used these before the FLRIG was updated.

73 Dave WB2HVF

Re: previous page next page FLDIGI -> SCU-17 -> OSX [Setup Help] #arhab

Mark Dallner
 

More questions on the SCU-17...

I had this working just fine with High Sierra and my FT-817ND. Then the next week the local NBems net is happening and the USB Audio Codec is not working. Needed to reload my Mac and did so. Re-Read the directions and got both the codec and dual uart to show in About this Mac. Sound Control Panel is not showing the codec as an alternative sound device. Restarted and still no joy. 

For some reason, I am suspecting a conflict with VMWare Fusion. Next step is to take a mac mini and reload everything fresh just for FLDigi and start there to see what happens.

Any further suggestions?

Mark 

KD9EEE


Re: previous page next page FLDIGI -> SCU-17 -> OSX [Setup Help] #arhab

Dave
 

Are you running fldigi / flrig as M$ exe's from within VMWare Fusion, or as native MacOS binaries?

73, David, W1HKJ

On 09/18/2018 01:30 PM, Mark Dallner wrote:

More questions on the SCU-17...

I had this working just fine with High Sierra and my FT-817ND. Then the next week the local NBems net is happening and the USB Audio Codec is not working. Needed to reload my Mac and did so. Re-Read the directions and got both the codec and dual uart to show in About this Mac. Sound Control Panel is not showing the codec as an alternative sound device. Restarted and still no joy.

For some reason, I am suspecting a conflict with VMWare Fusion. Next step is to take a mac mini and reload everything fresh just for FLDigi and start there to see what happens.

Any further suggestions?

Mark

KD9EEE

Re: previous page next page FLDIGI -> SCU-17 -> OSX [Setup Help] #arhab

Mark Dallner
 

Native MacOS Binaries

---


On 2018-09-18 13:37, Dave wrote:

Are you running fldigi / flrig as M$ exe's from within VMWare Fusion, or as native MacOS binaries?

73, David, W1HKJ

On 09/18/2018 01:30 PM, Mark Dallner wrote:

More questions on the SCU-17...

I had this working just fine with High Sierra and my FT-817ND. Then the next week the local NBems net is happening and the USB Audio Codec is not working. Needed to reload my Mac and did so. Re-Read the directions and got both the codec and dual uart to show in About this Mac. Sound Control Panel is not showing the codec as an alternative sound device. Restarted and still no joy.

For some reason, I am suspecting a conflict with VMWare Fusion. Next step is to take a mac mini and reload everything fresh just for FLDigi and start there to see what happens.

Any further suggestions?

Mark

KD9EEE





Re: previous page next page FLDIGI -> SCU-17 -> OSX [Setup Help] #arhab

Mark Dallner
 

I am in the process of reloading one of my Mac minis. i5 with 8 gigs of ram and 1tb of HD. Not connecting to my iCloud account. Just keeping it as basic as possible.

What mystified me is that one week the setup gets configured and works. Then a week passes and I launch my copy of the FLDigi suite that worked and now it does not. This particular time the Audio codec failed to load. Not a FLDigi issue as the OS did not see the Codec. The UART was showing in About this Mac.

I am going to configure one Mac just for FLDigi and see how that process goes. I have three minis so can play.

I like working with the Mac version of ham radio software along with being able to handle the same software in Windows environment. Just wish that WinLink express had a current Mac version. For another forum.

Later,

Mark 
KD9EEE

On Sep 18, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Mark Dallner <mark@...> wrote:

Native MacOS Binaries

---


On 2018-09-18 13:37, Dave wrote:

Are you running fldigi / flrig as M$ exe's from within VMWare Fusion, or as native MacOS binaries?

73, David, W1HKJ

On 09/18/2018 01:30 PM, Mark Dallner wrote:

More questions on the SCU-17...

I had this working just fine with High Sierra and my FT-817ND. Then the next week the local NBems net is happening and the USB Audio Codec is not working. Needed to reload my Mac and did so. Re-Read the directions and got both the codec and dual uart to show in About this Mac. Sound Control Panel is not showing the codec as an alternative sound device. Restarted and still no joy.

For some reason, I am suspecting a conflict with VMWare Fusion. Next step is to take a mac mini and reload everything fresh just for FLDigi and start there to see what happens.

