Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"
-
Upload
joseph-ames -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
75 -
download
0
Transcript of Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"
![Page 1: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
12/15/2014 1
E P A S E T 2 0 1 4
● ● ● ● ● ● ●
The American Radio Relay League, Inc, Eastern Pennsylvania Section, Post Office Box 9, Media, Pennsylvania 19063, www.epa-arrl.org Robert B Famiglio K3RF, Section Manager ●Robert Wiseman WB3W, Section Emergency Coordinator R Scott Walker N3SW, Section Traffic Manager ● Joseph A Ames W3JY, EPASET Manager PUBLICATION DATE: December 17, 2014
![Page 2: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
12/15/2014 2
![Page 3: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
12/15/2014 3
ARRL EPA SECTION
OFFICIAL BULLETIN
QST QST QST
15 DEC 2 01 4
The ARRL Simulated Emergency Test is a nationwide exercise in emergency communications,
administered by ARRL Emergency Coordinators and Net Managers. Both ARES and the National
Traffic System (NTS) are involved. The SET weekend gives communicators the oppor tunity to focus
on the emergency communications capability within their community while interacting with NTS
nets.
The ARRL has three general purposes in sponsor ing SET,
To find out the strengths and weaknesses of ARES and NTS, the Radio Amateur Civil
Emergency Service (RACES) and other groups in providing emergency communications.
To provide a public demonstration -- to served agencies such as Red Cross, Emergency
Management and through the news media -- of the value to the public that Amateur Radio
provides, par ticular ly in t ime of need.
To help radio amateurs gain exper ience in communications using standard procedures and
a var iety of modes under simulated- emergency conditions.
An impor tant post-SET activity is a cr it ique session to discuss the test results. All ARES (and
RACES) members should be invited to review good points and weaknesses apparent in the dr ill.
This repor t is the summary of all cr it iques, observations and recommendations collected from
the EPA Section’s 201 4 SET, which we call “EPASET”. Contr ibutors include Section leaders from
ARES, NTS and the Section M anager ’s office, as well as individual operators.
Much effor t was expended to tabulate and analyze the basic statistics and try to understand
what it all means. W e hope you will find this final repor t useful to your own emergency
communications preparat ions and we cer tainly hope it will form the basis of successful, future
SETs and encourage dissemination of this repor t, its observations, and recommendations, to all
Amateurs with an interest in emergency communications.
This Final Repor t is author ized for general distr ibution.
Robert Wiseman Scott Walker Robert B Famiglio Rober t W iseman W B3 W R Scott W alker N3 SW Rober t B. Famiglio K3RF
Section Emergency Coordinator Section Traffic Manager EPA Section M anager
NNNN / EX
![Page 4: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
12/15/2014 4
![Page 5: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
12/15/2014 5
Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
II. Lessons Learned.................................................................................................................................................................... 10 III. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 IV. Planning and Promotion ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Plan Development ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Publicity Campaign .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Assessment and Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 13
V. C3I Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Command .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Control ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Communication ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Interoperability .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
VI. SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Strengths.................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Weaknesses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Threats ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Summary of SWOT Observations ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Strengths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Weaknesses .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Opportunities........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Threats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
APPENDIX 1: Statistics ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX 2: Bucks County ARES Report ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Activation Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Summary of Local Communications Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 21 Highlights of Success .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Suggestions for Improvement ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Action Points .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Net reports ................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
APPENDIX 3: Luzerne County ARES Report ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Strengths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Weaknesses .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Opportunities........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Threats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
APPENDIX 4: Pike County ARES/RACES Report ............................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX 5: Communications Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 29 APPENDIX 6: EPA Emergency Coordinators .................................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX 8: Participation .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 APPENDIX 9: Coverage Map............................................................................................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX 10: Promotional Material .............................................................................................................................................. 32
![Page 6: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
12/15/2014 6
Table of Figures Table 1: Revision History ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Manpower and Equipment Deployed ............................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3: Net Control Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Traffic Count (QSP) ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 5: Counties and ARES units represented ............................................................................................................................... 15 Table 6: Section Net (EPAEPTN) ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 7: BCARES SET Announcement .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 8: Summary of ARES Net ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 9: Summary of Data Sent ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 10: EPA Emergency Coordinators (2014) .............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 11: EPA District Emergency Coordinators ............................................................................................................................. 31
![Page 7: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
12/15/2014 7
Table 1: Revision History
Revision Editor Date Status
1 .0 J. Ames 11 / 08 / 2014 Init ial Draft
2 .0 J. Ames 11 / 12 / 2014 Draft
3 .0 J. Ames 11 / 16 / 2014 Draft
4 .0 J. Ames 11 / 30 / 2014 Draft
5 .0 J. Ames 12 / 01 / 2014 Draft
6 .0 J. Ames 12 / 06 / 2014 Draft
7 .0 J. Ames 12 / 09 / 2014 Draft
8 .0 J. Ames 12 / 11 / 2014 Draft
9 .0 J. Ames 12 / 11 / 2014 Draft
10 .0 J. Ames 12 / 15 / 2014 FINAL DRAFT
FINAL R. W iseman 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved
FINAL S. W alker 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved
FINAL R. Famiglio 12 / 16 / 2014 Approved
FINAL R. Famiglio 12 / 17 / 2014 Released
“Final Report of EPASET 2014” is published by the Eastern Pennsylvania Sect ion (“EPA”) of the Amer ican Radio Relay
League, Inc. Edited by J. Ames W 3JY, Assistant Sect ion Manager . Permission to copy or quote will be granted on wr itten
request and must be credited to “EPA Sect ion of the ARRL” or to individual contr ibutors as attr ibuted.
ARRL Eastern Pennsylvania Sect ion
Post Office Box 9
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
http:/ / www.epa-ar r l.org
© 2014 all r ights reserved.
![Page 8: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
12/15/2014 8
![Page 9: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
12/15/2014 9
Foreword This is the final report on the EPA Section’s 2014 SET effort, known as EPASET. Sponsored by the
EPA Emergency Phone and Traffic Net, its goal was fairly simple: prove that ARES and NTS could
work together using our venerable Section net as the communications medium. And did we! ARES
operators in their dozens joined the net and stepped up as liaisons, relay stations, and even
alternate net control stations, directing some seventy QNI and forty-one QSP over three net
sessions. It was very gratifying – and very challenging. We thought a half dozen operators would
show up and, just days earlier, dramatically scaled back our effort to avoid the disappointment of a
“no show” SET.
