A couple of questions about 2 way radios

I used to keep a CB radio mounted in all of my vehicles, but since I got my truck in 2000 and a cell phone shortly after, I have not bothered. But the Kim family's ordeal convinced me to permanently add some sort of 2 way radio to my vehicle kit. I have an older Motorola Distance DPS 2W radio that I am going to start carrying along with the car charger. Aside from redundancy, would there be any advantage to also mounting a CB? Also, is there a dedicated emergency channel for FRS/GMRS radios (like Channel 9 for CB's?)

I recently put a CB back in my truck as well, actually bought a new one because I couldn't get my old one working after it got banged around the garage for a few years. I've noticed they are starting to get popular again from posts on other forums where poeple ask about them. I still see signs posted along rural highways saying state police monitor cb channel 9 so it must still be programmed into their scanners. I bought one with the NOAA alerts as a switch for channel 9 and 19 and placed the state to NOAA channel lookup card on my sunvisor so every so often I can check and quickly and change that channel as the miles go by. If I need to call out the ch9/19 switch will work well as I could alternate between the so that a passing truck might hear me on 19 before the state police drive by. I picked up a used handheld CB so if one of us leaves the truck for some reason we can communicate back if cell phones can't get a signal say if I want to walk up a hill to try and get a signal or ne of us goes into a restroom at a rest stop.
I don't see much point in the FRS radios, CB can cover the same or better range and is more commly listened to. We tried a set of FRS radios one year at deer season and the range was so limited we could sometimes see each other but not talk to each other with them, they are not something I would want to chance being rescued on.

That is strange. We use them for deer/elk hunting as well, and while we have had occasions where we couldn't hear each other, we have never been unable to communicate within visual range. I wonder if that is because we use the larger 2 Watt versions?

That is a good point about CB's being more commonly listened to, especially on or near a major road.

There is really no dedicated channel for emergencies. Even the lower cost radios have scanning capabilities these days, so that shouldn't be an issue.

My suggestion would be to set it to NOT use the so-called "eliminator" or "privacy" codes. On mine I do this by setting them to code 0.

I like the comment made elsewhere here to submit a plan to use a radio only for five minutes at the top of each hour, or on the half hour in order to conserve batteries.

Also, when broadcasting on a FRS/GMRS radio antenna remember that height is the primary method for increasing range. They essentially broadcast through line-of-sight, so you're not going to get over large hills and such. Increased power helps a bit, but only a bit. Users of "real" GMRS radios - with removable antennas - have been known to raise an external antenna up a tree using rope and a long antenna cable in order to maximize range.

Ken K.

These are so cheap its seems silly not to have one available.( I've seen 12 mile rated radios for as little as $20 a pair on ebay.)

If you can get in the clear or over water -- and if the searchers are scanning the right channels -- you can extend your 'reach' 10 miles or more. I also read that your body absorbs much of the power so holding the unit at arms length and using an earpiece can increase your effective range. (Also consider that straight up to a plane is quite useful and seldom blocked.)

The key, of course, is power, so carry spare aa or aaa batteries.

Teacher

Aa a note, the "12 mile" rated radios are FRS/GMRS radios. 8 of the 22 channels are GMRS frequencies. FRS radios are limited by FCC regulations 0.5 watts and the unit must have an integrated antenna. GMRS radios can operate on up to 50 watts, but they require an easily obtained license to be used legally.

I keep a FRS in the console my truck and as soon as I can some wiring done, I have a CB to add to my 2M/20cm ham rig. Now that morse has been phased out, I'm gonig to upgrade my license in a few months then I can drop in my Icom 706 mk2

M.C.

JimJr

FRS radios are limited to a fixed antenna and 0.5W on transmissions. The combination FRS/GMRS radios may provide 2W on transmissions on the GMRS frequencies, but they still have fixed antennas. If you can find dedicated GMRS radios (no longer manufactured, as far as I can tell), they have a maximum power of 5W and have a removable antenna, so you can put an external magmount on it and get some better range.

People have tried to say that Channel 1 of FRS is the emergency call frequency, but there is no requirement and no general agreement. See
http://www.nationalsos.com/
http://www.emcomus.org/commwp.html
for information on this effort.

