After it KILLED (2) Firemen, they STILL use it!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

dcfdjim

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
16
Location
Frederick, MD
I attended the funeral of one of the two guys who died in this NE Philadelphia row house fire. As a firefighter, what I need to read is an in-depth, third party report on how these two brave men died in that fire. An OSHA and or NIOSH investigation into a firefighter line of duty death (LODD) will expose many fire department deficiencies that contribute to firefighter deaths. If deficiencies in the radio system contributed to this tragedy, then it would be thoroughly investigated, documented, and printed. Additionally, if other contributing factors are discovered, they also will be printed for all of us to learn by. An example of some additional contributing factors may be: an inadequate deployment of fire resources to the fire, lack of fire fighter training (maybe on the radios), lack of a strong fire department incident command presence, or maybe departmental members engaged in the firefight who deviated from standard operating procedures/guidelines.

Either way, it's unfair to speculate that the radio system is the sole cause of these two Brothers' death until an official, unbiased report is published.
Unfortunately, though, it seems to me that the Philadelphia Fire Department maintains a history of not making such investigations public. In my almost nineteen years with the Washington, DC Fire Department, the Philadelphia Fire Department has suffered numerous LODDs; however, to my knowledge, OSHA or NIOSH reports outlining these deaths have not been made public for us all to learn.

In my community, we have lost three fire fighters in working fires in the last seven years...two of the Brothers died in the same fire. My point is, we opened our hearts and allowed the full investigations into these tragedies to be made widely available so that all other fire fighters may learn from our mistakes.

Regarding the discussions on this thread about tactical channel configurations, I am a proponent of keeping them trunked and definitely NOT encrypting them. As a captain, I act as a battalion fire chief fairly often. While en route to a fire, it is not uncommon for companies to begin interior operations before the battalion fire chief is close enough to receive conventional/direct, non-repeated channels. However, with our TRS, all interior portable radio transmissions are heard...and this is invaluable. Our fire department is fortunate enough to have added an additional six repeater towers since the inception of the system when we were only using four, thereby enhancing our coverage. Additionally, we incorporate vehicle repeater systems (VRS) that are activated when we arrive on scene. If members go out-of-range when they enter a building, they switch to a conventional channel which transmits back out to the apparatus which in turn will retransmit the signal on the original digital tactical channel. In fact, the emergency button still works when we're using the VRS.
 

suttles1972

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
202
Location
Chattanooga, Tn
dcfdjim said:
I attended the funeral of one of the two guys who died in this NE Philadelphia row house fire. As a firefighter, what I need to read is an in-depth, third party report on how these two brave men died in that fire. An OSHA and or NIOSH investigation into a firefighter line of duty death (LODD) will expose many fire department deficiencies that contribute to firefighter deaths. If deficiencies in the radio system contributed to this tragedy, then it would be thoroughly investigated, documented, and printed. Additionally, if other contributing factors are discovered, they also will be printed for all of us to learn by. An example of some additional contributing factors may be: an inadequate deployment of fire resources to the fire, lack of fire fighter training (maybe on the radios), lack of a strong fire department incident command presence, or maybe departmental members engaged in the firefight who deviated from standard operating procedures/guidelines.

Either way, it's unfair to speculate that the radio system is the sole cause of these two Brothers' death until an official, unbiased report is published.
Unfortunately, though, it seems to me that the Philadelphia Fire Department maintains a history of not making such investigations public. In my almost nineteen years with the Washington, DC Fire Department, the Philadelphia Fire Department has suffered numerous LODDs; however, to my knowledge, OSHA or NIOSH reports outlining these deaths have not been made public for us all to learn.

In my community, we have lost three fire fighters in working fires in the last seven years...two of the Brothers died in the same fire. My point is, we opened our hearts and allowed the full investigations into these tragedies to be made widely available so that all other fire fighters may learn from our mistakes.

Regarding the discussions on this thread about tactical channel configurations, I am a proponent of keeping them trunked and definitely NOT encrypting them. As a captain, I act as a battalion fire chief fairly often. While en route to a fire, it is not uncommon for companies to begin interior operations before the battalion fire chief is close enough to receive conventional/direct, non-repeated channels. However, with our TRS, all interior portable radio transmissions are heard...and this is invaluable. Our fire department is fortunate enough to have added an additional six repeater towers since the inception of the system when we were only using four, thereby enhancing our coverage. Additionally, we incorporate vehicle repeater systems (VRS) that are activated when we arrive on scene. If members go out-of-range when they enter a building, they switch to a conventional channel which transmits back out to the apparatus which in turn will retransmit the signal on the original digital tactical channel. In fact, the emergency button still works when we're using the VRS.

