Complete state of confusion

[qlajlu]

Today around noon time, Salt Lake City Fire Dept. was literally overwhelmed. As it happens there were two fire incidents at the same time and the major incident was assigned to Channel 1, which happens to be the primary dispatch channel. One Engine arrived at the incident on 1100 West and immediately issued a request for two complete assignments because one house was fully involved and there were several "exposures." There was so much radio traffic on Channel 1 that the dispatcher had extreme trouble dispatching additional units, and in the middle of all this confusion there was a traffic accident with injuries requiring medical personnel to be dispatched as well.

They were finally able to move the major incident to Channel 2 and that, again, caused some confusion because not all of the units involved at that location heard the order to switch channels.

I believe that it is time for the city to expand the number of channels available to the Fire Department so they can operate more like Unified Fire does and not tie up the primary dispatch channel by using it for local incident control. This was just a little bit scary! The city has the possibility of having more than two incidents happening at the same time and they have enough units that two channels just do not fill the bill any longer, in my estimation.

I have heard the Unified Fire tie up three channels on major incidents. They used one channel to coordinate the fire fighting, one for medical, and one for rehabilitation. Salt Lake City needs to reevaluate their radio needs.

 

[Utah_Viper]

They have the channels available. They usually do respond to a fire call on Channel 2 so Im not sure why they went on one today.

 

[qlajlu]

They used Channel 1 because, as I said in the original post, they already had a fire incident happening on Channel 2.

 

[Utah_Viper]

Ahh im sorry I thought the TA was the second incident. That makes some sense. they do have a Channel 3 they should have used.

I think the best would be as follows:

Channel 1 Dispatch
Channel 2 Regular Response e.g. Medical, Small Accidents
Channel 3 Major Incident e.g. Large Fire, Haz-Mat, Anything requiring a BC

 

[qlajlu]

Agreed. Right now I believe they use Channel 3 strictly for c2c for the high ranking officers and investigators. I'm not sure if the dispatcher even has the capability to monitor Channel 3, kinda like the Channel 3 for the UHP and the PD which is strictly c2c.

~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~​

I just looked at the RR Database and actually the SLC FD has FIVE channels assigned to it.

TGID-Channel
1184-Channel 1
1246-Channel 2
1248-Channel 3
1280-Channel 4
No Channel 5 (Go figure)
1312-Channel 6

There is also a TG (3616) assigned to SLC FD but it does not indicate a channel affiliation.

So now the question is: Why don't they use them?

~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~​

I also noticed that the backup channel TGIDs that were used last week by SLC PD and SLC FD have been added to the Airport Authority Database.

Thanks Database Admins!

 

[Rolfman]

Thinking Out Loud

Could it be that while the channels are assigned to the FD not all of the FD's radio equipment supports those channels? (I know seems unlikely)

Seems like I missed all the good stuff. Where I am at in Utah County during the day I can not get SLC (AC33). To close to the base of South Mountain.

 

[qlajlu]

Actually, Rolfman, that is an excellent observation and could carry water. Another thing I have noticed is that even when they - SLC FD - dispatch a major incident on Channel 2, they move it to Channel 1 quite often. This tells me that they have a very deficient and anemic dispatcher pool in the dispatch office at any give time. Salt Lake County (Unified Fire), actually VECC, probably has three or four dispatchers on the boards at any given time.

 

[blinddog50]

Guys, Been to Utah in the past.
One the most beautiful states there is.
But I checked the DB for Salt Lake City.
SLCFD only has 6 channels dedicated to them?!?!
That is astounding.
Check out the DB for the fd in Charlotte NC.

 

[qlajlu]

blinddog50, those are only for the SLC FD inside the Salt Lake City limits. Once you get south of 2100 ~ 2700 South you enter Salt Lake County and there are another six channels for Unified Fire which are operated by VECC (Valley Emergency Communications Center) plus another ~10 Channels labeled "Ops" channels and another ~10 Channels labeled "Events" that can be used by county units. The Events channels are usually reserved for police and security at major events such as fireworks displays, concerts, etc. while the Ops channels can and have been used for overflow by the county fire dept.

