NIFC National Air to Ground Channels

Status
Not open for further replies.

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I'm updating the Wiki pages that are linked to the National Incident Radio Support Cache database page. I have the official 2016 listings. To make the air to ground channel listings easier to use I'm adding a table that will show the channels sorted by Geographic Area Coordination Center use and further by dispatch center/initial attack zones. Using this table a person will be able to look up the channels used in a dispatch center and/or initial attack zone. I will revise the channel sorted table as well.

The two tables will reflect the initial attack assignments for the air to ground channels. A few channels have not been assigned to a dispatch/initial attack zone and are available for extended attack assignment. Some channels are assigned to extended attack fires when the frequencies don't interfere with initial attack assignments or assignments for park, forest, BLM district and wildlife refuge nets. When assignments are made on extended attack fires often times only the channel name is announced. With the channel sorted table it is easy to find the frequency quickly.

It will take a week or two for me to complete the second table and to revise the original table. The lower elevation fire season is now in full swing in the lower elevations and got a boost when temperatures finally warmed a couple or three weeks ago. As a result I'm trying to complete these listings as soon as I can.

I hope this improves the usefulness of the air to ground listings.
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I nave now completed all 7 western state Geographical Area Coordination Center air to ground frequency listings. I still have the Southern and Eastern GACC listings to add. The Alaska GACC uses VHF-AM aviation frequencies for air to ground use. I don't have any information on those. I will post when I begin to edit the channel order table.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
The geographic sort table of the air to ground frequencies has been completed. I will begin the revision of the channel order table in the next few days.
 
Last edited:

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,228
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
You don't really need a separate table for channel order.
Each of the tables in that page are sortable. If you notice each column name at the top of the tables has a little icon that looks like box with two arrows in it. Clicking those sorts the table in the order of whatever is in that column. (this only happens in your browser and doesn't change the wiki article). All you need to do is decide what default order you want and put the table in that order, then the users can sort it however they want.

I also noticed there are three that only have a secondary frequency and no primary:
Southern FL-05 Ocala AG78 168.5750
Southern OK-02 Southeast Oklahoma AG35 167.2250
Southern OK-03 Western Oklahoma AG35 167.2250
Is that right? That looks to me like a table formatting error but maybe not.
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
You don't really need a separate table for channel order.
Each of the tables in that page are sortable. If you notice each column name at the top of the tables has a little icon that looks like box with two arrows in it. Clicking those sorts the table in the order of whatever is in that column. (this only happens in your browser and doesn't change the wiki article). All you need to do is decide what default order you want and put the table in that order, then the users can sort it however they want.

I also noticed there are three that only have a secondary frequency and no primary:
Southern FL-05 Ocala AG78 168.5750
Southern OK-02 Southeast Oklahoma AG35 167.2250
Southern OK-03 Western Oklahoma AG35 167.2250
Is that right? That looks to me like a table formatting error but maybe not.

The source document for new table I developed showed no primary frequencies for these three zones and I have not idea why. I'm going to try to find additional information to fill in those blanks, but that is difficult. I need feedback from members who listen to fire dispatches in those areas to fill in those blanks. I may come across some official info to fill in the gaps, but it might not happen quickly, sometimes it can be a year or two before I find additional official information.

There are several frequencies that are not assigned to the zones so changing the sort order of the zone sorted table I just developed will not show the complete list. I just tried changing the sort order and given that not every channel is assigned to each of the categories (Primary, Secondary . . ) a Channel 1-89 list is not produced. I think a channel order table with no gaps is needed.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I've completed my own spreadsheet of a channel sort of the air to ground frequencies. I will begin to revise the table of same in the wiki as time and pain allow. I had a terribly painful day today and it kept me from doing anything on this project.

