Did Motorola Digital Radio Equipment Lead to Cincinnati Firefighter's Death?

[kayn1n32008]

When you are getting into a situation where you feet may become on fire;
1) have a plan
2) have a buddy
3) don't rely on any single fallible system (certainly not your radio)

You are right, there is no wiggle room for error when you life is on the line, so #1, #2, and #3 are all ahead of running into a building that is on fire.

and don't count that someone within its 100 yard range will respond.

Remember the old adage; "Lack of planning (on your part) does not constitute an emergency (on my part)."

The radio did not tell them to run in to an empty building.
The radio did not tell them to use the front door to access a basement fire.
The radio did not hide the fact that the basement had walkout access.
The radio did not prevent them from shutting off the natural gas.
The radio did not separate the two Firefighters.
The radio did not prevent precharging the line.
The radio only stopped working after the Firefighters put themselves in an unrecoverable position.

EDIT: Sorry for the rant.

In this LODD the radio system was a SMALL to INSIGNIFICANT part of the whole Incident. The BIG problem was a lack of training or practice.

 

[kd8ati]

Beep. Nobody said digital is always better, and as you certainly know there are many different vocoders in digital systems, so any audio quality problems are to be attributed to that, not digital itself.

I have no problem with digital systems, as long as they are not used on the firegrounds. Same rule applies for repeaters. Digital has its problem with firegrounds because of the background noise. If its the fault of the vocder then its all vocoders. I have heard fireground comms across both EDACS and Apco25, and they both stink. I have said it before and will say it again, firegrounds do NOT belong on trunked or digital. People on firegrounds have one need... to talk to the I/C or another person no more then a block or 2 away. For the signal to have to travel 3 or 4 miles to hit a repeater then come back (hope it makes it back) is unnecessary. When hams work a geographically small event like a parade, you dont see them using a repeater 5 or 10 miles away. They will almost always use simplex. Same thing on a fireground. I am not sure how much more simpler I can spell it out. There is a reason why its called simplex.

 

[kd8ati]

Channel three is for local communication only, where the problem lies, and KISS comes into play. Say that you're on the roof and I'm pumping you water. You fall through into the fire. Which would make you feel better: 1) a stupid old plain vanilla analog radio that has to send your message ("Come save my butt!") exactly 100 yards on a channel that isn't repeated, trunked, digitalized, folded, spindled or mutilated, and doesn't have a any high powered transmitters in the region that will walk on your mayday, or 2) a wiz-band highly engineered radio system relies on many different components spread out all over creation, with the warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the failure of any one electron will cause you to not be heard, and that the police officer talking on his high power car radio behind the ambulance is going to desense your safety officer's portable radio past hearing the repeater tower ten miles over yonder even if the next county over can hear you plain as day.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say! Thank you! Everyone wants the all mighty digital repeater radios? Fine put them in police cruisers, Pulic works, fire trucks, ems units, where they belong.... but for the love of god, keep any radio that is digital or the FG freqs are on a repeater, away from the firefighters themselfs.

 

[zerg901]

kd8ti

Did you see my post that reported that Boston FD and Los Angeles City FD have done fireground ops on repeaters for years and years? How can they possibly get away with that if it is a big no-no? Woudlnt they all be dead if it was a critical issue? Peter Sz

 

[zerg901]

N Jay - who are you? I asked before and did not get an answer. Peter Sz

 

[zerg901]

The Internet seems to work like this.

1. Radio system craps out during critical situation
2. Some people blame the users

I ask "How much money do radio salespeople make?" & "Are any radio salespeople totally untrained?"

1. No reply
2. No reply

I ask "What does 90 / 90 coverage really mean"?

1. No reply
2. No reply

N Jay asks "Are firefighters safer without portable radios?"

1. Good question
2. Are police safer without vests? Are EMTs safer without gloves and masks? Integrating new technology into public safety operations is a challenge. The tradeoff is "$" versus "safety". An experiment could be run. Take all the portable radios out of service in New York City. After 1 hour - evaluate the results. Something tells me that the experiment would never be run. Never.
3. Are public safety workers becoming more careless as they use more personal protective equipment? Maybe. Are public safety workers being targeted with defective equipment and improper training? Maybe. Does anyone making over $1 million per year care if a public safety worker dies? Maybe. (Have you ever seen any rich people stepping up at a LODD funeral?)

Peter Sz

 

[zerg901]

Options

What are the best options for insuring public safety radio coverage everywhere?

