Correct, The Talk Group IDs are in the DB. w2lie, have you noticed some NCPD jobs are getting out and posting on BNN? Something for another thread maybe.
FDNY fire ground relay
- Thread starter newsnick175
- Start date
- Status
A quick detour before we get back on topic. NCFD dispatchers have the ability to listen to NCPD via an assigned portable radio. It is likely that someone within earshot of an assigned radio is calling in the buff reports.
....And now back to your regularly scheduled posts...
....And now back to your regularly scheduled posts...
This is a practical and elegant solution. In my opinion, the FDNY has found a perfect balance.
Logistical/Administrative communications flow over the repeater system. On-scene Life/Safety communications are highly reliable simplex and independent of infrastructure, but injected one way into the wide-area system for remote monitoring.
Follow along for my reasoning.
Fire Service responses follow rigid chain of command rules set out in NIMS/ICS. Those rules say that each person has one-and-only-one boss, and that only one person is in charge of any one subordinate or collection of other supervisors. This communications setup follows those rules.
An interior FF has enough to keep track of without hearing communications that don't directly concern him. No matter how big the Incident gets a FF working the wet end of the hose should still only get orders from his on-scene supervisor, and never from a senior Chief sitting at his desk jumping the chain of command. Fire Ground to repeater injected one-way means that someone not aware of the big picture can’t tell a FF holding a hose to direct his stream onto another attack team.
Incident communications fall into two different categories: Logistical/Administrative and Life/Safety. The technical needs of the two categories are totally different and is not one-size-fits-all.
Trunking or repeater systems are ideal for wide area Logistical/Administrative. For example, if the Incident Commander calls dispatch and requests an additional alarm, or calls an en-route asset for an ETA or to give arrival instructions, those communications fall under Logistical/Administrative. They are still important, but have the luxury of being repeated thirty seconds later if there is a technical failure.
Life/Safety communications have entirely different technical needs and require their own separate path. Waiting thirty seconds for a clear channel or to repeat an urgent MAYDAY or EVACUATE because you got 'bonked' is not an option. Plain old my-radio-direct-to-your-radio-simplex is ideal for Life/Safety.
An interior crew needs absolute reliable communications with their team, immediate supervision and on-scene safety oversight. Those communications must be instantly bulletproof over a several hundred yard range, but do not need to be sent over the entire city or county to perform their primary function. Inserting layers of complexity (trunking or repeater systems) also inserts dangerous layers of potential failure into what needs to be a very simple system. Relying on complex technology miles away to immediately and reliably send a communication less than 100 yards has substantially contributed to the injury or death of many firefighters.
The legitimate issue is the need for others off-scene to monitor on-scene Life/Safety operational traffic. There are only two reasons for this: situation awareness by regional command and mutual aid, and safety monitoring backup. Being nosy doesn't count. The one-way injection of fire ground Life/Safety traffic into the repeater system fills this need quite nicely.
As much as the followers of this scanning forum would like to hear the play-by-play, that is not the FDNY system's primary function.
Logistical/Administrative communications flow over the repeater system. On-scene Life/Safety communications are highly reliable simplex and independent of infrastructure, but injected one way into the wide-area system for remote monitoring.
Follow along for my reasoning.
Fire Service responses follow rigid chain of command rules set out in NIMS/ICS. Those rules say that each person has one-and-only-one boss, and that only one person is in charge of any one subordinate or collection of other supervisors. This communications setup follows those rules.
An interior FF has enough to keep track of without hearing communications that don't directly concern him. No matter how big the Incident gets a FF working the wet end of the hose should still only get orders from his on-scene supervisor, and never from a senior Chief sitting at his desk jumping the chain of command. Fire Ground to repeater injected one-way means that someone not aware of the big picture can’t tell a FF holding a hose to direct his stream onto another attack team.
Incident communications fall into two different categories: Logistical/Administrative and Life/Safety. The technical needs of the two categories are totally different and is not one-size-fits-all.
Trunking or repeater systems are ideal for wide area Logistical/Administrative. For example, if the Incident Commander calls dispatch and requests an additional alarm, or calls an en-route asset for an ETA or to give arrival instructions, those communications fall under Logistical/Administrative. They are still important, but have the luxury of being repeated thirty seconds later if there is a technical failure.
Life/Safety communications have entirely different technical needs and require their own separate path. Waiting thirty seconds for a clear channel or to repeat an urgent MAYDAY or EVACUATE because you got 'bonked' is not an option. Plain old my-radio-direct-to-your-radio-simplex is ideal for Life/Safety.
