RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Announcements and News > Community Announcements and News


Community Announcements and News - Announcements and News of interest to the entire RadioReference/Broadcastify Community. All new threads posted here will be moderated by the administrators. *** Please post regional and manufacturer specific news in the appropriate regional or manufacturer forum. Thanks. ***

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:49 AM
W9BU's Avatar
Lead Wiki Manager
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brownsburg, Indiana
Posts: 4,735
Default

I'm not taking a position on this discussion, but I am doing some fact checking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
1) New York is larger than most of the other examples cited. Physical distance makes cross-state talkpaths operationally useless.
New York: 285 miles x 330 miles
Michigan: 386 miles x 456 miles
North Carolina: 170 miles x 560 miles
Arizona: 310 miles x 400 miles
__________________
Lead Wiki Manager and Forum Moderator.

"The whole world's living in a digital dream. It's not really there, it's all on the screen." -- WB6ACU
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #82 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2017, 1:30 PM
krokus's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
Once again missing the point(s).

1) New York is larger than most of the other examples cited. Physical distance makes cross-state talkpaths operationally useless.

2) There is a difference between having interop channels or talkgroups available within a region for incoming responders to use during an incident in that area and having the ability to key up the system from across the state for no reason at all except that it can be done.
Not missing anything, I am dismissing the opinion.

1 & 2) Depends on your operations and/or operational needs.

Sent via Tapatalk
__________________
Generic radio geek, in southeast Michigan.
PSR-500, TM-742, TM-V71,TH-78, HTX-420, IC-2AT, IC-2E (clone), Pro-39, BC-235XLT, TK-290, XTS-5000
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2017, 2:28 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York North Carolina and all points in between
Posts: 2,212
Default

I agree a thousand mile talk path or even a one hundred mile one is not needed, use a cellphone. If you make the statement that cell sites may be down then you can sure so will the trunking system. Cellular is a lot more robust with a lot more sites and has a better failsafes built in. All trunking radios have conventional capabilities, so why tie up trunking resource paths for Mutual Aid equipment. Hopefully the responding agencies have been briefed as to where to go and who to report to. If not then that's on the requesting agency and a problem and their fault. Having the V-Tac, U-Tac and I-Tac repeaters for a geographic area is all that's needed, and in most cases you are going to be on simplex. I have heard drills being conducted by Suffolk Co Long Island on the U-Tacs and I live 70 miles away in Dutchess County New York. That in itself will become a problem as multiple repeaters will be brought up on a large scale operation. In my area just listening to the U-Tac's you can multiple FCC station ID's each hour.

To add a footnote: In November of 2015 our agency had a drill with all surrounding PD,FD,EMS agencies for a simulated commuter train accident. As part of the after action review I asked the question " Was anybody using the V-Tac's or U-Tac or I-Tacs for co-ordination". I got more than a fair share of blank expressions as to what I was talking about. I explained that these channels came about as a result of the 911 commission report to assist in large area response co-ordination. Most of the audience didn't even know what they were or had them in their radio and let alone how to use them.This shows a complete lack of training on the part of those agencies. While not my job to take care of such a situation I did bring it up and offered help if they wanted.

All our agencies radios had all the Tac's programmed in them and most of our personel knew where to access them in the radio. Having all these resources available doesn't fix the last inch, which is the user, and I was very disappointed in the response about the inter-agency channels. I guess it takes another 911 style disaster to bring it to the forefront again.

As far as what seems to be the yearly renaming, this sounds like typical government meddling so that they can justify their jobs.

Last edited by radioman2001; 11-10-2017 at 2:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:55 PM
K6CDO's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexScan780D View Post
Is there anyway to get table 1 into an Excel?
See my PM to you.

Don
__________________
Listening since 1966. 996Tx3, 996P2, 325P2 WS1098.
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 1:43 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Object-oriented
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioman2001 View Post
As far as what seems to be the yearly renaming, this sounds like typical government meddling so that they can justify their jobs.
Now APCO and NPSTC are government entities?

