i am sorry i thought you had a web page my mistake
i am sorry i thought you had a web page my mistake
i am sorry i thought you had a web page my mistake
U.S. Forest Service Channel Plans
- Thread starter SCPD
- Start date
- Status
if you look at this Nifc List from the 2008 fire season they took command 19 from the Fed Interop Pool and they are still using it today in az and in calif that means that when they take a freqs out of Fed Interop Pool they keep it and keep using it they have using command 19 for 5 years now that what it looks like to me
anyway
anyway
A communications unit leader on a fire told me the assignments were not permanent. I'm not sure who authored the Wiki page you provided the link to. I noticed the map is pretty old. I don't know how the author got these frequencies. If I knew I might give it more credibility. I think I will add the frequencies to the NIFC radio cache system page I've been working on. I have some frequencies noted as being based on unconfirmed information.
ecps92
Member
Clicking on "History" of any wiki will provide the info
Revision history of "U.S. Government (AZ)" - The RadioReference Wiki
Revision history of "U.S. Government (AZ)" - The RadioReference Wiki
I took the list you provided and added all the frequencies to the command frequency list on the Wiki page titled "National Incident Radio Support Cache." Follow this link:
National Incident Radio Support Cache - The RadioReference Wiki
It looks as though, as you said, some of the frequencies used this year are the same as the 2008 list. I've used all the information I've received to develop the command frequency table on the Wiki page. The list you provided showed the use of federal Incident Response VHF frequencies configured in reverse. That is, the repeater frequencies are reversed as to their use as repeater inputs and outputs. I've looked at the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide and using these frequencies in this reversed configuration is not shown. I'm not sure where the author of the Wiki page for Arizona got the information shown on that page's list.
In future years I hope everyone within listening range of large fires will report what the hear so the list can be updated and new frequencies added.
Thanks for your help!
Last edited:
thank very much nice job
nice to have a clean list
nice to have a clean list
Thanks Bill!
I will PM Radioprescott and discuss this. We've shared frequency information before and he told me, although I don't remember, what his source is.
Good news! radioprescott has solid sources for the frequency plan he presented on the Arizona Wiki page. I incorporated his information on my last edit of the command repeater table shown on the National Interagency Radio Support Cache Wiki page. Having the solid work of radioprescott match up with with what everyone on various threads helped me with means we now have a good foundation to start with. If other members start tuning in on large incidents and submit their observations we will slowly fill in more blanks.
Thanks to all the people that provided me with data!
Thanks to all the people that provided me with data!
Last edited:
scottyhetzel
Member
Fred, POTUS named part of the Angles ( Eastern San Gabriel Valley) mountains a national monument today. Will freq. change there? Sorry to be off topic
DeeBotchery
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 19
Los Padres Forest Questions
ExSmokey...
Regarding the Los Padres Forest, I notice the morning status report and afternoon weather discussion being broadcast on the Forest Net (LP-2 164.9125) using a tone of 77.0 usually and 77.9 occasionally. Do these tones open all of the forest repeaters so that all areas will hear the broadcast? If not, what description would best be used for these tones?
ExSmokey...
Regarding the Los Padres Forest, I notice the morning status report and afternoon weather discussion being broadcast on the Forest Net (LP-2 164.9125) using a tone of 77.0 usually and 77.9 occasionally. Do these tones open all of the forest repeaters so that all areas will hear the broadcast? If not, what description would best be used for these tones?
I don't anticipate any changes. If more funding is received it will likely go right to the ground repairing and replacing worn out facilities. I would hope it will mean more law enforcement presence, especially on an evening shift. There needs to be up to 20 employees wearing out boot soles in San Gabriel Canyon every weekend, most of them able to speak spanish. A couple of employees that can speak in Hmong are needed as well. That number is just my estimate given what I've heard from Angeles employees and the trips I've taken in the canyon on the first warm weekends of the year. Walking around the area during those periods is amazing and has been heart wrenching for me as I watch people doing all sorts of harm in small increments with no end in sight. I don't know enough about the numbers of incidents and the workload in this canyon to defend my number, but my estimate might be in the ballpark. The situation in that canyon has not been good since the 70's.
If there is more law enforcement presence that might mean installing a fully independent law enforcement repeater network that employs the same number of repeaters now on the forest, which I think numbers 14.
