Monroe County Fire Transition to P25 TRS

[k2hz]

Monroe County Fire has begun a phased transition to the Monroe/Ontario Harris P25 system.

Effective today, Brighton and Egypt are now operating on the TRS. They will still be toned out on VHF Channel 5 (patch to TG1076) but will respond on TRS "Ops 8" (TG 1806 Fire East Primary).

North East Joint Fire District is scheduled to transition on January 6.

The Fire Dispatcher is now assigning a Response Channel or TG on all alarms (either VHF 3/TG 1074 or Ops 8 for East and VHF 4/TG1075 or Ops 6 for West) based on the responding departments and/or the nature of the alarm.

Gates FD is now dispatching on their Primary TG 1607.

Target date for conversion is January 30 but departments may arrange to transition before then if they are ready.

 

[w2csx]

Question: Will they keep the old Fire channels or will they depreciate?

 

[k2hz]

One of the justifications for the P25 system was that the VHF Fire system was "obsolete" and needed to be replaced although it had just been upgraded to narrow band.

The only thing that is apparent right now is that Fire Dispatcher assignment of VHF Channels 3 or 4 and the associated patch TGs for response and working will be phased out with a P25 "Ops" TG now assigned whenever all units associated with the incident are P25 capable.

I am not aware of any timeline for turn down of any VHF capability on the County system and most FDs have their own VHF licenses and base stations. There certainly will be some decrease in VHF use but I suspect full "deprecation" is a long way off.

 

[INDY72]

2 things to note with "most" fire agencies that move from VHF to UHF/700/800 P25 TRS's: 1 - They usually keep the VHF for backup, and for paging, unless the governing agency forces them to get rid of it. 2 - Unless ALL the surrounding areas are also on P25 systems and "linked" in to each other, or have set up a patching arrangement, those VHF freqs will be needed for interop/mutual aid. They were just doing the narrowbanding, and adding of the "new" battalion Chans when I was up there, but really were not using them yet and that is now ten years ago.

 

[k2hz]

I do not have any new official word on the 1/31 transition date but I am hearing that some departments are still waiting on mobile radio installations.

I also hear rumors that Rochester Fire Department plans to remain on VHF for now.

Webster (Northeast Joint Fire District) has transitioned with West Webster and the remainder of Battalion 1 to go next. Henrietta is transitioning to their TG 1654 but will keep their VHF 51.

 

[ak716]

I do not have any new official word on the 1/31 transition date but I am hearing that some departments are still waiting on mobile radio installations.

I also hear rumors that Rochester Fire Department plans to remain on VHF for now.

Webster (Northeast Joint Fire District) has transitioned with West Webster and the remainder of Battalion 1 to go next. Henrietta is transitioning to their TG 1654 but will keep their VHF 51.

Copied from a post by Monroe County Fire Wire last month:

#roc This past week, Rochester Fire Chief Willie Jackson sent a letter to all mutual aid county fire departments that the City will not let its members operate on an incident scene with an IDLH atmosphere where another department is using the patch or a talk group to communicate with the RFD. The county has started to switch to the new trucked communication system. RFD is still using the old VHF system and will expect any mutual aid coming into the city to also use the old VHF system. Rochester has in the past provided mutual aid to fires and emergency scenes in the County. We do not know when and if Rochester FD will change to the new trunk radio system.

A friend of mine who’s a firefighter out there didn’t make it seem like it’s too big of a deal

 

[Theo]

So, what's their problem? No budgeted monies or Grants? or still training people?

 

[INDY72]

More likely Big Dog complex. Or they do not trust the Harris system.

 

[ak716]

From what I can tell from talking with three firefighters from separate departments, lack of education and unrealistic expectations.

 

[ThePagerGeek]

From what I can tell from talking with three firefighters from separate departments, lack of education and unrealistic expectations.

Care to elaborate?

 

[ak716]

Care to elaborate?

Sure. Again, based on my conversations, the expectation that these guys were having is that these new radios will work in every nook and cranny in the county. The common complaint I was hearing from them was basements. I asked the question to each of them and said do they work right now? And they all go, well some time. My answer back to them was well sometime they may work with the new one. All of them were basically expecting 100% portable coverage from every possible spot in the county. I explained that’s not realistically possible. I explained that using it, finding dead spots, mixing in the use of on scene repeater and tac channels is how you get through it and make it work, and bringing your issues to the powers that be, and coming up with a solution if one is still needed is how you take advantage of your amazing system, which my county will never have lol

 

[ThePagerGeek]

Thanks for the follow-up. I wasn't sure if your comment was related to the fire users or the admin.

The new 7/800 system is better than the existing VHF. There really isn't any debate about that since the fire service testing in 2013. However, the fire service currently uses VHF simplex on the fireground and the internal debate is centered around on-system vs. off-system fireground communications once transitioned. Some are OK with staying on the system all the time, others would like to be simplex for IDLH operations.

The hold-up for some agencies is the installation timeline of the vehicle repeaters. The County received ~100 vehicle repeaters in late October for the fire departments and the installations are taking longer than anticipated. Additionally, they are providing software updates to the agency radios to connect the repeater to them. (Also taking longer than anticipated)

In the meantime, the fire agencies have the option to respond on single-company / non-IDLH calls on the trunk (OPS 6 or OPS 8) and continue to use Fire 3 or 4 for mutual aid and fires, etc. Or they can stay on VHF entirely until the repeaters are installed. As for Rochester Fire, they are still purchasing gear and looking to test the proposed equipment once configured and installed prior to migrating. (Makes sense)

There are still a lot of logistical issues yet to be dealt with and it will take some time, but it will all be worked out.

