Do NIFC channels have tones now?

Status
Not open for further replies.

vlarian

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Central California
some info on portable radios.

If the BK Radio KNG-P150s is programmed according to national standards. (not all comm techs follow these standards) then pushing the # key will allow the user to change zones (groups), this is also how mobile radios with a numeric keypads work. changing the TX tone is very easy, push the up button and select the tone you wish to use then push enter. however the tone you chose is the tone the radio will use on all channels in all zones till you change it. Unless the channel has a locked tone, in which case that channels preselected and locked TX tone will be what is used.

the BK radio has 32 zones (groups) of 16 channels and 32 preset tones. you can enter what ever tone you want in programming mode.

another cool feature (if enabled) is you can copy channels from any zone and paste them into one of the many open zones there by allowing users in the field to very quickly create a command group for the fire. no need to wait for the RADO at the comm tent. of course this only works if the fire freqs are already in your radio.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
See my post #9 above. Interoperable frequencies which can use selectable tone will be listed as CSQ in the database, in part for the very reasons noted by @es93546. If the day comes when the NIFC can make up their mind on a specific tone plan, we can revisit this decision.

As a communications planner and administrator for over 30 years, I personally think that user-selectable tone is a pretty questionable practice; there's entirely too much chance of user error, which can lead to injury and/or death (especially in a rapidly evolving situation like a wildfire).

By the way, your submission was one of only 49 new submissions; the 226 number you noted includes submissions already owned by administrators who are in the process of working them (they may be waiting for additional information from the submitter or what have you).

NIFC has adopted a standard 16 tone list. It is the same as developed in California by FIRESCOPE, CDF, USFS, BLM, NPS and some counties. They are not only using this standard list for the NIFC cache radios, but all U.S. Forest Service radio systems are directed to do so also. National parks and BLM districts have slowly been converting to this list in the last 10-15 years. Some units in the Northern Rockies GACC used all the standard tones, but decided to change the labels, making the lowest frequency tone (100.0) as Tone 1, 103.5 as Tone 2 and so forth. Some have resisted the standardization stating, "we don't want it cause it comes from California" and "we've always done it this way and it works for us just fine." The same was heard when the adoption of ICS was directed to be in place in the USFS by 1986. Every Forest Service region accomplished this sooner, except for Region 1 (northern Idaho, Montana and North Dakota). They made a choice not to adopt ICS until they were required to and not by choice. Eventually everyone, including state natural resource agencies will adopt the national standard tones. Some are waiting until they replace their systems.

The only time I've seen tones mentioned in a wildland fire serious injury and fatality incident it was for the Yarnell Hill Fire. The state of Arizona had jurisdiction and someone from the state forestry agency was IC. It was mentioned that differing tones were an issue. Arizona's state forestry agency was using some tones that weren't on the standard list at the time. Some of the tones had different number labels. I think some local resources were not standardized either. This incident happened June 30, 2013. I don't think anything was mentioned in the investigative report about any action proposed in response. However NIFC is now directing units to adopt the standard.

I never found selectable tones to be an issue during my USFS career. I worked my last 18 years in California where the standardized tone list was developed in the early 80's following the upgrades from burst tone repeater selection. Volunteers, new seasonals and some management employees who rarely went out in the field sometimes got tones mixed up, but most had been well trained on radio procedure. Many forests had radio use guides, in fact nearly every one of them. The guides explained what tones were in non techy type terms. People who responded to fires, went on details to other forests and traveled often for other reasons, all carried the R5 Smokejumpers frequency guide, which has been put together since around 1988 or 1989. It is only 3 1/2" by 5," so it's easy to carry/store in a vehicle or line pack.

I don't see the use of tones to be an issue or questionable as you opined. Fire personnel in wildland fire agencies are pretty radio savvy. Many engine captains, IHC superintendents and helitack crew members clone their radios themselves. When I had a single group of 16 channels in my handheld I would program the home unit group back in it as soon as I got home, sometimes as I left an assignment. In general it has been my observation that people in the fire service are knowledgeable about radios. I can't say that for law enforcement, but they don't work mutual aid as often. Most of the non-admin types in all natural resource agencies were very geographically literate. They could figure out the locations of repeaters without too much trouble. The USFS visitor map for each NF is a great place to start. You just look at the names of repeaters then scan the map, reading all the significant peaks shown on it and then ink in the tone number next to it.

When units frequently responded to CDF fires, they just carried the unit's repeater map with them as well. When you respond frequently enough, you have the tones/repeaters memorized anyway.