1. Integrating the public safety radio networks and the cellphone networks. (Cellphone / PDA / 4G / WiFi / wireless - whatever its called today)

2. Mobile repeater in every public safety vehicle.

3. Public safety repeater in every building. (Magic Jack now wants to put a cellular site in every home).

4. Public safety repeater on every hilltop, church steeple, and telephone pole.

5. Radio relay drones dispatched to every incident.

6. Balloons at 70,000 feet with repeaters.

7. Satellite receivers for critical public safety channels. ("Satellite" as in "Sputnik".)

8. Antenna wires or intercom wires in hoselines.

9. 10,000 watt portable radios. (Nope - wont work - will cause thermal burns)

10. If all of this was implemented, maybe overall public safety costs would actually decrease, and more money would be available for training. If radio systems are more effective, then public safety workers are more effective, and losses decrease (property losses - life losses - LODDs).

11. There has to be highly educated people at the top of the public safety world to ensure that public safety workers are furnished with the best of equipment. Relying on the present system does not seem to be cutting it.

Peter Sz

PS - regarding the idea that radios play a small role in LODDs - I think that idea is probably just a excuse from equipment suppliers - missing just 1 word can get someone killed - the margins of error are very slim - radios probably play a huge role in some LODDs but no one wants to really tackle the issue - look at the FDNY answer to 9/11 - 40 watt suitcase radios - straight out of WWII.

 

[CSHIFTLT]

Okay with at least 11 pages of post, and every perspective from simplex analog (lowest common denominator) to High Tech handoff/roaming digital high wattage high tower/suitcase repeaters and mobile/portable patch units (very complex stuff if you want it to be, but works for some people others just a "look what we have/this is cool") maybe the vendor sales force and engineers (who do read these forums) will get a clue that if they want to stay in business for the next 20 years (I am sure there is one vendor who will figure this out) to sell not only hardware and software and engineering but real time training and a engineer that actually hangs out and works with fireman in these problem areas (by the way fire service is not the only high hazard/high noise environment that is using digital and having problems), in short wake up vendors and engineers if you want to sell your products you have got to do better with the digital (vocoders/ mutible microphones. processor speeds, and still have a critical communication equipment that is affordable). $3000+ is too much!!!

In short:

Digital is a way of life and we will overcome it because of its ability to do more stuff (id/more units. freq. allocation, and lots of other bells and whistles)

analog/simplex will always be around.

and no one has even address the latency (delay of digital even in simplex mode, which sux if you are doing a ms/second critical situation,(delay) such as lowering or raising with a crane/ladder, or moving/backing a large equipment. (I am pretty sure you will not see a construction company doing crane work use digital simplex)(or swat teams using go/stop because of the delay)

Motorola:motobro
Harris: provoice, opensky, tetra
Kenwood: nexedge
and of course all p25 including ef johnson and others

so has a fire/ems we need to force vendors, and also learn our limitations with the systems we have and use the appropriate technology for the situation, with training.

of course anything is better than the old days when you had a cb in the truck and maybe some one heard you/we have come a long ways, but still have a long way to go. (we did not have portables inside a burning buildings, the antennas were to long, and not flexible)

I hope these kind of discussions continue and even end up in apco and fcc meetings, and eventually the vendor board rooms to make a change.

Just want to say thanks to everyone that contribute this very important discussion (even if it does get a little heated sometimes)

cshiftlt

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Peter,

Instead of wasting time answering your posts, I will simply say this: Your ideas are wonderful dreams that are neither logistically nor financially feasable.

And the reason no one answers your questions, is because you are not bringing any logic or reasonability to your posts.

You are going on listless soliloquys.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Okay with at least 11 pages of post, and every perspective from simplex analog (lowest common denominator) to High Tech handoff/roaming digital high wattage high tower/suitcase repeaters and mobile/portable patch units (very complex stuff if you want it to be, but works for some people others just a "look what we have/this is cool") maybe the vendor sales force and engineers (who do read these forums) will get a clue that if they want to stay in business for the next 20 years (I am sure there is one vendor who will figure this out) to sell not only hardware and software and engineering but real time training and a engineer that actually hangs out and works with fireman in these problem areas (by the way fire service is not the only high hazard/high noise environment that is using digital and having problems), in short wake up vendors and engineers if you want to sell your products you have got to do better with the digital (vocoders/ mutible microphones. processor speeds, and still have a critical communication equipment that is affordable). $3000+ is too much!!!