As recently as the 1990s, ARES and NTS operators, and quite a few ordinary hams, used the
EPAEPTN as our unofficial “official watering hole”. Of course, we had a lot more person-to-person
Radiogram traffic back then. The almost perfect cross membership allowed ARES FM nets to serve
as local delivery nets for NTS, building camaraderie and a sense of belonging to a larger
organization. The Section Communications Manager and other Section appointees were common
fixtures on the net. There was a closer relationship between ARRL members and the League;
everyone knew everyone. It was small town America holding its town meeting on 3917.
We hope EPASET will be the first step towards renewing those familiar relationships. Certainly the
quantitative results prove the viability of wide-area HF comms just as the demonstrated enthusiasm
proves it fills a genuine human need. Emergency communications is sine qua non for Amateur
Radio and, as EPASET 2014 made clear, there is an important role to be played by organized HF nets
even in the age of the Internet.
VY 73 DE
Joe Ames W3JY
EPASET Manager / EPAEPTN Net Manager
15 December 2014
Malvern, Pennsylvania USA FN20fa
![Page 10: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
12/15/2014 10
I. Executive Summary
Background Sponsored by the EPA Emergency Phone and Traffic Net (EPAEPTN), an abbreviated, four-hour EPA
Section SET was held on Saturday, October 4, 2014. As it had been a number of years since the last
section-wide SET, expectations were modest and an aggressive publicity campaign was launched.
The SET’s strategic objectives were to
Reintroduce the idea of a Section-wide SET using HF to coordinate operations;
Introduce ARES operators to their colleagues of the NTS;
Measure Section leadership’s practical ability to marshal amateur radio resources on
short notice;
Gauge the section’s enthusiasm for a more ambitious SET in 2015.
As such, operations and communications plans were devised to emphasize administrative traffic to
and from county and section officials. Our focus was on bread-and-butter information including
available manpower, actual mustered manpower, reaction times, and generally the ability to
manage the information reporting functions crucial to an actual deployment. The plans were
explicitly administrative with little reference or dependence on a specific scenario or technological
solution, except to require “RF Only” communications during the SET itself. (See, “EPASET2014 –
Operations Plan FINAL”.)
Results By these criteria, EPASET 2014 was an unqualified success. Participation was enthusiastic, nearly
overwhelming HF operations. By the end of on-air activity, forty-five unique stations participated;
two HF nets and an NTSD packet node counted seventy QNI; sixty-seven formal radiograms were
QSP; nineteen Pennsylvania counties were represented; and six ARES units participated formally.
Overall, operations were a credit to the amateur service. Stations performed well under
challenging propagation conditions and were agile and responsive to the commands of net control.
Operators previously unknown to NTS volunteered as watch and relay stations performing
admirably. Several ARES units took the opportunity to integrate their existing SET plans to the
EPASET, their after-action reports included as appendices.
II. Lessons Learned 1. EPASET PLANNING: Splitting the Section net into two separate sessions (resource and
traffic) on different bands allowed operations to continue with good order and should be
considered for all emergency plans. However, despite the overload, several very qualified
NTS operators were not employed effectively. EPASET planning envisioned bidirectional
cyclical traffic flow between Section and Counties, which did not happen, depriving local
![Page 11: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
12/15/2014 11
operators of the experience. Separate liaison roles for incoming and outbound traffic were
needed.
2. MANPOWER: There is considerable interest in cooperative, Section-wide communication
and we had more operators than existing structures could use effectively. EPA has available
some very high quality HF operators and their stations, many of which were previously
unknown to NTS. These operators were enthusiastic and responded well to NCS commands.
EPASET participation suggests many potential leadership recruits from across Eastern
Pennsylvania. These are motivated and capable hams and would be formidable if organized
at the section level.
3. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION: There was no District-level ARES participation, although in
fairness this was expected due to the short lead time and stretched manpower available. It
did highlight the need for such nets as vital to managing high volumes of traffic, much of
which would be inappropriate for the Section level net.
4. DIGITAL MODES: Digital modes were grossly underutilized. Although the NTSD 3RN MBO
was made available, ARES operators did not use it. Whether this resulted from operator
preference, training and equipment deficiencies, or simply the abandonment of Packet in
favor of soundcard modes was not researched. We know many ARES units maintain a
robust Winlink2000 capability even as NBEMS is increasingly popular, although incompatible
with NTSD circuits.
5. FIELD ORGANIZATION TRAINING: It was apparent that ARES and NTS training regimes are
diverging from each other, although operators were quick learners of HF traffic handling
skills, e.g., VOX operations, standard ITU phonetics, and the more rapid “tempo” of
seasoned brass pounders. We noted how quickly these techniques were learned following
the example of the NTS cadre.
III. Recommendations I. EPASET PLANNING: Continue with an EPASET in 2015, building on this year’s
accomplishments. An EPASET planning committee should be formed that addresses the
District level liaison situation and encourages more ARES units to be involved. Devise and
run smaller scale integration exercises, each building in complexity to prepare for the full
SET.
II. MANPOWER: This year’s participants should be recognized for contributing to the public
service mission of the ARRL and encouraged to affiliate with NTS and ARES. The several “A1
Operators” should be approached for leadership roles.
III. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION: District ARES organization must be developed and incorporated
into the Section Emergency Plan. This must include formal linkages to NTS infrastructure.
District level net capability must be established and communicated even if only “on paper”.
IV. DIGITAL MODES: Use of digital modes is a substantial portion of the EPA Communication
Plan and a separate EPA Digital Communications Plan describes the recommended
technology and technique. Winlink 2000 is recommended as the interface to existing NTSD
![Page 12: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12/15/2014 12
operations and the Section should encourage the maintenance of the Winlink infrastructure
and the re-establishment of the larger Packet network. Finally, a functional but “plug and
play” interface between NTSD and NBEMS should be devised.
V. TRAINING: Cross-train ARES personnel with established NTS procedures and the benefit of
the formal Radiogram for messages facing multimodal interoperability requirements. NTS
Methods, Practices and Guidelines should be applicable.
IV. Planning and Promotion
Plan Development The early consideration of EPASET took place in 2013 with general discussions aimed at
reintegrating ARES and NTS organizations. Traditionally, the SET served this purpose but EPA had
not sponsored one in several years. It was judged that the time was ripe to try again. Detailed
planning began in earnest last summer when the Section Manager, Section Traffic Manager, and
Section Emergency Coordinator agreed the EPAEPTN should sponsor the SET. By August, rough
drafts were created for the operations plan after a review of plans from neighboring sections. The
plan came together in September as the scope narrowed to a proof of concept exercise,
demonstrating our Section’s ability to muster operators and handle administrative traffic in a “unity
of command” environment with standard procedures. It was decided as a matter of practical
scope, we would focus on building awareness in preparation for an all-out effort in 2015.
