GAARES-P2P NET SET #2 16-NOV-2024 DETAILED SUMMARY

GAARES-P2P NET SET #2 16-NOV-2024 DETAILED SUMMARY

The Quick Summary report was published after SET#2 on 16-NOV.  As promised, here is a DETAILED SUMMARY of the event from the perspective of the Net Control Stations involved.  Planning for the second SET included analyses of SET#1 in order to determine areas we could improve and make the operation more efficient.  In discussion with Kory- W4RZ and Murdock- W4JNR, who conducted SET#1, we refined some procedures for this event. 

• The number of Winlink Template forms was reduced for taskings and the Winlink Check-Out form was not used.  The time to transmit many of these forms is excessive and not conducive to a short, 2 hour event.
• We moved all check-ins to 80m unless participants did not have 80m capability or were located in areas where 80m was not working.
• We assigned a few specific stations to report their tasking results on 80m to reduce congestion on 40m
• Finally, we required check-outs on 80m unless a station did not have that capability, again to reduce congestion on 40m that came with tasking reports.
• The checkout procedure was changed in hopes of streamlining the process.  As you all know, this new procedure failed to work out and was the weakest area of the SET.  See below for more details. 

CHECK-IN: 

• 30 stations participate (NOT including the two NCS Operators for a total of 32)
• 8 stations were new to the Net.  This was outstanding. 
• 24 correct check-in messages were received of the 30 who participated. 
• 11 stations checked in on 40m.  This was permissible for those who did not have 80m capability.  This was more than we expected and some may have done so due to the congestion on 80m.     

TASKING:

• 29 stations were assigned a task.  One station did not get tasked.   
• For stations on 80m, 18 were tasked.  Most of them received the tasking immediately upon check-in. 
• For stations checking in on 40m, Kory assigned each of them after check-in.
• There were 22 different task messages prepared ahead of time for use during the event, some  complex, some simple.

TASKING RESULTS:

• All 29 tasked stations completed their tasking and reported back for a 100% response.
• One tasking involved using FM repeaters to solicit a new, non-participating station to check-in.  A good attempt was made and the task was completed, although no station could be found.
• Six taskings required the use of template forms and the rest were short message to hold down the length of the transmissions. 
• One task involved relaying of a message via P2P direct to Lee Stone – KT4LS , on 40m.  Successful.
• One task involved relaying a P2P message via RMS to the GAARES-NET.  That message asked their NCS today, Bill – K9HRO, to send confirmation via P2P back to GAARES-P2P. This task was also successful.
• Another task involved relaying a message to the SSB Net.  Unfortunately, this task was inadvertently not assigned to anyone.  Next time!

RELEASE AND CHECK-OUT:

• Only 17 of the 30 stations sent actual check-out messages and many were not formatted correctly
• Only 16 stations were released by NCS
• The other 13 disappeared.  Several times, NCS were unable to reach stations who had not checked out
• The release / checkout process published in the instructions did not work well because both NCSs were too loaded with other messages to be able to coordinate with each other on the process.  This resulted in stations unable to check out on 80m, not knowing if they were yet released.   A new, cleaner check-out process must be developed because check-out is a crucial component of Emcomm.  

SUMMARY OF MESSAGES:

• Messaging took place to and from NCS for participants and the ops tempo was very high at both NCS locations.  Both frequencies were extremely busy for most of the two hours.  Both NCS operators stayed on the air an extra hour, waiting for final messaging and check-outs. 
• 80m –  45 incoming,  44 outgoing messages, total – 89
• 40m –  52 incoming,  38 outgoing messages, total – 90
• Total incoming:  97
• Total outgoing:  82
• Total messages passed P2P:  179, a remarkable number considering the short duration of the SET.
• This averaged one message being sent or received about every 2.2 minutes.

THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY OF THE P2P SET:

Overall, the P2P operations during the SET went well, with great tasking results.  We realize that participants are all volunteers, some who may perform Emcomm operations (simulated or real) rarely.  Not everyone is going to see the pre-event instructions and read/follow them.  People did their best and we hope everyone enjoyed the experience.  The overall results speak for themselves- an incredible amount of traffic was passed in a very short time via P2P with no internet involved.  That said, it’s important to analyze problem areas for everyone to think about after the event so we can all learn from the experience.  This is critical in our effort to improve the capability of Peer-to-Peer for Emcomm in GA ARES.  We are not pointing fingers at any operators, just trying to provide a realistic overall evaluation of the problems we all encountered. Here are the identified areas:

