Looking to gauge the consensus on PMR 446 - seen the pros, cons, and licensing options above, but can’t help but feel that anything with additional cost isn’t worth it for:
a handful of local events or non-typical training requirements per year
with probably only a max of 2 or 3 nets at those events
Is the range of channels plus ctcss not sufficient to counter the issue of other users?
Is the range and reliability typically good enough to cope with typical event environments?
My experience with PMR is limited, but we really could do with the ability to branch out from Victor and Uniform…
ACTO 73, ANNEX H categorically states that the use of PMR radios is prohibited for radio training using RAFAC Callsigns and Procedures.
(PMR can be used for events such as car park marshalling but only if RAFAC Callsigns/Procedures are NOT used.)
It is possible to buy handheld radios that can programmed with our allowed frequencies for around £10 each so there is no excuse for not operating within our regulations.
Ditto. Plus, it’s great sport winding up our wing radio officer, who goes a funny shade of purple whenever our cadets talk about operating radio equipment on frequencies other than ATC assigned ones! I’ve been unable to take them seriously since they suggested that I would be fined and sent to prison if our cadets so much as touched a PMR446 on cadet duty!!
Surely, if you buy PMR 446 radios, and don’t use official callsigns and procedures, then you would be operating entirely within our regulations?
You can use PMR radios for events provided you don’t use RAFAC Callsigns and Procedures.
You must not use PMR for cadet radio training so you will not be able to train them to Blue or Bronze badge level as they will not be able to complete the required radio exercises without radios that operate on our assigned Victor or Uniform frequencies.
Apologies - your last sentence sounded like you were trying to infer that @Giminion was trying to circumnavigate our procedures and save money by buying PMR446s. If that’s not the case, then I stand corrected.
We have a small number of VHF handhelds that are used for radio training and all other purposes. I am looking at supplementing these with some dual-bands that will increase capacity for radio syllabus training and fieldcraft. (We also have an HF base station and vehicle VHF station).
However, there are other activities and events where use of VP is simply overkill and/or a pain in the Sheila Sazs - PMR446 is ideal on paper, but I don’t have enough experience working with it to judge if the cons are enough of a problem for it to be likely that we just default back to Victor and Uniform (gambling on the odds being pretty slim that anyone who cares will be listening).
The irony of this being that we (and probably many others in the organisation) are more likely to break the rules by NOT getting PMRs as we can’t always guarantee cadets using radios in such circumstances will be trained (and because VP is a buggerance outside of a military/exercise type scenario).
So…
Are they good enough for the job on the handful of occasions each year that we would use them? Are the potential pitfalls insurmountable mountains or easily overcome molehills?
We use a set of Baofeng 888-S radios. From the box these are ILLEGAL TO USE in the UK, although a lot of people do - the frequencies programmed are not PMR446 and they operate around 3W. However a Simple Business licence costs around £25 for 5 years and will give you a range of half a dozen or so UHF channels you can legitimately use. Easily programmed and cloned in free software - either from Baofeng, or the ubiquitous CHIRP.
If you want to get fancier, you can buy more powerful Baofeng radios (the limit on the licence is 5W).
I have some PMR446 radios I use outside Cadets, for work and in volunteering for the type of tasks you describe,
Including marshalling activities.
They are fine.
We have midland g9 pros
A few thoughts from about 3 years of use:
you need some simplified procedures otherwise it gets messy, we use amateur radio ones and keep it really simple -
Sierra Wun this is Sierra Too meet at the first aid tent - that sort of stuff (still no names etc)
if cadets are operating they need a brief on the differences
the PMR sets have limited power so range ain’t great but fine for car parking etc
CTCSS is a must there are lots of people on 446
sets that can use AA batteries as a back up are a Godsend
a cheap rubbish radio is cheap rubbish whatever frequency, ours were about £60 each
We had the choice of licensed radio under a national small business license - but went with PMR because the sets are cheaper and they are inter operable, so if another volunteer rocks up with a PMR set we can add them.