Any further suggestions?

Mark

KD9EEE






Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

WA7SKG <wa7skg@...>
 

Nice to see all the folks using NBEMS, but all I see referenced is NBEMS and fldigi. Why does almost nobody specify which actual mode they are using? PSK31, MT63, Olivia, RTTY, and tons more are part of  the fldigi suite. The few nets I have run into so far have used MT63 and MFSK-32. Locally, we have found MT63 to be pretty good and use it on both HF and 2 meters. We use fldigi and flmsg, but have not used flamp. There are a lot of State people who are absolutely unwavering on WinLink and pressure to use only that format. The drawback we find is WinLink seems to be strictly point-to-point, where only the two stations involved can see the traffic. That does not allow other stations to copy and provide fills or relay if necessary.

So, is there any one mode that seems to stand out we should try to standardize on? For those who have previously commented that you are actively using NBEMS, would you mind sharing what modes you are actually using?

tnx es 73,
Michael WA7SKG

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Mark Dallner
 

The Milwaukee & Waukesha County ARES are mainly using MT63 2KL. We are experimenting with other modes to see what works well for us. So far, PSK1000R &8PSK500F. The testing was done by others in the group.

This was through the local ARES repeater on 2 meters

Mark
KD9EEE

On Sep 18, 2018, at 9:07 PM, WA7SKG via Groups.Io <wa7skg@...> wrote:

Nice to see all the folks using NBEMS, but all I see referenced is NBEMS and fldigi. Why does almost nobody specify which actual mode they are using? PSK31, MT63, Olivia, RTTY, and tons more are part of  the fldigi suite. The few nets I have run into so far have used MT63 and MFSK-32. Locally, we have found MT63 to be pretty good and use it on both HF and 2 meters. We use fldigi and flmsg, but have not used flamp. There are a lot of State people who are absolutely unwavering on WinLink and pressure to use only that format. The drawback we find is WinLink seems to be strictly point-to-point, where only the two stations involved can see the traffic. That does not allow other stations to copy and provide fills or relay if necessary.

So, is there any one mode that seems to stand out we should try to standardize on? For those who have previously commented that you are actively using NBEMS, would you mind sharing what modes you are actually using?

tnx es 73,
Michael WA7SKG

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Sarah
 

Hello Michael:

Simple answer first:  Although I can't speak for Los Angeles Co., CA as a whole the groups I work with use MT63-2000L.  There are regular nets out here on 2m and 220. 

WinLink:  The ARES organization in LA County is split up in to sections because the county is so large.  I understand one of the sections regularly alternates their weekly digital net between NBEMS and WinLink. I haven't work with WinLink but I take your point about station-to-station versus station-to-everyone in comparing WinLink to NBEMS.  There must be other people working WinLink in my county but I'm just not tuned into it. 

Standardization between digital modes:  That would be nice.  Sadly I don't even think LA County is "standardized" much less Southern Calif. or the entire state. But I'm a low on the totem pole and willing to be corrected. 

What we ought to be doing:  Based on discussions with my Elmer and others I think hams in LA County who have the interest and can obtain the equipment need to focus on building a Mesh Radio network.  It's great that folks know and use NBEMS and WinLink but my understanding is that Mesh Radio is really the future.  There are active Mesh Radio groups running in Ventura (the county west/northwest of LA) and Orange Counties (to the south/southwest).  It would just be a darn shame for LA County not to be connected to them. 

73, Sarah, N6OPE



On 9/18/2018 7:07 PM, WA7SKG via Groups.Io wrote:
Nice to see all the folks using NBEMS, but all I see referenced is NBEMS and fldigi. Why does almost nobody specify which actual mode they are using? PSK31, MT63, Olivia, RTTY, and tons more are part of  the fldigi suite. The few nets I have run into so far have used MT63 and MFSK-32. Locally, we have found MT63 to be pretty good and use it on both HF and 2 meters. We use fldigi and flmsg, but have not used flamp. There are a lot of State people who are absolutely unwavering on WinLink and pressure to use only that format. The drawback we find is WinLink seems to be strictly point-to-point, where only the two stations involved can see the traffic. That does not allow other stations to copy and provide fills or relay if necessary.

