Firefighters distrust of digital radio system grows

Status
Not open for further replies.

ButchGone

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
834
Location
Ringgold, Georgia
Hmmm...

Analog and simplex were always interoperable, and always will be. No matter where the system is, how complex or simple, you can buy any manufacturers radio and program it to the frequency and squelch code and badda bing! You're on the air. In Georgia and Tennessee, there have always been mutual aid channels for fire, ems and police statewide. I find it amazing how much of our money that we work so hard for is squandered on the latest digital trunking systems that are NOT compatible and have very questionable, at best, performance. There is a reason why FDNY uses simplex analog for fireground operations. There is a reason why other's like Cobb County Georgia Fire (Atlanta area) chose to remain on an analog system rather that switch to the digital system the police use. With analog, the radios just worked, plain and simple. They cost a fraction of what the latest generation of digital radios cost. They didn't have to be re-banded. They were VERY interoperable on a host of frequencies. So where's the justification to spend more of your money for radios/systems that do not offer near the performance? Sure, if digital is the future, at least wait until the technology is proven. But for now, public safety is LESS interoperable, LESS reliable that it was before the federal government made locals switch to a hodge-podge of questionable systems that have to be constantly upgraded at huge costs.
BG..
 

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
ButchGone said:
There is a reason why FDNY uses simplex analog for fireground operations.

IIRC, somewhat immediately prior to 9/11, FDNY was testing digital UHF comms and a firefighter calling for help couldn't be heard at scene but was eventually rescued when a scanner buff called Dispatch and reported it, who then reported to field comm.
 
N

nec208

Guest
The digital pros are
-loud and clear
-less interference

Analog pro
-better at weak signals
-none digitized
-realistic audible

problems with analog
-not that loud
-more interference and weak signals

problems with digital
-not good at picking up weak signals
-time to time it can be digitized
-sound is less realistic

The problem seems to be a engineering problem with both .

It is not just radios look at analog TV and digital TV.The digital TV comes in so nice but if parts of the DVD get damage it does not work the DVD or it becomes digitized..

The problem seems to be you get it or not and no middle.It is frustrating on TV when some times it comes in digitized.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
488
Location
Louisville, KY.
Jay911 said:
IIRC, somewhat immediately prior to 9/11, FDNY was testing digital UHF comms and a firefighter calling for help couldn't be heard at scene but was eventually rescued when a scanner buff called Dispatch and reported it, who then reported to field comm.

I wonder how many times a year this sort of thing happens, dispatch can't hear an officer/firefighter/medic's call for help and a scanner listener nearby does and calls it in.
 

ElroyJetson

I AM NOT YOUR TECH SUPPPORT.
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
3,686
Location
DO NOT ASK ME FOR HELP PROGRAMMING YOUR RADIO. NO.
Digital radios do not respond well in the presence of significant amounts of background noise. It blows the vocoder's little mind.


This fascination with INFERIOR digital technology is sure to get a few more people killed.


The day will come when digital IS ready for public safety use, but I really don't think that
day has arrived yet.


Elroy
 

slypx

Quebec DB Adm
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
280
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Just my two cents :

If you want the real information and reasons of that tragic death please read the report of that tragedy, you will see more than radiocommunications problem.

http://www.pwcgov.org/vpresentations/fnr/LODDReport.pdf

As for radiocommunication the equipment play a role for sure but there was more ... a lot of human errors.

Ref: Sections 4 to 10 and Appendice F which is a radio test report in fire environnement.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Also see slide 12 of that presentation where you can hear 4 radio transmissions that bring out the point of a problem with vocoder in fire trunk noisy cabin.

http://www.npstc.org/documents/NPST...IWCE 2008 - Final 02012008.ppt#274,12,Example of the Issue


_
 
Last edited:

unleashedff248

Massachusetts DBA
Database Admin
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
57
Location
Sandwich, MA
As a user of analog VHF Low, analog conventional VHF hi, analog and digital trunked/conventional UHF 400 hi, and analog and digital trunked/conventional 800mhz, I honestly believe that every radio system has it's place. Digital or analog trunked has NO PLACE on the fireground. None. Digital modulation in general seems to have no place on the fireground as well based upon multiple reports and incidents. As far as my experience with digital goes, I'd never want to see it used in a fireground situation. The cons of digital have been outlined in other posts and are very real.