Salt Lake City itself is rather small, area wise, compared to the entire valley, but I can see where someone unfamiliar with city boundaries can become confused especially since "Salt Lake City" tends to be used generically to describe the entire valley.

 

[qlajlu]

Video

Video of the fire.

 

[fodbuster]

Oh boy, here we go..........

First and foremost, it is nice to see that all here are adults, and are willing to look at all points of view. So, here is mine.

I spent from November of 2001 until March of 2003 as a dispatcher at SLC Fire. I have also dispatched at the Airport, South Salt Lake (before it merged with VECC), and, at VECC. Therefore, I believe that I am qualified to speak on this subject. Since I am out of the dispatching business, all that follows is strictly my own opinion, and is not to be treated as anything but my opinion. It is also not meant to be a flame toward anyone...

To say that the dispatcher pool is "very deficient and anemic" is probably not the best description of them. I tried for two years to get hired there, and even with my qualifications, it was a difficult process. Their training standards are rigorous, to say the least.

One of the biggest challenges that they face is staffing, and lack of space. The current work area that they have was more of an afterthought than anything else. Their full staffing is three dispatchers and a supervisor. Typically, you have one dispatcher taking phone calls, one on the radio, and one as a backup to both phones and radios. Now, take into account breaks, lunches, training, vacation, etc, and you have the supervisor covering a dispatcher's position.

When you get an incident like that going, everybody is answering phones and trying to talk on the radio. The system is easily overwhelmed. Same thing at VECC, Davis County, Weber County, UHP. You name the center, you can overwhelm it with one incident very quickly.

Now, I must confess, I did not hear the original dispatch. I cannot say for certain which channel the incident was assigned. It really does not matter. The problem will always occur. And that, my friends, is lack of radio discipline. When an incident is dispatched, crews are instructed to respond on a particular channel (Just like VECC, by the way). Once that happens, you have a dispatcher on each channel (in the City, 1 and 2). But, we add the human element. The crews have the apparatus radio on one channel and their portables on the other channel, so you have transmissions for the same incident on both channels, creating even more chaos. Trust me, it happens every day, no matter where. You may just not hear it. So, let's place blame where it belongs....right square in the middle. Some on the dispatchers, some on the crews, and some on the system itself.

Staffing for a comm. center will always be a problem. The day to day staffing is adequate at SLC Fire. But, when you have a couple of incidents going on, it will never be enough. There is no budget big enough to staff for that. You can just staff for the every day, and hope that all works out well.

To whomever that mentioned that SLCFD has +/_- 6 TG's you are correct. Also, EVERY radio that SLCFD owns and uses is programmed the same way. And yes, they all have all of the TG's in them, as well as many others. Once again, the human element. During the everyday course of business, we all get ingrained in our habits. Take a firefighter who responds on "Channel 1" on 85 percent of his/her calls. Now, all of a sudden, tell them to respond on "Channel 5". Most of them would think "do we have a Channel 5?"

I guarantee you that this string of incidents will bring up a review of radio usage. You may even see a change in protocols in the near future. But, remember that dispatchers have one of the most difficult jobs in the world. They have to take a phone call from the common idiot, get information that most people can't give them, assemble it in a logical order, and spit it back out within ninety seconds. It isn't easy, and I still admire each and every one of them, and still have many friends in the business. I left the business only because I didn't think that I could ever get promoted in a communications center.

Hopefully I haven't offended anyone by this viewpoint. If I have, please accept my sincere apology. This is just another side of the cracker.

 

[Rolfman]

Great insight on the matter fod. I do agree with comments. There are always several mitigating factors that go in to the situation. The one thing I have noticed, since I just go back in to scanning, is the willingness of some dispatchers to take charge of the channel while others let the channel “run it’s self”.

