Author Archives: Ray Lajoie

On 04 October 2025 the Western Massachusetts Section of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service conducted a Simulated Emergency Test from 10 am to 2 pm local time. Eighteen persons participated, plus representatives from both MEMA and FEMA.

Planning

A request for planning volunteers was sent out via the WMA ARES email list in July, and ten members volunteered to plan a scenario, mission and goal for the SET.

Scenario

A wide-spread cyber-attack has occurred. The origin is unknown. Time to resolve is unknown.

With limited ability to load-balance, load-shed or coordinate electrical utilities are forced to manually manage power generation and transmission. Most areas are without power for most of the day although some power is provided for a few hours daily. With limited power available cellular and data networks are infrequently available. When working, connectivity is often limited to the immediate area.

Shelters have been opened across the WMA section. Most are housing at-risk populations such as those dependent on electrically powered medical devices. Amateur radio impacts include the loss of analog repeaters EXCEPT for those with backup generators or solar power. Digital repeaters (data and/or voice) WITH backup generators or solar power are effective within their footprint but only those with AREDN, Star Link or similar may pass traffic beyond their immediate coverage.

Mission

WMA ARES will establish radio communications between selected shelter locations and MEMA.

Communication with the FEMA Region 1 Regional Coordination Center in Maynard, MA, was done exclusively through WinLink messaging.

Communication with the MEMA Region 3/4 office in Agawam was simulated by Michael, KC1IZC, who lives nearby and was capable of operating voice and digital modes on backup power and satellite-based connectivity.

Goal

WMA ARES will send and receive ICS213 messages between shelter locations and MEMA.

Objectives and results

Determine the amount and capabilities of WMA ARES volunteers who are willing to deploy for an incident of this type.

Met. Volunteers were received from every District and were geographically dispersed across the section. While not all were able to participate on the Test date, future activities are possible.

Publicize the Test to WMA ARES members using the WMA ARES email list, WMA website and/or other means.

Met. There were six messages sent via the WMA ARES email list during July and August seeking volunteers. Messaging was also conducted on regular ARES nets and other social media.

Establish a list of infrastructure (repeaters and digipeaters) with backup power.

Met. It was determined that the VHF repeaters in Gardner, Fitchburg and Leyden had backup generator or multiple-day battery power available.

Determine the locations of relay sites and paths that can be covered by VHF simplex.

Partially met. Routes passing through LEYDEN or POETS were generally successful in reaching AGAWAM after a relay was established in HOLYOKE. Routes passing through JACOB were not successful and further investigation is required of what appeared to be a potentially reliable path. LEOMINSTER was not able to relay via voice.

Establish a list of data nodes with backup power and independent internet access (AREDN or Star Link, etc.)

Partially met. Some nodes had backup power and non-terrestrial internet access. In other cases nodes outside of the impacted area (NY and NE Independent System Operators) were available.

Determine the paths that can be covered with data nodes.

Partially met. This was not demonstrated but data was gathered to tentatively determine possible data mode paths for point-to-point data communications along the routes passing through POETS and HOLYOKE.

Establish an ICS 205 Comm Plan to assign channels to accomplish Test Goal.

Met. An ICS205 Comm Plan was published as part of the ICS documents for the Test.

Demonstrate the ability to create a communications path between shelter sites and MEMA/FEMA using VHF simplex.

Partially met. Shelters at NORTH ADAMS, HOLDEN and RUTLAND were able to relay voice messages through LEYDEN or POETS and HOLYOKE to AGAWAM. The shelter at LEOMINSTER was not able to relay voice messages.

Demonstrate the ability to create a communications path between shelter sites and MEMA/FEMA using data modes.

Met. Shelters at NORTH ADAMS, HOLDEN and RUTLAND passed voice messages to AGAWAM, which relayed them as WinLink to FEMA. There was one WinLink message sent from NORTH ADAMS directly to AGAWAM via HF. There were no digital messages sent directly from shelters to FEMA.

Send at least one ICS 213 message from each shelter site to MEMA and/or FEMA.

Partially met. LEOMINSTER was unable to send voice or WinLink via non-terrestrial modes. A message was sent via WinLink using a cellular network. All other participating shelter sites were able to send ICS 213 messages to MEMA and/or FEMA.

Relay at least one ICS 213 message to and from each relay site.

Partially met. The relay site at JACOB was unable to receive voice messages. Further testing is required as this site appeared promising when coverage maps were calculated. All other relay sites were able to relay ICS 213 messages.

Receive at least one ICS 213 message at each shelter site.

Not met. There were no reports of ICS213 messages being received at shelter sites.

Recommendations

1. The Scenario required members to operate without a large amount of established voice infrastructure and highlighted the difficulty in communicating between the northern Worcester County District and AGAWAM.

2. VHF voice paths that were found to be useful included:

a. NORTH ADAMS – HOOSAC – POETS – HOLYOKE – AGAWAM

b. RUTLAND – LEYDEN Repeater – HOLYOKE – AGAWAM

c. HOLDEN – LEYDEN Repeater – HOLYOKE – AGAWAM

3. The only VHF voice repeaters available were LEYDEN, FITCHBURG and GARDNER. The link between FITCHBURG and GARDNER was not available under the constraints of this Scenario. The shelter at LEOMINSTER could reach GARDNER but no further.

4. Development of standalone networking (i.e., AREDN, microwave, StarLink, etc.) to link FITCHBURG and GARDNER would provide coverage to the northern Worcester County area currently difficult to reach. Development of additional VHF voice repeaters with backup power should also be a priority.

5. The use of WinLink in VHF peer-to-peer mode was demonstrated but not fully implemented during this test. As coverage should be similar to the VHF simplex voice paths discussed above, it is an area where improvements in speed and accuracy can be made.

6. The HOOSAC Relay site received much public interest. An explanatory handout would be helpful for future exercises.

7. There was no use of ad hoc voice infrastructure such as cross band repeat. This could be accomplished by establishing a channel as part of the ICS 205 and has the potential to reduce transcription errors at relay sites.

8. Relay sites would have benefited from increased staffing to allow for both voice and data modes simultaneously, although this would require additional infrastructure (i.e., multiple antennas or a switch for operation of multiple transceivers.)

9. All sites might wish to consider comfort items (i.e., table, chairs, shelter, sunscreen, snacks, water, etc.)

Conclusions

The Amateur Radio Emergency Service for the Western Massachusetts Section Simulated Emergency Test successfully demonstrated the ability to pass ICS213 messages from selected shelter sites to the MEMA Region 3/4 office in Agawam and the FEMA Region 1 RCC in Maynard.

In addition, areas of potential improvement have been identified that can be implemented for future tests or in cases of actual need.