The only way to select repeaters without having to keep track of tone is to have a channel for each repeater and lock out the selectable tone function. That eats up memory. Think of the Los Padres NF with 20 repeaters using all 16 tones. They would use up a whole group, just for the forest net, then would need another for the admin net. This is not workable. When I traveled out of region and did not have that region's frequency guide, I would just try each tone from 1-16 and find the best kerchunk I could get. The R5 guide did not list individual repeaters for each CDF unit or the commands. Kerchunking was an easy thing to do and you made sure you were ready with the info gained before getting right on the line.

If you are on a fire, you carry at least two pages of the IAP with you, the assignment sheet for your division and the comm plan. You memorized the comm plan and had it in a shirt pocket if you couldn't. It was my experience when rolling up on an immediate need assignment that when you checked in at the ICP, they would make sure you had the comm plan first, or if not developed yet, would give you the air to ground, command and tactical frequencies to write down before you headed out to your assignment. This info is announced by dispatch several times and if you are arriving from another forest they make sure you have those frequencies and the tones for command. This is all part of the LCES (Lookouts, Communications, Escape routes, and Safety zones (LCES) procedure and checklist that every firefighter must have in place at all times.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,249
Location
Ohio
I never found selectable tones to be an issue during my USFS career. I worked my last 18 years in California where the standardized tone list was developed in the early 80's following the upgrades from burst tone repeater selection. Volunteers, new seasonals and some management employees who rarely went out in the field sometimes got tones mixed up, but most had been well trained on radio procedure. Many forests had radio use guides, in fact nearly every one of them. The guides explained what tones were in non techy type terms. People who responded to fires, went on details to other forests and traveled often for other reasons, all carried the R5 Smokejumpers frequency guide, which has been put together since around 1988 or 1989. It is only 3 1/2" by 5," so it's easy to carry/store in a vehicle or line pack.

I don't see the use of tones to be an issue or questionable as you opined. Fire personnel in wildland fire agencies are pretty radio savvy. Many engine captains, IHC superintendents and helitack crew members clone their radios themselves. When I had a single group of 16 channels in my handheld I would program the home unit group back in it as soon as I got home, sometimes as I left an assignment. In general it has been my observation that people in the fire service are knowledgeable about radios. I can't say that for law enforcement, but they don't work mutual aid as often. Most of the non-admin types in all natural resource agencies were very geographically literate. They could figure out the locations of repeaters without too much trouble. The USFS visitor map for each NF is a great place to start. You just look at the names of repeaters then scan the map, reading all the significant peaks shown on it and then ink in the tone number next to it.

Alas, USFS guys appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Around here we do training, and walk people through how to use their radios, but it never sinks in; we had enough trouble getting them to stop using the dang dispatch talkgroup for everything and move to the countywide ops talkgroup during a response. We still have some fire chiefs who will stay on the ops talkgroup long beyond the point when they should have moved the incident to their fireground talkgroup, and the dispatcher has to remind them.

We also have to pre-program everything into the radios for them because if we left it up to them, they'd just get confused. If I threw something like selectable PL or what have you into the mix for the conventional interop channels (or heaven forbid, talkgroups for conventional P25 channels), I suspect their brains would explode. It's pretty much been the same everywhere I've worked in 34+ years; every now and again there will be someone who is interested and takes the time to really learn what's in the radio and how to use it, but they're rare.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
Alas, USFS guys appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Around here we do training, and walk people through how to use their radios, but it never sinks in; we had enough trouble getting them to stop using the dang dispatch talkgroup for everything and move to the countywide ops talkgroup during a response. We still have some fire chiefs who will stay on the ops talkgroup long beyond the point when they should have moved the incident to their fireground talkgroup, and the dispatcher has to remind them.

We also have to pre-program everything into the radios for them because if we left it up to them, they'd just get confused. If I threw something like selectable PL or what have you into the mix for the conventional interop channels (or heaven forbid, talkgroups for conventional P25 channels), I suspect their brains would explode. It's pretty much been the same everywhere I've worked in 34+ years; every now and again there will be someone who is interested and takes the time to really learn what's in the radio and how to use it, but they're rare.

It's not just Forest Service people, it applies to most in the wildland fire service. Non fire management employees in most of these agencies have a good working knowledge of radios as well, if they go in the field enough. A law enforcement officer on the Inyo National Forest once observed, "what we have here is a 2 million acre ranch and all the cowboys are back in the bunkhouse staring at computer screens." There was a group of us on the forest, that weren't back in the bunkhouse though. Each of us knew exactly who was in the group.

