Bay Village Police Incident - 01/29/21 MARCS Fail

[a388sig2]

Bay Village Police actively searching room-by-room of high school for a suspect known to them.

MARCS radio coverage sub-optimal; they’re using mobile phones instead. “Coms are really bad in here.”

This wouldn’t be such a shock if it weren’t repeatedly reported to MARCS and DAS at various instances over the last five years.

 

[N8WCP]

If they knew coverage was bad in the building they should have taken action earlier. Could have installed a BDA, had command vehicles with mobile repeaters on site, or just moved to simplex. Can’t expect a radio system will provide coverage in every square inch of a building.

 

[TailGator911]

Same thing happened here a while back during an active shooter scare at the WPAFB hospital. They had major problems inside the hospital. Haven't heard anything about it since.

 

[Nasby]

If its been going on for five years then its poor training and preparation by the first responders.

 

[a388sig2]

Funny, the MARCS invoices always come on time.
Yet the coverage issue work orders get lost in bureaucracy.

 

[fredva]

Whose responsibility is it to provide in-building coverage for local police departments - the state or the village? Perhaps the state doesn't have the same coverage requirements as the local jurisdictions. Could the village put up the money for an additional MARCS site for better coverage?

 

[GlobalNorth]

If its been going on for five years then its poor training and preparation by the first responders.

How are line level police officers and emergency responders responsible for the failure of a radio system? All the training in the world doesn't do a thing when the portable is keyed and the systems don't do what they are designed for.

It sounds as if the communications engineers at whatever company they went with sold the government a system that was incapable of performing up to a reasonable level of performance. Governments are famous for buying systems that have been so pruned of their infrastructure that a QRP HF ham rig would be a better performer across the geography that an agency covers.

 

[phillydjdan]

What was the design requirements for the vendor? 95% in-building? 90% street coverage? The specs are different for every system and this system could very well be well within spec. Ohio is a big state. If the system covers 95% but this school happens to be within that 5%, the vendor didn't fail.

 

[tweiss3]

Whose responsibility is it to provide in-building coverage for local police departments - the state or the village? Perhaps the state doesn't have the same coverage requirements as the local jurisdictions. Could the village put up the money for an additional MARCS site for better coverage?

I know in new construction, there is usually a large chunk of change left in a contingency just for in building radio and we have to end up testing at the end before occupancy certificate is issued.

Outside of that for existing building coverage would probably be a joint effort between the local department and the MARCS team.

 

[a388sig2]

If its been going on for five years then its poor training and preparation by the first responders.

The only failure in training was the use of interoperability talk groups. They can’t train enough for this and they never do. Yet, interop talk groups are useless without in-building coverage, repeaters and appropriate mobile site technology.

 

[gtaman]

I think it was poor planning. The second CFD has poor coverage they go to CAR-to-CAR simplex. They either have a chief radio from a command vehicle to the FAO or they patch the simplex using a vehicular repeater.

 

[drkbird]

The last channel position in the first zone should be a FM simplex so it is easy to find. 8TAC91D comes to mind.

 

[wa8pyr]

How are line level police officers and emergency responders responsible for the failure of a radio system? All the training in the world doesn't do a thing when the portable is keyed and the systems don't do what they are designed for.

It sounds as if the communications engineers at whatever company they went with sold the government a system that was incapable of performing up to a reasonable level of performance. Governments are famous for buying systems that have been so pruned of their infrastructure that a QRP HF ham rig would be a better performer across the geography that an agency covers.

MARCS-IP was never designed to provide in-building coverage statewide; the original spec called for in-building coverage in Columbus, and mobile coverage across the rest of the state. Major improvements have been made as local agencies have joined the system, but the state can't fling up a site to provide coverage in every building in every county; too many tower sites can actually be a bad thing, on top of which it's not practical or financially possible.

It's the responsibility of local agencies to identify coverage problems in their jurisdiction and work with MARCS to find solutions; those solutions can range from better training and procedures to use of simplex frequencies or vehicle repeaters, even to added tower sites when feasible.

If Bay Village knew about coverage issues in the building for five years, the responsibility lies on them.

 

[a388sig2]

The last channel position in the first zone should be a FM simplex so it is easy to find. 8TAC91D comes to mind.

Agreed. Problem is they don’t train for this and the Cuyahoga County Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan is 140 pages long. This really needs to be a bullet point sheet or index card for every patrol car and fire apparatus in the county, that will be addressed.

I have my team pulling the records for what MARCS sold the city on as early as 2013, if they weren’t specific and clear on in-building coverage, DAS could be held negligent in the Court of Claims. The City of Bay Village budgets $47,000, per year on MARCS replacement equipment alone, so vehicle repeaters shouldn’t be an issue for purchase if it was disclosed by MARCS that the city needs them for daily operations.

