Fire Talk Group Descriptions

[bneilson]

I wanted to get everybody's take on the current naming of fire talk groups.

Some time ago I had put in a change for some of the talk groups to be renamed from "VECC ..." to "UFA..." The current listing was the compromise between myself and the database admins. My school of thought was that VECC is the dispatch company and is not the user and therefore we should indicate UFA in the name as they are the user. The Admin felt that UFA would confuse people as VECC is who handles the dispatching....

So how about we vote on what we do. Just to be clear, I would like to make the name list follows:

TG 21216 "UFA Dispatch 1"
TG 21248 "UFA Response 2"
TG 21280 "UFA Response 3"
etc...

This would remove the EMS and VECC references and add UFA

 

[qlajlu]

Other changes needed also

Some of the listed VECC Ops channels are always being referred to as TAC channels especially by Unified Fire. Like those I pointed out a little earlier in another thread. They could stand to be changed too.

Even though those channels you have indicated are VECC operated channels, they are dedicated to UFA so I cannot see that the change would be an earth shattering deal. It would add clarity to the list to have them changed so that someone just getting into the hobby would not be confused by the listings. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't some of the PD channels VECC operated? I don't see a VECC affiliation on any of them.

 

[Rolfman]

I would like to see all of the VECC channels more clearly labeled to represent what they are used for. I have renamed some on my programing but have to "correct" them if I re-download the data from RR.

 

[Utah_Viper]

I would keep it the same. I have heard them actually call those channels as "VECC" 1,2,3,4 etc. We should name things as what the agencies that use them call it.

 

[qlajlu]

Clarification on two VECC Fire TGs needed

TGs 21120 and 21216 are very confusing. 21120 is listed as VECC Fire 1 and 21216 is listed as VECC EMS Fire 1. This almost sounds redundant except that they are two distinct TGs. Which one is which? Can we identify them better? 21216 is the Dispatch channel, but what is 21120 used for? I'm not sure I have had any traffic on it.

 

[gldavis]

TG 21216 is listed as VECC EMS FD 1. This tells me, that it is used by VECC's Fire Dept and Medics as their channel 1. If I hear the VECC dispatch tell her/his units to "goto 1", then I would goto TG 21216. If 21216 is actually a dispatch "channel" for the UFA, then I think it should be labeled as such. On the other hand, if there is a "common" title that the actual users of the TG use, then that should be part of the listing. As for the examples shown at the begining of this thread, I agree with bneilson. If these TG's are used by a specific agency/organization, that is how they should be shown.
My three cents worth.
Gary

 

[Utah_Viper]

Let me explain the VECC Fire dispatch a bit more. What is now referred to as UFA is the old Salt Lake County Fire. However, they are NOT the only agency dispatched by VECC. They also dispatch; West Valley City, South Salt Lake, Murray, and Sandy City. These agencies all have mutual aid agreements, but they are indeed independent departments. VECC handles all fire agencies withing Salt Lake County, other than Salt Lake City. Thus, I do believe the channels should be labeled as VECC and not UFA.

As to the police dispatch that is another whole can of worms!

 

[Rolfman]

What I see as the primary dispatch channel for VECC is TGID 21216, currently listed as VECC EMS Fire 1. They dispatch the fire, EMS, and ambulances. It is the "base" channel that all units got back to after responding and clearing from a call.

I agree there are a couple of things happening there since UFA is really a title for several agencies that work together but are truly independent organizations. Likewise VECC is really just a company paid to act as a central dispatch for all of these entities. I don’t feel VECC is truly representative of what is taking place on the channel but I can see where the title UFA is not a total improvement either. Maybe just a simple Unified EMS Fire 1 or Valley Unified EMS Fire 1 (although I think that is to many characters.) SL Unified EMS Fire 1? Oh I don’t know.

 

[qlajlu]

When was the last time anyone heard So. SLC FD, WVC FD, Sandy FD, Murray FD, or one of the Jordans dispatched using their city name? All the fire apparatus now carry unit numbers that conform to a county wide (sans SLC) UFA numbering system. Yeah, occasionally you will hear the apparatus identified by its city but not dispatched that way. VECC is the dispatch center - period. Why not list the TGs by their primary intended user like the PDs are listed?

Other than the demoralizing task of changing all the alpha identifiers I have programmed into my scanners (yes, that's plural - two scanners, 2,000 possible talk groups + traditional VHF/UHF frequencies) I see no problems with a better description for those talk groups. I probably wouldn't change the alpha IDs in my scanners since I know what they really are and since we are facing rebanding, but hey, if that floats your boat I have no problem with it. In the long run, I personally think it would be LESS confusing if we had the change.

Of course this argument brings to the surface the VECC Ops TGs.

Just my two cents worth...again.

 

[bneilson]

However, they are NOT the only agency dispatched by VECC. They also dispatch; West Valley City, South Salt Lake, Murray, and Sandy City.... VECC handles all fire agencies withing Salt Lake County, other than Salt Lake City.

But those other departments use other TGs or Systems. At least I have never copied one of the other agencies responding on one of the various response channels in question. Maybe they do and I am just not aware of it.