_Generally_, FRS range is very limited - a few blocks. GMRS range with 5W and a more nearly decent antenna is several blocks in urban and suburban areas where there are buildings and trees.

My suggestion instead of FRS/GMRS is amateur radio. Most areas have repeaters, so even if you have a handheld ham radio of 5W, you often can hit a repeater. (Many places sell repeater directories so you can get local frequencies.) With a decent mobile radio of 25W or so and an external antenna, you'll be much more likely to raise someone than you would sitting in a stranded truck with your FRS.

In some locations, CB is heavily used, and you can raise someone quicker that way, but in many areas, CB is not that common.

My 2002 ARRL repeater directory lists 4 repeaters (2 meters) in Grants Pass, 2 in Medford, 4 in Rogue Valley. Whether the Kim family could have hit any of them from their location, I can't say. I have no doubt they would have had no contacts on FRS.

I dug out the owners manual. Apparently it is a GMRS-only radio, having a removeable antenna and channels 1-7, A, B, C, and S. "S" is "scan" and "C" is listed as the emergency channel (462.675 MHz). I am not really looking to get into ham radio, at least at this time. Right now I am just looking for something capable of signaling a low flying search plane or helicopter, and it would only be used for emergencies.

> Right now I am just looking for something capable of signaling a
> low flying search plane or helicopter

Seriously, I'd suggest a mirror. I have no expectation that people on planes and choppers would have FRS or GMRS radios, nor would they have radios that would be tuned to those frequencies.

IC-A5 VHF Air Band Transceiver "All 760 channels (118.000 MHz - 136.975 MHz). . . One touch access to 121.5 MHz emergency channel". . . 25 kHz tuning steps

Don't ask me about the legalities of using one. Handhelds are handy, usually used as a second radio in small private acft.

That brings up a VERY good point. Are there any standard operating procedures for SAR teams with respect to radio frequency detection?

It seems it would take a pretty special setup to simultaneously scan for all potential frequencies (HAM, GMRS, FRS, CB, 406 MHz PLB beacon, 121.5 MHz PLB beacon, cell phone pings). Do SAR teams do that?

Ken K.

Next to a ham radio, I think that a transceiver capable of 121.5 would be your best bet since most aircraft are equipped with a radio that should monitor this freq and at least every SAR aircraft should be capable of receiving and probably also locating a transmitter on that freq.

One of the questions on our SAR reporting form is whether the victim has a radio or cell phone. If they do have a radio we ask for the channel or freq if it’s known.

With the equipment we have on hand, we can only monitor FRS/GMRS, 2 meter ham radio, and 136-174 mHz VHF band. Cell phone “pinging” would have to come from the phone company. Some of the larger surrounding SAR teams have COMM units that may have wider monitoring capabilities.

would there be any advantage to also mounting a CB?

That was the question. I would only depend on a CB near a highway that has considerable truck traffic. There are some people who use CB radios for local communications to keep up with their buddies but I would not count on CB for an emergency. It certainly would not have helped the Kims. If you want to get found it sounds like PLB is the way to go. I don't own one yet but I will. I am also a ham. Unless I had an HF rig in the vehicle, I would not count on much help from Ham radio in the Kim's situation. The 2 meter band is line of site. I doubt that there was a repeater near the Kim's.

In ham radio, there is SUPPOSED to be "The Wilderness Protocol" - the idea is, every 3 hours, from 7am to 7pm, all base stations will monitor the national simplex frequencies for their band (146.52 on 2m) for 5 minutes at the top of the hour. Unfortunately, it never really caught on

IF you happen to be near communication towers, or other people, the radios may work fine. If you are not, I am at a loss in naming any hand held radio of any frequency that will help you initiate a search with the exception of a SATELLITE PHONE.

I am hoping a communication expert comes forward with an alternate solution.

Two common factors stand out in local (backcountry Idaho) searches and those with national exposure.

1. THE SEARCH IS INITIATED TO LATE BY A SECOND PARTY.

2. NO ONE KNOWS WHERE TO SEARCH.

What else will work "NOW" besides -

- SATELLITE PHONE
- PLB W/GPS

That is REALLY good information to know. It makes me think a GMRS/FRS radio could be a big help ... so long as I didn't run the batteries down too soon, AND so long as someone was looking for me in the right place.

