[EAS] Should the RWT EAS Code be abolished?

[Mike McCarthy]

I concur with the latter.  The former is loaded with logistical problems 
of syncing stations to forward any messages however.  Thus,  I believe 
there is benefit to local RWT origination without any voice message.  
Just the 6 blasts we have today and the past 14 years.

As with many systems, failure to test will lead to a failure to operate 
when needed.  I believe a regular self-run test is necessary.  Just look 
at how many found the failing power supply problem on the Sage 1922, the 
complete ineptness of the Holly-Anne, or odd printing issues with the GR.

The question remains how often.  I believe a weekly test seems 
appropriate and I don't see a problem with that requirement. I do 
however find fault with requiring the showing of manual RWT activation  
even if fully operating in automated mode.  Our "Main Studio" folks are 
all sales and don't have a clue. Even as simple as the one button RWT on 
the TFT 911, they give me a blank stare never mind entering a PW on the 
Sage.

Smart operators have integrated the test into their traffic and 
pre-schedule a randomized rotation up to a year in advance.  The 
automation system does the rest if capable of limited machine control 
commands/closures.  Our new automation system will also permit polite 
RMT forwarding once we get the new EAS boxes installed and can split out 
the GPIOs covering the the essential logic aspects of those messages 
separately from the RWT trigger.  Let the Station Log indicate system 
operation status and capability and subsequently take the human element 
out of the process totally.

MM

On 11/24/2011 1:19 AM, David Turnmire wrote:
> Perhaps I may be so bold as to make the case FOR RWTs?
>
>      * Let me begin by saying that if your point is that the typical EAS Participant at the END of the chain should not be required to ORIGINATE an RWT... on that we can agree.  But... I would argue there are many valuable uses for RWTs in the EAS system.
>