In the end, a comprehensive plan was delivered. It included a “Grid Down/RF-Only”
communications scenario, EPASET objectives, performance criteria, a detailed comms plan,
recommended message format, specific reporting requirements with suggested timeline, and a
suite of minute-by-minute “participant scripts” with actions and deliverables clearly specified, in
sequence, to guide participants through the SET.
The plan made no attempt to direct local ARES units and was concerned only with interoperability
and administration.
Publicity Campaign A formal publicity campaign was kicked off on September 11, 2014 following several weeks of
informal discussions and preparatory conversations.
On-air bulletins were read on consecutive sessions of the EPAEPTN and the weekly Pennsylvania
Eastern Area RACES Net. A bulk mailing of 3x5” postcards was made to all current EPA Field
Organization appointees, followed up by email versions sent at regular intervals. The official ARRL
EPA email distribution list was used to make a general announcement to some 3,000 League
![Page 13: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12/15/2014 13
members. The epa-arrl.org website blog was used to post updates and distribute current copies of
the plan as it became available.1 Two cross-referenced announcements were made on the Atlantic
Division Forums with links back to the EPA section website. Finally, printed color flyers were
distributed to participants of PEMA’s ACS conference at the Seven Springs Mountain Resort in
Somerset, Pennsylvania.
Assessment and Analysis Methodology C3I Interpretation is an executive interpretation of our performance and was expected for use by
all After Action Reports, to analyze and summarize Section performance quantitatively and
qualitatively in each dimension. Our goal was to think of EPA Section as an integrated system, to be
judged by overall performance in terms of inputs, outputs, constraints and our ability to manage
them to meet our communications and information objectives. Bear in mind this SET was an
introduction to the C3I concept and our primary interest was to establish a baseline for measuring
improvement over the coming years.
Command: Was mustering effective and efficient? Was the chain of command clear and
effective? Were leadership or personality problems encountered? How did they respond to
changed circumstances?
Control: Did your team stay on task and accomplish its mission? Did it demonstrate agility
and flexibility when given new instructions?
Communications: Did your team understand its job and duties? Did it ask appropriate
questions if not? Were requests received and fulfilled in a timely manner? Were you
informed of your team’s status at all times?
Interoperability: Were you teams able to work together effectively? Did they understand
each other’s language and operating style? Did confusion or cooperation result? Did you
note improvements over the course of the SET?
Unfortunately, we were not able to collect enough raw data this year to answer most questions
adequately. We did gain insight, reflected in the observations and recommendations that follow.
The SWOT Model is a handy method of assessing complex systems using salient impressions
filtered through the lens of experience: professional judgment is the thing.
Strengths: which skills and capabilities stand out as well done and reliably so?
Examples: technical savvy, esprit du corps, agile thinking, favorable reputation with served
agencies, or anything the team does especially well.
Weaknesses: which skills and capabilities stand out as defective or unreliable?
Examples: inflexibility, morale problems, training deficiency, equipment maintenance
1 At its peak, the EPASET pages enjoyed several hundred unique visitors each.
![Page 14: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
12/15/2014 14
Opportunities: based on demonstrated performance, what new jobs or tasks could be
undertaken in a future deployment?
Examples: leadership candidates, favorable impressions, advanced training
Threats: based on demonstrated performance, what risks do you see in the near-term
future?
Examples: served agency confidence, ineffective station quality, threats to core mission
V. C3I Assessment
Command The Section net logged forty-five QNS (unique stations participating), representing nineteen
Pennsylvania counties and six ARES units over a four-hour on-air SET timeframe.
While we collected some data regarding the estimated market value of the equipment deployed,
we received only a negligible response. Even so, an estimate of forty-five HF stations worth $1,500
each means the EPA Section fielded $67,500 worth of equipment to the Section net alone. No
doubt the actual per-station asset value is higher than estimated and this figure does not include
VHF/UHF equipment used in County operations.
Table 2: Manpower and Equipment Deployed
Deployed Resources Duration Manpower (QNG) Manhours (est) Equipment value (est)
~4 ½ hrs 45 180 $ 67,500
Control EPASET QNI was a very respectable seventy over two HF nets with NCS, relay/liaison and watch
functions performed according to NTS standards. Net discipline was maintained and traffic flowed.
There was also a Packet network available and partially used and Section officials established a 2m
simplex net as a coordinating mechanism.
Table 3: Net Control Resources
Sessions (QND)
Resource Traffic Admin Packet
3917kHz 7225kHz 145.520MHz 145.010MHz
Participation (QNS)
Resource Traffic both nets single net only Packet QNI TOTAL QNI* Unique QNS
27 41 24 44 2 70 45
Operational Participation
NTS Ops Mustered (QNI) NCS Ops (QNG) Relief Ops
6 3 3
![Page 15: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
12/15/2014 15
Watch Stations ARES (QSX) Liaison Stations ARES (QNB) TOTAL OPS
2 4 12
* Total does not equal Unique due to Resource net QSY and repeated QNI.
Communication Sixty-seven Radiogram messages were relayed during EPASET and sixty-seven messages were
delivered to the appropriate role-players. It is important to specify most messages would not
qualify as delivered according to standard NTS protocols. However, all messages were accepted for
delivery on behalf of participating SET representatives, so from the point-of-view of EPASET, this
counts a success. Traditional packet radio stands out as the go-to choice for heavy volumes of
traffic. Although only two stations were fully compliant with RF-only digital paths, a remarkable
27% of traffic was carried via Packet.
Even so, the popular image of a ham and a code key (or hand mic) is persistent for good reason: of
the approximately fifty non-NTS stations participating, all were able to join the net, receive and
implement orders, and quite a few were successful in transmitting and receiving written message
traffic accurately and with acceptable speed.
Table 4: Traffic Count (QSP)
Traffic by Net (QSP)
Packet Resource Traffic TOTAL
18 31 18 67
Statistics Transmission rate Fone Digital
17 / hour 73% 27%
Interoperability Nineteen Pennsylvania counties were represented including six formal ARES units. Additionally a
station from Maryland checked in as did a mobile station from VE3-land. As noticed in our analysis
of Communication, all counties and ARES units were able to join the net and operate according to
standard protocol. Stations were agile when asked to QSY and volunteers emerged when the call
went out for additional liaison and watch stations. Although divergent, current ARES practices
remain sufficiently aligned with NTS practices to interoperate without serious difficulty. Where
training diverged, it was noted that ARES operators were quick to adapt.
