Changes coming to AA Fire

[marksmith]

Does anyone have an objection to changing the database description to reflect the "name" of the talk group rather than than the current single letter? For example, I propose changing the description "1B Tac 1" to "Bravo Tac 1," and so on. The reason is to quickly ID what group I'm listening to on the HP-2.

The description should be "1 Bravo Tac 1" rather than just the "b". I have made all those changes to my favorites lists, not only to view while driving, but because that's what it is called. Also expanded the police talkgroups from "E" to East for the same reason. I think it would be an improvement on the database.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

 

[troymail]

Following this logic, the name should then be "one bravo tac one"....

 

[K4EET]

"1B" is more accurate as this is the "bravo" (2nd) channel/talkgroup in zone 1 of the county radio fleetmap/layout. "B" is bravo.... <snip>

Exactly. "Bravo" would not be enough detail because you have 1B (Fire), 2B (Police), 3B (etc...). "Bravo" appears in all zones IIRC.

73, Dave K4EET

 

[ThePhotoGuy]

Expect to hear more routine dispatch/usage of "Charlie" in addition to "Bravo" --

Unlike other areas like Baltimore County - which spreads medical and routine calls over at multiple talkgroups (central, north, east and west), Anne Arundel has nearly always put all medical and local boxes on a single talkgroup - Bravo (with the exception of during weather or other significant events). During "routine" busy periods (daytime), the singular talkgroup Bravo can quickly become overwhelmed with comms. Expect to begin hearing local alarms dispatched now as being on Charlie - at least for now...

Long over due.

Did they finally increase staffing in Fire Alarm to accomplish this? I was always shocked about their staffing levels.


Question:
Is EMS 1, 2, 4 (Supervisor) just daywork or are they 24x7? It seems that EMS-3 is 24x7 ops.

 

[marksmith]

Expect to hear more routine dispatch/usage of "Charlie" in addition to "Bravo" --

Unlike other areas like Baltimore County - which spreads medical and routine calls over at multiple talkgroups (central, north, east and west), Anne Arundel has nearly always put all medical and local boxes on a single talkgroup - Bravo (with the exception of during weather or other significant events). During "routine" busy periods (daytime), the singular talkgroup Bravo can quickly become overwhelmed with comms. Expect to begin hearing local alarms dispatched now as being on Charlie - at least for now...

Charlie has gone from hardly used, to medevac LZ channel, back to hardly used. A second routine response channel sounds like a very good idea for that talkgroup, as long as the same Tac operator is not trying to work both.

Mark
WS1095/536/436/996P2/HP1e/HP2e/996XT/325P2/396XT/PRO668/PSR800/PRO652

 

[maus92]

Exactly. "Bravo" would not be enough detail because you have 1B (Fire), 2B (Police), 3B (etc...). "Bravo" appears in all zones IIRC.

73, Dave K4EET

Perhaps it would be better described in the database as "1B Tac 1 - Bravo" (or "1 Bravo - Tac 1") There is a similar clarification when describing XRay channels in the database. Remember that this is in the decription field, not the Alpha Tag field.

 

[riveter]

I'm really not getting the whole Bravo naming convention change thing. Bravo is the phonetic letter for B. They say Bravo, I look for "B". Since it's AA fire we're talking about, it's obvious what zone I'm in- AA Fire. 1B is Bravo.

Just having trouble wrapping my mind around the need to spell out something that's already there in exactly the same informative depth with fewer letters. The more letters you have to read, the longer your eyes and brain take doing it.

 

[maus92]

I'm really not getting the whole Bravo naming convention change thing. Bravo is the phonetic letter for B. They say Bravo, I look for "B". Since it's AA fire we're talking about, it's obvious what zone I'm in- AA Fire. 1B is Bravo.

Just having trouble wrapping my mind around the need to spell out something that's already there in exactly the same informative depth with fewer letters. The more letters you have to read, the longer your eyes and brain take doing it.

Again, two reasons: One, reading the display for a second or two, seeing "Bravo" (or Charlie, Delta, etc.) is easier to discern than a short "1B" "1C" or "1D" where only one letter or number is different between channels. Seeing a whole word vs. one letter is instantly recognizable when glancing at a display from a non-optimum angle or when trying to concentrate more on driving than reading a display. It's about human perception that is optimized for pattern recognition, and the bigger the difference, the better. Two, the description field is meant to expand on the brevity contained on the Alpha Tag field, not merely repeat it. I get that "1B Tac 1" is technically correct, but it could be more informative to add the spoken names of the channel "letters" for clarity, particularly since this is how the operators refer to them. They don't say "respond on Tac 1" or respond on "1B," they say "Bravo." It might also help newbies who are not used to the phonetic alphabet.

There are other examples of using spoken channel names in the RRDB description field in other radio systems in the database, so this is not precedent-setting idea. In some LA area systems, colors are used, and in some military and other systems, code names are used rather that what is programmed into the displays of the actual radios.

 

[marksmith]

There are a lot of descriptions in the database that are technically correct, but don't help the novice users who set up their radios using the database, or are technically correct at the expense of user readability or identification. This is just one of them, and if no changes are made, the database will remain technically correct.