Our county-wide UHF hi trunked system is analog only and works great. It is a smartzone system with numerous sites around the county. It was built for 100% mobile coverage, but achieves almost 100% portable coverage in residential structures and some commercial/industrial occupancies. Despite this, we still use simplex analog UHF fireground channels for unit to unit communication at an incident. There are 8 allocated and assigned across the county for each town. EVERY town in the county has these channels in their portables/mobiles. Now that's interoperability on the intra-county level.

Inter-county comms suck. There's nothing. Some neighboring counties are VHF low, some are UHF conventional, some are P25 digital UHF 9600 trunked.

We still have a long way to go, but I feel we're going in the wrong direction. Interop is not having a second radio for communications. Interop is not one county going digital and another staying analog. Most importantly, TRUNKING IS NOT INTEROPERABILITY.

My view of an interoperable channel is one which is on a single agreed band, say UHF 400, which will work with every department's radios in the area, and therefore must be analog conventional unless everyone has fancy-dancy radios. Also, every firefighter/unit must be capable of transmitting on this channel. For fireground comms simplex analog is the way to go. For inter-agency channels analog conventional repeated channels are the way to go. If it becomes a disaster situation and the repeater goes down, you always have your backup simplex talkaround channels to fall back on.

Don't get me wrong, I love trunking. It works great when designed correctly for intra-agency comms. I embrace digital as possibly the next "big thing" in radio comms. But unless everyone in your geographic area has capabilities and arrangements of transmitting on your system, you're not interoperable. If you want a trunking system you must have allocated channels acceptable for interoperability use.

And don't get me started about the New York State wireless network...ugh, absolute disaster.

And by the way Slypx...EXCELLENT find!!! Those samples pretty much put the issue to rest: There IS a problem. If you read reports from SAFECOM and others from NPSTC they basically say that they're investigating and researching the issue at this time and recommend not using digital for high background noise applications. I mean yeah, digital's nice when it's not noisy in the background, but for all us firefighters, we know how often that happens...
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
174
Location
Texas
OK, I'll de-lurk to add my $0.02.

First, anyone who believes that radio is ever going to be a faultless communication medium is an idiot. And anyone that depends upon that assumption in a life-threatening situation is likely to be a dead idiot in short order.

Trunked radio systems are TYPICALLY designed with 95% call reliability. That's one call in 20 that doesn't get through. If the customer is VERY keen, they MIGHT be up at 98%, which is 1 call in 50 going into the ether unheard.

Nobody, ever, in the history of communications ever went for 99%, because nobody ever could AFFORD it. I have no idea where 99.9995% came from but it's bunk. Sorry. You MIGHT achieve that in a wired network, but once radio gets involved, you're stuffed.

Secondly, the principal reason that firemen like analog is because they tend to stand around in large groups and when one of them talks, the rest hear it pretty much as transmitted. On a digital system there's a delay, somewhere of the order of 30mS which screws with you and makes it hard to talk.

Digital systems will ALWAYS be poorer audio quality in strong signal conditions, because you have to quantize the information and process it using a (very) lossy codec. HOWEVER in weak signal conditions and in interference (the conditions where it matters, right?) digital wins hands down as it has error correction that can compensate for big chunks of signal going bye bye.