Table 5: Counties and ARES units represented
Counties Represented (QNW)
Pennsylvania Maryland Canada
19 1 1 (mobile)
ARES Participation Units Represented Units Reporting
6 6
![Page 16: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
12/15/2014 16
VI. SWOT Analysis
Strengths Our Section’s willingness to participate and its high level of HF proficiency stand out as the two
greatest strengths of EPASET 2014. Several operators displayed A1 Operator skills and all were able
to transfer ARES repeater skills to HF with a pleasantly short learning curve. The NTS cadre set the
example for net members to follow.
OBSERVATION 1: Significant HF participation with many high quality operators
With seventy total check-ins, forty-five unique operators, twenty counties, six ARES/RACES units
and even a Canadian mobile station participating in three nets, two on HF and a third on 2m packet,
EPASET 2014 exceeded all expectations by an order of magnitude.
We were pleased by the high quality of participating HF stations. Because the turn-out vastly
exceeded expectations, the net itself was in danger of overload. Without exceptions, EPASET
participants were agile operators, adapting themselves to changing conditions with only the
simplest of instructions.
Assessment: The publicity campaign was a success and tapped existing demand for an
organized Section effort. Several stations stood out as natural leaders that could be very
helpful to ongoing ARES/NTS integration efforts.
OBSERVATION 2: Section personnel were self-organized and net discipline was quickly achieved
Part of the operating savvy displayed was the ability of participants to self-organize into a
disciplined net. Several participants volunteered for relay and watch duty, shuttling between nets,
coordinating traffic flow and relaying messages. When the net moved from 80m to 40m, we lost
only a few stations and those due to antenna limitations. 80m continued to operate in a watch
mode but was quickly exploited as an all-purpose QSY for traffic off the main net frequency.
Assessment: Many high quality operators need only be asked to participate. This reserve is
the very talent pool envisioned by the FCC preamble to the Amateur Radio service.
OBSERVATION 3: New operators jumped in without hesitation
Even relatively inexperienced HF operators, whose net experience is mainly repeater-based, quickly
adapted the net’s rhythms. Several stations passed their first Radiogram traffic and their skill levels
observably increased during the test.
Assessment: As above, many operators are waiting only to be invited to contribute. They
bring talent and enthusiasm that would be put to good use in an organized effort.
![Page 17: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
12/15/2014 17
Weaknesses Three major weaknesses were evident: the lack of functioning District nets and the failure to use
Packet in a meaningful way, which combined caused an overload of the HF net. The addition of a
40m net helped compensate but this is a likely scenario and should be mitigated through planning.
OBSERVATION 4: Overwhelmed by HF turnout – need more structure and supervision
Despite very talented NTS operators, we were unable to scale net operations to handle all the
check-ins. While we did split operations into, effectively Resource and Traffic nets, NTS resources
were clearly underutilized and a third HF net could have been established.
Assessment: this is a planning matter that must consider an Administrative net to be fully
staffed and managed, as well as the Resource and Traffic nets.
OBSERVATION 5: Cyclical admin traffic was irregular and not managed
EPASET principals took on operational roles that interfered with their intended EPASET roles,
depriving ARES members of valuable practice with incoming traffic “from higher echelon”. This was
a break-down of the cyclical structure as planned and diminished the information flow.
Assessment: NTS management must anticipate overwhelming interest during an event.
There are existing NTS methods, practices and guidelines for efficiently managing
spontaneous volunteers and all NCS operators should know and practice them regularly.
OBSERVATION 6: No District level ARES participation
There are no established District ARES nets at the present time while most of the HF participation
could well have been diverted there with superior results.
Assessment: District nets are essential and would have off-loaded most of the Section net
traffic and greatly aided the processing of volunteers and metropolitan-area operations.
OBSERVATION 7: Packet node grossly underutilized
Many individual operators maintain packet capability, especially via Winlink2000 and Airmail, but
there are few effective nodes to link the Section.
The W3JY/NTSD 3RN MBO at Chester County was operative during the SET but only one station, a
Pennsylvania Navy MARS leader, took advantage of Packet which performed flawlessly.
It is noted that several stations were eager to use the FLDIGI/NBEMS software recently favored by
ARES units. Unfortunately, FLDIGI is not interoperable with NTSD or Winlink2000 infrastructure as
it was developed as a standalone solution. We hope the various development teams can integrate
these capabilities in the future.
![Page 18: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
12/15/2014 18
Assessment: EPA Section should encourage packet operations, especially by Winlink
operators already familiar with the technology required. Also, a functional “plug and play”
NBEMS interface to NTSD should be encouraged for development.
OBSERVATION 8: Insufficient liaison stations at all levels
Liaison stations at all levels were lacking.
Assessment: More ORS must be recruited and deployed according to predetermined Section
Emergency Communications planning.
Opportunities OBSERVATION 9: Participation Enthusiasm
Many HF ops participated that were previously unknown to NTS. Operators were enthusiastic and
appreciated the whole Section drill opportunity
Assessment: Participation greatly exceeded our expectations, despite short-notice and a
fairly hefty time requirement on a pleasant fall day. This indicates a large, underserved
need for Section emcomm initiative.
OBSERVATION 10: Leadership recruitment
Several ARES units tell us they want to participate next year in a more formal, integrated way
Assessment: These operators would be natural members of a steering committee or focus-
group to guide and plan future Section emergency planning.
OBSERVATION 11: District nets were keenly missed
District nets would off-load much of the spectrum and management burden from HF and allow it to
function in its intended role when activated for ARES duty. The absence of working Distract ARES
nets was keenly felt.
Assessment: District ARES nets were keenly missed and seem an easy but valuable goal for
the immediate future. Many ARES units have experimented with 10m and 6m SSB nets
while others have deployed NVIS techniques for local-area 160/80/40m communication. It
seems obvious that these efforts could be used in SET planning.