I never worked as a dispatcher but I have help run a tactical operations center for a Cavalry Squadron when I was in the army. In those organizations there was a NCS, Network Control Station. They were the responsible party for that frequency. It was their job to try and control the radio traffic. Keeping in mind everything you said fod, I do believe there are some dispatchers that are willing to tell the officers and firemen what to do while others seem to see their role as almost subservient. To counter my own comment I have heard officers that act like total jerks to the dispatchers too and it does not take long for a person to sense that.

 

[fastattackus]

As someone who currently works in SLC, there is no doubt that it's time for an upgrade in the Fire Department communication plan. In Davis, Salt Lake and Weber counties, the Dispatches are over one tgid, then the crews are told to respond on a different tgid based usually on location or sometimes based on agency. But the big deal is that you don't ever have to wait to give a size up or request additional ambulances while dispatch is sending out another assignment. And dispatch won't have to wait to dispatch while a lot of radio traffic is going on.

The problem is money and staffing plain and simple. For those of you who monitor on a daily basis have noticed, it's gotten incredibly worse since we added Southwest ambulance to the mix in our radio system. They take up a lot of time trying to figure out which one is closer by two blocks to the call.

The dispactchers are overworked and understaffed and that needs to change. The crews in the field need to save unneccesary talk for talk around tgid's. There are plenty of tgid's to be used. (around 20 in all, most are never used and probably not even listed on this website because they've never been used. i.e. training 1, 2, 3, FPB 1, 2, 3.)

It's just silly to not break out the dispatch channels better than we do. It's the same way that SLC has operated for 30 years. You know what they say about fire departments, 150 years of tradition unimpeded by progress!!!

Dispatch is trying really hard to make the appropriate changes, but I don't see it happening until the city cares enough to open up the wallets.

 

[qlajlu]

As the original poster (OP) of this thread, let me say up front that my comments ARE NOT, in any way, criticism of the dispatchers themselves. I have the utmost respect for the difficult task that they are responsible for and feel that they all, regardless of agency, do the best job possible with what they have been given to work with. I also have some experience as a dispatcher with SLC PD, but it was in 1968-69 and that was a whole world away from today and can't even be compared!

That being said, I made those comments in the first few posts very soon after the incidents occurred. In fact, the incidents were still being worked by fire personnel as I was posting. I appreciate the insight given by fodbuster (No flame felt and thank you for your consideration) and by fastattackus, but it does not eliminate the fact that there was a very scary situation created when the duty dispatcher was not even allowed air time to dispatch additional assignments to that raging house fire in the Glendale area.

This now appears to be a two-headed dragon that is responsible for that particular situation. The prominent head is political...money, if you will...

Dispatch is trying really hard to make the appropriate changes, but I don't see it happening until the city cares enough to open up the wallets.

...and the less prominent head being lack of proper training in radio etiquette...

Take a firefighter who responds on "Channel 1" on 85 percent of his/her calls. Now, all of a sudden, tell them to respond on "Channel 5". Most of them would think "do we have a Channel 5?"

I hope this fiasco stood out in the minds of the higher ranking officers on duty at the time to call for a review and that maybe they can request and receive one additional dispatcher per shift on duty at the SLC FD. At the very least I hope they can construct a training program for priority radio traffic protocol.

...it's gotten incredibly worse since we added Southwest ambulance to the mix in our radio system. They take up a lot of time trying to figure out which one is closer by two blocks to the call.

I have noticed that the medical response protocol apparently is to have a fire department apparatus respond on ALL medical calls along with an ambulance. I have also heard additional fire apparatus dispatched on medical calls occasionally if ALS is called for because the original apparatus did not have a paramedic in its crew. Are there NOT paramedics on the ambulances? Other than manpower in the case of moving a stretcher up or down a staircase, or extrication in the case of a bad traffic accident, why is it necessary to tie up firefighting equipment on a medical call? I know there has to be a reason, but I am not intuitive enough to think of a reason so I am asking one of you who are well acquainted with the fire departments to answer these questions for me.