As with others, your heart is in the right place, and I think people can respect that. However, much of what is suggested isnt feasable.

Asking an engineer to "hang out" is just unreasonable. Engineers are highly paid and busy employees. Generally there a million other places and jobs for engineers to be doing then to talk to firefighters about high noise areas and any coverage issues.

and no one has even address the latency (delay of digital even in simplex mode, which sux if you are doing a ms/second critical situation,(delay) such as lowering or raising with a crane/ladder, or moving/backing a large equipment. (I am pretty sure you will not see a construction company doing crane work use digital simplex)(or swat teams using go/stop because of the delay)

In real life applications I have seen that it is negligible. We have two separate large fire departments that use a digital system, and the timing is not problematic.

so has a fire/ems we need to force vendors, and also learn our limitations with the systems we have and use the appropriate technology for the situation, with training.

Force vendors to do what exactly? Sell customers what they ask for? Help them come up with their own communications SOPs?

of course anything is better than the old days when you had a cb in the truck and maybe some one heard you/we have come a long ways, but still have a long way to go. (we did not have portables inside a burning buildings, the antennas were to long, and not flexible)

I hope these kind of discussions continue and even end up in apco and fcc meetings, and eventually the vendor board rooms to make a change.

Just want to say thanks to everyone that contribute this very important discussion (even if it does get a little heated sometimes)

cshiftlt

 

[Raccon]

I have no problem with digital systems, as long as they are not used on the firegrounds. Same rule applies for repeaters. Digital has its problem with firegrounds because of the background noise. If its the fault of the vocder then its all vocoders. I have heard fireground comms across both EDACS and Apco25, and they both stink. I have said it before and will say it again, firegrounds do NOT belong on trunked or digital. People on firegrounds have one need... to talk to the I/C or another person no more then a block or 2 away. For the signal to have to travel 3 or 4 miles to hit a repeater then come back (hope it makes it back) is unnecessary.

If the signal has already reached the repeater than it should have no problem coming back due to the higher output (of the repeater). Maybe you consider it unnecessary but if it works then I don't quite see what the problem is.

When hams work a geographically small event like a parade, you dont see them using a repeater 5 or 10 miles away. They will almost always use simplex. Same thing on a fireground. I am not sure how much more simpler I can spell it out. There is a reason why its called simplex.

If the fire services were always using simplex we wouldn't have this discussion, would we? Anyhow, I don't care either way, if they want to use analog and/or simplex be my guest, but please stop blaming digital technology for poorly designed systems or certain manufacturers providing equipment that doesn't perform properly.

 

[N_Jay]

The Internet seems to work like this.

The Internet has nothing to do with the issue (hence, 1/2 your misunderstanding)

1. Radio system craps out during critical situation
2. Some people blame the users

Wrong assumption.
The truth is;
1) lots of things are done wrong and some things go wrong and the result is a failed critical situation.
2) Some people blame the radio system (or some aspect of the radio system)
3) Some people (usually uninformed about the situation) get upset when it is pointed out that the radio system either was not the cause or was not the principle cause.

I ask "How much money do radio salespeople make?" & "Are any radio salespeople totally untrained?"

Kind of stupid questions.
If I took a guess I would say between $25,000 and $250,000, with the majority being between $50,000 and $150,000.
The high end may seem high to some, but remember some accounts are handled by corporate VPs and even the company owners of smaller companies.

As for the training, everything from Highschool and lots of on-the-job training right up to degreed engineers, and other degreed professionals some with multiple advanced degrees, and a whole lot of people with some first responder experience (Some in their second career after a career in public service.)

I ask "What does 90 / 90 coverage really mean"?

That is a long discussion,l but there are many books that cover the topic very well.
I would start with TIA-TSB-88,
Not the best read, but will give you enough references to go charging off to the library.
Yes, learning takes work. Sorry)

N Jay asks "Are firefighters safer without portable radios?"

It is a rhetorical question.
It was not long ago that the majority of firefighters did not carry a portable radio, and now some act like it is intended to be a fail-proof device.

That makes as much sense as thinking; "Now that I have airbags I can drive drunk!"

2. Are police safer without vests?

I guess the questions are:
"Have the police changed their tactics to put themselves in the line of fire more now that they have vests?"
"Does anyone blame the "slick talking salesman" when an officer is shot because the vest should have covered more?"