So, is there any one mode that seems to stand out we should try to standardize on? For those who have previously commented that you are actively using NBEMS, would you mind sharing what modes you are actually using?

tnx es 73,
Michael WA7SKG

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

WA7SKG <wa7skg@...>
 

Sarah,
Thanks for your comments. My concern with mesh networks is the heavy reliance on infrastructure. As I understand mesh networks, you have a bunch of tiny cells making a network. Without those cells, you have no coverage. The beauty of ham radio is generally its lack of infrastructure. Generic radios talking to generic radios. Sure, there are repeaters on VHF/UHF, but emergency systems cannot totally rely on them. And, they can easily be replaced with basic radios. Mesh networks take a lot of specialized equipment and still only cover a relatively small area per radio. In a major disaster environment, you have to be able to make up networks with "Run What You Brung" equipment. Lose a repeater and you can cobble one together with a couple mobile radios and some junk box parts to get back on the air with county wide coverage. How many mesh nodes does it take to give county wide coverage and how many hams would be able to use it?

Don't get me wrong, I love playing with mesh stuff, although I haven't had much opportunities in my rural area. I encourage everyone to play in whatever aspect of ham radio they enjoy. But don't look at exotic systems like mesh networks to be viable in SHTF situations.

With NBEMS systems, one can take pretty much any generic ham radio and laptop computer and communicate over a wide area to pass traffic, files, and images. I just saw it tonight on the ORCA network. Great fun with basic equipment.

Good luck with your mesh network. In a highly populated area like L.A. with thousands of people per square mile, it might have moderate success for day-to-day operations. In areas like mine with dozens of square miles per ham, not so much.

73,
Michael WA7SKG


Sarah wrote on 09/18/2018 07:39 PM:

Hello Michael:
Simple answer first: Although I can't speak for Los Angeles Co., CA as a whole the groups I work with use MT63-2000L.  There are regular nets out here on 2m and 220.
WinLink:  The ARES organization in LA County is split up in to sections because the county is so large.  I understand one of the sections regularly alternates their weekly digital net between NBEMS and WinLink. I haven't work with WinLink but I take your point about station-to-station versus station-to-everyone in comparing WinLink to NBEMS.  There must be other people working WinLink in my county but I'm just not tuned into it.
Standardization between digital modes:  That would be nice.  Sadly I don't even think LA County is "standardized" much less Southern Calif. or the entire state. But I'm a low on the totem pole and willing to be corrected.
What we ought to be doing:  Based on discussions with my Elmer and others I think hams in LA County who have the interest and can obtain the equipment need to focus on building a Mesh Radio network.  It's great that folks know and use NBEMS and WinLink but my understanding is that Mesh Radio is really the future.  There are active Mesh Radio groups running in Ventura (the county west/northwest of LA) and Orange Counties (to the south/southwest).  It would just be a darn shame for LA County _not_ to be connected to them.
73, Sarah, N6OPE

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Steve Bellner
 

Here in Toledo Ohio we are using MT63 2000L for repeater and simplex use (Short distance communication). Participants are encouraged to use audio coupling if they do not have an interface.

For HF we use Olivia 8/500 or Olivia 32/1000 depending on band conditions on 40/80 meters or MFSK64 and MT63 1000L also depending on band conditions.

We have also found that a great use for Slow Scan TV is for damage assessment or as we all say "a picture is worth a thousand words" I encourage you to try SSTV if you have not done so. It can run at the same time FLdigi does so it is always at the ready. You can download it at this web page: http://hamsoft.ca/pages/mmsstv.php

It also works well on HF.

Winlink is also a tool we try to employ as using hf to send out e-mail to awaiting servers outside of our "disaster zone" who THEN put it reliably and accurately onto the internet to be sent to anyplace in the world... even relayed to a more distant HF station.

 We have been participating in what we call "Winlink Wednesday" where as we send a Winlink e-mail to one person who reply's to our return receipt. We simply send in the message CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY, STATE, MODE i.e. (TELNET or HF, or VHF) If you like, send a winlink e-mail to K8EAF@...  In the e-mail simply state CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY, STATE, MODE

It is good to versed in as many modes a you can. We do not have a MESH network here in the flat part of Ohio however we are being prodded to look at setting mesh networks up around hospitals. If communications are that bad... Likely the internet will be down too so it will all have to go HF to get out of the "Disaster Zone" anyway.