 

[ak716]

I explained it takes time and figuring out still but from what I can tell, it should be an amazing system and just bear through it until all the possible issues each department has are worked out. One of them did bring up the fireground channels "issue", and I explained those two options of either VRS or simplex. Obviously all this is way above their pay grade for making those decisions, but a little education in layman's terms and a cup of coffee with the end user could go a long way I think.

 

[ThePagerGeek]

I agree with the conversation, but there isn't anyone capable of translating it to real-world, practical examples without a political bias. The typical debate / arguments have evolved into either "Use the system all the time! It's awesome and will never have a problem!" (coming from the County admin) or "The system is horrible and we should never be on it!" (coming from some fire agencies.) Doesn't seem to be any compromise or middle-ground. In the end, agencies will move with various operating procedures to accommodate their concerns.

 

[Thunderknight]

If they are already operating simplex fire ground, why not now operate the simplex in 7/800? Why does it have to remain VHF? That way it's all one radio.

 

[k2hz]

I think the sticking point is on fireground communications reliability with the trunked system initially being promoted as the sole means of communication to be used. This may have been a mistaken perception but it led to focus on 100% in building coverage which is unrealistic.

Use of analog simplex for fireground, particularly interior attack/IDLH, is a known and proven technology. There are known issues with P25, use of repeaters and communication via a trunked system for fireground operations that have been detailed in best practices documents. All of these technologies add some pitfalls for fireground operations that may outweigh the possible advantages.

The possibility cited by RFD of a IDLH sitaution where a mutual aid firefighter wearing an air mask is using a P25 radio, through a vehicle repeater that is then through a trunked system and then a patch to the RFD VHF channel is a trifecta of potential problems. While this scenario seems unlikely, the perception at least, is that is exactly the County's proposed operating procedure. Response to concerns seems to have been adding more layers of technology to a situation that may have a simple, existing, solution.

PagerGeek is correct that this has been a political issue from day one that has inhibited meaningful discussion. I was asked by an acquaintance who is an experienced volunteer firefighter who has held high rank in various organizations what he should know about "P25" before the transition. I described my feelings about potential issues of other than analog simplex for fireground and published best practices. My suggestion to him was that he encourage his department to conduct extensive drills using the various proposed technologies in all possible combinations and develop procedures to utilize what they found to work best for a particular situation. I emphasized that they needed to clearly understand what did or did not work before getting into a real incident and finding a communications problem existed.

In a subsequent discussion he mentioned the same "all or nothing" and "my way or the highway" attitudes PagerGeek mentioned as the primary reason for the RFD letter and confusion on the part of users.

 

[ThePagerGeek]

@Thunderknight:

Couple reasons:
- Not everyone has 7/800 radios yet, including the city and some county agencies. VHF is still available across all radios at this point. (The majority of the fire service purchased multi-band radios for ease of transition and interop with USCG, Wayne County, Livingston County, etc.)
- Not everyone has vehicle repeaters installed to provide connectivity to the system / dispatch yet for 7/800 simplex fireground
- VHF infrastructure still exists to communicate to dispatch, simplex / direct on fireground

@k2hz

I agree with almost all that you mentioned. I think P25 digital vocoders have come a LONG way from the 2008 study, and don't see as much of a risk as it was in the past. Though, yes, analog simplex is still the universal interop mode. The 800mhz vehicle repeaters will be operating P25 simplex to the portables.

Lastly, I think RFD is looking for the safest, simplest (in that order) way to communicate on the fireground. The philosophies between RFD management and County management is what's at odds. The letter was to let mutual aid agencies know, they are running VHF for now. They simply don't have the equipment to run 7/800 at this time. So... what other option do they have other than running VHF? The "patch"? You already adequately explained why that's a bad idea, and the audio is TERRIBLE. Once they do get their 7/800 equipment, they want to test everything prior to migrating. All makes sense...

From what I'm hearing, installation of remaining mobiles and repeaters may take as long as October...

 

[k2hz]

@k2hz
I agree with almost all that you mentioned. I think P25 digital vocoders have come a LONG way from the 2008 study, and don't see as much of a risk as it was in the past. Though, yes, analog simplex is still the universal interop mode. The 800mhz vehicle repeaters will be operating P25 simplex to the portables.

PagerGeek - Thanks for your insight into the situation. I think you are probably one of the few people that has a thorough understanding of the technical issues and the politics involved. I hope those involved with system planning can get away from edicts and artificial deadlines and work out a viable system.

Yes, P25 vocoder design has evolved. I had told my fire contact that while many original P25 issues are resolved in current radios, it is still important to have a proper interface to the air mask. He said they have been through this with the present analog radios so they understand the issues and will do testing with the P25 radios.

When you say "vehicle repeater will be operating P25 simplex to the portables" does this mean portable to portable fireground communications will be simplex and the repeater is simply an interface to relay fireground communications over the trunked system? I had the impression from what information I had heard is that the intent was that portables would communicate through the repeater and an associated TRS TG rather than the capability for true "simplex" communications.

 

[ThePagerGeek]

...does this mean portable to portable fireground communications will be simplex and the repeater is simply an interface to relay fireground communications over the trunked system? ...

Correct. The portables will be using 800Mhz P25 simplex operations, and the vehicle repeater will provide the "link" back to the system.

The emphasis in training has been proper radio use. (Mic placement being the most critical). Quite often, the root of an issue has been found to be user error... which goes back to a fault in training. The majority of radios are set-up that the remote mic needs to be at or on the SCBA voice-port. Those with bluetooth amps are using the built-in mics to make even more improvements in audio, but they're not cheap.

 

[k2hz]

It sounds like the remainder of the 1st Battalion is ready to go trunked. I am hearing all the Irondequoit departments testing on their assigned individual TGs.