Also, what, exactly, does "PMA" and "PMR" stand for? (Paramedic assisting?) (Paramedic riding with [ambulance]?) I dunno.

 

[fodbuster]

This has turned out to be an interesting thread.

To answer the first part, PMA stands for "Paramedic Aboard", e.g. when a fire department medic is in the ambulance with the patient to the hospital. PMR stands for "Paramedic Recovery (or retrieval), e.g. when the medic engine is going to get the rest of their crew.

As many of you may or may now know, response crews are sent based on the "code" of the call based on the Medical Priority Dispatch System cards. Since every apparatus in the City, for example, does not have medics on board, sometimes a BLS engine will respond. Take SLC Station 3 for example. They are the only unit in their station, so if a call comes in their response district, they will take it, regardless of ALS/BLS type of call. Now take SLC Station 2, with Truck 2 and Medic Engine 2. The Truck will be the first responder on the BLS calls, and the medic engine will take the next up call, if they are available.

SLC changed their response protocols when Southwest Ambulance came on board. In the days of Gold Cross, they took all of the "Alpha" level medicals by themselves. Fire now responds on all calls with SW ambulance. That is why you now hear so many more responses by SLC Fire apparatus.

Hopefully this sheds a little light on your questions. I have some very strong feelings about this whole situation, which are probably not appropriate to share in this forum, but I would be willing to PM them if somebody really wants to know.

Change tends only to happen after a - a long time coming. b - threat of a lawsuit. c - the firefighters union getting involved. I agree with the main theme of this thread, however. The system is in need of tweaking in order to maximize efficiency.

 

[Utah_Viper]

This is very insightful. What are some ways that you would like to see SLC change there dispatching? What response protocols would work best?

 

[fodbuster]

Well, <gulp>, as much as I hate to admit this......VECC seems to have the right idea with a "send" channel for all of the initial dispatches, general announcements, etc., and "response" channels for the response and progression of the incidents.

When I first started working at VECC back in the day, I thought that it was ridiculous to have that many response channels. After having the perverbial manure hit the powered rotating ventilation device, I immediately saw the benefits one snowy evening.

The key to making any idea work, IMHO, is TEAMWORK. Not just from the dispatchers, but from the response personnel also. There is nothing worse that getting into a tiff on the radio with a responder. Everybody has to work together, all of the time. The second key is DISCIPLINE. Once again, not only the responders, but the dispatchers as well. I'm talking about radio discipline. When in doubt, it is best to keep your mouth shut and let the dispatcher fill you in on what might be going on.

The third piece to the puzzle is TECHNOLOGY. How many police cars (and motors, for that matter ), have MDT's or computers? Most do, I think I can safely say. Now, how many fire apparatus have MDT's? Not all that many, just yet. They are really beginning to become popular in the fire service. If you have a computer, and it works.....check the call for the address rather than ask again! Or, grab the "rip and run" report off the printer on your way to the apparatus bay. I'll bet it'll give you the address that you're going to.

If I were king of the world one day, I have some ideas on how I would change things. But....I'm not. I'm a responder now, so I get kind of a different viewpoint. And, I won't share most of my ideas pubicly....some of them are way out in left field.

 

[Rolfman]

I totally agree with fodbuster. In the last couple of months since I have been listening the best system appears to be the central call out then switching to another channel when the traffic is either to great or, like VECC expected to be great, having the response channel.

The teamwork statement is very cliché but also true. You can not totally rely on the dispatcher for all the information because they are getting their information from a "faulty carbon unit" on the other end of the phone most of the time. Most people can noteven tell you which way is north let alone where they are or etc.

Bottom line Central Control initially then de-centralize and turn control of the channel over to the Site Commander to coordinate all traffic on the response channel to include dispatch.