Then users can utilize Sentinel, EZScan, iScan, Freescan, or any of the various software applications to go in and change the descriptions to something that better identifies the channel to them than the technically correct description that is meaningless to them.

Since we now have a description field that is long enough to expand on the cryptic but accurate short descriptions of the past, some would like to take advantage of that in how the database is set up. If the whole database consistently used the technically correct descriptions only, then you would want to keep it that way. But it does not.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

 

[ResQguy]

There are a lot of descriptions in the database that are technically correct, but don't help the novice users who set up their radios using the database, or are technically correct at the expense of user readability or identification. This is just one of them, and if no changes are made, the database will remain technically correct.

The best kind of correct. Please do not change the DB.

 

[maus92]

The current database entry for AACo fire seems to be at odds with what is contained in the admin's handbook:

"6.1.4.2 FREQUENCY AND TALKGROUP DESCRIPTIONS

Talkgroup and frequency descriptions shall be kept short and informative (50 characters or less) while avoiding exact duplication with other fields where possible. Channel numbers should be included when known."

The Alpha Tag and Description fields are almost exactly the same. Appending "Bravo" to the end of the Description field entry fits with "shall be short and informative" spec, and seems like a reasonable compromise. Can someone please explain why this would be a bad idea?

In other words: "1B Tac 1" would change to "1B Tac 1 - Bravo" or "1B Tac 1 "Bravo""

 

[obvfdcadet1998]

Long over due.

Did they finally increase staffing in Fire Alarm to accomplish this? I was always shocked about their staffing levels.


Question:
Is EMS 1, 2, 4 (Supervisor) just daywork or are they 24x7? It seems that EMS-3 is 24x7 ops.

EMS-3 is the 24 Hour/7/365 EMS Supervisor for the county. That is the only EMS Supervisor with a radio designation now. SAFETY5 is also able to function as a EMS Supervisor as well as a Safety Officer.

 

[dpm797]

and as for the use of Charlie for all local alarms.....no increased staffing same operorator as Bravo...but better talk group usage....

 

[marksmith]

The current database entry for AACo fire seems to be at odds with what is contained in the admin's handbook:

"6.1.4.2 FREQUENCY AND TALKGROUP DESCRIPTIONS

Talkgroup andfrequency descriptions shall be kept short and informative (50 characters or less) whileavoiding exact duplication with other fields where possible. Channel numbers should be included whenknown."

The Alpha Tag and Description fields are almost exactly the same. Appending "Bravo" to the end of the Description field entry fits with "shall be short and informative" spec, and seems like a reasonable compromise. Can someone please explain why this would be a bad idea?

In other words: "1B Tac 1" would change to "1B Tac 1 - Bravo" or "1B Tac 1 "Bravo""

There have been a number of discussions along this line trying to enhance either the descriptions or department layout of the database for specific systems. I don't think any if them succeeded, even though they were probably a good idea and improved the database for those who monitor it directly instead of a favorites list.

The best solution is to create a scan list or favorites list from the database using ezscan or sentinel, and enhance the descriptions to your liking. That does not require the agreement with too many people to otherwise get it done to your liking.

Hardly any of the descriptions in my radios are the stock database descriptions as I have modified them to include what I have learned, or to better personally identify with them.

Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

 

[troymail]

Requirements for new building construction?

This may not actually be a new requirement but it describes requirement for new construction to support two-way radio communication for firefighter efforts. At least one of the documents is dated 1 March 2016

In-Building Public Safety Radio Coverage Requirements in Anne Arundel County | Anne Arundel County, MD

http://www.aacounty.org/departments.../radio-communications-system-requirements.pdf

 

[maus92]

Some interesting data in the referenced documents pertaining to the current 800 system. I wonder how much that will change when implementing the new system upgrade whenever that gets underway...

 

[troymail]

Some interesting data in the referenced documents pertaining to the current 800 system. I wonder how much that will change when implementing the new system upgrade whenever that gets underway...

I'm thinking this is something the county is playing catch up on. At this point, they can't require compliance to specs of a system that doesn't yet exist but it does put the county in a better position for when that change occurs. Without these requirements, tax payers will ultimately foot the bill for the cost of providing in building coverage. The county should have put these requirements in place long ago.

 

[ResQguy]

Some interesting data in the referenced documents pertaining to the current 800 system. I wonder how much that will change when implementing the new system upgrade whenever that gets underway...

In-building BDAs/DAS don't care if you upgrade from analog to P25 voice. The control channel has always been digital.

 

[ResQguy]

I'm thinking this is something the county is playing catch up on. At this point, they can't require compliance to specs of a system that doesn't yet exist but it does put the county in a better position for when that change occurs. Without these requirements, tax payers will ultimately foot the bill for the cost of providing in building coverage. The county should have put these requirements in place long ago.

Perhaps, but the International Fire Code didn't require in-building amplification systems until the 2012 revision. Some of the other jurisdictions that enforced a local code prior to that obviously had some luck getting their legislation passed before the national standard.

 

[maus92]

In-building BDAs/DAS don't care if you upgrade from analog to P25 voice. The control channel has always been digital.

How about TDMA / P25 P2? How does the code handle police agencies? Does it only require fire agencies with primary responsibilities to have in-building coverage? What about EMS partners? Seems to me that first responders could be operating on different bands (not a problem in AACo.)