Threats OBSERVATION 12: Dissimilar ARES protocols, even between ARES units, hinder interoperability
ARES and NTS procedures have diverged since the end of the ARPSC in the 1980s. This has created
interoperation difficulty in standard operating protocols and procedures such as QNI techniques,
Message format (i.e., the false “Radiogram vs ICS-213” debate) and traffic relay skills (e.g., SSB
break-in, HF “ears”, prowords, phonetics)
![Page 19: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
12/15/2014 19
Assessment: NTS and ARES training is very similar but diverging without high-level
guidance. Many new hams are not trained in HF ops and not all repeater techniques are
effective on HF.
OBSERVATION 13: Dissimilar ARES technologies hinder NTS interoperability
VHF/UHF and HF operations require separate skill sets and equipment. In the digital realm, NBEMS
is not interoperable with NTSD or Winlink 2000, both of which depend on packet radio technology
especially the SCS Pactor mode for HF BBS and radio-email transport.
Assessment: Many ARES operators wanted to use the NBEMS as popularized by Dave Kleber
KB3FXI. NBEMS is not compatible with NTSD infrastructure which is packet-based using
Pactor. There is also an under appreciation of the Radiogram for low-bandwidth voice and
HF data networks that must interoperate over several potential modes. Winlink 2000 was
little used despite its RF-Only capability.
Summary of SWOT Observations
Strengths
1. Significant HF participation with many high quality operators
2. Section personnel were self-organized and net discipline was quickly achieved
3. New operators jumped in without hesitation
Weaknesses
4. Overwhelmed by HF turnout – need more structure and supervision
5. Cyclical admin traffic was irregular and not managed
6. No District level ARES participation
7. Packet node grossly underutilized
8. Insufficient liaison stations at all levels
Opportunities
9. Participation Enthusiasm
10. Leadership recruitment
11. District nets were keenly missed
Threats
12. Dissimilar ARES protocols, even between ARES units, hinder interoperability
13. Dissimilar ARES technologies hinder NTS interoperability
![Page 20: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
12/15/2014 20
APPENDIX 1: Statistics Table 6: Section Net (EPAEPTN)
Deployed Resources Duration Manpower (QNG) Manhours (est) Equipment value (est)
~4 ½ hrs 45 180 $ 67,500
Sessions (QND)
Resource Traffic Admin Packet
3917kHz 7225kHz 145.520MHz 145.010MHz
Participation (QNS)
Resource Traffic both nets single net only Packet QNI TOTAL QNI Unique QNS*
27 41 24 44 2 70 45
Operational Participation * ARES personnel
NTS Ops Mustered (QNI) NCS Ops (QNG) Relief Ops Watch Stations* (QSX) Liaison Stations* (QNB) TOTAL OPS
6 3 3 2 4 12
Traffic by Net (QSP)
Packet Resource Traffic TOTAL
18 31 18 67
Statistics Transmission rate Fone Digital
17 / hour 73% 27%
Counties Represented (QNW) Pennsylvania Maryland Canada
19 1 1 (mobile)
ARES Participation Units Represented Units Reporting
6 6
AAR Bucks Co ARES Luzerne Co ARES Lycoming Co ACS Pike County ARES (no HF participation)
Appx. 2 Appx. 3 -- Appx. 4
* Total does not equal Unique due to Resource net QSY and repeated QNI.
![Page 21: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
12/15/2014 21
APPENDIX 2: Bucks County ARES Report Submitted by Michael Sabal KB3GJT Bucks County EC
EPA Simulated Emergency Test Saturday, 4 October 2014
Preliminary After Action Report
Activation Summary It has been more than a decade since the East PA section conducted a full SET. Joe Ames, W3JY,
organized a scenario which would have all counties within the EPA section coordinate within the
ARRL Field Organization at the appropriate hierarchical level. The exercise was preplanned to begin
at 1pm EDT. Activation was done via scheduled on-air net frequencies (3917kc, 7227kc regionally,
and 147.09MHz locally).
Summary of Local Communications Objectives
Collect hourly rollcalls.
Transmit rollcall reports to the district net, or to the section net if no district net is available.
Submit all on-air reports via NTS Radiogram format.
Use relay stations to pass radiograms from local net to section emergency coordinator.
Evaluate use of portable field-deployed repeaters.
Evaluate communications reliability from known shelter sites.
Highlights of Success
On short notice, over a holiday weekend, 19 members committed to participating in this exercise.
Approximately 30% of our members demonstrated HF capability into the section net.
Several members were willing to act as relay stations with no prior warning.
Site tests were generally successful, especially in upper Bucks.
We had one checkin from Mercer county, NJ.
Suggestions for Improvement
Too many Bucks County stations were checking into the section net directly. For this exercise, it didn't present an issue; but in a real emergency, this would cause unnecessary congestion.
Bucks County ARES needs more practice with the NTS radiogram format over voice modes.
There was no DEC representation for this exercise. There were no county to county communications that I could tell within District 1.
Too many of our stations checked in, but were not reachable even a few moments later. This is also a regular gripe on our weekly nets.
![Page 22: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
12/15/2014 22
EC home station (KB3GJT) needs improvements: 80m can transmit, but could not receive the section net, 40m received well, but could not transmit.
The RF Hill ARC which handles NTS traffic for Bucks County was a no show for this exercise.
Too much emphasis is placed on established infrastructure for handling digital traffic. NTS Radiogram reports can be transmitted cleanly over NBEMS on an ad-hoc basis. Setting up an NBEMS station is very simple with just audio coupling. I recommend the section net include an NTS station capable of operating in this mode. As a side note, fldigi does not currently support PACTOR or packet modes.
Action Points
Practice transmitting radiogram messages over voice nets.
Establish a bi-weekly or monthly district net to improve district 1 coordination.
Net reports
Rollcall net 1pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS. o 15 stations checking in, 2 checked in and out, 13 available for deployment.
o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via W3GAD.
Rollcall net 2pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS o 15 stations checking in including 4 new stations, 13 stations deployed, 4 stations from
1pm net did not return for the 2pm net.
o NY3J reports successful test of repeater down scenario at W3SK/R, including digital
traffic passed.
o WA3QVU reported a minor incident with a local police officer at the W3SK/R site which
was quickly resolved.
o NX3S reported successful tests of communications from 2 upper Bucks shelter sites.
o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via KE3LA.
