New Public Safety Radio Repeater Law for 2019?

[12dbsinad]

I won't touch on the annoyance with the NFPA, other than I agree with some of what you are saying. I'll also add that most of us don't have the authority to overrule the local fire inspector. So, like most things, we have to play nice.

As for fire melting the coax, the rules are the coax is required to be in conduit. Equipment rooms must be fire rated. 24 hour battery backup is required. Alarming must be included to alert of failures, malfunctions, etc. Usually there is also a requirement for a master "kill switch" on them so the fire department can take them out of service if they start causing issues.
As for self oscillation, many of the systems I've looked at monitor for that and will shut down on their own.

Of course protecting coax in conduit doesn't do anything for the antennas. Most of the indoor antennas I've seen sold for this purpose wouldn't last more than a few minutes if exposed to a fire.

Add in that any fire ground radio is usually simplex, it certainly does leave you scratching your head over this.

We're approaching this as a head end type system at work. We enjoy a robust fiber plant, so hauling the signals around to individual buildings isn't an issue. We're already running our fire alarm system over fiber.

We're also looking at this as a way to improve coverage for law enforcement. Of course they don't need the fire rating, but we'll put it in as one complete system.





It is done on a case by case basis. The systems only need to be installed if they don't have sufficient radio coverage inside the building. Yeah, the radio system should have enough design in it that this isn't an issue, but that doesn't take into account new energy efficiency rules regarding "Low-E" glass, steel reinforced concrete, all those other things that block RF so well.

BDA's are generally frowned upon by those in the know, but for some cheap installers, they are the solution that gets chosen. Most building owners/architects, etc. don't know the difference. All they know is that the fire marshal says they gotta do it.


The fire code thing aside….
I've talked with a few industry leaders and one area that is being looked at is how to better approach this. Most radio guys know that in-building coverage systems are expensive, fragile, are sources of noise, etc.
One idea that is getting tossed about (again, NOT fire service related necessarily) is to develop an add on to the 802.11 standard for WiFi systems that requires (or strongly encourages) a specific public safety SSID that would allow the new crop of WiFi/LTE capable public safety radios to authenticate with the system automatically and access their radio system that way. It would be a much lower cost solution, serve more people (potentially).
Of course there would be a lot of challenges with that. People would abuse it. People would hack it. I'm sure the amateur radio "emcomm" guys will demand ham radio access, etc.

But I digress.

Yeah, it's an expensive solution. They are risky if not done right. The real challenge is the energy efficient building materials that are causing this.

Coax running in conduit does nothing when exposed to fire and heat. It may add an extra 5 mins of protection before the conduit becomes so hot that whatever is in it becomes molten liquid. In a large building, even if a portion is compromised it will pretty much take the system down anyways. And you're right, they push for simplex use anyways. You don't know if the system fails also, other than your radio just stops working.

The other problem I see is coverage tests before a building is occupied. There can be a drastic difference when all kinds of electronic equipment gets added, LED lights, power supplies, server rooms, wireless this and that, versus a empty building in regards to RF coverage due to all the garbage produced that affect radio performance. This alone has a HUGE affect on radio performance indoors, especially lower frequency systems. More regulation here would help everyone because it's becoming a huge problem.

The NFPA needs to stop being a self proclaimed radio technician. Come up with a minimum dbm rating and let the local system techs figure it out. They shouldn't inject BDA's as being the only solution, because you and I know that it'll be some piece of crap that's installed by some nit wits because in the end, the GC just wants the occupancy permit because it says so in a book. They want to collect the check and move on to the next project. Most fire marshals are not radio techs either, and they usually don't know what they are looking at anyway. It could be a microwave oven, but as long as he can radio check... sign on line 6 please.

 

[mmckenna]

I agree.

NFPA shouldn't be involved in this, but someone needs to. Who would that be.

And there are building owners that think fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems are a waste of money, but luckily local fire codes, insurance companies, etc. have made it happen.

I'm not convinced that these systems are worth the price, and as I mentioned above, there's better approaches. But the "gubmint" is involved now, and the vendors and contractors are on the scent of taxpayers unlimited funds...

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

(snip)

Instead of these insane requirements, each structure should be handled on a case by case basis and instead of having the building owner pay 50-100K dollars on a BDA, money should go to the city for communications upgrades. The reason being, that 100K if spent correctly may cover 20 buildings or more with decent RF coverage if the system keeps getting enhanced, and it'll all be city owned.

Besides, isn't that what we pay taxes for?? Nevermind... I won't even go there...

This sounds logical, except in my experience most local governments will throw the cash into the general fund and use it to build a sports complex. Locally, my stormwater fees went to buying a defunct golf course. Still I have no storm drainage on my block.