Some people on the fire department you mentioned not only don't seem to understand radio, but could they be having trouble understanding ICS as well?

All the wildland fire dispatch centers I listen to all put out the dispatch. They then name the incident, state what the command, tactical and air to ground frequencies for the incident. They are the same every time, in the south forest it's South Net and the north forest it's North Net. If additional fires get dispatched then a secondary air to ground might be assigned, depending on the proximity of the incidents. A different tac might be assigned as well. Command might be shifted over to Service Net, or the BLM Bishop Field Office net, that isn't used much. All this is clearly stated after the dispatcher polls all the responding units to confirm response.
 
Last edited:

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,249
Location
Ohio
Some people on the fire department you mentioned not only don't seem to understand radio, but could they be having trouble understanding ICS as well?

They understand ICS well enough; we don't have the trouble with freelancing we used to. It's just communications procedures and best practices they have trouble with.

For many years fire/EMS in this county was on a single low-band radio channel for all intents and purposes (they had a channel 2 but it rarely got used). The same was true for law enforcement. In the late 90s the county put up an EDACS system but there was little interoperability so it might as well have been four separate radio systems; fire/EMS had their talkgroups, law enforcement had theirs, public works had theirs, and the schools had their talkgroups. There were only three talkgroups common to the entire county, and one of those was the countywide emergency channel. We've since migrated to P25 and have much better interoperability, and have finally convinced fire/EMS to move to the ops channel after they get dispatched, but we still have a heck of a time trying to get them to move off the ops channel (ditto for law enforcement and their dispatch channel). Some of them - both fire/EMS and law enforcement - just seem to have a congenital defect that prevents thought when faced with a communications decision.

They also insist on scanning when on the fireground (afraid of missing a dispatch), which really drives me nuts.

Don't get me started on the dispatch center....
 
Last edited:

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
See my post #9 above. Interoperable frequencies which can use selectable tone will be listed as CSQ in the database, in part for the very reasons noted by @es93546. If the day comes when the NIFC can make up their mind on a specific tone plan, we can revisit this decision.

-----

The rejection notice on my submission to the RRDB re the tone on 168.625 stated - " Nationwide interoperable frequencies are listed in the RRDB as CSQ unless a specific tone for both transmit and receive is explicitly stated. Redbook states PL 110.9 when transmitting, not transmitting and receiving. "

-----

In Post 9 above it is stated - A brief mention of uses such as "incident specific squelch tone" or "operator selected squelch tone" may be placed in the subcategory notes section so that people know what's going on if they see varying squelch tones.

------

Can I followup with 2 quick questions? Yes - good. LOL

1. Is there a comment in the "sub-category notes" re 168.625 PL 110.9?

2. For people who program their scanners via Zip Code or GPS, and downloading the freqs from the RRDB;:., does 168.625 appear in every download? In any downloads?

(I have had 168.625 in my scanner here in the Boston area in the past. Never heard anything from any agency.)
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,249
Location
Ohio
Can I followup with 2 quick questions? Yes - good. LOL

1. Is there a comment in the "sub-category notes" re 168.625 PL 110.9?

Yes.

2. For people who program their scanners via Zip Code or GPS, and downloading the freqs from the RRDB;:., does 168.625 appear in every download? In any downloads?

If they are scanning the full database, it should be there. From experience I can say that the Nationwide stuff was in the full database the last time I was scanning that way; I usually set up a Favorite list for areas I'm traveling to outside my usual range.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
They understand ICS well enough; we don't have the trouble with freelancing we used to. It's just communications procedures and best practices they have trouble with.

For many years fire/EMS in this county was on a single low-band radio channel for all intents and purposes (they had a channel 2 but it rarely got used). The same was true for law enforcement. In the late 90s the county put up an EDACS system but there was little interoperability so it might as well have been four separate radio systems; fire/EMS had their talkgroups, law enforcement had theirs, public works had theirs, and the schools had their talkgroups. There were only three talkgroups common to the entire county, and one of those was the countywide emergency channel. We've since migrated to P25 and have much better interoperability, and have finally convinced fire/EMS to move to the ops channel after they get dispatched, but we still have a heck of a time trying to get them to move off the ops channel (ditto for law enforcement and their dispatch channel). Some of them - both fire/EMS and law enforcement - just seem to have a congenital defect that prevents thought when faced with a communications decision.

They also insist on scanning when on the fireground (afraid of missing a dispatch), which really drives me nuts.

Don't get me started on the dispatch center....

