• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

United States Air Force (157) Bandplan changed?

dfw1193

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
289
Location
Venus, Texas
#21
See also page 42 of the user manual where it explains the difference of explicit and implicit systems in relation to the bandplans and the need to set a custom bandplan in the scanner for an implicit system while explicit systems obtain the bandplan from the control channel. So if you add bandplan info manually to the 536 the reason it gets erased is that you did not put it under a custom bandplan when you manually entered it. Thats my guess.

How that relates to how its in sentinnel I dont know maybe you should try a different profile for the 536 as opposed to the 436 and experiment some, maybe Upman can explain it better since he is more familiar with the use and programming using sentinnel software.

What or how does it show up when you put it in the 536 and its working then create a new 536 profile in the software and do a read from the 536. Then do the same for your 436 and compare the profile info files with a text editor to show any difference maybe you can see how the software differences are between the one that retains them and the one that erases them, just an idea.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,190
#22
Just trying to understand the issue. So why was the bandplan in the 436 populated...and working and the 536 was blank... and not working? I’ve never entered that info, I just appended it from the full database.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And I said I'm not sure why. Either way, the bottom line is the band plan is NOT required. If you're having trouble picking them up, bandplan is not the reason.
Can you read the radio, and save it and post it here so we can look at it? Maybe it's something else.
 

HogDriver

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
836
Location
Oklahoma City
#23
See also page 42 of the user manual where it explains the difference of explicit and implicit systems in relation to the bandplans and the need to set a custom bandplan in the scanner for an implicit system while explicit systems obtain the bandplan from the control channel. So if you add bandplan info manually to the 536 the reason it gets erased is that you did not put it under a custom bandplan when you manually entered it. Thats my guess.
That’s kind of what I’m thinking. Something has changed, I’m guessing in Sentinal. I hadn’t made any updates to that particular system and it has worked fine for a few years and all of a sudden, the radio was quiet. The 436 still worked and had band plan info in it as I hadn’t updated it for awhile. So maybe I used to have a Custom bandplan setting and something changed it to Standard or whatever they call it and erased the data. What boggles me is that, since it apparently requires a custom table, why does one not show in the full database? And from I’ve read in wiki, some P25 phase 1 systems “may” require custom bandplans. I never looked to see whether or not this system had one or not as I didn’t have issues hearing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,287
Location
Arlington, TX
#24
I suspect that this is an implicit signalling system, possibly recently converted to such. If that is the case, then the scanner relies on the band plan you manually enter into it (or that it gets from RRDB). Until the plan gets into RRDB, any time you use the main dB as a reference, it is going to use all 0's (because that is what is in RRDB).
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,190
#25
See also page 42 of the user manual where it explains the difference of explicit and implicit systems in relation to the bandplans and the need to set a custom bandplan in the scanner for an implicit system while explicit systems obtain the bandplan from the control channel. So if you add bandplan info manually to the 536 the reason it gets erased is that you did not put it under a custom bandplan when you manually entered it. Thats my guess.

How that relates to how its in sentinnel I dont know maybe you should try a different profile for the 536 as opposed to the 436 and experiment some, maybe Upman can explain it better since he is more familiar with the use and programming using sentinnel software.

What or how does it show up when you put it in the 536 and its working then create a new 536 profile in the software and do a read from the 536. Then do the same for your 436 and compare the profile info files with a text editor to show any difference maybe you can see how the software differences are between the one that retains them and the one that erases them, just an idea.
I suspect that this is an implicit signalling system, possibly recently converted to such. If that is the case, then the scanner relies on the band plan you manually enter into it (or that it gets from RRDB). Until the plan gets into RRDB, any time you use the main dB as a reference, it is going to use all 0's (because that is what is in RRDB).
Is that site specific? Or system specific?

I've monitored this system and have not had to enter a band plan.
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,287
Location
Arlington, TX
#26
It can be site-by-site. DOJ systems are more notorious for being set up this way, but I believe I've heard of one or two other DOD systems like that as well.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,190
#27
It can be site-by-site. DOJ systems are more notorious for being set up this way, but I believe I've heard of one or two other DOD systems like that as well.
Government always making things difficult haha.

So he would need to manually enter his bandplan he's getting from his 436, making sure its a custom bandplan, to make it work?
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,287
Location
Arlington, TX
#28
Yes. Then, (if entered in the scanner) do a "Read from Scanner" to be sure it is saved to the FL in Sentinel.

Also, once the band plan is determined to be correct, the info should be added to RRDB.

I'll caveat that this presupposes that it is really an implicit system and not some obscure bug affecting only one person on one system on one scanner...but I've seen only this one report, so that is all I have to go on. If 10 more crop up tomorrow, I'll change my answer. :)
 

HogDriver

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
836
Location
Oklahoma City
#29
I agree! The government does what it wants! If the system never had a custom band plan, then where did the one in my 436 come from? I’ve never entered a band plan for anything on my Unidens.

Also, my limited understanding of band plans tells me that the several lines of duplicate 136.000/12.5 are important and not to remove them, right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

HogDriver

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
836
Location
Oklahoma City
#33
I’ve noticed that Tinker AFB currently has a bandplan active. I noticed this when my radio had been silent for several days!

Anyone else noticed this on this system for their location?

I copied this of my BCD436.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:

HogDriver

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
836
Location
Oklahoma City
#34
I have a 436 and a 536. The 436 database was updated the middle of February, the 536, the middle of March. One day near the end of March, I noticed I wasn’t receiving anything on the Tinker site. So I pulled out my Pro106 and turned it on, it was receiving fine. Turned on my 436, it was receiving fine. After a little sleuthing, I found that the 436 had a bandplan in it and the 536 did not. After programming the same one into the 536, it started receiving fine.
So, apparently, for whatever reason I know not, at some point, when I updated the 536, it dropped the bandplan.
I have no idea where it came from, I’ve never programmed it in, so it had to have come from the master database when I created my favorite list. Not sure what made it disappear in the 536, or for that matter, what made it appear in the 436.
I also can’t figure out where I tell The Unident Sentinal software that it’s a custom bandplan. I can enter it in, but after a few days, it deleted it from my database on my laptop and I have to re-enter it. Proscan only offers 6 lines of individual bandplan, and as you can see, the 406 portion is past that, on line “A”. I don’t know if positioning is important in a bandplan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

YoShep69

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
52
Location
Central Illinois
#35
I’ve noticed that Tinker AFB currently has a bandplan active. I noticed this when my radio had been silent for several days!

Anyone else noticed this on this system for their location?

I copied this of my BCD436.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That is what I show for Robins AFB and Patrick AFB. I'm using a SDS100.
 

HogDriver

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
836
Location
Oklahoma City
#40
Can someone tell me if the actual line a certain entry is on is important? There are several lines for 136.0, along with other bands. If I delete all the 136.0 entries except for one, will it still work, or does the fact that the 406 entry is on line “A”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Top