I think the Angeles, just like most forests in California need a command net that would be used for larger incidents so the forest and admin nets are not taken over by one incident. I've experienced being in the middle of critical people and facility management incidents and not being able to use the forest net, when an admin net is not available. In fact, I've often had several of these incidents occurring simultaneously with the only option being simplex in terrain that makes that nearly impossible. I could not use those same simplex frequencies to call the ranger station because base stations cannot be programmed with tactical frequencies, as they are allocated for mobile use only. During lightning storms there might be 20 new fire starts in a day and perhaps for an additional 1-2 days. A couple of those are bound to become Type III incidents and those cause more disruptions to all the nets available than Type I and II incidents because NIFC systems are put in place to handle the needs of those large incidents.
The proclamation requires a management plan in three years so some money will be spent doing that and that will be concurrent with revising the management plan for the entire Angeles NF already in progress.
The Forest Service has been hit very hard and the current employees I run into say they are only working on slowing the decline of a few resources and areas and are letting everything else go. Hopefully this monument will give the Angeles a little boost in being able to address the problems facing the forest.
164.9125 is the input frequency for the Los Padres forest net. A tone os 77.0 or 77.9 does not make any sense. When a signal is marginal a false tone will often be displayed during a tone search. I've experienced receiving those very two tones fluctuating on the screen when I'm picking up a weak transmission. I've also had other tones display when receiving other marginal signals, and they are in the lower frequency range, i.e. below 100.0 I don't know your location and proximity to a base station or Santa Ynez Peak so I can't make an educated guess as to why you are receiving those tones. I'm assuming you are picking up the repeater input frequency from the Santa Ynez Peak remote base station, the Forest Supervisors Office in Goleta or from the dispatch center in Santa Maria. I assume that the input frequency is transmitted from the Santa Ynez Peak remote base station to repeaters, but that might not be true. Repeaters might be linked by microwave and a VHF signal may not be used for keying up repeaters from base stations on the Los Padres. You should be listening to 170.4625 as it is the simplex or channel 1 in this case and the repeater output frequency or channel 2 as well.
Is there any particular reason you are listening to the repeater input instead of the output? All repeater systems where direct or simplex use is allowed the output frequency is used for direct communications and is also used to receive repeaters. There is no reason to monitor the input frequency at all. Unless you are right next to a base station or mobile transmitting to a repeater the output frequency will always be stronger. There are some rare exceptions to that, but I won't explain them as I don't think they apply to you.
Remove 164.9125 from your scanner and you won't have to deal with false tone displays. If my assumptions are off because of where you are located, tell me the general area where you observe them.
scottyhetzel
Member
I been reporting this same tone in my riverside county valley ( BDF area) and when traveling to San Diego I was going thru CNF forest and was getting the 77.0 tone too with 4 bars on my mobile 996xt. So something is happening here.
I'm not sure what the relevance of the tones may be. It is possible that these tones are used for the purpose of linking to other sites. However, they are not to simulcast over multiple sites. This has been tried and creates a lot of phase distortion because the various sites are not synchronized. The dispatchers can be heard on the input off of Santa Ynez. The reason why you might want to listen this way is that you can hear traffic that is going through distant sites that you can't hear on the output. However, if you are in range of Santa Ynez, you can listen on the 406.325 link and hear both sides of the conversation. I have not heard these two tones used, but will listen when I have the time. The tones I have heard are the inputs for other repeaters. For example, 131.8 for La Cumbre Peak. Aside from technical interest, there seems to be no reason to worry about the input tones. Presently, I have programmed two channels for 170.4625 (103.5 and 110.9) just to use tone decode on the output of the repeaters.
The bottom line is that this is not a very streamlined system. A lot depends on units selecting the correct tone for the correct repeater. You will often hear dispatchers telling a unit to change tones to see if they get a better signal off a different site. Sometimes they can be heard at dispatch, but they cannot hear the dispatcher and vice versa. Considering the large area to be covered, it works pretty well most of the time.
The bottom line is that this is not a very streamlined system. A lot depends on units selecting the correct tone for the correct repeater. You will often hear dispatchers telling a unit to change tones to see if they get a better signal off a different site. Sometimes they can be heard at dispatch, but they cannot hear the dispatcher and vice versa. Considering the large area to be covered, it works pretty well most of the time.
scottyhetzel
Member
I need to make myself clear... I was hearing p.l. 77.0 as the output of the repeater. i do not monitor inputs...buy maybe I should start.
Which repeater? They are all supposed to be 103.5 with the exception of Santa Ynez which is 110.9.
scottyhetzel
Member
I was driving thru Anza from Pinyon to Temecula ...not sure which repeater...I wrote this up on another post on another thread. The thread was about Exsmokey Wiki page..
Clearly you're not hearing Los Padres National Forest in that area.
ecps92
Member
- Status