[EAS] So, wouldn't you think after the missle fiasco that somone would have learned something?

[Rich Parker]

Ed - all good points and questions.  As to the first two, no one knows
at this point the why or how, but of course they are looking into it
carefully.

As for an ADR - in later discussions, I learned that an ADR was
discussed and considered at the EOC, but the environment is such that
the authorities believed that there would be so much push back from
'stations' if they did that and interrupted programming again. There
were 'other' channels which were used for contact to authorities down
the chain, but those were apparently channels that many broadcasters
(at least in our region) did not have access to or were participating
in.

That judgement (re: ADR) is apparently a local issue involving the EOC
getting great criticism from a number of contentious 'participants'
and so I can't speak to that - we would have preferred for that to
have occurred, but we have discussed internally a procedure for
sending our own (local) ADR in such cases. But the stations did go on
the air as soon as they confirmed that it was a mistake, and made
repeated announcements - as well as posting in various social media
outlets. (NWS and others did as well).  Of course, for those
'entities' who resent even minimum participation in EAS (as in asking
the engineers 'What is the minimum we can do and still remain in
compliance'), I can understand that a followup ADR would just be more
gasoline on the fire. (I don't happen to agree, and it saddens me that
this is so)

Interesting comments regarding CAP - I have always wondered why NWS is
still so far behind with CAP (money I suppose), but the other ideas
bear investigating, for sure.

Thanks for this -

Rich Parker
Director of Engineering
CoastAlaska

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Ed Czarnecki
<ed.czarnecki at monroe-electronics.com> wrote:
> There are lots of questions that hopefully would be addressed in an after-action report, if one is produced.
>