Anyway, like I said, just my $0.02
 

jaymatt1978

Member
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
2,173
Location
Cape May,NJ
As I sit he re in my chair smiling at all the replies my originaly post is getting I have a few observations,. The most common theme is every type of system does indeed have it's place, but we're generally talking about emergency c onditions. Forget the pros and cons when the sun is shining in "Nothing ever happens here,USA". In that case digital can work and does have its advantages, I have yet to be convinced on what they are, but I'm sure someone can point me in the direction. However there's definitely one thing I KNOW--DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS AND TRUE BLUE INTEROPERABILITY CAN'T WORK, at least not now. LATIE (in New Orleans), M/A Comm in NY state, FDNY's systems the systems on OH ALL had issues with interoperability at one time or another. You can lecture me about how the technology is better and all that but you can't say it makes interoperbility any easier. You say just give "everyone" a radio, it's doesn't work when you have units coming in from 10,20,30 miles away or more.
One major theme I can't get out of my head, if 9/11 happened in 1993 instead of 2001, when they had the plain jane VHF firegrounds, lives would have been saved, hands down. Its says to me that maybe the best isn't always the best. Maybe people should stop and think before spending millions of dollars?I'm not pointing fingers here I'm just saying the lessons of 9/11 haven't been learned.
 

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
EnidPuceflange said:
Nobody, ever, in the history of communications ever went for 99%, because nobody ever could AFFORD it. I have no idea where 99.9995% came from but it's bunk. Sorry. You MIGHT achieve that in a wired network, but once radio gets involved, you're stuffed.

Wrong.

I'm bound by non-disclosure agreements, or else I'd explain more, but what I said is true.

Perhaps nobody in your area has done this before, but that doesn't equal everyone.

Furthermore, your remarks that all firefighters do is stand around and chat is a kind of a telling comment. To that end, I won't feed the troll any more snacks.
 
Last edited:

hoser147

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
4,449
Location
Grand Lake St. Marys Ohio
EnidPuceflange said:
Secondly, the principal reason that firemen like analog is because they tend to stand around in large groups and when one of them talks, the rest hear it pretty much as transmitted. On a digital system there's a delay, somewhere of the order of 30mS which screws with you and makes it hard to talk.

Usually the firefighter you see standing around in groups have went thru a SCBA cylinder or 2 and are replenishing themselves with fluids and food. You seem to forget the fact that most structures have at least 4 sides maybe more, plus numerous interior area's. How can we take your 2 cents with anything more than a grain of salt when you compliment your statements with things you know nothing about?? Hoser
 

Grog

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,959
Location
West of Charlotte NC
EnidPuceflange said:
Secondly, the principal reason that firemen like analog is because they tend to stand around in large groups



That is why the NC department of transportation uses analog shovels :D
 

Alarms50

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
368
Location
Ossining, NY
jaymatt1978 said:
One major theme I can't get out of my head, if 9/11 happened in 1993 instead of 2001, when they had the plain jane VHF firegrounds, lives would have been saved, hands down.
I'm not pointing fingers here I'm just saying the lessons of 9/11 haven't been learned.

On 9/11/01 FDNY was not using the UHF Digital Fireground Radios. They had been issued to all Fire Companies on 3/14/01, but were quickly taken out of service after a Firefighter's Mayday call went unanswered. As per the following link, this Mayday call was not acknowledged at the scene, but was heard by another Firefighter (not a scanner listener) ten blocks away. The VHF Analog Portables were reissued to all Fire Companies on 3/22/01. Thus, FDNY was using VHF for Fireground Ops. on 9/11/01. See http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/52129.htm?CFID=250579&CFTOKEN=94422389 for the record of the New York City Council on this issue.
 
Last edited:

unleashedff248

Massachusetts DBA
Database Admin
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
57
Location
Sandwich, MA
EnidPuceflange said:
Secondly, the principal reason that firemen like analog is because they tend to stand around in large groups and when one of them talks, the rest hear it pretty much as transmitted. On a digital system there's a delay, somewhere of the order of 30mS which screws with you and makes it hard to talk.


I think you guys took this the wrong way. When I talk at a fire scene I hear it over 40 different radios all over the fireground. We stand in a group at staging, in a group (of two or more) inside a building, in a group during rehab, and in a group during overhaul. We're rarely ever alone. I understand about the delay characteristics of digital (especially digital repeater systems) and how the delay can screw with your head while your talking. When you speak your brain expects to hear itself with little to no delay. When you add a delay, your brain is processing the speech at the same time you're speaking, and since it's your speech, you can't ignore it. Just try it and see. It's nutty.