As with the up-link noise caused by unrestrained BDA deployment, there is also a limitation in the numbers of simulcast sites that can be deployed as the time differential interference adds up and the cost of maintaining all those sites is overwhelming. Perhaps P25 simulcast is not the ultimate solution for public safety.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Coax running in conduit does nothing when exposed to fire and heat. It may add an extra 5 mins of protection before the conduit becomes so hot that whatever is in it becomes molten liquid. In a large building, even if a portion is compromised it will pretty much take the system down anyways. And you're right, they push for simplex use anyways. You don't know if the system fails also, other than your radio just stops working.

The other problem I see is coverage tests before a building is occupied. There can be a drastic difference when all kinds of electronic equipment gets added, LED lights, power supplies, server rooms, wireless this and that, versus a empty building in regards to RF coverage due to all the garbage produced that affect radio performance. This alone has a HUGE affect on radio performance indoors, especially lower frequency systems. More regulation here would help everyone because it's becoming a huge problem.

The NFPA needs to stop being a self proclaimed radio technician. Come up with a minimum dbm rating and let the local system techs figure it out. They shouldn't inject BDA's as being the only solution, because you and I know that it'll be some piece of crap that's installed by some nit wits because in the end, the GC just wants the occupancy permit because it says so in a book. They want to collect the check and move on to the next project. Most fire marshals are not radio techs either, and they usually don't know what they are looking at anyway. It could be a microwave oven, but as long as he can radio check... sign on line 6 please.

Those are all logical concerns about BDA's. The NFPA requires 2 hour protection on the cabling and acknowledged that no fire resistant cabling exists. I think they require sprinkler coverage of the main trunk lines. It would be an easy and cheap test to put some coax in metallic conduit and subject it to flame to see how long it behaves as transmission line. I suspect at bends the cable will succumb quickly.

There should be conventional repeaters mounted on fire command vehicles to back up these systems as reliance on them in a conflagration is silly.

 

[K6CDO]

Wait, so above a certain size they have to purchase infrastructure for the local PS agencies?

Actually, no minimum size on the occupied building. You could have an occupied dense concrete vault of 100 sq. ft. that would require a system if the PS radio system does not cover it. Also parking structures.

 

[12dbsinad]

The NFPA requires 2 hour protection on the cabling and acknowledged that no fire resistant cabling exists. I think they require sprinkler coverage of the main trunk lines. It would be an easy and cheap test to put some coax in metallic conduit and subject it to flame to see how long it behaves as transmission line. I suspect at bends the cable will succumb quickly.

Not long I bet. Look at what coax is comprised of. The first things to fail would probably be the outer jacket and the dielectric. What's the other materials? Aluminum? Oh boy, what a failure that would be. Search "cell phone tower fires" on YouTube and take a look at how good coax burns. There is nothing flame resistant about it.

 

[mmckenna]

Not long I bet. Look at what coax is comprised of. The first things to fail would probably be the outer jacket and the dielectric. What's the other materials? Aluminum? Oh boy, what a failure that would be. Search "cell phone tower fires" on YouTube and take a look at how good coax burns. There is nothing flame resistant about it.

RFS - Promoted Product Details

Not much better, but not aluminum.
Plenum rated.

Still a less than ideal approach compared to just running analog/simplex on the fire ground.

But, like "rebanding", it makes manufacturers rich.

 

[12dbsinad]

Still a less than ideal approach compared to just running analog/simplex on the fire ground.

But, like "rebanding", it makes manufacturers rich.

Yep, you got that right. All about the money.

The thing that gets me is, for years they (NFPA) knocked using trunking systems on scene/fire ground due to not being reliable and toted simplex. Now, they want emergency personnel to run into a burning building or otherwise compromised structure relying on a BDA for communications outside a wall or window? Perhaps we haven't learned what happens to communications when the building itself houses the communications equipment.

I can guarantee there is a group of people comprising the NFPA that has dibs on BDA's.

BTW, we use in vehicle repeaters a lot here. They work great, even record fire ground traffic and damn near cover every large building we have. It's like having your own little micro site when you pull up on scene. The building can burn flat, and it'll still work.

 

[mmckenna]

BTW, we use in vehicle repeaters a lot here. They work great, even record fire ground traffic and damn near cover every large building we have. It's like having your own little micro site when you pull up on scene. The building can burn flat, and it'll still work.

I think that's a logical approach.

Not as much money to be made, though.

 

[slicerwizard]

Get a grip, guys. Police and ambulance personnel need coverage when they're on calls, hence BDAs/DAS. If it's a bad fire, FD had damn well better know to bring a SOW.

 

[12dbsinad]

Get a grip, guys. Police and ambulance personnel need coverage when they're on calls, hence BDAs/DAS. If it's a bad fire, FD had damn well better know to bring a SOW.

What exactly do you define as "calls"? So you're telling me that thousands of dollars are spent for a 1 building BDA that is for generic calls only be it police or fire?

Tell me who determines what police, fire and EMS do when the BDA doesn't work, or fails mid call due to fire or other.

Who even knows it fails?