I've been unable to find data to fill in the blanks for several dispatch and or initial attack zones. I've had nearly zero success getting data for the southern and eastern U.S. for a couple of decades.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I've completed both the GACC sort and the channel sort tables. I contacted another source about the missing primary channels for the three Oklahoma zones. Unfortunately a conflict between my R1 source and my R8 source resulted and given the info I have it results in each GACC showing different versions of Channel 69. For now, there is no way to resolve the conflict between the two and with previous versions of the table that show the frequency for Channel 69 shown by the NRCC and its apparent duplication with Channel 73.

I did the best I could do with what information I was able to get.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,360
Location
Taxachusetts
Your work, with such a Complex and Changing Wiki is much appreciated. ;)
Hopefully folks can Over-the-Air validate the information and then make submissions to then get the info into the RRDB
I've completed both the GACC sort and the channel sort tables. I contacted another source about the missing primary channels for the three Oklahoma zones. Unfortunately a conflict between my R1 source and my R8 source resulted and given the info I have it results in each GACC showing different versions of Channel 69. For now, there is no way to resolve the conflict between the two and with previous versions of the table that show the frequency for Channel 69 shown by the NRCC and its apparent duplication with Channel 73.

I did the best I could do with what information I was able to get.
 

northzone

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
502
Location
Northern California
The wiki page does not match the database for the command frequencies. All my info shows no command 7, but one is shown in database. Any thoughts?
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
The wiki article shows
166.2500 M Tac 7
Did this frequency really change or is it supposed to be 168.2500?

I appreciate proofreading. I will look into this. I haven't proof read what I wrote yet. I wrote the wiki very slowly and methodically, but everyone makes mistakes.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
The wiki page does not match the database for the command frequencies. All my info shows no command 7, but one is shown in database. Any thoughts?

Since I began rewriting and maintaining the wiki page for the NIRSC system I've only tried making one database submission based on the information I receive. I don't know if it is me personally or what the problem is, I have trouble with database administrators accepting my submissions on a frequent enough basis that I'm quite discouraged with making submissions. I often have to state my case several times by using some rather extensive analysis to justify my submissions. I'm using some very good sources of info and having to do this gets old. In one major case in relation to one major, primarily western, federal agency I gave up after writing 6-10 lengthy PM's about it.

In the case of command 7, the authorization for the frequency pair was terminated several years ago. I seem to recall that I made a submission to have it removed, but the submission was rejected. I would have to go back through my entire submission log to track that and I believe that log has about 500 or more submissions. For a couple of years after the authorization was terminated I even saw some official documents include it, yet I had an official document that indicated its use was to be terminated immediately.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I should also extend my thanks to database administrators for their help. They put in a fair amount of time dealing with a lot of submissions, many of which are probably erroneous. Sometimes it takes a few times to understand why the administrators want to stick to their guns and reject what I'm saying. Sometimes it is the administrator misunderstanding something that was submitted or when looking they look at a document they have seen on the internet. Once I realize what the administrator's misunderstanding is I'm able to quickly address it, but getting to that point can sometimes be a lengthy process.

I should also state that most of my work does not involve being able to field verify what I submit. The sources of my information are very good, otherwise I would not submit. Supposedly the database has to be field verified prior to it being listed. If that is the case I know that a lot of information shows up in the database that was field verified by people who don't understand the radio systems they are reporting on. A good example of that is people who report hearing fixed base UHF link frequencies and submitting them as a simulcast mobile and repeater radio system. The database is then written to reflect this because the information is "field verified."

You asked for thoughts and I gave you mine.
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
The wiki article shows
166.2500 M Tac 7
Did this frequency really change or is it supposed to be 168.2500?