I took no offense to the group comment as a firefighter. He never said all we do is stand around in groups. But the truth is there are usually 3-5 other radios around when we transmit, maybe more.
 
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
174
Location
Texas
Hooray for Unleashed - I guess it might have been clearer if I had also pointed out that cops TEND to be solitary, and when THEY talk there are no other radios around to echo their voice, and make speaking tough. Hence cops LIKE digital, and firemen typically don't.

Now I notice that nobody addressed the point I tried to make about reliability - what I don't get is how come cops (for example) train once a month with their gun, yet will probably only use it once or twice in a career, yet maybe have 30 minutes training with their radios, a device that will be used maybe 20 times a shift. Both have very simple interfaces, and both CAN and DO malfunction - clearing a jammed gun is part of that monthly training.

If a message REALLY matters, expect positive confirmation that someone heard it. If you don't hear "Roger" or "Wilco" or "10-4", you MIGHT want to repeat it.....don't sit back and expect technology to bail you out.
 

richardc63

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
222
Location
Sydney Australia
EnidPuceflange said:
Hooray for Unleashed - I guess it might have been clearer if I had also pointed out that cops TEND to be solitary, and when THEY talk there are no other radios around to echo their voice, and make speaking tough. Hence cops LIKE digital, and firemen typically don't.

Now I notice that nobody addressed the point I tried to make about reliability - what I don't get is how come cops (for example) train once a month with their gun, yet will probably only use it once or twice in a career, yet maybe have 30 minutes training with their radios, a device that will be used maybe 20 times a shift. Both have very simple interfaces, and both CAN and DO malfunction - clearing a jammed gun is part of that monthly training.

If a message REALLY matters, expect positive confirmation that someone heard it. If you don't hear "Roger" or "Wilco" or "10-4", you MIGHT want to repeat it.....don't sit back and expect technology to bail you out.

Huh? Then you must be dealing with different firefighters to mine... I've been working for a very large fire department for 12 years & one of their greatest complaints, almost continuously, has been accoustic feedback when using that great superior mode (yes, I am being sarcastic) analogue FM simplex at an incident. When you have your partner a few feet from you using the same simplex freq, volume turned up because of the very noise people say stuffs digital modulation, and often not wearing any or appropriate voice conduction equipment... good grief! The guys I've had test DIGITAL SIMPLEX wearing the appropriate gear in a high noise realistic building fire simulation LOVE the feedback free, RF noise free comms that digital provided.

And I have to laugh about the 30msec delay comment... tested the CTCSS decode time on an analogue conventional repeater recently? Bet you never noticed the typical 150-160msec delay caused by that! Get a grip...

Cheers,


Richard
 

N1508J

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
89
Location
Not allowed...infraction.
Oh No!!!!

Bluegrass1dcr1 said:
From the article...

"But Chris Lougee, vice president with LMR vendor Icom America added that, scientifically speaking, digital signals penetrate buildings better than analog signals. "I'm puzzled by that problem," he said. "All of our testing shows that a digital signal produces a higher-quality signal in noise conditions than an analog signal."

The fact that thier scientific calculations and tests and the real world performance of the radios are vary different tells me that they do not know enough about this technology to be throwing to out left and right to public safety agencies as a "communications cure all" . Doing so is irresponsable and dangerous.

"In most cases, it is a very political and sensitive position to abandon expensive technology and go back to something that is old," said Daryl Jones, owner and president of Telecommunications Engineering Associates, which manages public safety systems throughout the San Mateo area in California."

Save face or save lives, hmm tough decision.

"The perception of quality of communications in my opinion is much lower on trunked radio systems because it's always based on a comparison of what an agency had before," Jones said. "If they are coming off an analog system that provided 100% coverage and go to a digital trunked system that has different characteristics and less coverage, it's going to be worse."

IT IS WORSE!!! If you are using a system (analog or otherwise) that works fine and switch to a system that has the problems and flaws that P25 does then it's not just in opinion but is IN FACT worse.