I think I'll stick to my PLB and a signal mirror.

Being a ham and doing a fair amount of emergency communications, if I were really out in the sticks, I'd pick radios in this order, if I could afford them: satellite phone, cell phone (+external antenna), ham HF mobile, CB, FRS/GMRS, business band radios. Phones are obviously great when they work because you can pretty much pick who you talk to. A reasonable ham HF mobile setup can almost always make contact with an established net or random helpful hams within several hours, depending on the atmosphere. With a decent CB setup it's pretty likely that you can track down a random trucker if you're within a few miles of a truck route, or a pickup-driving get-r-done kinda guy if you're more out of the way. Otherwise you end up dealing with the same atmospheric conditions ("skip") that hams have. FRS/GMRS and business band radios are pretty rare outside of theme parks, malls, and businesses and users often use "privacy" squelch tones so that even if someone is in range and on the right frequency, they may never hear you.

I've been intrigued with the idea of carrying a portable airband transceiver but that's pretty specialized. If you're anywhere near the coast, a VHF marine radio would make a lot of sense and they're quite cheap.

What we need is a cheap-ish prepaid satellite phone just for emergencies. $400 for the phone and 30 minutes of airtime doesn't seem that expensive once you price out all of the alternative land-based communications.

FRS/GMRS seems more suitable for inter-survivor communications than as a method to rely on to gain the attention of outside help. If it ends up working, great, but with the morse code requirement for amateur radio dropped, there's no reason not to go for a licence and a 2m radio, which will give you far better range and repeater use

Correct.

If you have a GMRS/FRS radio, being the one in distress, you should transmit on every channel once in a while. Chances are the SAR teams are communicating with themselves using one of the channels.

There aren't really any standard operating procedures AFAIK regarding GRMS/FRS usage. I know that as a team leader, I might tell my people that have such a radio to use channel 3 or 4 to communicate, but this is only within this small team.

This does not mean that we don't use additionnal radios for other reasons. During operations, special antennas are put up that allow more powerful VHF radios to be used for the duration of the search.

In checking the repeater director, it looks like there were several repeaters in reasonable proximity to where the Kims were stranded. But without having the exact location of the repeaters I don't know whether or not there was a line of sight from where they were to the repeaters.

From the location of the KIM vehicle, I doubt they would have been able to get out with a HT (portable) radio to the local ham repeater. They may have had some limited success if using a mobile (shoulda..coulda..woulda..)

From my point (near the upper end of the Big Windy Creek drainage) I was not able to get out with a portable to the repeater. Some local search crews were using the repeater for coordination (along with local public safety channels). Almost all of the search crews were using portable radios for coordination and of course, mobile radios.

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Consumer electronics are inheritly under-powered and have short runtimes at full power. Using an electronic means for rescue, besides a PLB or Satellite Phone is not the best method of trying to be rescued. Radio requires a transmitter and receiver to both be matched up to receive a signal. If you don't have this match, you don't communicate. You need to be on a frequency that is known to be monitored 24/7, or at least monitored in a known regular fashion like a wilderness protocol. You also have to have enough juice in your transmitter to effectively communicate. Otherwise, you'll hear them, and they won't hear you.

Visual communications are better since no electronics are needed between the source and your eyes. Flares and signal mirrors can be detected in peripheral vision, where as radio signals don't have such a benefit of peripheral vision, except at close range.

In a disaster or rescue situation, don't think digital, think analog.

It seems very dependant on brand, model, etc also. Remember these were deisgned to be point to point communications so each maker tweaks the design a bit so they work best within their own brands. Comms like HAM or CB were designed to broadcast to anyone listening so they tend to be more standardized.
I was showing my handheld CB to someone and they kept asking where the other one was and couldn't get it that there doesn't need to be another one paired with it as it was designed to talk to anyone not another single one.

most any scanner should be able to scan through all those frequencies assuming its programmed for them.

We have some hand held two-way radios . They work on 4-AAA batteries. I used regular batteries and my friends used rechargable batteries. I have the radio on all the time we were hunting, but only used once in a while during the day. We hunted for 3 days and my batteries were ok, but my friends with rechargable batteries have to charge them everyday. I carried with me a set of spares just in case but I did not needed them. We kept the radios on at all times for an emergency situation but used only once in a while if we going to change places.