It sounds like both dispatch and the agency managers need to provide better structure and procedures. All these la de da systems are being built and 500 channel radios provided to facilitate direct communications for everyone on an incident. You then provide training for the radio and how to use it. Then you put it in place and they don't want to switch channels and request that the fire dispatcher contact the police dispatcher to tell a cop they can see a block or two away with some request. It's like their brains are adapted to the days when the FD, PD, PW and whatever each had a single channel and each did not have the other channels in their radios. In the west, ICS is drilled in everyone's heads. Dispatching sounds very crisp, organized and orderly.

I live in a lightly populated county that some would consider a little remote. Like most rural western counties nearly everything is on VHF-High. Prior to higher capacity radios, units from each agency would call another on their own frequency and say "on the scanner" at the end. They knew that everyone had a scanner with everyone else's frequencies in them. Now everyone just dials up the other agencies radio systems. County agencies have NIFC tacticals in them in case they get involved in a federal incident. The county set up a mutual aid/command repeater system with two repeater frequency pairs and two tacticals. Everyone put that in their radios, including the feds and the state. We have agencies that are on 800 MHz systems (State Parks & the DOT, AKA Caltrans) and CHP on low band. The CHP can bring up any band as they have radios for each band that link to their mobile and handheld extenders. The other two agencies do not. However, units still know how to call via the scanner. Everyone pretty much knows where they fit when a large incident occurs. In rural areas it all about every agency trying to help each other, fiefdoms don't work well.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
I have a guess on the reasoning to operate 168.625 as TX 110.9 and RX 0.0

It gives everyone the option of turning on the PL on their receiver or not

If 168.625 is "clean" in a given area, then there is no need to activate PL on the receivers in the area. If 168.625 is "noisy" - maybe from intermod, or nearby users, or electronic interference, etc - then the PL on the receivers can be turned on.

Having the PL permanently activated on the transmitters means there is 1 less thing to worry about when 168.625 is "noisy"
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
I have a guess on the reasoning to operate 168.625 as TX 110.9 and RX 0.0

It gives everyone the option of turning on the PL on their receiver or not

If 168.625 is "clean" in a given area, then there is no need to activate PL on the receivers in the area. If 168.625 is "noisy" - maybe from intermod, or nearby users, or electronic interference, etc - then the PL on the receivers can be turned on.

Having the PL permanently activated on the transmitters means there is 1 less thing to worry about when 168.625 is "noisy"

The primary problem is along the U.S./Mexico border. Illegal use in Mexico is significant. This affects the 4 southern California national forests, one in Arizona as well as the BLM in California, Arizona and New Mexico. It would not surprise me if the Lincoln NF in New Mexico had problems. It is a straight shot down the Rio Grande Valley to Juarez with very little topography in between. Someone mentioned the remote bases dispatch centers use experience more of a problem than ground level units. I don't know what aircraft do while operating in those areas. They are monitoring for emergencies on the ground potentially being transmitted from 5 watt handhelds so I wonder if they have to have 110.9 in receive in order to filter out Mexico. I've experienced some interference on the nets of the 4 forests on their nets and NIFC frequencies as well. This back in the early 90's. An oversight had left 103.5 off my program for those forests. It was corrected as soon as the radio tech's laptop was available.

I've never heard any other type of interference on the frequency on a wide variety of radios and scanners, both USFS and personal, over wide areas where I've lived and traveled. When computerized cash registers first became prevalent I used to get interference inside some stores on a Bendix-King and on a Midland mobile outside of restaurants in both Mammoth and Bishop. This on other frequencies as I didn't have Air Guard in my handheld. It wasn't in the primary bank on my Midland either, just in the NIFC bank. The type of interference you mention is more prevalent in big cities than in most areas natural resource agencies operate in.

Considering all the problems I've mentioned I think of the years where the tone was required on both RX and TX. There must have been a problem as the RX requirement got dropped in just the last 2-3 years. The explanation could be had if the comm people at NIFC were willing to answer the question. Maybe if you, the RR master of Google searches, poked around enough, a memo could be found.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,925
Location
Taxachusetts
To add more to the confusion
A recent IAP contained:

"NIFC requires all frequencies used on incidents to be tone guarded on the receive and transmit side."

The way radios are programmed for NIFC commands (at least initial attack period, prior to the comm unit being able to clone) is to leave them CSQ in the RX tone and OST in the TX tone. OST should be set up to only change the TX tone and leave the RX tone unaffected.