An interior crew needs absolute reliable communications with their team, immediate supervision and on-scene safety oversight. Those communications must be instantly bulletproof over a several hundred yard range, but do not need to be sent over the entire city or county to perform their primary function. Inserting layers of complexity (trunking or repeater systems) also inserts dangerous layers of potential failure into what needs to be a very simple system. Relying on complex technology miles away to immediately and reliably send a communication less than 100 yards has substantially contributed to the injury or death of many firefighters.
The legitimate issue is the need for others off-scene to monitor on-scene Life/Safety operational traffic. There are only two reasons for this: situation awareness by regional command and mutual aid, and safety monitoring backup. Being nosy doesn't count. The one-way injection of fire ground Life/Safety traffic into the repeater system fills this need quite nicely.
As much as the followers of this scanning forum would like to hear the play-by-play, that is not the FDNY system's primary function.
n2nov
Active Member
"Life/Safety communications have entirely different technical needs and require their own separate path. Waiting thirty seconds for a clear channel or to repeat an urgent MAYDAY or EVACUATE because you got 'bonked' is not an option. Plain old my-radio-direct-to-your-radio-simplex is ideal for Life/Safety.
An interior crew needs absolute reliable communications with their team, immediate supervision and on-scene safety oversight. Those communications must be instantly bulletproof over a several hundred yard range, but do not need to be sent over the entire city or county to perform their primary function. Inserting layers of complexity (trunking or repeater systems) also inserts dangerous layers of potential failure into what needs to be a very simple system. Relying on complex technology miles away to immediately and reliably send a communication less than 100 yards has substantially contributed to the injury or death of many firefighters."
I would also add that the simpler analog voice mode should take precedence over additional layers of complexity to create/receive digital signals.
An interior crew needs absolute reliable communications with their team, immediate supervision and on-scene safety oversight. Those communications must be instantly bulletproof over a several hundred yard range, but do not need to be sent over the entire city or county to perform their primary function. Inserting layers of complexity (trunking or repeater systems) also inserts dangerous layers of potential failure into what needs to be a very simple system. Relying on complex technology miles away to immediately and reliably send a communication less than 100 yards has substantially contributed to the injury or death of many firefighters."
I would also add that the simpler analog voice mode should take precedence over additional layers of complexity to create/receive digital signals.
Absolutely.
When whatever apparatus that carries the simplex-to-system uplink arrives, the ground comms are sent onwards. But until then (or when-not-if it fails) simplex life goes on without it.
Several of my agencies use a similar system. A receiver listens for and rebroadcasts Incident ground comms to a wider audience, but the actual on-scene comms do not rely on it for anything. A failure (technical or otherwise) do not prevent critical comms from flowing instantly.
When whatever apparatus that carries the simplex-to-system uplink arrives, the ground comms are sent onwards. But until then (or when-not-if it fails) simplex life goes on without it.
Several of my agencies use a similar system. A receiver listens for and rebroadcasts Incident ground comms to a wider audience, but the actual on-scene comms do not rely on it for anything. A failure (technical or otherwise) do not prevent critical comms from flowing instantly.
Can anyone tell me which talk groups are used to simulcast the fireground activity? I know they are on DOITT UHF trunking system I'm just not sure which talk groups you guys are talking about to hear the simulcast. If if I missed something I apologize in advance.
Thanks folks!
Thanks folks!
Doitt uhf listed by division number.
An even simpler set up is what my department does. Direct on Input. If you have a repeater that can be heard through out your district and recorded by your dispatch base [for the record] then use the input frequency as your "fire ground direct" channel. All incoming units can monitor the repeater and there is no interference between units at the scene.
I have three agencies that do just that, with one minor difference: The input to the repeater is an existing interoperable fireground channel. The output is a simple relay on some other frequency. One uses fixed infrastructure, the others use apparatus mounted repeaters. Inexpensive and works slick.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,808
Well Done FDNY / DOITT
Well done FDNY/DOITT. It appears to me that the long journey has finally yielded an excellent solution to FG communications challenges.
The following report from RI highlights many of the communication challenges faced by many firefighters Nationwide while operating on the FG.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tr_96cv.pdf
Next thing to tackle is the Subway radio system?
Well done FDNY/DOITT. It appears to me that the long journey has finally yielded an excellent solution to FG communications challenges.
The following report from RI highlights many of the communication challenges faced by many firefighters Nationwide while operating on the FG.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tr_96cv.pdf
Next thing to tackle is the Subway radio system?
Stamford and Greenwich CT have been doing this for over 6 years. Works well.
- Status
