billpritjr
Member
Indeed, it isn't in that case.
Dallas Fire - Trunked System Rollout 2022
- Thread starter CodeYeti77
- Start date
Indeed, it isn't in that case.
I thought the Denton County system was supposed to be interlinked to the NTIRN? What a disaster.
They were still having issues patching Dallas with agencies on sites other than the 2 Dallas sites on NTIRN as of about a month ago, so none of this surprises me…
They were still having issues patching Dallas with agencies on sites other than the 2 Dallas sites on NTIRN as of about a month ago, so none of this surprises me…
Well I don't know for sure, but I think there is a gateway. There is an NTIRN site at TMS that covers part of Denton County and it has its own set of Interop talkgroups. I think they were set up when TMS went in, and long since been forgotten by most, except probably the Denton Sheriffs Office. Now whether they have them in their radio profiles or not is another question.
If only there was some type of coordination or coordinator for these systems / agencies. LOL
The TMS site on NTIRN was installed to address coverage issues that Fort Worth had at the Speedway. Instead of tying up NTIRN IO talk groups the TMS IO talk groups were created for use for TMS events.
There is lots of work to do but considering that just a few months ago Dallas County agencies could not communicate with Tarrant County agencies and a few years ago there was not consistent reliable cross system communications like there is now, at least on NTIRN, a lot of progress has been made. There are people working regularly to get agencies to join NTIRN and to educate on the interop capabilities it has. Politics and money are always factors.
The Council of Governments Interop Committee is very aware of communications issues in the region and works diligently to address them. If not for the work of COG and their partners in securing funding, many agencies that are part of NTIRN would not be.
A recent observation re: DFR - structure fire assignments continue to be put out on TG 32001 but I no longer hear responding units told to go to TG 32004 "CH 4" as reported above. The assignment seems to handled on CH 1 but no FG comms are heard om any of the Fire Tac TGs. I did hear one unit ask another to "go to CH 12" which I can only assume is the old UHF FG channel. Maybe someone can explain the latest protocols ?
What you are saying is correct. They stopped going to channel 4 a month ago maybe. There was a fire near me and i heard FGND traffic on the old UHF channel 12. So they are still utilizing that.
Originally i was thinking they were using 4 as a training or transition to get them used to using a repeater channel for fire ground traffic. OR they were getting used to having a dispatcher on a fire channel. But now its all stopped. SO not sure how they will do stuff. We will just have to wait and see.
Originally i was thinking they were using 4 as a training or transition to get them used to using a repeater channel for fire ground traffic. OR they were getting used to having a dispatcher on a fire channel. But now its all stopped. SO not sure how they will do stuff. We will just have to wait and see.
I suspect that lack of a dispatcher to assign for tac usage may be the big problem. back when they were using "Channel 4" (Tagged as EMS 2), they would direct responding companies to use that. But the minute any on-scene unit reported anything close to "fire under control", they said that Channel 4 would be shut down, and for every unit to return to Channel 1.
One thing for sure: They are in no way using most of the channels and capabilities of the new system.
One thing for sure: They are in no way using most of the channels and capabilities of the new system.
That is so true. Ive seen DPD using more of the channels assigned to them. But DFR is stuck in the old days. Fire on channel 1 EMS on Channel 2 and Fireground on UHF 12. But im not complaining cause i can still hear them so no ENC means im ok with things.
Channel 4 was originally put to use when the CADs were down during that massive ransomware attack. It was to ease up radio traffic on channel 1 because every company had to manually report status changes. They liked that system and continued to use it when the CADs went back online. They stopped doing it presumably because they didn't have an extra dispatcher available to monitor the channel, I don't know though. Just a guess
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
- Messages
- 489
You might find this interesting, APXNext with the VIQI AI has a real problem understanding "CHANNEL-4" Radio shop hates it, it doesn't play well even if they use PD-4 or FIRE-4 VIQI hates the number 4 ...
Is DFR still off of the new digital system? I hear automated dispatch, but nothing on FG channels. Is their something special I need to program and what layer do they use normally? Layer 1 or 2?
They use Dal_Fire 1 and Dal_Fire 2 on the trunked system. Station is alerting is patched from the UHF channel to the trunked system as well. As far as I know, they're still using the UHF Fire Ground channel at working incidents, where you'd need to be fairly close to monitor.
