Poll: Should fire training talkgroups be in streams?

[TrainedProfessional]

I'd like to know what the community prefers. I'm the Broadcastify streamer for stream 32019, Howard County Police, Fire and EMS. Currently the stream includes the talkgroup used for fire department training exercises. The feed does transmit alpha tags so if your player shows the current track information you will see which talkgroup the current audio came from. Even with this, I realize it can be confusing for a listener to tune in and hear what seems like a major incident, but is just training.

I personally find the training exercises to be interesting to listen to. I'd like to include in them in the steam in some fashion. I thought of a few choices, I'd like to know what the community prefers. Please answer the poll. I'm especially interested in listeners for the HoCo feed, but answers from everywhere are still valid.

All of these choices assume that the feed will be approved and not deemed too similar. Also, no promises other than I will take the community's thoughts into consideration.

I hope the poll choices make sense. I can think of:
1 feed: normal dispatch + training (Current configuration for feed 32019)
This option is how the feed is today. Normal dispatch and the fire training talkgroup is included.

1 feed: normal dispatch only
This option is to simply remove the fire training talkgroup from the existing feed.

2 feeds: normal dispatch only; normal dispatch + training
This option is to create a new feed that is normal dispatch only in addition to the current feed.

2 feeds: normal dispatch only; training only
This option is to remove training from the current feed and create a new feed that is nothing but the training talkgroup.

 

[maus92]

I would modify your description of the "dispatch" stream to "operations," acknowledging the inclusion of dispatch, response and fireground channels.

 

[RaleighGuy]

I agree that the training TGs are very interesting, but also when they are doing training in my area they can become very active (talkative). This might prevent other listeners from hearing actual dispatch traffic.

With the introduction of the Broadcastify Dashboard listeners can easily listen to two feeds at once, so my preference, assuming you have the resources, would be to create two feeds Dispatch and Training separate.

 

[blee1099]

When I ran a feed it was hard to anticipate when they would use charlie-1 for training or for an actual call. You could always leave it blocked from being scanned and in the event Howard had multiple working incidents just leave info in the details mentioning the channel. If you have a scanner that can be controlled remotely maybe add it as a need basis..

 

[ecps92]

All depends on how the Agency has them created. As Scannists we can only assume some information.
IS the Talk-group assignment also used as a Fireground [ie: issued in order of each occurence]
or is it truely a dedicated Training Talkgroup...

More information is needed to bring this into better context

 

[Mr_Boh]

I would say that it’s not worth it unless you are part of the ingest project currently in beta since that streams all active talkgroups at the same time assuming correct setup.

It’s just my opinion but I don’t like when you’re listening to a feed with an active incident and it keeps cutting away to something in training.

 

[TrainedProfessional]

I would modify your description of the "dispatch" stream to "operations," acknowledging the inclusion of dispatch, response and fireground channels.

Valid point. I would edit my post but can't figure out how to. Maybe not allowed to because I don't have enough cred yet to post without moderator approval. Whatever I end up doing I'll use this language in the revised stream description.

All depends on how the Agency has them created. As Scannists we can only assume some information.
IS the Talk-group assignment also used as a Fireground [ie: issued in order of each occurence]
or is it truely a dedicated Training Talkgroup...

More information is needed to bring this into better context

Another valid point. I can't say for sure because I haven't observed that many concurrent incidents yet. The TG that I've heard HoCo use for training is delta 1. So it would be concurrent fireground #3. The frequency of training operations on that TG likely far exceeds the frequency of it being used as fireground. So pick your poison? This is certainly something I can go back through my archives and check.

 

[boatbod]

If certain tgids are reserved for training operations I believe it would make sense to either stream them separately or not at all. That said, our jurisdiction assigns tgids to training evolutions only when they are requested so it's not possible to know in advance when "TAC5" is going to be a live incident or training activity.

 

[a417]

Valid point. I would edit my post but can't figure out how to.

You can only edit a post for 30 minutes after it's posted. That little EDIT link will disappear.

 

[ChrisABQ]

Having both Fire and Police academies in my city, if training comm's are broadcast, listeners (more than likely) interpret them as real situations. When training does occur, they also tie up the feed with simulated situations rather than the REAL information listeners are expecting. I block training altogether.

 

[TrainedProfessional]

I think that was a fairly clear verdict. What I gathered was that if with confidence the training talkgroup could be removed without eliminating incident/fireground activities, then that is favored.

While I don't know HoCo's complete standard procedure, I know what I've heard the last two weeks. Training is on delta. Normal dispatch/response is on alpha. Bravo is first incident/fireground. Charlie the second. Last week when they had multiple concurrent brush fires, they opted to move response for fire #2 to alpha 3 instead of starting charlie.

In my next scanner update (which I've been troubleshooting a change to my processing/streaming), I will stop streaming the fire delta* talkgroups. I will update the stream description/notes when this change is effective.

Thanks everyone for voting and providing comments.

 

[fourwd1]

I'll keep it short and simple

NO

 

[mikeym]

NO!

 

[W8RMH]

I would never even consider training channels on my feed. There can be extensive transmissions which will prevent monitoring active emergency dispatches and situations. I have also noticed that civilian (non-military) operators have a bad habit of not identifying their transmissions as "this is and exercise" which would cause even more confusion and possibly induce public panic, which may result in criminal charges against the feed provider.