CALCORD p.l.

[scottyhetzel]

Anyone know why after all these years they are adding a p.l.? That will be a lot of programming for all agencies to add this requirement. Including all air ambulances..

 

[kma371]

Where have you seen/heard this?

 

[SCPD]

It's in the January 2014 revision of the California On-Scene Emergency Coordination (CALCORD) Radio Plan, Technical Standards and Procedures, Section 3.2.

See attached.... (stupid links)

Looking at an older revision, you can see the same section indicates a CTCSS of none. Here's a quick find of an old revision:

http://rimssouthern.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/ClientOESFileLibrary/CalSIEC/$file/5d-CALCORD%202010%20R.pdf

 

[ScannerDude244]

I just got a new loadout today it also has vfire 22,23,24 and CalLaw1,2 and lLaw1 with the pl 156.7

Edit: It's Vfire10-26 all have pl 156.7

 

[avascan522]

CALCORD

I noticed the same thing in the TMAC 2014 App for Los Angeles County.

 

[mmckenna]

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.

 

[K6CDO]

Transmit tone of 156.7 was added in 2004 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.

 

[K6CDO]

I just got a new loadout today it also has vfire 22,23,24 and CalLaw1,2 and lLaw1 with the pl 156.7

Edit: It's Vfire10-26 all have pl 156.7

Ummm,,, VCALL10, VTAC11-14, VFIRE21-26, CALAW1 (and CALAW2 hopefully at 10 watts or less) and VLAW31?

 

[scottyhetzel]

Justification

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.

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.

 

[Mike_G_D]

Ummm,,, VCALL10, VTAC11-14, VFIRE21-26, CALAW1 (and CALAW2 hopefully at 10 watts or less) and VLAW31?

Just checking on my ignorance here, if you don't mind, umm...

VLAW31 = 155.475MHz = old "NALEMARS" right?

and

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?

??

-Mike

 

[BirkenVogt]

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.

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.

 

[Mike_G_D]

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.

Look here: INTERNATIONAL VHF MARINE RADIO CHANNELS AND FREQUENCIES.

You'll see that, internationally, marine use is allowed on 156.075MHZ as part of channel 61 (ship side). I'm not up on all of the international marine radio rules but I "think" that some or all of the duplex channels can also be used in single frequency simplex mode so direct ship-to-ship mode on 156.075MHz may also be used as Don said (legally in international waters). RF carries really well over water so, again as Don mentioned, interference is quite possible.

Also, since most marine radios sold everywhere have both "US" and "International" channel modes built in and user selectable I DO know that some folks use the "International" mode within the US borders (illegally) just to get some "private" channels.

I used to hear many ships using 156.025MHz and 156.050MHz just to chat about where the best fish catches were, etc. They were clearly english speaking natively and, as far as I could tell, had no Canadian or other form of non-US continental accent so...maybe they were in international waters and maybe not.... Carlsbad PD used to be on 156.030MHz and Oceanside used 156.045MHz as one of their frequencies so I remember well the problems from the "marine chatters"!

-Mike

 

[mmckenna]

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.

 

[Mike_G_D]

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.

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.

-Mike

 

[K6CDO]

Just checking on my ignorance here, if you don't mind, umm...

VLAW31 = 155.475MHz = old "NALEMARS" right?

and

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?

??

-Mike

Both correct.

 

[Mikerh91]

There is tons of interference on CALCORD, especially in the LA Basin.

 

[inigo88]

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.

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):
Program the TX side with the correct tone to be in compliance, and then leave the RX side CSQ assuming nobody else will.

A lot of the Cal-OES documents suggest programming a side button to enable/disable RX tone squelch, but realistically the average public safety user wouldn't remember to click it off in an interop scenario.

 

[swylie]

Calcord PL

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.

 

[scottyhetzel]

Im just saying

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.

Thanks swylie,

One would think it would be a whole lot easier to just change Nevada area, than the whole state of California. I would imagine NW Nevada has a very small population and area.

 

[Mike_G_D]

Both correct.

Thanks Don!

-Mike