"However, others say the problems have to do with training, as digital systems operate differently than analog. For instance, digital systems require key-up time, forcing first responders to hold down the transmission key longer before they can begin talking. "It's a long and arduous process to educate police and firemen to change the way they have always communicated," Jones said."

That's right, just pass the buck.

WOW! All these post are bad news for Public Safety agencies hoping to scramble ALL their communications so scannist can't hear the comm. Guess they will have to scramble the analog rigs as well!
 

grem467

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
884
Location
Houston, TX
hoser147 said:
How can we take your 2 cents with anything more than a grain of salt when you compliment your statements with things you know nothing about?? Hoser

gee.. someone spouts off when its obvious they have no idea what they are talking about? Seems par for the course around here. ;)
 

rcvmo

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
433
Location
Romulus, Mi.
The VHF Analog Portables were reissued to all Fire Companies on 3/22/01. Thus, FDNY was using VHF for Fireground Ops. on 9/11/01.


To this day, I beleive there were way too many factors involved with Public safety entities involved with hearing /not hearing FF mayday calls. Anytime you get a radio strapped on your side, 10 tons of additional equipment, working simplex to begin with. Take in consideration of the mass of people going up and down the tower impeding the safe travels of the FF. Somewhere down the line, someone one lost his mic, antenna got broken off, nearly dead battery. Who knows........ We may never figure this one out.
It happened!!
Just an observation from somone with 25+ yrs in Public Safety Comms. We are not wizzards!! I'm still learning..........
rcvmo
 

commstar

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 22, 2001
Messages
353
Location
It is my current belief that there is no place for trunked or even conventional, digital radio systems in Public Safety. TRS systems are fine day-to-day but when the rubber meets the road they often fail those critical users when in life threatening situations. The amount of technical overheard needed to run a trunked system makes them unacceptable in my view. Some instances have been documented in this thread that tends to support this assertion.

Cops and FF train for the exception not for the day to day occurrence. Why do we as the public allow the lives of our most precious public servants to be place in harms way not engineered/built to the same same standard.

1. Trunked radio systems primary and one true focus is the efficient utilization of radio spectrum, not performance. Performance is something that is considered secondary to system loading considerations/configuration for efficiency. Because many people involved in public safety radio are more dispatcher/manager than engineer/cop they are not technical folk and do not understand how a radio system works beyond the console positions in their comm center. Allowing things like link budgets for mobile not portable coverage to pass, trusting but not verifying what the sales rep says, and not truly even really understanding what the FCC is going to require and when are all parts of the larger sin.

2.Paragdigm shift to Revenue Recapture from performance: TRS are a system managers/owners dream, not only does it allow control over your system, it allows you to efficiently manage and CHARGE users. It also allows for a new mini-bureaucracy to be put into place ensuring job security. In almost all large settings that i have sutdied, where multi-agency users are present on the system, it becomes a business first and a 'service' second. It is usually sold to the Board of Supervisors/County Commissioners/whoever in just this manner over coffee and dough nuts at non-meetings you and I as the public are never invited to.The focus becomes 'cost-recovery and revenue generation' for the management who are now under pressure to show fiscal performance not performance for the cop or firefighter.

2.No trunked system has yet or likely will ever be able to perform as well as a well engineered, solidly constructed conventional, analog radio system. Trunked radio systems are fine for Public Works Crews, Garbage Trucks and City Gardeners but the shortcomings of the system do not guard the safety of the Cop or Firefighter whose life relies on the invisible beam of lights performance. It is my personal experience that it is not a good feeling to be rolling around in a traffic lane in the middle of the day with a man with a gun and get a system busy. There is an episode of Cops that I have Tivo'ed that show just that same thing happening to a Florida deputy. Nice to know that I am not alone at least. If one watches you can see the poor guys stress level go thru the roof. He is alone (with a camera crew) in a backyard, in the dark, and having some trouble gaining compliance from the guy he is on the ground with. That $37.50 per radio his agency spent for radio coverage on that trunked system that month was not well spent. On a well engineered, conventional system perhaps he would have stood a chance, same perhaps with Kyle.