The last few working fires close enough to my location to be in simplex range have been using the old Uhf fire ground channels. DFR is barely scratching the surface of the capability of the trunked system, not using the fireground channels on NTIRN, and using Fire 2 for EMS, instead of the two allocated EMS TGIDs. While DFR rescues do not seem to be using the Biotel talkgroups, I occasionally hear some of the medevac copters inbound to the area using them to give patient details.
Several months back, they were using what is labeled as EMS 2, calling it Channel 4, and using it as a fireground channel for working structure fire. But the minute one of the on-site units indicated 'fire tapped out' or 'fire under control', companies in the field were advised to return to the main fire channel, as "channel 4 was shutting down".
I suspect the reason they are not fully using the new system's capabilities may be lack of dispatch personnel. When the initial switchover was made, I was logging UIDs for various DFR field units. I saw 8 different UIDs being used by "660" at various times, so I suspect they have dispatch positions that could be utilized, but more than likely, not enough staff to actually man all, or at least, most of them.
Trucker700
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2017
- Messages
- 296
I was in Dallas yesterday for my annual eye doctor appointment. I parked on the top, open level of the parking garage for Parkland Hospital. ( I was going to the Aston Eye Clinic) I sat there listening to local comms with my Uniden SDS100. I didn't really expect to hear much from Dallas PD as I figured they were fully encrypted. I was surprised by the amount of clear comms from Dallas PD. They were really busy. On top of that, I heard a lot of activity from surrounding communities as well.
Before I retired, (I was a long haul truck driver) I would hear all kinds of traffic from DPD when I drove through the Dallas area. I hadn't carried my SDS100 with me when I was in Dallas since I retired four years ago. I do have a Icom 5100a that does a good job of scanning Airband. ( my favorite)
I only decided to take the SDS100 with me at the last minute. I am glad I did. It made the day much more interesting.
James
Before I retired, (I was a long haul truck driver) I would hear all kinds of traffic from DPD when I drove through the Dallas area. I hadn't carried my SDS100 with me when I was in Dallas since I retired four years ago. I do have a Icom 5100a that does a good job of scanning Airband. ( my favorite)
I only decided to take the SDS100 with me at the last minute. I am glad I did. It made the day much more interesting.
James
Fortunately, other that tactical & investigative talkgroups, Dallas (city) Fire, PD, & EMS dispatch channels unencrypted. Dallas County is also unencrypted, at least for now. I've seen a few, scattered, comments some time back that said that Dallas SO was looking to go encrypted. Most of the larger suburbs have encrypted TGIDs for their police departments, with a couple (Garland & Mesquite) even encrypting fire talkgroups.
Do you have the DMR upgrade? From that monitoring point (top of the parking garage), you might have a fair amount of activity on copters inbound to the medical district. CareFlite has six units stationed at various locations in North Texas. They use the Megahertz DMR system. Other units often inbound to this area are from a number of other air medical providers farther out. Parkland is also on that system. Children's Medical (a long block south of the garage) has their own DMR system, as does UTSW.
Trucker700
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2017
- Messages
- 296
Thanks for the comments. Yes, my SDS100 has all three upgrades. I bought it from a guy in Phoenix several years ago. So far, no problems with it.
I did hear Parkland's DMR comms a couple of times before I left. When I go for my annual checkup, I usually park in the garage on the top floor. It is open and I can see and hear quite a lot from there.
I have a dual band antenna mounted on my pickup for my Icom 5100a. When I bring the SDS100 with me, I use an SMA to pl259 cable to hook the dual band antenna to the handheld. It makes a huge difference compared to using the antenna that came with the SDS100.
When I was driving a big truck through Dallas and had my scanner with me, I could hear what sounded like DPD training when I was driving near Mesquite. That was pretty interesting. Especially when they were teaching them how to do certain maneuvers in patrol cars. The instructor would give a set of instructions and after the officer was finished, he would tell them what they doing right and wrong.
James
At various times in the past, DPD has done that type of vehicle training at Fair Park. At other times, they have used a warehouse & industrial district near the "temporary" Police Academe off the southwest quarter of Dallas Executive Airport (formerly Red Bird). I would catch them on a TGID on the old Dallas Local Government Moto Type 2 system.
billpritjr
Member
Out here in Argyle area (Denton County), I no longer hear any activity on the "new" trunked system.
range or whatever issues, not sure.
SDS200
range or whatever issues, not sure.
SDS200
Similar threads