Remember, when there is a disaster you may have to adapt and overcome.... sometimes you need a 16 ounce hammer and sometimes you need a pick ax.

73,

Steve, W8TER

On 9/19/2018 12:16 AM, WA7SKG via Groups.Io wrote:
Sarah,
Thanks for your comments. My concern with mesh networks is the heavy reliance on infrastructure. As  I understand mesh networks, you have a bunch of tiny cells making a network. Without those cells, you have no coverage. The beauty of ham radio is generally its lack of infrastructure. Generic radios talking to generic radios. Sure, there are repeaters on VHF/UHF, but emergency systems cannot totally rely on them. And, they can easily be replaced with basic radios. Mesh networks take a lot of specialized equipment and still only cover a relatively small area per radio. In a major disaster environment, you have to be able to make up networks with "Run What You Brung" equipment. Lose a repeater and you can cobble one together with a couple mobile radios and some junk box parts to get back on the air with county wide coverage. How many mesh nodes does it take to give county wide coverage and how many hams would be able to use it?

Don't get me wrong, I love playing with mesh stuff, although I haven't had much opportunities in my rural area. I encourage everyone to play in whatever aspect of ham radio they enjoy. But don't look at exotic systems like mesh networks to be viable in SHTF situations.

With NBEMS systems, one can take pretty much any generic ham radio and laptop computer and communicate over a wide area to pass traffic, files, and images. I just saw it tonight on the ORCA network. Great fun with basic equipment.

Good luck with your mesh network. In a highly populated area like L.A. with thousands of people per square mile, it might have moderate success for day-to-day operations. In areas like mine with dozens of square miles per ham, not so much.

73,
Michael WA7SKG


Sarah wrote on 09/18/2018 07:39 PM:
Hello Michael:

Simple answer first: Although I can't speak for Los Angeles Co., CA as a whole the groups I work with use MT63-2000L.  There are regular nets out here on 2m and 220.

WinLink:  The ARES organization in LA County is split up in to sections because the county is so large.  I understand one of the sections regularly alternates their weekly digital net between NBEMS and WinLink. I haven't work with WinLink but I take your point about station-to-station versus station-to-everyone in comparing WinLink to NBEMS.  There must be other people working WinLink in my county but I'm just not tuned into it.

Standardization between digital modes:  That would be nice. Sadly I don't even think LA County is "standardized" much less Southern Calif. or the entire state. But I'm a low on the totem pole and willing to be corrected.

What we ought to be doing:  Based on discussions with my Elmer and others I think hams in LA County who have the interest and can obtain the equipment need to focus on building a Mesh Radio network.  It's great that folks know and use NBEMS and WinLink but my understanding is that Mesh Radio is really the future. There are active Mesh Radio groups running in Ventura (the county west/northwest of LA) and Orange Counties (to the south/southwest).  It would just be a darn shame for LA County _not_ to be connected to them.

73, Sarah, N6OPE

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Ryan Tourge, N2YQT
 

Good question and I guess it's something we take for granted. Usually at least net control is running TXID so the software picks up what mode provided you have RXID enabled.


On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 6:42 AM Steve Bellner <stevebellner@...> wrote:
Here in Toledo Ohio we are using MT63 2000L for repeater and simplex use
(Short distance communication). Participants are encouraged to use audio
coupling if they do not have an interface.

For HF we use Olivia 8/500 or Olivia 32/1000 depending on band
conditions on 40/80 meters or MFSK64 and MT63 1000L also depending on
band conditions.

We have also found that a great use for Slow Scan TV is for damage
assessment or as we all say "a picture is worth a thousand words" I
encourage you to try SSTV if you have not done so. It can run at the
same time FLdigi does so it is always at the ready. You can download it
at this web page: http://hamsoft.ca/pages/mmsstv.php

It also works well on HF.

Winlink is also a tool we try to employ as using hf to send out e-mail
to awaiting servers outside of our "disaster zone" who THEN put it
reliably and accurately onto the internet to be sent to anyplace in the
world... even relayed to a more distant HF station.