Rollcall net 3pm 147.09 K3DN/R KB3GJT as NCS o 11 stations checked in. Several stations not reporting back had advised net control prior
to leaving.
o Bucks County closed SET operations at 1515 EDT.
o WE3L reported his second check-in was using a Radio-Tone cross band repeater
controller - Wouxun HT in home at 223Mhz to Wouxun HT in vehicle to Radio-Tone to
Yaesu FT 1900 to net.
o Operational summary: 19 stations, 45 hours total.
o 1 message passed to section net from KB3GJT via K3KH
![Page 23: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
12/15/2014 23
Table 7: BCARES SET Announcement
GENERAL MESSAGE
(ICS-213)
TO: Local Bucks Co Hams POSITION: Amateur Radio
FROM: Ron NY3J POSITION: NCS
SUBJ: 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency TEST DATE: 2014-10-04 TIME: 1400L
MESSAGE:
THIS IS A TEST.....THIS IS ONLY A TEST
This is NY3J net control station for the 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency Test
for the Eastern Pennsylvania Section and is simulated exercise designed
to test Amateur Radio communications. This is a drill. This is a drill.
This is a drill.
Hirricane Mogana has caused flooding conditions in Philadelphia and the
surrounding area. Major roads and side roads in the Lower Bucks area has
been washed out. Power is out in the Lower Southampton area including the
site where the Penn Wireless repeater is located. Because of the power
outage and backup power failure the repeater is down. Amateurs with mobile
radio setup are operating at the repeater site with mobile radios connected
to the 2 meter antenna at the site and are able to relay emergency communications
from surrounding area.
Utility companies have declared a catastrophe and are calling in crews
from as far away as Idaho and Arizona but they are four days distant. Commercial
radio towers are mostly damaged or even collapsed. A handful of local AM
stations remain on the air with hurricane resistant sterba curtains and
a few kilowatts, running on emergency power.
Philadelphia’s broadcast communication nexus in Roxborough is gone, reduced
to debris damming the Schuylkill River at Manayunk, flooding the Schuylkill
Expressway and nearby railroads including SEPTA and Amtrak.
Local fire and ambulance companies reverted to VHF-low equipment. Police
remain on Open Sky using the handful of surviving repeaters, as well as
towers in Lancaster County with fringe coverage. 911 centers are operational
but coverage is spotty and intermittent, communities with “Text to 911”
are the only ones with good access. First responders are often enough victims
and manpower is limited.
Weather conditions here in Lower Southampton is now scattered rain showers
with temperatures around 32 degrees.
Amateur radio operators are requested to listen to this frequency for more
information and to relay any emergency traffic they may have.
This is NY3J net control station for the 2014 ARRL Simulated Emergency Test
for the Eastern Pennsylvania Section and is simulated exercise designed
to test Amateur Radio communications. This is a drill. This is a drill.
This is a drill.
SIGNATURE: Ron NY3J POSITION: NCS
REPLY:
DATE: TIME: SIGNATURE/POSITION:
/
![Page 24: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
12/15/2014 24
APPENDIX 3: Luzerne County ARES Report Submitted by W.T. Jones WN3LIF, Luzerne County EC
Summary At 1230 WN3LIF, Luzerne County ARES Emergency Coordinator (EC), and KC3DBG reported to the
Luzerne County Emergency Operations Center under the guidelines to “self activate” if there was no
District Emergency Coordinator. The EC briefed KC3DBG on his role as the County VHF Net Control.
(Note: KC3DBG is a relatively new licensee and was eager to do something useful for the SET.) A
script was prepared and assignments based on the EPASET scenario for District 3 were listed. These
assignments had been prepared before the start of the SET.
At 1300 KC3DBG opened the ARES County Net on 146.61 and announced the purpose of the
simulated activation along with the scenario. After cautioning all to use the phrase “This is a drill”
the net was opened to check-ins. The requested check-in data was availability and equipment
status. This was repeated several times.
The first check-in was K3ZK who is a visually impaired Amateur Radio Operator. At the direction of
the EC, KC3DBG assigned K3ZK as the county “resource collector.” K3ZK was detailed to visit all
other county repeaters to announce the ARES activation and request that operators report to the
ARES County Frequency to check-in with the NCS.
As the County Net was developing the EC checked in to the EPA HF nets. The 80 meter net was
usable but the 40 meter net provided better reliability for passing traffic. The initial muster message
was sent at 1315 for relay to the Section Emergency Coordinator.
The “status” messages were sent throughout the SET. The “status” messages were formatted in the
same order as the information listed on page 21 of the EPASET guidelines. This was done for brevity
and to reduce air time. There were 3 of these messages sent.
After the Initial Status Message was sent the Luzerne County EMA Coordinator was contacted and
notified of the activation and based on prior arrangement he read a message to the EC for
broadcast to the Luzerne County ARES group thanking them for their efforts. Following that
notification the EC then notified the Lehman Township Police Chief who simulated being the county
police liaison. Following that message radio contact was made with a representative of the Luzerne
County Back Mountain EMA who was simulating the shelter coordination.
(Note: The Lehman Township Police Chief is an Amateur Radio Operator, WA3YZD, and the Back
Mountain EMA Representative is also an Amateur Radio Operator, W3COM. Both played their roles
as the agency representatives and not as Luzerne County ARES members.)
![Page 25: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
12/15/2014 25
The County Net continued to take check-ins during the entire duration of the SET. Those stations
that listed themselves as being available were given simulated assignments which included:
2 Shelter Communications
EOC Staff augmentation
National Guard HQ Communications
Pennsylvania State Police Communications
These were all simulated and the operators took the assignments, generated 1 message back to the
EOC, and either closed at the end of the assignment or listed themselves as available for another
assignment. The operator who was listed as the National Guard HQ communications actually moved
his mobile HF/VHF station to the parking lot of the National Guard Armory and sent his message
from that location.
During the SET contact was established to Schuylkill County's ARES group (N3RZI) on VHF.
The Luzerne County ARES Net was closed at 1530 hours as the expectations of the EPASET goals
were met or exceeded as far as Luzerne County was concerned.
Table 8: Summary of ARES Net
QNN W3LUZ
QND/QNF 1303 / 1530
QNI 25
QTC (Tactical not included here) 6
QSP 1 Table 9: Summary of Data Sent
Total Manpower Available 25
Manpower Deployed 14
Assets Deployed 14 VHF/UHF 5 HF mobile
Assets Value ~ $5500
ARES Net Traffic 32 (VHF) 3 (HF)
Analysis
Strengths
The overall results were favorable. The major outcome of the SET was the discovery of resources
within the County that literally “came out of the woodwork” during the drill. For example, two
relatively quiet members checked into the net and listed their capabilities which included contacts
with Air Force MARS and a complete satellite ground station that could be deployed for amateur
radio usage.
