Thanks for the info. K6.... This I what I was hankering for. If users are adding p.l. To the TX side and this is a simplex frequency... Having the radios in csq on the RX side is a waste of time, since there is not repeaters...Basically all radios need to have p.l. On the TX and RX...to eliminate interference. However I do see mMcKenna point . Getting everyone in the state to be on the same sheet is going to be difficult.Transmit tone of 156.7 was added while I worked for the state (I left 8 years ago). Receive tone was added at narrow banding. The reason for tone is to reduce the interference from the non-public safety users operating scrambled radios in international waters (and in various coastal waters) as received by public safety users with any kind of elevation and a view towards the Pacific Firebreak.
Just checking on my ignorance here, if you don't mind, umm...Ummm,,, VCALL10, VTAC11-14, VFIRE21-26, CALAW1 (and CALAW2 hopefully at 10 watts or less) and VLAW31?
My sentiments exactly.I've added the TX PL tone to all our radios, but I won't add it on the RX side, I'm leaving them all as CSQ. Just a recipe for disaster, all it takes is for one department to neglect it, or one radio to get missed, and I'll get blamed.
Maybe in a few years I re-visit this.
Look here: INTERNATIONAL VHF MARINE RADIO CHANNELS AND FREQUENCIES.My sentiments exactly.
I program all the other tac channels tx and rx tones as specified, but Calcord I leave CSQ because I know how many organizations are out there that get their radios programmed every 5-10 years, if ever. I am not aware of any interference problems on 156.075 anyway, since it has been a statewide channel for as long as anybody can remember.
And I DO see your point as well! Very much so; as long as the you're programming the TX tones leaving the RX side CSQ for now makes logical sense given all of the variables you're dealing with. I think many throughout the state (and the nation for other multi-use and mutual aid frequencies) are doing the same for the same reasons.I hear what you are saying, but our site is at 800 feet overlooking the Monterey Bay and out to sea about 40 miles or so. Never had an issue with interference on CalCord. Actually, none of our guys hang out on CalCord, they switch to it when necessary, then switch back. Since it isn't a dispatch channel, there really isn't a reason for anyone to hang out on the frequency full time. Usage around here is fairly short and sweet, often hand held to hand held, or hand held to helicopter. Distances we are talking about are a few hundred yards at the most. It isn't used for long range stuff. Distant marine stations off shore likely won't be an issue.
I fully understand why they are pushing for PL tones, but I'm reluctant. With so many "privately owned radios", radios that get tucked away and forgotten, radios that go "missing" and suddenly show up, I'd be surprised if there isn't some issues here.
Like I said, I'll wait a few years and consider it.
Both correct.Just checking on my ignorance here, if you don't mind, umm...
VLAW31 = 155.475MHz = old "NALEMARS" right?
VLAW32 = 155.4825MHz (found a reference in a 2008 document, not sure if it's still extant)?
Are both now supposed to be using 156.7Hz CTCSS?
I did the same thing when I was in charge of a fleet of radios with a lot of recently modified statewide interop channels (post narrow-banding):I've added the TX PL tone to all our radios, but I won't add it on the RX side, I'm leaving them all as CSQ. Just a recipe for disaster, all it takes is for one department to neglect it, or one radio to get missed, and I'll get blamed.
Maybe in a few years I re-visit this.
Thanks swylie,One of the big reasons for putting PL on Calcord was because Nevada Division Of Forestry (NDF) in their NWS region which is The Northwest area of the state changed their input frequency to their repeater system a couple of years ago to the same frequency as Calcord which was a big mistake when they did that with the proxcimity of that area to California, so that was the remedy.