I volunteer enough of my time with NPSTC, but I'd like to see that back pay check.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #86 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 10:04 AM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilrobnson View Post
Now APCO and NPSTC are government entities?

I volunteer enough of my time with NPSTC, but I'd like to see that back pay check.
You're right, it's not "government meddling". It is bureaucratic mission creep. Make busywork so they appear relevant and useful.

EDIT: I should temper the above with a dose of situational reality. Idle resources are not perceived as necessary to most people, including people who write checks. Parked first response vehicles are a "problem" to some of those types, so the agencies that operate them have to find (or are given) non-response things to do so they look "useful". As most of American society has become bureaucratic in style, this sort of aberration has become the commonplace.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2017, 6:02 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Object-oriented
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
You're right, it's not "government meddling". It is bureaucratic mission creep. Make busywork so they appear relevant and useful.
Well, that's not why I do it, but YMMV.

Now what do I do with all of this grant-funded MOPP gear laying around...?
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2017, 6:17 AM
milf's Avatar
Careful, I CAN hear you!
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 11,356
Default

Lol my TPU would love to play with it.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
__________________
Admin for AR, IN, LA, MS, and TN
PRO-92, PRO-92B, PRO-96 x 2, BCD396XT, BCD436HP+DMR
HT-1250 LS+, APX6000XE
Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:41 PM
K6CDO's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNF2G View Post
You're right, it's not "government meddling". It is bureaucratic mission creep. Make busywork so they appear relevant and useful.

EDIT: I should temper the above with a dose of situational reality. Idle resources are not perceived as necessary to most people, including people who write checks. Parked first response vehicles are a "problem" to some of those types, so the agencies that operate them have to find (or are given) non-response things to do so they look "useful". As most of American society has become bureaucratic in style, this sort of aberration has become the commonplace.
Dave,

An interesting perspective. NPSTC organized the Common Channel Naming list in 2007 at the request of the national public safety user community following Hurricane Katrina and the communications issues caused by out-of-area users trying to find common operating frequencies in their radios when they found dissimilar names for the various Mutual Aid / Interoperability frequencies. The process included participation (and consensus) from users in Florida, New York, Arizona, California, Texas, Washington and the National Capital Region.

The FCC requested the document have some legitimate peer review; APCO is an ANSI Standards body, and took up the issue of establishing it as an ANS standard. As previously stated, ANSI standards require periodic review (hence the latest edition).

You may find the whole thing "Make busywork so they appear relevant and useful." I think if you spoke with public safety communications professionals in any area recently hit by a hurricane orf wildfire that they would disagree with you.

Respectfully,
Don
__________________
Listening since 1966. 996Tx3, 996P2, 325P2 WS1098.
Reply With Quote
  #90 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 7:56 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York North Carolina and all points in between
Posts: 2,212
Default

Again is it necessary to rename every year or 2. Our agency hadn't changed it's radio programming in over 10 years before narrow banding hit. Now we are expected to reprogram over 6000 radios yearly because some quasi government agency wants to rename channels bi-yearly or sooner? Even that's not a given, some states have renamed the interops to their own names, so where is the consistency. Now take this problem and apply it to a large area trunking system and that's a disaster in itself. When you are responding to a call whether it is a local or mutual aid one you don't have the time to fool around looking in bank 32 for the interops especially if they are named differently than where the dispatcher tells you to go to. My temporary solution is to name the channel the actual frequency so no matter what agency calls for it's use and what ever it's name is we know we are on the right channel.