![Page 26: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
12/15/2014 26
One of the best points was the use of “new” operators in positions of leadership such as net
control. This was a good time to let the new operators have a go and see how they performed
under simulated stress. Stress inoculation is a prime training tool in any position that requires the
person to remain calm, think quickly, and retain control. This drill used 2 new operators in those
positions so that their performance could be judged while still having trained and seasoned
operators standing by to help if needed. The EC is very proud to report that help wasn't needed
other than some minor coaching at the beginning. The new operators followed the examples set by
the regular NCS station on the Luzerne County ARES Net and rose to the occasion. The only “crutch”
was a scripted net preamble and requirements list. The new NCS stations assigned operators to
duties as they checked in and kept track of them through the net.
The other point was proving to a visually impaired operator that he was in fact a valuable asset to
Luzerne County ARES. It is necessary to be inclusive of operators with physical impairments and use
them in positions where the impairments do not prevent them from performing a service.
The EPASET was well publicized previous to the actual date. This lead to what the EC considers a
larger than normal turnout. There would have been more QNIs listed but many of them were from
counties other than Luzerne. The EC instructed the net controls to thank them for the check-in but
do not list them for our reports.
Net Discipline was excellent on the VHF net. All stations followed protocols and listed their status
and availability in a manner that was typical of a good operator. (EC Note: where are all these
people during our training nets?) The stations assigned to a task reacted in a simulated manner,
were creative in their response, and provided input the SET that was not expected. For example, a
station assigned to a shelter reported that the shelter manager was affected by the storm and Red
Cross needed to get a replacement for him quickly. The response was simulated that a shelter
manager was on the way.
Contact with the served agencies was minimal but the Luzerne County EMA Director was extremely
supportive of the EPASET effort. Mr. Steve Bekanich has been a great supporter of Amateur Radio
and his allowing the use of the County EOC for the EPASET is just a small example of his support.
All the radio equipment used at Luzerne County was county owned. The Amateur Radio Staff just
had to turn it on and go.
Weaknesses
The EPASET was well publicized but if there was an actual emergency there is a concern that
activation of the ARES assets might be a problem. This has been an ongoing issue for many years
even before the current EC took the position. The EPASET scenario dictated that telephone
coverage had diminished to unusable which is a real possibility. The current county approved
method of alerting is the Alert PA system but that relies on Internet availability. This is a weakness
![Page 27: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
12/15/2014 27
in the ARES organization. A discussion with the ARES staff will be held and suggestions for
something that is reliable taken.
There is a lack of trained HF message handlers in our ARES organization. This is a universal problem
but it was very apparent at the County EOC where the EC had to send the traffic on the HF nets.
There is currently a cadre of digital operators in the county that could handle traffic digitally but
there is no real outlet for digital traffic. The digital outlets listed in the EPASET guide are essentially
useless for Luzerne County. The EC highly recommends that an HF digital net on the order of the
Western PA model be considered. If there is such a net it isn't well publicized.
The original EPASET scenario would have exhausted the Luzerne County ARES resources in short
order. It is necessary for Luzerne County ARES to augment its human resources and arrange for
mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties. That will be rather hard to accomplish since
Luzerne County seemed to be the only District 3 county participating.
Opportunities
There are numerous opportunities for Assistant ECs in Luzerne County. The problem is to define
exactly what they should be doing. At the current time the only Assistant EC will be departing for his
winter home in Florida. There is a definite need for recruiting here.
Improvement in traffic handling and training. All the stations who sent messages were highly
complimentary regarding the voice message training of the Luzerne County ARES net. This needs to
be expanded and enticements for completing the training needs to be considered.
Transportation needs of some of the operators was an inhibiting factor. Operators were willing but
not able to truly say they were available because of a lack of transportation. This needs to be
reviewed and a plan worked out on how to best use these operators. In the event of an activation
involving EMA that would be handled through the County Transportation System but for ARES it is a
weakness. At best count there were 5 operators who were willing but lacked transportation.
While a “Ham in a Day” session is not something that the EC entertains as being a good idea there is
sufficient need to begin building a cadre of ARES operators by developing new Hams. This will be
considered after the first of the year.
Threats
No actual threats to our ARES operation is identifiable. The support of Luzerne County EMA is very
strong. The interface with area Police Departments is good and growing. It would be a good idea to
begin to cultivate contacts with the local Red Cross chapter but the current resource level prevents
that at this time.
![Page 28: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
12/15/2014 28
APPENDIX 4: Pike County ARES/RACES Report Submitted by Herb Wreden N2EPA, President PARG
The PikeAresRaces Group (PARG, Matamoras) went along timewise with the SET which Eastern Pa. scheduled;
there were events in New Jersey, and principally for PARG, contact on VHF, and HF radio was made with the
Sussex County Amateur Radio Club, at the Sussex County EOC.
While PARG was able to easily talk to Orange County, New York operators, we did not achieve contact on HF
radio, because of New York State SET activities….This circumstance would not occur in an emergency situation,
as we and they, elsewhere, would use various radio modes such as digital, to achieve contact.
PARG operated three (3) stations, one in the Matamoras EOC, our back-up communications facility. This was
done because of the official activity at the Pike County EOC, rte 739, where we otherwise would have
operated from. We also operated from the Matamoras FD radio room, and a location just outside the FD so as
to test a hasty antenna set-up using the structures metal roof…HF radio worked very well from there (contact
with New Hampshire).
PARG deems the activity today as successful, and a great learning opportunity. .it is felt that our immediate
need is repetitions of this type of event. We have the Sussex County Amateur Radio Club to work with, and a
group forming to support the EOC in Wayne County. We also have plans to provide Pike county- wide radio
coverage, with the possibilities of extension to more EOC’s in New Jersey and one in Wayne County, for which
some equipment will be needed…more on this subject separately. All plans for radio contacts were achieved,
with the exception of HF radio contact with Orange County, New York, as mentioned. We will repeat the
exercise as a special PARG test, and will accomplish mobile (car or truck) contacts on VHF, UHF, and HF, and
our VHF net control will be very tight.
We had three operators working with us from their home locations, as we would in a no-deployment
situation, and they as well as our Pike County EC took notes as the event unfolded with the other three
stations…we decided to simply attach their notes to this cover summary.. it may explain better the PARG’s
participation which gave us five operating stations in the county, and one in New Jersey..all participants could
deploy, if needed for a 24 hour period, at least. Any questions or comments will be answered quickly through
the EC, Mr. Jim Seeber, and/or Mr. Tom Olver.