 

[Thunderknight]

Get a grip, guys. Police and ambulance personnel need coverage when they're on calls, hence BDAs/DAS.

Yup, they're shoplifter calls, or diabetic/not feeling well calls. Or even if it's FD, it's often a defective smoke head or a maybe a burned up ballast.
Do hot building fires that could burn through conduit happen...of course. But many other types of calls happen too...and happen more frequently.

 

[Thunderknight]

BTW, we use in vehicle repeaters a lot here. They work great, even record fire ground traffic and damn near cover every large building we have. It's like having your own little micro site when you pull up on scene. The building can burn flat, and it'll still work.

As long as the building is not so dense/large that a vehicle repeater wouldn't work. When you get to big complexes, or many levels of underground, a vehicle repeater outside may not cut it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a local complex has a full site 1/4 mile away and still had many areas of no portable coverage until they added a DAS.

Question on your vehicle repeaters though: You said they record fire ground traffic. Is that being done at the vehicle or by patching back to the network? If in the vehicle, is that a regular call recorder or some type of custom job?

 

[12dbsinad]

Question on your vehicle repeaters though: You said they record fire ground traffic. Is that being done at the vehicle or by patching back to the network? If in the vehicle, is that a regular call recorder or some type of custom job?

At the vehicle. Our local FD uses Icom F7510 P25 radios for IVR's, they record something like 500 hours of radio traffic to a micro SD build into the unit.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

A 50 watt vehicular repeater with receiver diversity could provide a solution for the high rise fireground. You could have two or three RX on a command vehicle and also link other RXs on support vehicles around the structure. And yes all could be recorded on site and uplinked to the dispatch center via commercial towers.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Thunderknight]

At the vehicle. Our local FD uses Icom F7510 P25 radios for IVR's, they record something like 500 hours of radio traffic to a micro SD build into the unit.

I did not realize there was a PS radio on the market with that feature. Very cool. Thanks!

 

[radioman2001]

What you are going to see here is good and bad information. Good is the NFPA suggestions, reference to seek out info from local jurisdiction. The bad is vehicle repeaters, BDA, or DAS without some sort of scientific testing, and not just running around with a portable counting to five.Your building has to be looked at first to determine whats best.
The 1 million cost sounds about right, the system we are testing now is over 10 million. Covers multiple miles of underground track on multiple levels, large indoor space and a block long and wide building. Has RF bands running from 150-160, 450, 700, 800 as well as cellular 800,1900 and WiFi.
You need to contact a vendor that specializes in such projects. Some radio vendors might be able to handle it, but better to contract with someone who has done these systems before with proven results. Since you will have to provide a certificate of compliance to the local agency, not just for your CO but every 6 months or each year after that.

Quote"
A 50 watt vehicular repeater with receiver diversity could provide a solution for the high rise fireground.

The problem is not going to be spraying RF into a building it's the low power portables getting back to whatever command site you are running. Plus just because in one incident you can use the lobby, maybe next time it could be the lobby is on fire.

Master antenna systems which are usually Radiax cable or multiple antennae located throuout the building is the better way. Whether you use a DAS or BDA will depend on the systems needs.
DAS has become now the choice over BDA since you can tailor the signal to a particular area using fiber optic or even Cat-5 tied to a head end.

Quote"
Tell me who determines what police, fire and EMS do when the BDA doesn't work, or fails mid call due to fire or other.

Guess what the building owner owns the system and is required to prove it is working properly every 6 month to a year depending on the local law. Now it would be in the local agencies best interest to test at a minimum once a week if not daily if used all the time.

Quote"
Still a less than ideal approach compared to just running analog/simplex on the fire ground.

Depends on the building and agency's needs. If the structure is that large that even simplex wont reach one end to the other repeaters are going to be needed.

Quote"
Perhaps we haven't learned what happens to communications when the building itself houses the communications equipment.

Same could be said about fire alarm alerting systems or even evacuation PA. According to a least the system we have it has to meet the same standards as fire protection circuits, and either be housed in conduit or be Teflon cabling. It has to have separate power with backup. If the structure is at point of the radio system failing it's time so vacate and surround and drown.

There are many opinions on why we need such systems and the money wasted bla bla bla, Overall this push has been as a result of 343 Firefighters dying at WTC because in part of bad comms. The overall cost of cabling is a lot less expensive to install while building the structure than after.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I remember working public safety when almost nobody had portables. We still got the job done and had one less expensive piece of irrelevant equipment to keep track of.

 

[radioman2001]

There was time where we didn't have airpacs either, or tazers, and mass casualty shootings. The world changes, and usually as a result of some incident where deaths were attributed to. Also now the lawyers are in everybody's pie looking for a payday.
Fortunately we are not Briton or the EU, which is much, much worse for everything.

 

[nd5y]

There was a time when public safety didn't wear hand held radios on the belt at all times with a speaker mic and wonder why they have poor hand held coverage.