3. Digital is about efficiency not performance, and yes people can still scan you. you cannot have a portable on and use a car radio without that audio twist/echo.Not a big deal but turning that radio on and waiting for it to boot up is a delay I do not like and puts others at risk. Add a siren or a loud engine like a firetruck and the whole thing becomes an encoded, signal noise level mess to understand for field units. Many upper/mid- management folks that I have talked to do not even understand what P25 really is much less the fact that it is not encryption technology. The only understand that if they are not digital they are in the 'dark ages' of radio and need to upgrade 'to stay current'. True victims of marketing and notice there is no thought of performance in that thinking.

4. Interoperability is not a real world concern. It sounds good but in reality it is not practiced particularly by LE in the real world. In my years in LE I have often wondered what would happen if all LE could play together a like firemen.Firemen need help, they call the next department over pursuant to a state,county or regional mutual aid agreement and wa-la! they have more firemen. Those firemen have the same goals, training, and most of the organizational culture of the department they are now assisting.

Their command staff have no compunction about putting their people in the charge of the command staff of the the other department for a short amount of time-pursuant to the agreement. Etc. and so on. The problem is, Cops do not work like that for the most part. their command structure is para-military and the structure DOES mind when it comes to transferring the command and control of their troops to another department even pursuant to an agreement for even a few minutes. Training, policy & practice, overall goals, and experience level varies widely from department to department and even more on an individual level. Liability is much bigger concern for PD than for Fire. The prime difference in my is cops are viewed as 'causing' the problem in whatever approach they use and are more prone to be 'blamed' versus Fire who is viewed as solving a problem 'heroes having done the best they could' at a venue to which they were summoned. Law enforcement is much more an individual craft versus the outright teamwork concept of Fire. No less brave or committed to service just a different set of problems, command structure, and different liability.

I have been a user in an area where a countywide type II system has been in place for several years owned by the sheriff. A few agencies joined after a heavy political sales job. Immediately, these agencies realized that what they had before was superior to the TRS but the cost of rebuilding had motivated them to leave their T-band systems in the first place. With their cars all transitioned to the new system and their old equipment de-installed, it would not be easy to turn back and it was impossible to turn back politically- to admit a mistake was made would be suicide in such an environment. So, put on a happy face, smile and lie lie lie. If someone asks how the new radio system is working out, lie to them and promise the Chief and vast (and free) improvements. Soon the chief will leave as they all do, and no one will be able to recall the difference and perhaps you can make it to retirement before anyone figures it all out. In the interim, everyone 'hears' how great the new super system is. The are in the dark ages and need to 'upgrade' to what department X has. The /\/\ rep is courting them with visions of political glory over scotch at 'casual' meetings that take place at half-time at pro-football games in private boxes at the stadium.

Meanwhile, more agencies join the system, no one really sees that great performance but hey "eveyone else is on it' so now it is a matter of interoperabily. No matter the fact that we can talk to other agencies on the system but we never do. We dont really know how, have never had any training and most importantly, the watch commander would never completely cooperate with department X for reasons that no one really knows of.


While having been in many situations where it would have been nice to talk to the venue agency it was not an absolute necessity. When the venue agency shows up, they take over the perimeter and conduct the search with limited involvement from the originating agency. They know the geography, they know each other and they are under the command of a single command structure. Would it be nice to have a channel to switch to where my UHF radio would work with their 800mhz EDACS radio? Sure it would. Is it necessary? Nope. Is it worth the expense of millions of dollars to purchase a system that will put system efficiency first, system performance second and will present new and likely insurmountable factors to allowing that Cop or FF to communicate when their life is on the line- definitely not.

If you can build a system that works in the exception and that one can have some confidence in, along with a regional policy on how it will be used, and commitment to the practice of using it consistent with that policy then you have the beginnings of true interoperability. Otherwise you have a radio system with unused, silent channels or talk groups.

Well. that is my overheated .02 cents on the matter, a bit OT but the nexus is still there. If I put you to sleep- thanks for reading this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top