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions. I think I am going to skip installing the CB and stick with the cell phone plus the GMRS, at least for now. I'll probably spring for a PLB eventually, especially if they get cheaper.

Some electronics won't work with rechargables as they don't like the lower voltage. With 4 batteryes your 1.2v lower (6v compared to 4.8v). Christmas eve we needed some C batteries which nothing prep/survival related takes so I don't keep spares for those. Pulled some out of the little radio/cd player my wife has in the bathtub and checked it first to make sure it worked so I assumed they were good then popped them in the to and nothing. Went to a Pharmacy that was open and bought some C cells and poppend them in and it worked fine. My older digicam is like that too, even though it came with NiMH AAA batteries I can get more pictures from lithium AA. It could just be that those radios don't like the lower voltage and think the batteries are discharged too soon. The old walkie talkies we had when I was young had two dummy batteries you placed in two of the 8 slots when you used alkaline or you could take them out and use 8 NiCad. My new walkie talkie works the same way buy it has removable packs that hold 6 and 8. Your 4 cell radios would probably last a long time if they had an extra slot to run from 5 rechargeables so the start voltages matched.
I'm still testing my new radio on rechargeables, it was designed for 8 nicads but I don't want to have to stock another type (have alk, nimh, lithium already) so for now I'm charging 8 NiMH's outside of it and topping them off monthly to take care of the self discharge. I want to do a test comparing freshly charged cells with cells that had sat for a month to see if the self discharge makes much of a difference and if the NiMH will work then bypass the simple NiCad charging circuit and buy/build an external NiMh charger,

If they know you have a radio with you, they may be able to find you that much quicker as well. I have a CB & FRS radio in my jeep, as well as my cell. I agree that the more, the better. No one WANTS to be in a survival situation (for too long, anyway), and, the faster the rescue, the better. The more ways to contact someone, the better as well.

I just found this site:
http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/ListProducts.php?Type=11

They manufacture cell phone power amplifiers. They can pump out up to three watts of raw, untamed cell phone muscle (about ten times the power of a small cell phone). They cost in the $250 to $350 range, though (you can froogle the model numer for prices). Not too much cheaper than a PLB, but still pretty neat.

Any cell phone experts out there? I suspect that cell phone signals are line-of-sight like most other radios.

If so, then boosting the power isn't the issue - it is the height of the antenna. The boost might help in marginal areas, but is no replacement for a PLB which can work anywhere in the world AND give your position even when you don't know what it is.

The celluar phone network is a complicated engineering challenge, and thus the equipment is designed to make assumptions on things to ensure efficiency of the network. The signals from cell phones are within the 800Mhz and 900Mhz ranges for the old analog types. The new PCS ones are in the 1.3Mhz range (I believe, they're over 1Ghz anyway). These signals are nearly exclusively line of sight. There is no bending, and in fact, these signals can be stopped by pine needles.

Boosting signals from a cell phone should be used with care, because of the nature of a cellular network. Cellular phone output wattage is limited so that the phone will only work so far from the tower. This is necessary with the design of a "cellular" network. The other factor is how 911 calls are handled. With most newer handsets, there is an entry programmed into your phone called "Emergency Number". When this number is dialed, the phone will handle this number differently. Instead of trying to work through your paid carrier, the phone may, connect you to the closest cellular tower, regardless of provider. Now you're probably thinking, but if I'm moving, how is the call transferred between competing carrier cell towers? Beats me, but 911 calls are supposed to be handled differently than all other calls, without regard to carrier, or subscriber status. This is why phones with no service can still dial 911. If you let your children play with powered non-subscribed cell phones, they could still initiate a call to 911.

So, getting to the point of the boosting option, that should definately only be used when you are NOT in a dense cellular network. Boosting your signal and dialing 911 may cause problems. Usually, if you are within the same network (say, Cingular), then the system will determine the best tower to receive your call from, and "ignore" any other "hits" your amplified cell phone makes with it's towers. If you have the amplifier and hit multiple towers on multiple providers, I don't believe there is any protocol on how to handle this case. There probably is, but I don't know about.

Like you said, the height of the antenna and line-of-sight to the receiver will make all the difference.

