Solution for long distance LOS communication (<10mi)

[jd123]

Im looking for ideas to increase range of communication between two GMRS radios (one 8w handheld and one 50w mobile).

Ill be doing a backcountry ski trip this winter and need to have reliable communication back to the base camp.

Ill be at the summit of the mountain and base will be at the other side of the valley. The distance is roughly 10 miles and it's basically line of sight besides for maybe a few trees.

I plan on using two yagi style antennas to maximize range as well as the shortest practical coax length but im looking for additional tips or advice to maximize my chance for a reliable two way communication.

Happy to hear any ideas and answer any questions!

[marcspaz]

 

Honestly, you are describing a situation well inside LOS.  Unless there is something in the way that you didn't mention, 10 miles from a summit to a valley should be a cake walk even with just a few watts and a vertical antenna.  Normally you would use a beam to reduce the reception of signals/noise from directions other than forward, while increasing listening ability and focused power in the forward direction (which you obviously understand at this point).

 

However, those forward listening advantages are accomplished by enhancing the ability to hear more of the refracted and scattered emissions you are receiving from beyond LOS, that didn't fly off into space or get absorbed by the terrain.  Or at least reduce the ambient noise so what you do hear is easier to understand.

 

Your forward transmitting advantages are accomplished by putting more focused energy into the atmosphere in a forward direction, thereby likely increasing the amount of RF that is refracted and scattered beyond LOS, that didn't fly off into space or get absorbed by the terrain.  That increase in refracted and scattered energy would, theoretically, increase the ability for a station without a beam to receive your signal. 

 

So, to sum up, it sounds like you are already in a massive over-kill configuration.  If there is no heavily diluted "over the horizon" communications to enhance, you won't benefit from using beam antennas.

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, jd123 said:

Im looking for ideas to increase range of communication between two GMRS radios (one 8w handheld and one 50w mobile).

Ill be doing a backcountry ski trip this winter and need to have reliable communication back to the base camp.

Ill be at the summit of the mountain and base will be at the other side of the valley. The distance is roughly 10 miles and it's basically line of sight besides for maybe a few trees.

I plan on using two yagi style antennas to maximize range as well as the shortest practical coax length but im looking for additional tips or advice to maximize my chance for a reliable two way communication.

Happy to hear any ideas and answer any questions!

I suspect that a good quality whip on your handheld and a good quality base station antenna on the mobile will work well as is. Your conditions (summit to a point on the opposite side of the valley) are nearly ideal. 

I don’t think that I would use a Yagi for the handheld, because if you have an emergency that disables you in some way you might not be able to point it. If you point it the wrong direction it’s worse than the rubber duckies. Also with two Yagis how do you know where to point them unless you can see each other? If you cannot communicate until the Yagi antennas are mutually lined up it’s difficult to coordinate the alignment. If you do use Yagi antennas you might want to run some tests; Yagi antennas with fewer directors may yield a wider pattern that works better for you. 

I would hike into the same area in advance and run some tests. 
Also, avalanche beepers and personal locator beacons are probably necessary. 

[gortex2]

Sorry but reliable communications and GMRS should not be in the same sentence. Yes GMRS is reliable however if this is for any emergency type help get a PLB. The cost of them are pretty cheap now and the safety plan is less than a mcdonalds lunch. The Garmin units are pretty rugged and reliable and you can also send a "im ok" text to a list of folks. 

[Blaise]

1 hour ago, gortex2 said:

Sorry but reliable communications and GMRS should not be in the same sentence. Yes GMRS is reliable

*twitch*

[gortex2]

Your right didn't phrase that right did I ......I would never trust a GMRS system with my life. Its one thing to call in and say hey I'm heading out but if you need help its not reliable. I have a pretty good tower site and cover 50 miles around it but i still wouldn't rely on it for life safety. Same with ham. 

[SteveShannon]

25 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

Your right didn't phrase that right did I ......I would never trust a GMRS system with my life. Its one thing to call in and say hey I'm heading out but if you need help its not reliable. I have a pretty good tower site and cover 50 miles around it but i still wouldn't rely on it for life safety. Same with ham. 

So what do you carry when you’re simply Joe Schmoe going for a walk in the woods?

Most people have nothing other than a cell phone. A GMRS radio or ham radio is a step up. 
People who go out in the back country professionally carry PLBs, but very few recreational hikers do. 
It’s better for people to carry a GMRS radio that they know how to use than to leave it at home because someone on the internet said “I would never trust a GMRS system with my life.”

I agree with you on this: if I knew I was going to be going into a situation that required reliable communications, I wouldn’t choose GMRS as my first or even second choice. I’d insist on a PLB and probably a satellite phone. 
But we should be encouraging recreational hikers to carry some kind of communications gear and we should be advising them so they can make informed decisions. 