For this only I think the FCC should come out with the naming convention just like Marine channels.When you select channel 16 it's 16 in all radios.
From the report:

In the final report of the NCC on July 25, 2003, Chair Kathleen Wallman wrote:
“The NCC respectfully renews its earlier recommendation that the Commission’s Rules contain
mandatory channel nomenclature for all interoperability channels on all public safety bands.
The NCC views such standard nomenclature as essential to the interoperability process, such
that all responders to an incident will know the appropriate channel to which to tune their radios
and will know – from the channel designator – the band and primary use of the channel
specified. Absent such standard nomenclature, a Babel-like confusion could result if, for
example, a given jurisdiction were to designate 458.2125 MHz as a calling channel and
associate it with “Channel 5” on its radios; and another jurisdiction were to designate the same
frequency as a tactical channel and assign it to “Channel 9” on its radios. With adoption of a
standard channel nomenclature in the Rules, such confusion – and the attendant potential for
delayed response to an incident – would be avoided…”


Peer review is one thing, but you are talking about 2 dozen channels available nationwide, and they should all be named the same as the problems brought out during Katrina, and I am sure other disasters. We have yet to hear about Houston or PR. I also agree that if you put more than one goverment official in charge of something it takes 20 years for a solution. The 911 commission proved that it takes Fed mandates to get a job done.

Training is another issue, that must be addressed on the fed/state level for consistency. People that work in these fields daily need to know what to do when the SH-T flies. They know their jobs,now they just nee to know what channel to be on.

I am going to go out on a limb here, but I think COM U training should be incorporated with EMT/Paramedic, Fire Fighter and Police academy training for consistency. Our local FD training touches on it, but not enough for the FF to know exactly what should be done in a MCI.

Last edited by radioman2001; 11-13-2017 at 8:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 2:27 PM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioman2001 View Post
I am going to go out on a limb here, but I think COM U training should be incorporated with EMT/Paramedic, Fire Fighter and Police academy training for consistency. Our local FD training touches on it, but not enough for the FF to know exactly what should be done in a MCI.
I understand where you're coming from, but excessive "training" won't solve certain problems, either.

There needs to be a mandate to follow NIMS everywhere for everybody. Then the FF does not need to know how an MCI is managed. The person in charge of that sector needs to know how to fit the operation into the system and give appropriate orders. The person in command needs to understand the overall picture.

NIMS would also solve some of these communication problems that have been lumped into "interoperability." A unified command post puts the people who actually need to talk to each other across service and jurisdictional boundaries into face-to-face contact.
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:02 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,343
Default

There is a NIMS mandate, probably to the extent possible, that's been around since 2003. It is associated with a Presidential Directive (Number 5). Any time a state/local government receives federal grants for public safety purposes, they have to certify their communities utilize NIMS.

Every emergency responder, as part of this "deal" has to have certain levels of training and thus should know how incidents should be managed regardless of magnitude. NIMS in scalable meaning that it expands as necessary by the incident. Using NIMS as a matter of course on smaller incidents is helpful for that rare "Y'all come" kind of incident. As folks move up in an organization, they would receive more expanded training on NIMS.

Also as part of NIMS, there is a Communications Unit having a Communications Leader. Such folks should have a greater knowledge on communications "things", including Interoperability potentials. The function of this is to develop an Incident Communications Plan which would include frequency assignments. One can Google ICS Communications plan and get a wealth of information on this.

As a retired fire chief assigning common names to frequencies envisioned to be interoperable channels is a "no-brainer". People from Los Angeles could show up in New York and the Comm Leader might be taking stock of their radio capabilites. If LA calls 851.0125 "Apples" and New York calls it "Oranges" they may not realize they have the same frequency that could be used.
Reply With Quote
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:23 PM
K6CDO's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radioman2001 View Post
Again is it necessary to rename every year or 2. Our agency hadn't changed it's radio programming in over 10 years before narrow banding hit. Now we are expected to reprogram over 6000 radios yearly because some quasi government agency wants to rename channels bi-yearly or sooner?
I don't understand where you got "rename every year or 2." The 2017 revision added a couple of channels, and corrected a number of typos in FCC rules sections.

The FCC has stated they will not mandate channel names (the Marine Channels are a special case, as the naming is international), but prefers that an industry standard be developed. That is this document.

Don
__________________
Listening since 1966. 996Tx3, 996P2, 325P2 WS1098.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions