Interoperable Communications

[Phoenix805]

I wish we stayed with vhf and uhf
why because I don't understand digital,
Sorry but I just look at the city of phoenix's talk groups of RWC
and don't make sense, where is car to car and where is chase and detectives etc



( newer radios , newer designs no wonder they don't know how it works)
1 can hope they go back to vhf and uhf

Chase is still there - kind of. It's just been re-named, re-organized, changed, etc.
For many years Chase had 1 channel, then a few years ago they added a second channel and used one for North and a second one for South. They called it chase because originally it was used mostly when pursuing or chasing vehicles, but over the years it morphed into an emergency traffic channel to keep the normal channel and dispatcher free for 'routine' traffic.

Now instead of having 1 or 2 emergency 'chase' channels, each precinct has it's own (unfortunately they're all encrypted). They are the C deck talk groups. Every precinct has 3 TGs, I live in the 900 precinct so we have A-9, B-9, and C-9. I don't know why there are 2 clear TGs, maybe for backup purposes? Some precincts seem to use A and other use B, and on occasion they switch. Anyway, now when they have emergency traffic instead of hearing 'switch to chase', you hear 'switch to Charlie deck 9'.

I don't know why the RR database doesn't show all the other Phoenix PD TGs, but according to the book (Southwest Frequency Directory - 10th edition) PD uses 16 TGs on each of 10 decks (A-J) for a total of 160 TGs, and the majority of them are encrypted. BTW, they also show 3 Car to Car TGs, one for North, Central, and South (all encrypted).

 

[cellphone]

I don't know why the RR database doesn't show all the other Phoenix PD TGs, but according to the book (Southwest Frequency Directory - 10th edition) PD uses 16 TGs on each of 10 decks (A-J) for a total of 160 TGs, and the majority of them are encrypted. BTW, they also show 3 Car to Car TGs, one for North, Central, and South (all encrypted).

By Radio Reference policy, we will only publish talkgroups that have been verified. Information in the SWFD is from before 2009, and there was a major change to the channel layout around 2009-2010. Some of the talkgroups are still in use and have the same channel number, some have a different channel number and name, and some are no longer in use. As an example, look at G Deck in the SWFD. This is completely different today. Please use SWFD as a loose reference as this is 5+ years old.

If anyone can confirm talkgroup usage and channel number, please submit to the DB. It is difficult to confirm usage and channel number for encrypted talkgroups, so that is why there is no information on Phoenix PD A10-16, B10-16, C10-16 as well as D, E, and F decks as these all seem to be encrypted.

 

[E5911]

Interoperability

one word: NIFOG....

 

[E5911]

interoperability

One more word: AIRS

 

[kd7eir]

As a COML I can tell you that neither NIFOG nor AIRS is useful in the moment because most agencies in Arizona have not bothered to pre-program their radios for AIRS.

The same goes for the 700MHz and 800MHz interop channels.

If each agency radio shop would DO THEIR JOB and program their radio systems for AIRS/700Mhz/800Mhz interop then we could re-purpose about half of the cache radios in the state that are sitting around waiting to be distributed when interop becomes a major life and death multi-agency issue.

We have portable lockers full of interop radios just waiting to be distributed for such an event. Pre-planning for events such as riots caused by sporting events can see to it that the radios are in the right hands BEFORE they are needed, but the true acute emergencies that need interop for several agencies are handicapped because the radios have to be requested and delivered in the moment, resulting in wasted time.

Literally BILLIONS have been spent across the USA since 9/11/01 to enable interoperable communications , and I would guess that MAYBE we are 10-15% better off than we were before a single penny was spent.

 

[Kars10az]

10%-15%?? I think those numbers might be a bit high. The ones that are properly programmed aren't used because the agencies that they're programmed to interop to aren't programmed. The really sad moral of this story is that it's going to take a major disaster to wake these people up, and then there's still not guarantees.

 

[kd7eir]

10%-15%?? I think those numbers might be a bit high. The ones that are properly programmed aren't used because the agencies that they're programmed to interop to aren't programmed. The really sad moral of this story is that it's going to take a major disaster to wake these people up, and then there's still not guarantees.

I was trying to err on the side of generosity.

 

[cellphone]

I mentioned AIRS in my original post. It is much more simple and more common in AZ than NIFOG and it is still not used. Has anyone monitored a mutual aid situation (around Phoenix) that used AIRS? I can say that I have monitored about 50+ mutual aid situations, and not one of them has used AIRS.

 

[jeatock]

Lack of interoperability

For the folks on the sharp end of the stick or the wet end of the hose, interoperability should be 80% mind set, 10% training, 9% planning and policy, and 1% technology.

Unfortunately, the politicians and communications managers view interoperability as 50% having the latest technology, 49.9% job security and 0.1% everything else.

[Counting on fingers to make sure they add up to 100...]

When there is a LOD death/injury, it is oh-so convenient to blame "out of date" radios, and use that to justify buying bigger and badder technology when the real problems are the lack of common sense, resistance to do something "different", lack of training and familiarity, and failure of overly complex systems.

<rant>

What happened to KISS? Too many communications managers come from the IT department and think "RF" stands for "Real Fine". The term 'receiver desense" will get you a fake nod of understanding. Their mind set is for complex wide area command and routine dispatching. When common paths of bulletproof communications over a short distance fail, their normal response is to add new layers of technology, repeaters, trunking, codecs and anything else exotic they can buy. They can't conceive that the needs of short-range tactical communications are far different from C&C, or that stupid, old-fashioned analog simplex is perfect for short range tactical scenarios.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the senior Public Safety personnel that refuse to switch channels on their radio when responding to a multi-discipline incident. Some don't know how. Others are just lazy. For most, they are so used to operating in the comfort zone of "our own channel" they won't even consider doing anything different. "If we need to communicate with them, we will stay on our own channel and have an (already over-worked) dispatcher relay the message to them on their channel." That's the sum and total of their concept of interoperability. Play nice and share your toys doesn't exist.

Training? Lip service only. And when training does happen the folks are either glassy-eyed or in the back playing Angry Birds under the desk. Why should they pay attention when this sort of thing is boring and might only happen once or twice a year? Bring on the video of that exciting flash-over or the shoot-out that happened five years ago!

Political will? Don't hold your breath. What looks better in the media: a memo instructing the agency managers to adjust policies and have regular interoperability training, or a news conference announcing the acquisition of large sums of federal monies to buy the latest high tech stuff?

</rant>

 

[rpgaun]

For the folks on the sharp end of the stick or the wet end of the hose, interoperability should be 80% mind set, 10% training, 9% planning and policy, and 1% technology.

Unfortunately, the politicians and communications managers view interoperability as 50% having the latest technology, 49.9% job security and 0.1% everything else.

[Counting on fingers to make sure they add up to 100...]

When there is a LOD death/injury, it is oh-so convenient to blame "out of date" radios, and use that to justify buying bigger and badder technology when the real problems are the lack of common sense, resistance to do something "different", lack of training and familiarity, and failure of overly complex systems.

What happened to KISS?

Amen!!!

 

[kd7eir]

For the folks on the sharp end of the stick or the wet end of the hose, interoperability should be 80% mind set, 10% training, 9% planning and policy, and 1% technology.

Unfortunately, the politicians and communications managers view interoperability as 50% having the latest technology, 49.9% job security and 0.1% everything else.

[Counting on fingers to make sure they add up to 100...]

When there is a LOD death/injury, it is oh-so convenient to blame "out of date" radios, and use that to justify buying bigger and badder technology when the real problems are the lack of common sense, resistance to do something "different", lack of training and familiarity, and failure of overly complex systems.

<rant>

What happened to KISS? Too many communications managers come from the IT department and think "RF" stands for "Real Fine". The term 'receiver desense" will get you a fake nod of understanding. Their mind set is for complex wide area command and routine dispatching. When common paths of bulletproof communications over a short distance fail, their normal response is to add new layers of technology, repeaters, trunking, codecs and anything else exotic they can buy. They can't conceive that the needs of short-range tactical communications are far different from C&C, or that stupid, old-fashioned analog simplex is perfect for short range tactical scenarios.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the senior Public Safety personnel that refuse to switch channels on their radio when responding to a multi-discipline incident. Some don't know how. Others are just lazy. For most, they are so used to operating in the comfort zone of "our own channel" they won't even consider doing anything different. "If we need to communicate with them, we will stay on our own channel and have an (already over-worked) dispatcher relay the message to them on their channel." That's the sum and total of their concept of interoperability. Play nice and share your toys doesn't exist.

Training? Lip service only. And when training does happen the folks are either glassy-eyed or in the back playing Angry Birds under the desk. Why should they pay attention when this sort of thing is boring and might only happen once or twice a year? Bring on the video of that exciting flash-over or the shoot-out that happened five years ago!

Political will? Don't hold your breath. What looks better in the media: a memo instructing the agency managers to adjust policies and have regular interoperability training, or a news conference announcing the acquisition of large sums of federal monies to buy the latest high tech stuff?

</rant>

A sadly all too accurate summation of the issue. Well done.

 

[AuntEnvy]

So funny, so sad, so true...

Well-stated indeed!

It's "good to know" it's not just an issue where I live.

And then what will be the response when something tragic happens because somebody didn't switch to the proper channel or didn't know how? Happens constantly on our new system.

The "training" we received amounted to harping on using a specific code to indicate you are ok and to not use specific channels. A complete joke, took about 5 minutes.