Those of us that have been scanning for a while are familiar with VECC and how long they have been involved. But for new people in to me it would be confusing... I think at the very least we can all agree that the DB needs some organization. Might be a good project for us to go over at one of the in-person meetings (hopefully I will be able to make the next one).

I personally would like to see the VECC on the dispatch and response 2-4 changed to UFA and the removal of EMS, but I am open to whatever the group decides.

 

[Utah_Viper]

But those other departments use other TGs or Systems. At least I have never copied one of the other agencies responding on one of the various response channels in question. Maybe they do and I am just not aware of it.

Those of us that have been scanning for a while are familiar with VECC and how long they have been involved. But for new people in to me it would be confusing... I think at the very least we can all agree that the DB needs some organization. Might be a good project for us to go over at one of the in-person meetings (hopefully I will be able to make the next one).

I personally would like to see the VECC on the dispatch and response 2-4 changed to UFA and the removal of EMS, but I am open to whatever the group decides.

I bet most all calls you here are these other agencies. Any Fire unit that does not start witha 1 (102, 104, etc..) are OTHER agencies then UFA. WVC is 71, 72, 73, etc.. SSL is the 41, 42, 43, etc.. I forget off hand which the others are. They all are Dispatched, and Respond on the VECC channels.

 

[qlajlu]

I bet most all calls you here [sic] are these other agencies. Any Fire unit that does not start witha [sic] 1 (102, 104, etc..) are OTHER agencies then [sic] UFA. WVC is 71, 72, 73, etc.. SSL is the 41, 42, 43, etc.. I forget off hand which the others are. They all are Dispatched, and Respond on the VECC channels.

But they still fall within the current UFA apparatus numbering convention established when they went to UFA. Even though each city provides and fields its own fire department and equipment, outside of SLC proper they are part of a county wide UNIFIED fire department. That is the point!

Listening to the fire dispatches, you would not know which city is being dispatched on a fire unless you are as familiar with the apparatus numbers as is Viper.

 

[Rolfman]

But those other departments use other TGs or Systems. At least I have never copied one of the other agencies responding on one of the various response channels in question. Maybe they do and I am just not aware of it.

Funny you mention that. One of the unknown TGID's I am working on in Utah County is a yet to be determined City Fire channel. There are still a lot of volunteer departments down there and most of the dispatching takes place down there on Utah Co. Fire 1 (46240) with the larger citites (Orem, Provo) having their own channels. Even though Saratoga, PG, and now Lehi have some full time FD they still mostly use the county dispatch.

Anyway the point was that you will hear these departments called out on the county dispatch then you will hear some cross talk on the city channel about who is getting which truck etc. . .

As bneilson mentioned you never hear that for the Unified guys. I listened to a call a few months ago where WVC PD was asking their dispatch about a matter they felt was not something they needed to respond too. (Was not an emergency but also I can not remember what it was exactly) They WVC dispatch said they would contact VECC who told them, "That was not something they dispatched fire units for."

Seems odd that a city could not use their own FD for something because VECC told them no.

 

[Junior1970]

Even though Saratoga, PG, and now Lehi have some full time FD they still mostly use the county dispatch.

Pleasant Grove Fire is not dispatched by Utah County. PG has their own dispatch as does Orem, Provo and Springville. PG Fire TG is 44256 but during incidents it is patched to the PD channel (44224.) Tone outs are still heard on 154.010 and is always patched to said fire talkgroup.

 

[Rolfman]

Junior you wouldn't know by chance who's on 43424? That is the unknown city fire channel I am refering to.

 

[kf7yn]

I have 43424 listed as Alpine Public Works. That is an old listing but could be used by FD.

 

[qlajlu]

kf7yn is right

It never dawned on me from looking at just the talk group number, but I reported that same information on July 20th in post #2 of this thread.

From a dusty old list I compiled shortly after trunking came into being here I have the following listed TGIDs. I ASS U ME that they are still valid.

TGID - TALK GROUP
19648 - UDOT WVC (I am pretty sure this one is valid)
43424 - Alpine Public Works (Never listened to this one)
46752 - UDOT Summit/Wasatch (I think this one is also still valid)

This is why we needed the change that we just instituted. These TGIDs are getting lost in the volume of threads and discussions since we started having such close access to UniTrunker. As soon as I saw "Alpine Public Works" it all came rushing home. Sorry, Rolfman, for making you wait so long for the answer to your question. As kf7yn has said, it could be used by FD units since it is Public Works.

Way to go kf7yn.

Rolfman, if you will/can verify that, then we will report it to the admins.

-------------------------
Edited to add: Rolfman, that was the same thread that we were discussing whether or not you got an answer back from UCAN after sending them an e-mail. Remember?

 

[Rolfman]

I'll take a listen. Never fails that days I bring my tapped scanner and try to work on some of these I get busy.

Don't ya hate it when work get's in the way of your hobby!

Updated: 1153hrs
Just listened to a conversation where they were talking about boundaries. Defiantly agree it is Alpine. Nothing to determine what it is they are doing, yet.

Updated: 1215hrs
They guys I am listening to are the streets department. I will send this one in now.

 

[Junior1970]

43424

Junior you wouldn't know by chance who's on 43424? That is the unknown city fire channel I am refering to.

Check the post regarding TG 43424. I gave the rundown on it there. Enjoy!