I commend your response sir. And you are correct. It is very wrong to speculate anything right now. My concern, along with the others, should be a prayer to our friends, our brethren, our heroes, and our spiritual brethren of Christ. We must take this moment and welcome them home, for the job they do.
Each and every department will have some form of problems, when it comes to radio communications. But training is priority one (as you mentioned) to being thorough and having the understanding to the radios limitations. You and I both know that a"flashover" can destroy anything within it's path. So radios aren't as indistruptable as many want to believe. They fail. Just as we do. So in knowing that, how much stock should be put into our modern way of fire suppression. I know fires are different today, as they were, in the past. I know that building construction is a lot different, too. But what about the life safety tactics of personnel? In knowing how vunerable we are, while inside an environment that deteriorates at the blink of an eye, are there tactics in place to rescue the firefighters that loses his communication and personal safety equipment? A "MayDay" can't be called without our radios and you can't call "MayDay", if you're unconscious. You and I know that a RIC team will only respond by the orders of the IC. So if the IC doesn't get the"MayDay", then operations will continue, with no knowledge of two missing firefighters. A PAR (personnel accountability report) is great. But how often is it used and what are the durations of a PAR count? These are major concerns to me. Because it's obvious that even with the personel safety programs we have in place, there remains many flaws. So training does have a major role in seeing these flaws through, in hopes to showing the most aggressive firefighter, how vunerable he is, without his personal protective equipment.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
mr_hankey said:
how much of this issue is the fact that TDMA/CDMA is a poorer-performer in a basement than a less-efficient use of the bandwidth?

you'd have to be out of your mind to be down in a basement fighting a structure fire with, say, a Nextel phone, but isn't this the same thing?

OpenSky IS TDMA/CDMA, right?

TDMA and CDMA are two different things.

And neither has a significant effect on range or coverage, but each ahas signififcant effects on system design which affects range and coverage.

iDEN, and OpenSky, and TETRA are all TDMA type systems.
P25 Phase 1 is FDMA
 

jgarber311

W8CEN
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
52
Location
Oak Harbor, Ohio
There are sure a lot of emotions in this thread as well there should be. If any of you have tried to implement a new radio system in a county or city you know how hard it is to get everyone onboard.
But let me remind those on this thread who seem to take each post personally that this is simply a forum for people's opinion. Whether people agree with you or not shouldn't offend you. We simply offer opinions here. As others have suggested that I have "flamed" certain people on this thread. All I have to say is get a life.
The fact remains that in our county we have had these battles between trunked vs. conventional systems. We have heard all the trunked radio propaganda. We have heard all the conventional radio propaganda. The end result is that we use two separate systems one trunked and one conventional. Some depts are on the 450 band and some are on 800. This in itself poses its own problems, but we have the unique opportunity to see how each one performs.
In my opinion and the opinion of others around me agree that you cannot beat a well engineered system, whether it be TRS or coventional. Dollar for dollar our county has a much better 450 system. It costs tens of thousands to construct and maintain vs. the millions upon millions invested in the 800 system. And in our situation it is much more reliable.
So, while others may think I am "leaning on others" for information I guess the answer to that is that I am. I am speaking from 1)experience 2) experience of hundreds of public safety workers. Since the public service workers are why we need these systems that is who we should listen to. Not our own arrogant opinions and not simply the propaganda by a company making billions of dollars installing such systems.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
LGLHOOK said:
Thanks for the back Wayne. I will let those guys think what they want from thier own states, but I know what i can listen to here in Utah. :D

The fact that the user "thinks" his system or a particular talkgroup is encrypted does not make it so. :wink:

The factr that a talkgroup is called encrypted does not make it so. :wink:

But, if a channel or talkgroup is set to enable encryption, AND the users have there radios set for encryption, you are not going to hear them. :!:

If you do, it is one of the above cases (or the voices in your head are starting to seem real to you!) :twisted:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top