[gortex2]

Actually I do go in the woods alot. Been in SAR for almost 30 years this month. I still wont go in the woods without my Inreach and a portable radio. While I agree something is better than nothing relying on a GMRS radio is the last thing I would do. If I go in the woods I take my ham radio if I dont have SAR coverage in that area on our public safety stuff. I have a county park with a GMRS repeater that SAR put in decades ago. While its great to have no one listens to it. The issue with GMRS is there is no "hey this is the channel" If the Travel Channel had taken off I think it may be more useful but In the last 10 years of SAR missions I've asked numerous hunters what radio they had or what channel. Over half were baofengs on the preprogrammed channels from amazon (some in public safety actualy) and the others had FRS radios but had picked a channel up high with a tone. On a mission SAR can't check every tone and channel so its really of no use. The rest of the guys/gals have a cell phone and dont get why it doesn't work in the woods. 

As reference the GMRS repeater I mentioned is on the 675 frequency and travel tone. In 3 years the only person on it has been some of our SAR folks. 

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, gortex2 said:

Actually I do go in the woods alot. Been in SAR for almost 30 years this month. I still wont go in the woods without my Inreach and a portable radio. While I agree something is better than nothing relying on a GMRS radio is the last thing I would do. If I go in the woods I take my ham radio if I dont have SAR coverage in that area on our public safety stuff. I have a county park with a GMRS repeater that SAR put in decades ago. While its great to have no one listens to it. The issue with GMRS is there is no "hey this is the channel" If the Travel Channel had taken off I think it may be more useful but In the last 10 years of SAR missions I've asked numerous hunters what radio they had or what channel. Over half were baofengs on the preprogrammed channels from amazon (some in public safety actualy) and the others had FRS radios but had picked a channel up high with a tone. On a mission SAR can't check every tone and channel so its really of no use. The rest of the guys/gals have a cell phone and dont get why it doesn't work in the woods. 

As reference the GMRS repeater I mentioned is on the 675 frequency and travel tone. In 3 years the only person on it has been some of our SAR folks. 

So again, we need to be taking a more proactive position in teaching folks who travel into the woods how to be prepared to use their radios (and what kind of radio to have, and identifying an emergency channel, etc.)  

Putting ourselves in the position of Joe Schmoe: You said you take your ham radio if you don’t have SAR coverage, but both of those choices that you have are out of reach of the average person. How does the average citizen (who isn’t part of SAR) get SAR coverage?  You have options that are unavailable to most Joe Schmoes.  For this discussion you need to look at things from their perspective. Also, most people going into the woods don’t get ham radio licenses.

But they do buy the bubble pack radios at the sporting goods store.  They’re right there next to the guns and ammo. You know the old saying that “You go into battle with the army you have, not the army you want.”  This is the same thing.  People are going to buy and carry bubble pack radios.  SAR needs to be equipped to deal with that reality.  And once SAR is equipped to deal with that then it makes sense to use GMRS. 

SAR cannot monitor every tone and channel?  That seems like something they might want to do. A good scanner would certainly enable them to monitor all the GMRS channels and they don’t need to monitor all the different tones; just leave them all clear.  Of course they might need to be able to transmit a tone in case the lost soul has implemented a tone squelch in his/her receiver, but scanners reveal tones as well. 

All of us, before going into the woods, should identify which band and frequency SAR is likely to listen on and be ready to use that if needed.  This is where you need to acknowledge that the person you’re looking for is more likely to have bubble pack radios than anything else and adjust to that reality.  SAR groups should work with fish and game, USFS, BLM, etc. to advertise how to get help (and maybe they do - but it’s not immediately obvious in my area.)

[gortex2]

Remember a lot of SAR in the US are funded out of pocket by the SAR member. For them to buy another piece of gear is tough. I agree maybe a better approach on education can happen but when Wyoming did that there was pages of why they are doing it wrong on this forum and others. Some areas FRS is great, but I can say there are areas where an FRS bubble pack radio is useless due to terrain or just distance. If our 5 watt VHF radios can't talk to another crew 2 miles away a FRS unit wont help. I guess if its a hunter on a mountain and command in valley maybe its a fighting chance but I've yet to see it work.  In my case our SAR command post has VHF radios for SAR, UHF radios for the county and a HAM radio. Yup we can add the FRS stuff to a scan list but it will get turned down as soon as someone hears a squelch burst. A scanner is a great idea but we are struggling with buying diesel fuel right now let alone a $200 scanner to get installed with an external antenna. 