  We have been participating in what we call "Winlink Wednesday" where
as we send a Winlink e-mail to one person who reply's to our return
receipt. We simply send in the message CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY, STATE,
MODE i.e. (TELNET or HF, or VHF) If you like, send a winlink e-mail to
K8EAF@...  In the e-mail simply state CALL, NAME, CITY, COUNTY,
STATE, MODE

It is good to versed in as many modes a you can. We do not have a MESH
network here in the flat part of Ohio however we are being prodded to
look at setting mesh networks up around hospitals. If communications are
that bad... Likely the internet will be down too so it will all have to
go HF to get out of the "Disaster Zone" anyway.

Remember, when there is a disaster you may have to adapt and
overcome.... sometimes you need a 16 ounce hammer and sometimes you need
a pick ax.

73,

Steve, W8TER


On 9/19/2018 12:16 AM, WA7SKG via Groups.Io wrote:
> Sarah,
> Thanks for your comments. My concern with mesh networks is the heavy
> reliance on infrastructure. As  I understand mesh networks, you have a
> bunch of tiny cells making a network. Without those cells, you have no
> coverage. The beauty of ham radio is generally its lack of
> infrastructure. Generic radios talking to generic radios. Sure, there
> are repeaters on VHF/UHF, but emergency systems cannot totally rely on
> them. And, they can easily be replaced with basic radios. Mesh
> networks take a lot of specialized equipment and still only cover a
> relatively small area per radio. In a major disaster environment, you
> have to be able to make up networks with "Run What You Brung"
> equipment. Lose a repeater and you can cobble one together with a
> couple mobile radios and some junk box parts to get back on the air
> with county wide coverage. How many mesh nodes does it take to give
> county wide coverage and how many hams would be able to use it?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love playing with mesh stuff, although I haven't
> had much opportunities in my rural area. I encourage everyone to play
> in whatever aspect of ham radio they enjoy. But don't look at exotic
> systems like mesh networks to be viable in SHTF situations.
>
> With NBEMS systems, one can take pretty much any generic ham radio and
> laptop computer and communicate over a wide area to pass traffic,
> files, and images. I just saw it tonight on the ORCA network. Great
> fun with basic equipment.
>
> Good luck with your mesh network. In a highly populated area like L.A.
> with thousands of people per square mile, it might have moderate
> success for day-to-day operations. In areas like mine with dozens of
> square miles per ham, not so much.
>
> 73,
> Michael WA7SKG
>
>
> Sarah wrote on 09/18/2018 07:39 PM:
>> Hello Michael:
>>
>> Simple answer first: Although I can't speak for Los Angeles Co., CA
>> as a whole the groups I work with use MT63-2000L.  There are regular
>> nets out here on 2m and 220.
>>
>> WinLink:  The ARES organization in LA County is split up in to
>> sections because the county is so large.  I understand one of the
>> sections regularly alternates their weekly digital net between NBEMS
>> and WinLink. I haven't work with WinLink but I take your point about
>> station-to-station versus station-to-everyone in comparing WinLink to
>> NBEMS.  There must be other people working WinLink in my county but
>> I'm just not tuned into it.
>>
>> Standardization between digital modes:  That would be nice. Sadly I
>> don't even think LA County is "standardized" much less Southern
>> Calif. or the entire state. But I'm a low on the totem pole and
>> willing to be corrected.
>>
>> What we ought to be doing:  Based on discussions with my Elmer and
>> others I think hams in LA County who have the interest and can obtain
>> the equipment need to focus on building a Mesh Radio network.  It's
>> great that folks know and use NBEMS and WinLink but my understanding
>> is that Mesh Radio is really the future. There are active Mesh Radio
>> groups running in Ventura (the county west/northwest of LA) and
>> Orange Counties (to the south/southwest).  It would just be a darn
>> shame for LA County _not_ to be connected to them.
>>
>> 73, Sarah, N6OPE
>>
>
>
>




Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Steve Hansen
 

We don't have a high density of digital operators in Maine but our
primary digital comms are with NBEMS and Winlink.

My county, and a couple of neighboring counties, primarily use NBEMS
with VHF (repeater or simplex) and the primary mode is PSK250RC5. This
also works quite well with the statewide linked repeater system which
tends to be a bit noisy at times. When we do use HF, it's Olivia 8/500
for net ops with THOR 50x1 for files. 