The thing to remember about CTCSS (and DCS) is that it doesn’t magically create new channels, it just means your radios will only listen to the chatter if that chatter is accompanied by a non-audible code. If PMR446 is heavily used in your area, the actual frequency will still be saturated even though you cannot hear the transmissions. This could have safety consequences if you are relying on your radios being able to communicate immediately and reliably.
Incubus has said exactly what I was going to say about CTCSS, so the only thing I could add would be a cautionary in that where cadets are trying to learn RAFAC voice procedures one does need to be wary of further complicating things by introducing further differences.
“…but then, when we use these PMR radios you mustn’t use any of what you’ve been taught for use on those ATC radios, so instead we’re going to use these totally different procedures which I’ll explain now”.
I think there is something to be said for maintaining only one set of procedures particularly for those who are still new to radio.
I’m not sure that the idea that it’ll be easier for the newer cadets who aren’t fluent in military comms is necessarily true. On it’s own it might be, but when considered as part of the myriad of new things they’re learning…
That is a valid point
To add, I use PMR446 only outside cadets (and that is one reason - they need some protocols but not mil ones)
That said I’ve not had any major issues with CTCSS but we have without it, mainly at venues where there is a lot of radio traffic.
For work we are now looking at using a push to talk app on our phones.
Regarding voice procedures. most for the stuff we use on MOD frequencies is actually fairly generic and could be used on PMR or private frequencies too. My local fire brigade used to use something very similar before they moved to Airwave and, presumably, still do.
You cannot use ATC callsigns and authentication procedures on non-ATC/MOD frequencies. Everything else is fair game and, in fact, the security concerns about transmission of names and other details is just as valid on other frequencies and should be adhered to on any radio.
What are the actual benefits of using PMR446 apart from being more available than amateur VHF/UHF radios? Surely (as mentioned) you still need to identify transmissions in a fairly similar manner to the way we do on cadet channels and there are the same security implications? Abbreviated procedures on our channels would be fairly similar surely without having to purchase new radios?
About the only benefit I can see is the ability for anyone to use them. We used to assist with a local Rotary Club event and the radios were loaned out to their guys on checkpoints. The frequency was set on PMR for that.
Otherwise it’s mostly negatives - very low power, limited channels, limited features.
Since we’ve got our own frequencies, plus the option of business radio licenses I’d say that money would be far better spent on cheaper end radios such as the Baofeng range. It is practical to add PMR frequencies to those (albeit illegal because they’re not type approved - but on an unmonitored band, nobody checks).
Where people are using PMR with coded squelch the ability to manually open the squelch is very useful. With only 8 channels it allows you to listen to everything so that you can pick the quietest channel.
I’m not really sure what the issue is with using our procedures - when used properly they’re fairly swift and easy to use. Any inconvenience caused by using those procedures will be mitigated by the benefit of getting practise of and familiarity with those procedures. And if the cadets aren’t great at the procedures and make mistakes, who cares? The frequencies we use are reserved for us, and anyone listening in will expect users to make some mistakes.
It is the inability to abbreviate ATC callsigns sufficiently which has driven us to use other frequencies for a lot of the work that we do.
While I understand the reasoning for using full callsigns at early states of training, being locked into using 7-character phonetic callsigns (relaxed, at best, to 5 characters) is unnecessarily cumbersome and an impediment to effective communication when using radios for real tasks in the field and not just made-up exercises at a desk. It sounds petty, but it is a genuine concern.
Breaking away from ATC frequencies allows us to use 1 or 2 character callsigns (Alpha, Charlie-one) or actually meaningful names (track, field, starter, high jump) that inform but do not obstruct the task.
Footnote: It is also very handy to be able to hand a radio to a cadet or staff member after a short briefing and have them use it almost immediately, as opposed to a few hours of training and an assessment. Sure, the full training variant is the goal, but reality often has something to say about that!
This was briefly permitted and detailed in ACTO73, but it was quite recently removed.
Once actual communication was established, the conversation should also be able to continue without callsigns so long as there is no chance of confusion.
Our procedures seem to be more restrictive than those in ACP125 on which they are based.