Another thing with cell phones, in the U.S. there is a move to "Phase II" cell phone 911 service. This service uses either the phone, towers, or a combination of both, to determine the locatio n of your cell phone. These will be displayed on a map in the 911 call center to show your location. Some areas don't have Phase II, and you should always give your cellular phone number and location you are calling from, as a cellular 911 call may not always be routed to the jurisdiction you are in.

I should also note that for the privacy concerned, a recent case of a bouncer murdering a young woman in NY pointed out that your cell phone "ping" signals are recorded AND STORED by cell phone carriers. A ping signal is a signal that lets the network know which tower the phone is closest too, so that calls to it can be routed quickly. It is possible that these signals are recorded from ALL towers your phone "pings" and thus, your location triangulated. I'm not a lawyer, but what scares me is that they could be used in civil cases, and not just criminal cases. If you're somewhere you don't want to be, then, perhaps you want to turn off your phone. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

That's all I know. And I'm not the expert.

I had heard many years ago that hitting multiple cell towers is one of the reasons why cellular calls from airplanes are not allowed (I think the other big safety reason being possible interference with the onboard avionics). At 30,000 feet, you can be line of sight to many towers at once. However, one thing that I never heard mentioned after 9/11 is the use of cell phones by the passengers on United 93 to call family and loved ones. I don't recall ever hearing any mention of reception problems. I have heard of problems with the onboard "air phones" during that incident but not with any cell phones. Perhaps a protocol had been developed by then?

I have a knock off of the Wilson cellular amp that I keep in my truck. It works alright, and has saved my bacon a few times. It doesn’t work miracles, but in areas where you were able to some times get just a blip of service every once and a while, you will get at least one bar of signal with the amp. Outside of areas like that it is hit or miss. I did get great service with it when I got my truck stuck in a canyon and was able to call for some friends to come and help, but on the other hand I still can’t get service on certain areas of the ranch that have a reasonably good path to the local cell tower.

I think I paid $175 for mine.

I belive that cell phones are "mostly" line-of-sight. If you are in a canyon, there is a posibility that the signal might hit some trees and bounce around enough to reach a tower. Of course, the signal loss is tremendous, but any signal is better than no signal.

Note that the Kim family had a ping recorded on a distant cell-phone tower. It is possible that a cell phone amplifier might have allowed them enough signal to send a text message.

Of course, if you are going to spend $400, you might as well get a PLB <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'd like to hear more about the incident when a CB radio saved you.

Actually, the agency that banned use of cell phones on aircraft wasn't the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)- it was the FCC. You're right, they'd hit a whole ton of towers, and in the early days of cell phones, it trashed the way they billed you, and they effectively couldn't.

I have no concrete proof as to this, except that it came from a guy who worked on avionics systems for a few major airlines (including flight testing) that a cell phone has never been proven to interfere with the avionics. When I'm out tooling around in my Piper Warrior, I'll be honest-I leave my phone on.

Not that I have anything fancy enough to get interfered with.... <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
-Kyle

Cell phones and avionics was a Mythbuster's topic one time. I can't remember the details, but the testing initially showed cell phone signals possibly affecting a navigation instrument (a VOR thingamajigee?), but I can't recall if they had to crank up the signal strength beyond normal levels to achieve that. However, with further testing, they weren't able to affect any avionics.

Actually, since there's talk of allowing cell phone use on commercial aircraft, I guess the telecom companies have figured out how to deal with multiple hits to their system from the same phone.

Cell phones are going to be allowed to be used on planes in the near future? Thought I saw that on cnn.com

I remember that MythBusters episode. It was shown that many phones can interfere with VOR signals and make your OBI (Omni Bearing Indicator, for the non-pilots here) go wacky. These tests were done inside of a Faraday cage with completely unshielded avionics. When they attempted the same tests inside a parked business jet, the aircraft's shielding prevented the OBI from being affected.

However, keep in mind that the OBI is what guides an aircraft along the runway's localizer and glideslope (kind of like "autoland", for the non-pilots here) and you'll realize that final approach, 200 feet above runway level, with lousy visibility is the last place you'd want to have a darned cellphone start screwing with your gauges. Would you bet your butt on your aircraft's avionics shielding in that situation, or would you rather just have people shut the cellphones off?