With regard to the county I'm in (Knox), we have the EOC plus several
fixed town stations and our hospital that are all equipped with Kenwood
D710s. The computers have NBEMS and Winlink Express. For in-county comms
we use voice and NBEMS if there are operators at both ends or we need
one to many. Winlink Express supports the local packet network as well
as connections to the two Winlink gateways that we have. This provides a
lot of flexibility.

As an example, a portable station might send a flmsg file to a town
station with NBEMS. The town station can attach the flmsg file to a
Winlink Express message and then send it to the county EOC by packet or
to anywhere else via Winlink.

We did an exercise in the spring simulating a tanker-cruise ship
collision. This had a variety of USCG and private fishing vessels
bringing survivors ashore to 5 different harbors. Depending upon
condition, each survivor had to be moved to one of 4 locations (2
hospitals, one resort and a high school). Each harbor station got a list
of survivors (lists varied in quality) and they prepared spreadsheets
that were then sent by fldigi/flmsg. Each of the receiving locations had
to prepare spreadsheets based on what they were supposed to get and the
EOC station consolidated everything and compared the received data with
the ship's manifest. All comms, including inter-county, was simplex VHF.
Finally, the summary spreadsheet was sent to another station by Winlink.
Somehow we managed to account for all 161 passengers in an exercise that
lasted just over an hour.

With regard to mesh networking, we have mesh telephony devices (the
Village Telco MESH Potatoes). These are basically a router with an
analog telephone adapter with mesh firmware. Several counties have these
and we use them where there are base camps. It's Part 15 and everyone
knows how to use a telephone so anyone can use them and the learning
curve is zero. There is a fixed  pair of these for comms between a
warming shelter and a town EOC. 

73, Steve KB1TCE

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Oliver K6OLI
 

ARES LAX Northeast district uses NBEMS and Winlink quite extensively. We have written couple of Quick Setup Guides and we provide regular workshops as well as a weekly NBEMS/Winlink net on VHF. Our NBEMS/Winlink nets are all simplex because our basic assumption no infrastructure survives in a disaster and any that does is a bonus we are happy to employ. Simplex nets also have the advantage that they train operators to relay smartly, identify and address any station issues quickly and they are a lot of fun! 
Other groups like LACDCS practice NBEMS on repeaters so there is a variety of approaches for operators to choose from and practice with.

Our NBEMS net usually has an experimental portion, where operators can try whatever is on their mind, and an exercise portion, where we send mission specific traffic. We usually operate MT63-2KL on 2m FM and at times on 2m SSB for the practice nets.    

With respect to forms we use two approaches: for ICS forms we use the excellent built-in forms in Flmsg. For the forms required by L.A. County, i.e. Hospital Status Assessments, Resource Requests and Mass Casualty Incident Polls, we use CSV files. We did experiment with HTML forms for the latter but it turned out that CSV are easier to use, fill out and adapt when needed.

It is all part of our concept of Operational Flexibility where the operator deployed at a hospital makes the decision what the most efficient way of transmitting traffic is. We focus on bandwidth, so we would expect operators to choose AREDN MESH first, then VHF/UHF and then HF, if amateur radio is the only option.



73,
Oliver K6OLI


Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

Oliver K6OLI
 

Hi Sarah,

Actually, things have changed dramatically in the last few months with respect to AREDN MESH accessibility in Los Angeles County.  There are now nodes covering most of the county south of the San Gabriel Mountains. Moreover, we are connected to the Orange County MESH (and have been for a while) and Ventura has been connected to Los Angeles lately, too.  The gap in the SoCal Backbone was in the Pasadena area and that has been closed.

Michael's concerns about infrastructure are well taken, however, I think we need to make a distinction here. Just like with VHF/UHF repeaters, it is nice to have infrastructure to get people talking, interested and practicing.  But we do not rely on infrastructure to make MESH work, quite the opposite. The true power of amateur radio is the ability to create ad hoc networks in a disaster and we can do that on HF, VHF/UHF and with MESH, all on simplex. Quite a few of our nodes easily cover 40+ miles in spite of drawing only 200mA and deliver speeds of 30Mbps. A whole network of them placed on rooftops can leverage and sustain amateur radio traffic for quite a long time. We practice ad hoc field deployment now regularly at races and events.