A radio in CSQ will hear everything on that frequency. Leaving them in CSQ would be the best option. No sense trying to reinvent the database from across the country listening to broadcastify.
 

KK6ZTE

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
914
Location
California
Just as a reminder, PL tones don't filter out interference, they just mask it (just in case someone thinks it cures the problem)
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
Just as a reminder, PL tones don't filter out interference, they just mask it (just in case someone thinks it cures the problem)

Thanks for the reminder, I think most who have used radios know that. That is why businesses that share frequencies via CTCSS have radios that when you pull the mike from its clip, the tone filter gets shut off. I experienced that right out of high school when I drove a shuttle bus for a hotel near LAX. I didn't fully understand the process at the time, but I knew it saved us from listening to plumbers and similar. It also saved us from crappy signals if someone else talked over us. The system was on a repeater and the old repeater wars would start up then.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
To add more to the confusion
A recent IAP contained:

"NIFC requires all frequencies used on incidents to be tone guarded on the receive and transmit side."

That has previously been discussed. This requirement only applies to the NIFC ground frequencies and not to Air Guard. When a system is set up and radios cloned there are tones on each side of all commands and tacs as assigned by the GACC and/or NIFC on an incident by incident basis. The only requirement for Air Guard is that it is to be put in channel 16. So no confusion is added by this. I'm repeating myself, but that tone requirement does not apply to state, local and NIFOG frequencies. NIFOG usually has RX/TX toned as 156.7, which is the nationally standardized and designated Tone 6. For USFS radios anyway, but the people at Interior seem to be moving that way, ahead of a lot of national forests I should add.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,925
Location
Taxachusetts
OK, but nowhere in that document, did it indicate Ground vs Air - hence left to each person to interpret, which is where, all the confusion comes from.


That has previously been discussed. This requirement only applies to the NIFC ground frequencies and not to Air Guard. When a system is set up and radios cloned there are tones on each side of all commands and tacs as assigned by the GACC and/or NIFC on an incident by incident basis. The only requirement for Air Guard is that it is to be put in channel 16. So no confusion is added by this. I'm repeating myself, but that tone requirement does not apply to state, local and NIFOG frequencies. NIFOG usually has RX/TX toned as 156.7, which is the nationally standardized and designated Tone 6. For USFS radios anyway, but the people at Interior seem to be moving that way, ahead of a lot of national forests I should add.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
OK, but nowhere in that document, did it indicate Ground vs Air - hence left to each person to interpret, which is where, all the confusion comes from.

Sure, I understand. There are other documents that give direction for the use of tones on aviation frequencies. These being the National and GACC Mobilization Guides, the interagency "Redbook" and others that show the tac frequencies. The mob guides and Redbook are easily accessible by the public and list both Air Guard and National Flight Following with the direction for tone use. There is no effort to conceal these two frequencies. We are only able to see certain documents and have to patch this together, but for the employees of the agencies this is not the case.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,925
Location
Taxachusetts
No one has indicated any attempt to conceal anything. :(

Just pointing out that LOCAL OPS and NIFC directed frequencies to be Tone Guarded.

Sure, I understand. There are other documents that give direction for the use of tones on aviation frequencies. These being the National and GACC Mobilization Guides, the interagency "Redbook" and others that show the tac frequencies. The mob guides and Redbook are easily accessible by the public and list both Air Guard and National Flight Following with the direction for tone use. There is no effort to conceal these two frequencies. We are only able to see certain documents and have to patch this together, but for the employees of the agencies this is not the case.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,280
Location
Right Side of CA on maps
No one has indicated any attempt to conceal anything. :(

Just pointing out that LOCAL OPS and NIFC directed frequencies to be Tone Guarded.

We seem to be going in circles here. I said the NIFC gave the direction for toning the NIFC (NIRSC to be accurate) system frequencies everytime the system is deployed. I don't think "LOCAL OPS" issued directives. I don't know what "LOCAL OPS" means. I would guess a dispatch center or an incident management team. Neither issued the governing directive, NIFC coordinates the use of the NIFC system and any local entity follows and repeats the directive.

I have a picture filed somewhere of the room where frequencies are coordinated. They have a board with frequencies arranged in columns and magnetic labels with the location each is authorized for. It's a very big board both horizontally and vertically. I could see a computer spreadsheet being used for this, but if it was me I would prefer being able to see the entire picture without scrolling the screen, especially when several people are helping. I mention this because NIFC is where frequency use is governed, down to those 5 watt UHF handhelds used for simplex camp nets, where the 2 watt setting is probably being used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top