I get what your saying but its not a reality in public safety. Maybe out west stuff is different but in the NE that's the reality. I don't think there is a perfect scenario out there. 

[SteveShannon]

11 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

Remember a lot of SAR in the US are funded out of pocket by the SAR member. For them to buy another piece of gear is tough. I agree maybe a better approach on education can happen but when Wyoming did that there was pages of why they are doing it wrong on this forum and others. Some areas FRS is great, but I can say there are areas where an FRS bubble pack radio is useless due to terrain or just distance. If our 5 watt VHF radios can't talk to another crew 2 miles away a FRS unit wont help. I guess if its a hunter on a mountain and command in valley maybe its a fighting chance but I've yet to see it work.  In my case our SAR command post has VHF radios for SAR, UHF radios for the county and a HAM radio. Yup we can add the FRS stuff to a scan list but it will get turned down as soon as someone hears a squelch burst. A scanner is a great idea but we are struggling with buying diesel fuel right now let alone a $200 scanner to get installed with an external antenna. 

I get what your saying but its not a reality in public safety. Maybe out west stuff is different but in the NE that's the reality. I don't think there is a perfect scenario out there. 

Certainly it’s not ideal, but for $200 I could donate 10 Baofeng radios and set them up to scan all the GMRS/FRS radios and all the local ham repeaters and probably the SAR frequencies as well.  These could be provided to folks who are out searching for a lost person.  

I agree; there’s no perfect scenario, but as long as people are willing to keep working towards solutions, some things will improve.

[KAF6045]

There is still the matter of educating the buyers of those bubble pack radios as to some protocol to follow... Something akin to https://www.mdarc.org/activities/emergency-communications/wilderness-protocol

[SteveShannon]

52 minutes ago, KAF6045 said:

There is still the matter of educating the buyers of those bubble pack radios as to some protocol to follow... Something akin to https://www.mdarc.org/activities/emergency-communications/wilderness-protocol

Yes, I think that’s crucial. 
Here’s something else:

[SteveShannon]

I googled “emergency protocols for FRS radio” and I’m delighted that I found many sites and documents that describe such plans. 
Unfortunately they are dissimilar, but for people in those areas they may be very useful. 

[gortex2]

1 hour ago, Sshannon said:

Certainly it’s not ideal, but for $200 I could donate 10 Baofeng radios and set them up to scan all the GMRS/FRS radios and all the local ham repeaters and probably the SAR frequencies as well.  These could be provided to folks who are out searching for a lost person.  

While I agree someone could donate radios there is alot that can make it work or not work. 

Just something to think about. When I deploy as a team member in the field I have my backpack, Chest Harness (Dual Radio) with VHF SAR radio and UHF Trunking Radio, GPS, Compass, Map and if at night headlamp and flashlight. Once in the field we are navigating, listening to both operations and command on our radios and searching for a subject who may or may not be conscious. For me to have another radio talking in the background is a distraction. Our SOP actually states no ham radios on in the field. A member can carry it but they need to leave it in the backpack unless its needed for a backup to a backup to a backup. I sometimes have mine in the backpack with APRS running but volume off. There is alot going on in the woods for a SAR member. Add in K9 team, helo and trackers and its enough to just hear operations calling. 

I don't disagree with having that radio on hand but not sure how well it would work in some cases. To be honest I think a Talkabout in scan would be better than a baofeng when you think about the KISS method. 

The biggest issue is education as said. I dont ever see a nationwide education or decision to happen on FRS. Personally I like what Wyoming did. Even though many find fault with the channel and tone at least they published something. I guess its something other SAR groups should look at but I have trouble just getting folks to buy a part 90 radio ! 

With that said I still participate in some statewide meetings in the NE for SAR and I'll make it a point to at least float the idea at the next statewide meeting. 

[MichaelLAX]

The OP joined this Forum last Sunday, just to post his question and has yet to return to clarify it.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that this is not about SAR and more about family and friends wanting to communicate back to the base camp while out skiing! 

I believe you guys are over-thinking the problem and hence complicating his solution.

[SteveShannon]

19 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

The OP joined this Forum last Sunday, just to post his question and has yet to return to clarify it.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that this is not about SAR and more about family and friends wanting to communicate back to the base camp while out skiing! 

I believe you guys are over-thinking the problem and hence complicating his solution.

Not really. Marc and I both answered his original question.

Then, like conversations sometimes go, Gortex2 introduced an inflection point.  Almost all of us understand that the conversation that’s going on now has almost nothing to do with the OP’s question.  That’s just life online. It has been an interesting diversion though.

[MichaelLAX]

3 hours ago, Sshannon said:

Then, like conversations sometimes go, Gortex2 introduced an inflection point.  

I was trying to be not so “on the nose!