It has been corrected to show 168.2500. I don't know how I made that error as I've used the frequency a few times (on the job) and programmed it manually into my Kings. Thus, I had it committed to memory. Thanks again for finding the error.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,360
Location
Taxachusetts
IT is not you, It is likely the Policy, of unless it is actually confirmed (OTA) it shall not go into the RRDB. Similar to keeping those who submit FCC Dumps of data, but have not actually heard the channels in use. Which is many cases is an excellent policy


Since I began rewriting and maintaining the wiki page for the NIRSC system I've only tried making one database submission based on the information I receive. I don't know if it is me personally or what the problem is, I have trouble with database administrators accepting my submissions on a frequent enough basis that I'm quite discouraged with making submissions. I often have to state my case several times by using some rather extensive analysis to justify my submissions. I'm using some very good sources of info and having to do this gets old. In one major case in relation to one major, primarily western, federal agency I gave up after writing 6-10 lengthy PM's about it.

In the case of command 7, the authorization for the frequency pair was terminated several years ago. I seem to recall that I made a submission to have it removed, but the submission was rejected. I would have to go back through my entire submission log to track that and I believe that log has about 500 or more submissions. For a couple of years after the authorization was terminated I even saw some official documents include it, yet I had an official document that indicated its use was to be terminated immediately.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Yes, however a lot of my information comes directly from documents that are used to program radios. Having had an entire career with a major federal land management agency I can say the information is very accurate. I might add that I worked closely with the NPS, BLM and many state natural resource agencies in that time and fought fires on lands managed by the NPS, BLM, USFS and BIA in 8 western states in that time and on state lands in some of those. I understand the radio systems and organizations of all the agencies except the USFWS as a result. I have some difficulty with admins who don't understand how the agencies or radio systems work, but nix my input anyway.

The documents and other info that I have is used by radio techs from other areas to program the huge frequency capacity of the radio models now in use. We used to think a King handheld with 8 groups of 14 was huge, but now handhelds have 25 groups of 16, with some "command" models of up to 500 channels. Accuracy is necessary when programming these radios. Every now and again I will find an error, but not very often.
 

PJH

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,620
I haven't looked at the wiki yet - but I will comment that many submissions received reguarding federal information is typically suspect, or cannot be properly included into the database as the submitter does not really know where it is being used or where it should be slotted into with multiple agencies in a confined area on an incident.

We will get quite a bit of "160.12345" is used at Bozeman MT. Well, there are several parks, lands and agencies that may operated right there, and when asked which one, we typically get "well I heard it in MT".

There is the fact that each of the major land agencies are organized several ways, however the database really only gives us three ways to include the information from the database perspective.

Master Heading "State Federal"
Category "National Park Service"
Subcatagory "ABC National Park"

For listing purposes, the only one where actual freq are contained is in that subcategory listing. That contains the freq information, GPS ranges and any free text found under name. In many of the western states, I add in "Yellowstone national park is located here, this is the website, and where you may be hearing things, etc etc"

USFS seems to be set up similarly, and BLM seems to have all sorts of structure. ex-Smokey and I, as well as others have had long email chains about this. As much as I prefer to have the database match the structure of the organization, the limitations of the database and the practicality of matching do not line up. As administrators and users of the database, it is impractical, and allow for more errors or updated information to be missed.

As for the nationwide database, its all grouped into one spot for, well, nationwide channels. If they are broken down into regions - that's easier to work with. No one in South Carolina wants to scan channels that are used in Idaho.

Its a compromise for organizing and inclusion.

I've read the Cache policy, and it seems to work, but I didn't find the documents there that had the global channel assignments as the document I read for 2016 indicated that the NFIC would assign channels from the pool to the COML to program in for the incident (its not a free for all as it was many moons ago). This is also why I believe some of the A/G assignments in many of the listings may be suspect, as it seems like every year, or every few years they like to change it up for whatever reason.

Smokey, if you have a spreadsheet and/or documents that is current and complete, feel free to email it to me and I'll look at it and compare it to whats in the nationwide listings and see if I can do something with it.

I'm I am really lucky I can import it in and save myself hours of typing in fields.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I haven't looked at the wiki yet - but I will comment that many submissions received reguarding federal information is typically suspect, or cannot be properly included into the database as the submitter does not really know where it is being used or where it should be slotted into with multiple agencies in a confined area on an incident.

