After Action Summary

for Operation Hazel II

The buttons below will bring up After Action Reports

for the person listed on the button

Summary for Hurricane Hazel II, Oct 3, 2009

The disaster simulation of a major hurricane striking the coast of North Carolina and maintaining hurricane force as it moves across Virginia in a south to north path is a very realistic scenario.  Both Hazel in 1954 and Hugo in 1988 are examples of this threat.  Major hurricanes are usually accompanied with significant and widespread loss of communications and power.  These types of threats have caused Amateur Radio to be needed many times in the Commonwealth over the past number of years.  These kinds of exercises help to anticipate what Amateur Radio operators need to do in preparation for these situations.  Events of this type require an understanding and ability to respond in concert with hams throughout the Commonwealth and even across state lines.  Operation Hazel II allowed us an opportunity to do this as well as test our skills in this kind operation.

This Simulated Emergency Test was much like Operation Deep Freeze that was held in February of 2009.  In both events it was two fold in nature with both a series of nets in support of Skywarn and in support of government and non-government agencies through resource and tactical nets.

In Hurricane Hazel II we had 23 agencies that we supported and used 65 ham radio operators to carry out this assignment.  The amount of traffic exchanged was huge with 1081 formal messages being sent or received.  Suggestions for improvement in future drills or activations were many.  The overall feeling was this was a very successful exercise and people enjoyed the role they were able to play.  The following are some of the suggestions for improvement and more in depth suggestions can be found on individual reports found at buttons on the the top of this page.

In the area of HF operation, it was suggested that we look at 40 meters for midday operation.  This works well when operating between the far corners of the Commonwealth but 40 meters has a large hole near the transmitting points.  Chip64 proved its’ value in poor band conditions at midday on 80 meters during Operation Deep Freeze.  The use of 60 meters should also be considered even though there are only 5 channels and a 50 watt ERP limitation.  Linked repeaters and the use of IRLP have great potential for statewide communications.

Winlink worked extremely well but the suggestion was made to reduce interference by utilizing different bands for VHF or UHF voice and Winlink.  The most practical approach would be to shift Winlink to 440 MHz gateways and stations.   It was also noted that a number of Winlink messages were replied to without including the original message.  It is important to copy and paste the original message and the reply to each reply.  You can also do the same thing by doing a forward command.  In doing a “forward” for a reply you must readdress the message.  A disadvantage listed for Winlink is that is a “point to point” communications.  Winlink can be a point to many points for communications.  All that is required is placing multiple addresses in the “To” line or the “CC” line.  When Winlink stations are listed for an exercise each station should check the listing to ensure their address is listed correctly.

It was also suggested that headphones be used in all stations with multiple operators.  A “Y” type connector for headphones can also allow both the operator and logger to listen to the communications without being a distraction to others at the point of operation.

Use of a station log is vital to record keeping.  This should record the time that the station is placed on the air and closed.  On brief tactical or resource messages a brief note in the log should care for record keeping rather than making out a form for each piece of voice traffic.  Use this log for all other exchanges.

The use of an IRLP repeater could be a major asset in disaster response.  The use of a reflector rather than connecting a single repeater to a single repeater could also be a real advantage.

The routing of traffic for this exercise was not in the normal flow.  The reason for this is twofold.  One is that VDEM made a decision to withdrawn from the exercise and this required the rerouting of traffic from the Virginia EOC to a secondary location.  We also had agencies dealing direct with other agencies in their search for resources.  This would not be the real life situation.  This was done to allow an even distribution of traffic.  This should pose no problem in training because radio operators direct traffic to where the “sender” directs the radio operator to sent it.

In normal situations, local agencies will submit their resource needs to the local EOC and if the need can not be filled locally then the request would be directed to the Virginia EOC.

Another suggestion was for more frequent Simulated Emergency Test.  These do need to happen on a regular basis.  Test book study and classes without the practical SET have limited value for those that choose to be involved with EMCOMM.   Contact your local EC or ERO for planned Simulated Emergency Test in your area.

Thanks again to all that took part in the SET and those that sent in an After Action Report in regard to their station activity.  When the “Big One” hits Virginia we all should be better prepared to service the communications needs of our state, county, city or family.