![Page 29: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
12/15/2014 29
APPENDIX 5: Communications Plan FORM EPA-205
Incident Name Date/Time Prepared Operational Period
EPASET2014 14-Sep-14 4-Oct-14 to 5-Oct-14
Designator Name Function Assignment Freq MHz (Center/Dial)
Mode Remarks
Alfa HF Command Traffic
Daytime 3.917 LSB EPA interoperability channel
Bravo HF Alt Command Traffic Daytime Alt 7.227 LSB Alternate channel
Charlie Digital Traffic Relay 24 hrs 3591.9 / 3590.4 3593.9 / 3592.4 7100.4 / 7098.9 7102.4 / 7100.9 10140.9 / 10139.4 10142.9 / 10141.4 14097.9 / 14096.4 14112.4 / 14110.9
PACTOR 1,2,3 NTSD 3RN MBO W3JY
Compatible with:
Airmail
Outpost PMM
FLDIGI packet mode
Paclink
RMS (contact Sysop)
Delta Packet Traffic Relay 24 hrs 145.010 1200b packet NTSD 3RN MBO W3JY
Compatible with:
Airmail
Outpost PMM
FLDIGI packet mode
Paclink
Echo “2-7-0” Dist 1 tactical 24hrs 147.270+ 77.0 FM N3KZ interoperability channel
Foxtrot TBD Dist 2 tactical
Golf TBD Dist 3 tactical
Hotel TBD Dist 4 tactical
India TBD Dist 5 tactical
Prepared by Signature Date Prepared
J. Ames Sept 29 2014
Approved by Signature Date Approved
B. Famiglio Oct 3 2014
![Page 30: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
12/15/2014 30
APPENDIX 6: EPA Emergency Coordinators Table 10: EPA Emergency Coordinators (2014)
County CD Code
ARES District
Emergency Coordinator Call Sign Email Telephone
Adams 01 5 Donald Schmitt K3DCS [email protected] 717-334-3265
Berks 06 2 Don Boulanger WA1ELA [email protected] 610-670-5709 610-655-7011
Bradford 08 4
Bucks 09 1 Michael Sabal KB3GJT [email protected] 215-259-2000 267-992-3685
Carbon 13 2 Brian Eckert W3SG [email protected] 610-554-4727 610-377-2624
Chester 15 1 Joseph Vilardo K3JV [email protected] 610-304-4376 610-429-1297
Columbia 19 4 Randall Kishbaugh N3JPV [email protected] 570-759-2306 570-441-1896
Cumberland 21 5 James Musselman K3KS [email protected] 717-795-0832 717-919-4214
Dauphin 22 5 Marty Gutekunst KB3BAA [email protected] 717-652-3702
Delaware 23 1 Robert Wilson W3BIG [email protected] 610-586-7860
Juniata 34 5 Thomas Miller KB3CVO [email protected] 717-514-7638 717-789-4090
Lackawana 35 3 --
Lancaster 36 5 Ronald Small WB2OOB [email protected] 717-481-8589
Lebanon 38 5 Bill Daub W3BFD [email protected] 717-821-0560
Lehigh 39 2 Jeffery Kelly N3MFT [email protected] 610-841-8350 610-972-1043
Luzerne 40 3 Walter T. Jones WN3LIF [email protected] 570-561-5500
Lycoming 41 4 Robert Brown KB3IPZ [email protected] 570-772-9036
Monroe 45 2 Jerry Truax N3SEI [email protected] 570-688-8877 570-620-9080
Montgomery 46 1 Charles Pisttilli N3FKR [email protected] 215-572-5330 215-872-1019
Montour 47 4 John Mc Cann W3GY [email protected] 717-275-0577
Northampton 48 2 Alfred Wiemann W3CE [email protected] 610-262-6977
Northumberland 49 4 Tim Galvin K3TEG [email protected] 570-495-0982
Perry 50 5 Thomas Miller KB3CVO [email protected] 717-514-7638 717-789-4090
Philadelphia 51 1 Roger Jordan W4RFJ [email protected] 610-532-7895
Pike 52 3 James Seeber KW3U [email protected] 973-827-5900 973-796-4374
Schuylkill 54 2 Robert McClintock N3RZI [email protected] 570-449-0565 570-449-0565
Snyder 55 4 Roger Dietz N3CVQ [email protected] 570-473-8352 570-539-0074
Sullivan 57 4 --
Susquehanna 58 3 --
Tioga 59 4 Michael Wilson NM3O [email protected] 717-724-5178 570-439-3192
Union 60 4 George Foust N3RFS [email protected] 570-966-4054 570-768-6531
Wayne 64 3 Edward Mattice WS3I [email protected] 570-352-5394
Wyoming 66 3 Nicholas Shyshuk N3GTH [email protected] 570-945-3893
York 67 5 Sandy Goodman N3ECF [email protected] 717-697-2353 717-576-8763
![Page 31: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
12/15/2014 31
Table 11: EPA District Emergency Coordinators ARES District District Emergency Coordinator Call Sign Email Telephone
1 Richard Stewart K3ITH [email protected] 610-666-0674
Roger Jordan, Ass’t DEC W4RFJ [email protected] 610-532-7895
2 Bob Wiseman, Acting DEC WB3W [email protected] 610-799-4957
3
4 Andrew Shecktor N3OMA [email protected] 570-752-2434
Travis Best, Ass’t DEC W3TMB [email protected] 570-398-1165
5 Daniel Sullivan KO1D [email protected] 717-440-0641
Phil Theis, Ass’t DEC K3TUF [email protected] 717-721-6262
APPENDIX 8: Participation ARRL EPA Section would like to thank the following participating Amateurs for their dedication to
public service communication through ARES and the NTS:
AF4NC K3BHX K3BVQ K3ITH K3KH K3MD K3RF K3TEG K3WJL KB3AC KB3BAA KB3LR KB3YQM KB3YRC KC3BLF
KC8HFH KD3OA KE3LA KJ3P KK3F KS3Z KW3U N3AS N3HBT N3JOW N3JPV N3OGD N3RAY N3RZI N3XGT
NC3U NT3Y NX3L VE3HOH/W3 W3DI W3GAD W3IWJ W3JY W3TAC W3TWV W4RFJ WA3JZN WA3LWR WN3LIF
![Page 32: Final Report of the EPA Simulated Emergency Test "EPASET 2014"](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030207/58ac437c1a28ab99028b4ef1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
12/15/2014 32
APPENDIX 9: Coverage Map
APPENDIX 10: Promotional Material