We amateur radio enthusiasts offer our served agencies a cross-platform, multimode approach that can run independently of infrastructure at a moment's notice. Moreover, we are already a distributed neural network that can adjust to pretty much any situation. MESH simply extends our already impressive capabilities in VHF/UHF and HF. 

As Training Coordinator of the ARES LAX Northeast District I am occasionally asked whether hams should learn NBEMS or Winlink and I always tell people "yes".  Our task is to get the message through and we will employ whichever tool works. 
NBEMS: great for broadcasting, distributing forms, coordinating across multiple platforms (Windows, Linux, MacOS, Android), very transparent, BUT not MESH compatible
Winlink: great for P2P connections, excellent for distribution when gateways are available, MESH compatible and very easy for agency staff to understand and use ("email"), BUT more challenging to use and train people in.

MESH is great and great fun, but it is not the end-all be-all of amateur radio. If it works and is available, it should be the operator's go-to choice, if not then the choice is VHF/UHF NBEMS or Winlink, and then HF NBEMS of Winlink, whatever the situation dictates. If there is no line-of-sight then VHF/UHF and HF (NVIS) might be the better choice.
But MESH is now a core part of our deployment concept. You will find that our operators' go-kits usually consist of a VHF/UHF (+HF, if licensed) mobile rig, a Signalink, one or two MESH nodes, batteries and chargers and a portable computer.  At our recent NBEMS/Packet Winlink workshop you saw operators had set up their go kits and were exchanging messages on VHF as well as on MESH, it has simply become second nature to operate across bands and modes in our group.

MESH is also a great way of getting younger people involved in the hobby who naturally understand wireless networking.  From there they learn about Winlink and then NBEMS and then upgrade to do digital on HF.  At the South Pasadena Open House on Saturday we got a more questions about our MESH gear than about any other gear we exhibited. 

At the heart of it all is the training. Without learning, training regularly and providing feedback which goes back into the training, EMCOMM is just well-meaning intention, but not actionable skills. Our workshops cover the learning part and our nets and deployment exercises cover the training part.  We talk about challenges and exchange ideas for improvements and that goes back into our workshops. 
There is no perfect in EMCOMM, just works and doesn't work. So we encourage our operators to try, experiment and explore. Break it, learn from it, fix it, try to break it again.
It is also important to encourage people to ask questions, no matter how simple they may seem.  We are a learning organization and we want everyone to feel comfortable asking and commenting. Chances are if you have a question other people in the room have the same question.

I enjoy NBEMS, we use it and train with it regularly because it is reliable, flexible and easy to use. At the Statewide Medical Health Exercise last year one of our operators took his Android phone with AndFlmsg and a Baofeng UV5R handheld, went to an upper floor of the hospital he was assigned to and sent us an ICS-213 simplex. The point was to prove that we could do it if that were all we had and it worked. 

David W1HKJ has created an incredibly powerful tool for EMCOMM with NBEMS and we are forever in his debt.

73,
Oliver K6OLI

Re: Narrow Band Emergency Messages

WA7SKG <wa7skg@...>
 

I am excited to see this comment about AndFlmsg. This is the first I have heard of it. There is a readily available cable intended for APRS to connect the Baofeng to a Smartphone via the TRRS jack on the phone. It works great for SSTV also and should work with AndFlmsg.

My Galaxy Smartphone has an adapter from the Mini-USB to a USB-A connector allowing you to hook up to USB devices like printers, scanners, etc. Does anyone know if there is an app that will allow you to use this to connect to a soundcard equipped radio like the IC-7300 or IC-7100? This would be huge for emergency situations.

tnx es 73,
Michael WA7SKG


Oliver K6OLI wrote on 09/20/2018 04:12 PM:



I enjoy NBEMS, we use it and train with it regularly because it is reliable, flexible and easy to use. At the Statewide Medical Health Exercise last year one of our operators took his Android phone with AndFlmsg and a Baofeng UV5R handheld, went to an upper floor of the hospital he was assigned to and sent us an ICS-213 simplex. The point was to prove that we could do it if that were all we had and it worked.
David W1HKJ has created an incredibly powerful tool for EMCOMM with NBEMS and we are forever in his debt.
73,
Oliver K6OLI