Osage Co Sheriff dispatch
- Thread starter car2back
- Start date
- Status
phil_smith said:
I have no idea why dispatch centers make tactical callsigns such a difficult issue. If you want to say something like "County Service", why not just say "County"?
My plan to promote interoperability across Oklahoma would be to have all the dispatch centers use a tactical callsign that's the name of their city or county. In cases where a county and city have the same name, then the county dispatch center can append "county" (or just use "county". Very simple, very brief, and everyone knows immediately who their dealing with.
Unfortunately, tactical callsign decisions, like many others in public safety, are with only personal preferences in mind, rather than what might be best for the big picture. In my area, within earshot I have 4 dispatch centers that call themselves "Headquarters": Moore, Mustang, Chickasha, and Blanchard. I can't remember what Yukon calls themselves, but it might be "headquarters" as well. Cleveland Co SO calls themselves "CommCenter", Canadian Co SO calls themselves "Sheriff's Office", and so on.
To their credit, Newcastle, Noble, Lexington, Lindsay, Tuttle, and Purcell all call themselves "Newcastle", "Noble", "Lexington", "Lindsay", "Tuttle", and "Purcell".
I'm interested in hearing about other comm centers that do this... anyone know of any others?
freqscout
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 700
Well 2112 I would have to agree with you.
n the Metro we have the four main dispatch channels. The majority of the officers call dispatch by their division name (ie: Will Rogers, Hefner, Springlake, Santa Fe) which helps with scanning when you can't see the display. Some still use the old name of "North Side" for Hefner because that is what it used to be called back in "the day". With the EDACS installation there are so many new talkgroups with a dispatcher that covers or monitors multiple TG's. Some dispatchers are even covering more than one TG with a patch of multiple city services. It would stand to reason in my mind that you should call the dispatcher by the service that you are calling into to eliminate confusion especially on the receiving end in dispatch.
The other thing that comes into play is that we have so many Mutual Aid Talkgroups that allow us to talk to the dispatchers in other cities. Those cities are also scanning each other. So if I got on and said "3B26 to Warr Acres," and another city's dispatcher (ie:Bethany) heard that they could know that I am involved in something that may require their help since they are close and can differentiate between who I am calling when hearing me specifically call a city.
In NIMS/ICS you aren't supposed to use ANY codes. So it could even stand to reason that you would even call a county by it's full name such as, "Moore 427 to Canadian County," since you may have more than one county tied together on the same Mutual Aid channel/TG in a large incident.
n the Metro we have the four main dispatch channels. The majority of the officers call dispatch by their division name (ie: Will Rogers, Hefner, Springlake, Santa Fe) which helps with scanning when you can't see the display. Some still use the old name of "North Side" for Hefner because that is what it used to be called back in "the day". With the EDACS installation there are so many new talkgroups with a dispatcher that covers or monitors multiple TG's. Some dispatchers are even covering more than one TG with a patch of multiple city services. It would stand to reason in my mind that you should call the dispatcher by the service that you are calling into to eliminate confusion especially on the receiving end in dispatch.
The other thing that comes into play is that we have so many Mutual Aid Talkgroups that allow us to talk to the dispatchers in other cities. Those cities are also scanning each other. So if I got on and said "3B26 to Warr Acres," and another city's dispatcher (ie:Bethany) heard that they could know that I am involved in something that may require their help since they are close and can differentiate between who I am calling when hearing me specifically call a city.