• Participation was very good.  Having many more stations involved for a short, two-hour event would be difficult with only two NCSs / two frequencies.
• Some operators caused serious frequency congestion.  Instructions and training documents published over the past 6 months have detailed common errors and how to deal with them.  Some either did not utilize those documents or perhaps did not even know they existed.
• Check-in and tasking went very smooth, overall, although 20% of the check-in messages were incorrect
• Receipt of tasking reports went smooth, except for the frequency congestion.  The volume of traffic required meant stations had to accept a delay and wait until they could get their report in.  This congestion is to be expected in events like this.  Patience and self-restraint are needed by operators.     
• The check-out problems were significant.  By design, the process required coordination between Kory and myself, so that people would be released and then send check-out message on 80m.  As mentioned above, that coordination was not possible and frustrated participants that wanted to be finished.  We will redesign this process for future events.
• Limiting the use of Winlink message templates during this SET really helped with productivity in Peer-to-Peer operations.  The time involved sending large messages can prevent important traffic from getting through because it can tie up the NCS for a long time, preventing others from sending traffic.    
• A few stations made procedural errors in the calls to both NCSs – wrong callsign, wrong bandwidth, wrong session type- that caused a huge amount of interference and tied up both frequencies. 
• Many stations were calling on top of other stations. This impatience was disturbing and caused a significant loss of message through-put.  Please take this constructively – behavior of this nature when using Vara and similar modes is unacceptable.  The first rule of amateur radio, the very basic step is to determine:  “Is the frequency in use?”  When operators disregard this step, they screw over everyone because precious time is lost, and data-flow capacity is lost.  This has been repeatedly reinforced  in training materials and will continue to be.  Operators must exhibit personal restraint and respect for others on the frequency and determine if the frequency is already busy using Vara waterfall and listening to rig audio.  Everyone needs to be patient.  Simply put, DX pile-up behavior has no place in digital Emcomm.
• At times, there were 2 or more stations calling at once to WG4PTP, who was already connected to another station.  This brings the transmission speed to a standstill and sometimes even results in a disconnect.  The entire transmission that just took place is lost and message transmission must start again from scratch. 
• A few participants called and called and called, even when there was no reply- calling until the number or retries had been reached 20 or more times.  This is serious operator error that P2P Basics “101” covers.  Operators should call three or max four times and then abort.  If you are calling and there is no answer, you probably have made an error – frequency, callsign you are calling, session type, bandwidth, etc.  Others are also waiting to call NCS so after four calls, click abort and investigate. 
• Numerous times, both NCSs could not reach stations we were calling.  They were not answering
• Both NCSs received numerous connects from stations but no message was received.  In a couple of cases, a station called and connected ten or more times but sent no message.  This was a case of him expecting to get a release message but it was not there.  The best approach would have been to send a message to NCS and ask for a release.
• In a real Emcomm event, the volume of traffic would hopefully be a fraction of that encountered during this SET.  Time compression and volume during an exercise like the SET puts a serious demand on the frequency.  We all need to work on compliance with established procedures, protocols, and techniques in Emcomm digital modes.  Even a couple of non-compliant operators can bring the entire operation to a halt and that did happen during the SET.
• Use of tactical address GAARES-P2P was excellent for check-in messages.  Use of tactical callsigns is important to know as most served agencies use them.  We all need to understand the difference between the message addressee and the station one connects to.
• To summarize, all of these identified problem areas are common Peer-to-Peer errors.  In a training net, they can be dealt with constructively but during a SET, there is no time to do that and these issues cause a great deal of stress on the environment- stress for NCSs and also participants.  It’s safe to say that most every participant Saturday was affected by these issues.    

 MAPPING:

These were previously published in the quick summary after the SET but are also included here for your benefit.  Once again, the choice of bands covered the state well.   

80M MAP

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1GxvCWbkhU2Qy8J41mcG4nUUvYhSG1QA&usp=sharing

40M MAP

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=11pToMnoL2HNE4A7L9FCEl_K6mCCJKxA&usp=sharing

SUMMARY:

Overall, the P2P portion of the SETS (both of them) went very well.  You were all able to demonstrate the capability of P2P in a simulated Emcomm environment with no reliance on internet.  As stressed in training, traffic via P2P needs to be delivered to the tasking agency.  So, in a real event, the Net Control Station needs to find a way to forward messages to their final destination, whether it be relaying to other P2P stations downline or using RMS or internet, phone calls, SSB or FM, etc.  For this reason, three of the taskings exercised this.   

Kudos to Kory- W4ZR and Murdock- W4JNR for the fantastic work they have done supporting both the Net and these SETs.  With many years of P2P experience between the three of us, we make a great team.

 Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions, concerns, or suggestions about the operation and 73.

David Blubaugh, ND1J

GAARES-P2P Net Manager