An experiment could be run. Take all the portable radios out of service in New York City. After 1 hour - evaluate the results. Something tells me that the experiment would never be run. Never.

That is not the appropriate test.
If we went back to the procedures used prior to the commonplace use of portable radios, would they be safer?
That could be run as a table-top exercise.

Does anyone making over $1 million per year care if a public safety worker dies? Maybe. (Have you ever seen any rich people stepping up at a LODD funeral?)

What does class warfare have to do with any of this?

 

[RayAir]

Our local FD uses VHF or UHFconventional on fire ground. There are massive problems with the 800MHz trunked system, so they still dispatch on VHF-HI and then when they get a call to a fire, you'll hear them say something like "all units responding switch to 2 when on scene".

I think I read of an FF dying when he became trapped in a burning house and was unable to make a call on his Motorola 800MHz digital trunked radio.

 

[R8000]

Peter,

Instead of wasting time answering your posts, I will simply say this: Your ideas are wonderful dreams that are neither logistically nor financially feasable.

And the reason no one answers your questions, is because you are not bringing any logic or reasonability to your posts.

You are going on listless soliloquys.

100% agree.

 

[kd8ati]

If the signal has already reached the repeater than it should have no problem coming back due to the higher output (of the repeater). Maybe you consider it unnecessary but if it works then I don't quite see what the problem is.


If the fire services were always using simplex we wouldn't have this discussion, would we? Anyhow, I don't care either way, if they want to use analog and/or simplex be my guest, but please stop blaming digital technology for poorly designed systems or certain manufacturers providing equipment that doesn't perform properly.

My point behind hoping the signal makes it was hoping it made it to the repeater so it can travel back. If it works, then hey good for them. I call it unnecessary because as more and more people find themselfs on a repeater (normally associated with switching to a digital trunked system), the more complaints we are hearing from people who were never brought in on the discussion in the first place.

If fire services were always using simplex we wouldn't be having this discussion? Yes more then likely you are right... because everything would be working. I am not blaming digital tech for poorly desgined systems (*cough* Opensky *cough*), I am blaming digital tech AND the vocoders for the very poor audio quality resulting for the high amount of background noise you almost always get on an active FG.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Our local FD uses VHF or UHFconventional on fire ground. There are massive problems with the 800MHz trunked system, so they still dispatch on VHF-HI and then when they get a call to a fire, you'll hear them say something like "all units responding switch to 2 when on scene".

I think I read of an FF dying when he became trapped in a burning house and was unable to make a call on his Motorola 800MHz digital trunked radio.

My brother's, wife's, uncle's roommate is a firefighter that told me that his buddy's, dad's, friend's nephew died because of a Motorola 800 MHz digital system.

 

[zerg901]

From NJay

"Kind of stupid questions."

-----------------------------

That comment of course highlights the difference between my posts and others. Personal attacks from people who refuse to identify themselves. Beware. Peter Sz

 

[ILMRadioMan]

From NJay

"Kind of stupid questions."

-----------------------------

That comment of course highlights the difference between my posts and others. Personal attacks from people who refuse to identify themselves. Beware. Peter Sz

Peter,

Perhaps you don't recognize how frustrating it is for people desiring to have meaningful discourse, then we get nonsensical questions and trains of thought.

 

[N_Jay]

From NJay

"Kind of stupid questions."

-----------------------------

Personal attacks from people who refuse to identify themselves. Beware. Peter Sz

I did not say you were stupid, I said these two questions were "kind of stupid" given the discussion.
"How much money do radio salespeople make?

What does the salary of the sales people matter?
How can you expect any reasonable answer given the broad range of people involved?
Other than getting off topic, or bringing some type of class warfare into the discussion, why do you ask/care?

Yes, a stupid question.

"Are any radio salespeople totally untrained?"

What do you mean by "Totally untrained'?
What would you consider "totally trained"?
Again, how can you expect any reasonable answer given the broad range of people involved?

Yes, another stupid question.

Sorry if my opinion of your questions bothers you.

From NJay

"Kind of stupid questions."

-----------------------------

That comment of course highlights the difference between my posts and others.

Please note, I did answer the questions that were even close to on-topic, and even gave meaningful answers to those two (stupid) off-topic questions.

 

[N_Jay]

N Jay - who are you? I asked before and did not get an answer. Peter Sz

You received a response in a PM. (Twice)

You have chosen not to reply.