 

[wa8pyr]

Agreed. Problem is they don’t train for this and the Cuyahoga County Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan is 140 pages long. This really needs to be a bullet point sheet or index card for every patrol car and fire apparatus in the county, that will be addressed.

I hope you have better luck than we've had. We've taught people about the conventional channels and when to use them, even to the point of passing out cheat sheets, and cannot get them to leave the dang dispatch channel much less the home system. The mindset is tough to break, and supervisors who are willing to say "we're having trouble in the building during this incident and are going to channel x" is where it has to start.

I have my team pulling the records for what MARCS sold the city on as early as 2013, if they weren’t specific and clear on in-building coverage, DAS could be held negligent in the Court of Claims. The City of Bay Village budgets $47,000, per year on MARCS replacement equipment alone, so vehicle repeaters shouldn’t be an issue for purchase if it was disclosed by MARCS that the city needs them for daily operations.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but if I recall correctly there are limits to what you can sue a government agency for; this might not qualify. In addition, if the problem has been ongoing for five years the state could throw the responsibility back on the city and get the case dismissed.

Digging back through my files looking for the blank user agreement form I had and can't find it offhand, but if I recall correctly there's a clause in there that no guarantees are made as to coverage. I have yet to hear of a radio system that makes such a guarantee; you can put up tower sites all over the place and still have dead spots.

In the long run it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy vehicle repeaters and leave it at that.

 

[a388sig2]

I hope you have better luck than we've had.

That’s going to be a challenge, considering we had night shift ask if Google Maps satellite view was live. 🤦‍♂️

 

[wa8pyr]

That’s going to be a challenge, considering we had night shift ask if Google Maps satellite view was live. 🤦‍♂️

I'd like to laugh, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Google had some sort of live imagery so they can spy on us all the time.

 

[W8UU]

We've taught people about the conventional channels and when to use them, even to the point of passing out cheat sheets, and cannot get them to leave the dang dispatch channel much less the home system. The mindset is tough to break, and supervisors who are willing to say "we're having trouble in the building during this incident and are going to channel x" is where it has to start.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

We have this issue with fire departments conducting fireground communications and traffic control activities at MVCs on the countywide repeater system despite the fact there are multiple simplex frequencies available to everyone. It's not just a MARCS issue.

In the long run it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy vehicle repeaters and leave it at that.

Vehicle repeaters are the only real solution for public safety applications where portable communications in a variety of unplanned and unpredictable environments is critical. This is especially true in rural areas where there is no mandate or oversight to force compliance with in-building 700/800 booster systems.

It's not new technology or a new problem. Vehicle repeaters solved about 95% of the portable radio issues back when public safety agencies were using low band and its still true today with MARCS.

 

[wd8chl]

MARCS-IP was never designed to provide in-building coverage statewide; the original spec called for in-building coverage in Columbus, and mobile coverage across the rest of the state. Major improvements have been made as local agencies have joined the system, but the state can't fling up a site to provide coverage in every building in every county; too many tower sites can actually be a bad thing, on top of which it's not practical or financially possible.

It's the responsibility of local agencies to identify coverage problems in their jurisdiction and work with MARCS to find solutions; those solutions can range from better training and procedures to use of simplex frequencies or vehicle repeaters, even to added tower sites when feasible.

If Bay Village knew about coverage issues in the building for five years, the responsibility lies on them.

Not to mention MARCS was never intended to be used for day-to-day comm's for non-state agencies! It can't handle it, and I don't see it ever can. Not from a practical standpoint anyway.
But you can't tell city admins any of that. They don't understand why it doesn't cover better than their cell phones. They don't understand why they can't put up a site in their backyard. I mean, cell companies do it! <\sarcasm font off>

 

[wa8pyr]

Not to mention MARCS was never intended to be used for day-to-day comm's for non-state agencies! It can't handle it, and I don't see it ever can. Not from a practical standpoint anyway.

Don't know where you're getting your information; it seems to be working OK from everything I've seen and I'm a daily user as well as local admin. If the system couldn't handle it there would be busy signals and system failures all over, but there are very few busy signals, and no system failures. In fact, the majority of busy signals are probably caused by unnecessary statewide roaming, which MARCS is addressing (slowly).

But you can't tell city admins any of that. They don't understand why it doesn't cover better than their cell phones. They don't understand why they can't put up a site in their backyard. I mean, cell companies do it! <\sarcasm font off>

News for city admins. . . cell phones ain't all that, either. If you've got dead spots in one area with AT&T and not with Verizon, the next block down you'll have dead spots with Verizon and not with AT&T.