We will get quite a bit of "160.12345" is used at Bozeman MT. Well, there are several parks, lands and agencies that may operated right there, and when asked which one, we typically get "well I heard it in MT".

There is the fact that each of the major land agencies are organized several ways, however the database really only gives us three ways to include the information from the database perspective.

Master Heading "State Federal"
Category "National Park Service"
Subcatagory "ABC National Park"

For listing purposes, the only one where actual freq are contained is in that subcategory listing. That contains the freq information, GPS ranges and any free text found under name. In many of the western states, I add in "Yellowstone national park is located here, this is the website, and where you may be hearing things, etc etc"

USFS seems to be set up similarly, and BLM seems to have all sorts of structure. ex-Smokey and I, as well as others have had long email chains about this. As much as I prefer to have the database match the structure of the organization, the limitations of the database and the practicality of matching do not line up. As administrators and users of the database, it is impractical, and allow for more errors or updated information to be missed.

As for the nationwide database, its all grouped into one spot for, well, nationwide channels. If they are broken down into regions - that's easier to work with. No one in South Carolina wants to scan channels that are used in Idaho.

Its a compromise for organizing and inclusion.

I've read the Cache policy, and it seems to work, but I didn't find the documents there that had the global channel assignments as the document I read for 2016 indicated that the NFIC would assign channels from the pool to the COML to program in for the incident (its not a free for all as it was many moons ago). This is also why I believe some of the A/G assignments in many of the listings may be suspect, as it seems like every year, or every few years they like to change it up for whatever reason.

Smokey, if you have a spreadsheet and/or documents that is current and complete, feel free to email it to me and I'll look at it and compare it to whats in the nationwide listings and see if I can do something with it.

I'm I am really lucky I can import it in and save myself hours of typing in fields.
'
There is not one single reason the BLM organization and the RR DB listings can't line up. They do in the state's administered by others. California is a great example. The BLM organization is no different than the Forest Service organization.

My submissions are based on the best sources available, either written or verbal from. I can't elaborate further. I don't submit anything unless the source is a good one. I won't send in as vague of a submission as you cited. I also worked for the NPS and USFS for an entire career living and working in 4 states and spent 5500 hours on 108 fire assignments in 8 western states. I was also an on call internal affairs and accident investigator and spent time on other National Forests. I worked with BLM districts in 3 states and very closely with the NPS on two different National Forests I was on. I understand how the radio systems of these agencies operate. Yet, I have to argue over what I have and how the agencies are organized. I'm pretty much done with that.

I'm burned out on going round and round with administrators. I've done so with administrators in the eastern U.S. as well. I print out everything I receive and now have my own database in paper form in 8 different notebooks, each one for a different portion of the county. I will keep the Wiki pages as current as I can with what I have and leave the database for others.

As for database submissions, the method for doing so on this website is dismal. There is a site called "wildlife.com" and members there commented that when posting information about a new initial attack on a fire it was hard to space everything in the format the site was using. Now there is a "fill in the blanks" form with blank boxes. So there are boxes for name of fire, jurisdiction the fire in in, report on conditions, rate of spread, resources dispatched, radio frequencies, online scanner link and a map link. If a submitter does not have information available for a box then it is left blank. Now every fire has the same format and looking up key pieces of information is easy because it is in a universal format. Filling in some of the boxes is mandatory. You don't have to go to some forum post somewhere to see what order the submission is supposed to be in to be typed up on a blank page.

If I had the computer skills I would develop some code and submit it, but I don't. The result of such a form would probably be better submissions as well as saving administrator time, both in entering the data and with less time spent going back and forth with submitters. Whatever time is spent by someone to develop the form would be saved many times over, in a short period of time, not only by those submitting but by administrators.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
By the way I get a fair amount of PM's on this site from people who are not happy with the way the database is administered, mostly by those who have access to data as good as mine, who have gone around and around with administrators. I'm not the only disgruntled member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top