In NIMS/ICS you aren't supposed to use ANY codes. So it could even stand to reason that you would even call a county by it's full name such as, "Moore 427 to Canadian County," since you may have more than one county tied together on the same Mutual Aid channel/TG in a large incident.
freqscout said:
Yeah, I forgot to mention the larger city districts. In my system, the division name would be appropriate as is currently the case in OKC.
freqscout said:
Good point. And your solution seems to be the sound one, the addition of agency type to the City/County Callsign as appropriate to ensure proper routing of the call. While this isn't important for a small dispatch center, it does require attention when you add that second dispatcher and go up from there.
freqscout said:
EXACTLY!!!
freqscout said:
Right. I have mixed feelings right now about that whole NIMS/ICS no-codes thing. I understand the advantages of plain language comms, but I believe that, as implemented, many agencies (if they were still being forced to) would just go down the list and pick new words to replace the 10-codes (e.g.,, instead of saying "Newcastle 3504 10-90", dispatch could say "Newcastle 3504 checkup"). This would effectvely create a new code system, and it's effectiveness would still be questionable from agency to agency; there would still be language gaps (e.g., another agency, instead of saying "checkup" could say "Purcell 3003 safety"). More effective than getting rid of codes altogether would be to standardize the code list on a nationwide basis, whether it consists of 10-codes or uses so-called "plain-language" codes, nationwide. But I digress...
freqscout
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 700
[/QUOTE] "Right. I have mixed feelings right now about that whole NIMS/ICS no-codes thing. I understand the advantages of plain language comms, but I believe that, as implemented, many agencies (if they were still being forced to) would just go down the list and pick new words to replace the 10-codes (e.g.,, instead of saying "Newcastle 3504 10-90", dispatch could say "Newcastle 3504 checkup"). This would effectvely create a new code system, and it's effectiveness would still be questionable from agency to agency; there would still be language gaps (e.g., another agency, instead of saying "checkup" could say "Purcell 3003 safety"). More effective than getting rid of codes altogether would be to standardize the code list on a nationwide basis, whether it consists of 10-codes or uses so-called "plain-language" codes, nationwide. But I digress..."[/QUOTE]
I agree on this point too. There are many different forms of the code system that have been used throughout the years and each one was developed at a different time out of ifferent dispatching needs I'm sure. Did you know that some dispatches in other parts of the country even use Q-codes like ham radio (that seems bizarre to me)? There should be a standardization of this so that we can communicate on a level playing field. As long as there is a system that has ambiguity to it it could be interpreted as something else. If we are all saying the same thing then there is no question.
I agree on this point too. There are many different forms of the code system that have been used throughout the years and each one was developed at a different time out of ifferent dispatching needs I'm sure. Did you know that some dispatches in other parts of the country even use Q-codes like ham radio (that seems bizarre to me)? There should be a standardization of this so that we can communicate on a level playing field. As long as there is a system that has ambiguity to it it could be interpreted as something else. If we are all saying the same thing then there is no question.
freqscout said:
And really that's where DHS could have stepped in and said "Okay, if you want to use 10-codes, use *this* list for NIMS/ICS." Then there'd be a short period of weeping and gnashing of teeth over who couldn't use this code to mean this and that, and that something *new* would have to be learned. And after the dust settled, we'd have had a better and stronger system altogether than we do now, as compared to what we went through with 10-codes going away and then coming back and *still* not having a consistent system.
Wonder if there's anyone from DHS reading here...
I didn't mean it... honest!
I read in another thread that there was an agency that used "Control 1" for their regular dispatch center, and then "Control 2", "Control 3", etc. to identify which mobile command units.
My thought on this is that it doesn't matter where dispatch is located; it should always be the city or county name.
I have some thoughts about an Oklahoma tactical callsign system to share, but I'm creating a new thread for this so as not to hijack this thread further.
I read in another thread that there was an agency that used "Control 1" for their regular dispatch center, and then "Control 2", "Control 3", etc. to identify which mobile command units.
My thought on this is that it doesn't matter where dispatch is located; it should always be the city or county name.
I have some thoughts about an Oklahoma tactical callsign system to share, but I'm creating a new thread for this so as not to hijack this thread further.
Osage County
I better look into the change i've got a good contact that work's for DA's office and has a radio in his car .
I better look into the change i've got a good contact that work's for DA's office and has a radio in his car .
- Status
