Use of 168.5500 MHz

Status
Not open for further replies.

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
168.5500 MHz is often listed as "NIMS Initial Contact" or "ICS Callup" or "NIMS Calling." I've come across some official material that indicates this now has an exclusive national assignment for smokejumper air to ground.

When I was working for the U.S. Forest Service this frequency was programmed into my mobile and labeled as one of the indicated above. I never heard of anyone using it. Everyone had dozens of frequencies in their radios so they just contacted each other via a NIFC tac or used the agency's primary channel. Our Kings had limited capacity at that time, maybe two groups of 14 channels, so 168.550 MHz was not included.

The national assignment for the smokejumper's tactical is the federal common frequency of 168.350 MHz with a 123.0 Hz pl. If the fire enlarges to an extended attack or involves the use of local initial attack forces a NIFC tactical or a local unit tactical is assigned. Crews are then supposed to use one of the 4 new federal common frequencies for intra-crew communications. They are encouraged to use the digital mode with a NAC to reduce interference from other crews. If a incident needs a Type I crew smokejumpers can assemble 18-20 members and qualify. It is typical for smokejumpers to have a lot of experience and qualify for a number of ICS positions. They can be absorbed into the incident management organization. This doesn't happen frequently as smokejumpers are reserved for initial attack or to insert on an isolated portion of a larger fire. They are most useful as an initial attack resource and given an isolated location, can arrive in less time than local forces can.

All this requires that a person jump out of a perfectly operating aircraft often over dense forest in steep topography, not something a recreational sky diver would do. When I think about it this boggles my mind.
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,244
Location
Vista, CA
Interesting, Fred!

I have 168.350MHz in my scanner load programed with a tag of "NIFC ASSIGNED 1" which, I believe came out of a 2011 Kenwood TK790 Group 3 Loadout document that I can't remember where I got it from; it wasn't the actual display tag in that document but came from the "NOTES" column as the display column only listed it as the frequency. I have 168.550MHz listed as "NIFC ICS CALL".

Neither frequency is called out in the latest Firescope MACS 4-441 document; I don't understand why but I assume it's an agency thing I am ignorant of.

So, from your info, I should relabel the 168.550MHz frequency as "Smoke Jumpers Common" or something...? And 168.350MHz as what, exactly?

I really need to update my Federal Forestry and related natural resources frequency data and alpha tag designation. I have stuff from many different sources and from many different time periods and am certain much is in error. If you can help me with that, I appreciate it - we've emailed each other before so I'll take this offsite and followup that way when/if convenient for you.

One other thing, though...in regards to the use of digital modes and a NAC for the 4 intra-crew frequencies - hmm...given LAPD's failed experience in attempting to use their repeater output dispatch frequencies as simplex talk-arounds shortly after they went digital (the good ol' analog FM capture effect didn't work so well in P25 mode) which prompted them to add dedicated separate "talk arounds", I am surprised that the intra-crew stuff is encouraged to operate in digital mode especially in order to "reduce interference from other crews". I would think that, if separate crews are operating within simplex radio range of each other in co-channel mode (same frequency but with different NAC's), the corrupted capture effect of P25 could be an issue. However, technologies change and improve over time and I am sure they did their field testing and found it acceptable so I guess newer demodulation designs have solved the problem?!? Still, I can't see any real advantage to using P25 in simplex mode over analog FM though, I guess the +/-2.5KHz deviation of the current "narrowband" standards makes the FM analog audio less robust than older +/-5KHz deviation analog FM so P25 audio may be better in that respect.

-Mike
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Interesting, Fred!

I have 168.350MHz in my scanner load programed with a tag of "NIFC ASSIGNED 1" which, I believe came out of a 2011 Kenwood TK790 Group 3 Loadout document that I can't remember where I got it from; it wasn't the actual display tag in that document but came from the "NOTES" column as the display column only listed it as the frequency. I have 168.550MHz listed as "NIFC ICS CALL".

Neither frequency is called out in the latest Firescope MACS 4-441 document; I don't understand why but I assume it's an agency thing I am ignorant of.

So, from your info, I should relabel the 168.550MHz frequency as "Smoke Jumpers Common" or something...? And 168.350MHz as what, exactly?

I really need to update my Federal Forestry and related natural resources frequency data and alpha tag designation. I have stuff from many different sources and from many different time periods and am certain much is in error. If you can help me with that, I appreciate it - we've emailed each other before so I'll take this offsite and followup that way when/if convenient for you.

One other thing, though...in regards to the use of digital modes and a NAC for the 4 intra-crew frequencies - hmm...given LAPD's failed experience in attempting to use their repeater output dispatch frequencies as simplex talk-arounds shortly after they went digital (the good ol' analog FM capture effect didn't work so well in P25 mode) which prompted them to add dedicated separate "talk arounds", I am surprised that the intra-crew stuff is encouraged to operate in digital mode especially in order to "reduce interference from other crews". I would think that, if separate crews are operating within simplex radio range of each other in co-channel mode (same frequency but with different NAC's), the corrupted capture effect of P25 could be an issue. However, technologies change and improve over time and I am sure they did their field testing and found it acceptable so I guess newer demodulation designs have solved the problem?!? Still, I can't see any real advantage to using P25 in simplex mode over analog FM though, I guess the +/-2.5KHz deviation of the current "narrowband" standards makes the FM analog audio less robust than older +/-5KHz deviation analog FM so P25 audio may be better in that respect.

-Mike

You should label 168.5500 as "National Smokejumper Air to Ground" or to fit into the 16 character limit on the latest scanner models "Smokejumper A-G." Right now, I can't find the document with the direction in it. I was on one of those internet search binges, but distinctly remember seeing it on an official document. Do remember that this assignment is for air to ground use only, so the label "Smokejumper Common" is inaccurate. This assignment is not intended for use as a smokejumper crew net.

163.1000 and 168.3500 used to be known as "federal common." The official designation did not show channel assignments, but most radios had the labels of Channel 1 - 163.1000 and Channel 2 - 168.3500. The allocation of both of these changed in the NTIA Redbook around the 2005 federal government narrow band mandate. The two were to be a repeater pair, with 168.3500 as the input and 163.1000 as the output. The repeaters were to be portable and itinerant, although I heard what seemed to be a permanent installation somewhere in the L.A. area. Other than that it appear as though these frequencies are still being used as federal commons, simplex mode. I have seen them referenced as needing NIFC assignment on a couple of channel plans, bu assigned permanent channels on many others.

The NPS used to use 168.3500 as a tactical in most large parks years ago, with some showing 163.1000 as well. It has been replaced by the first two of the new set of four narrowband commons that were supposed to replace the older two. Usually, the first two (in frequency order) are shown in most NPS park channel plans.

168.3500 is still being used in some of the 11 geographical area coordination centers as travel net, with fewer of these using 163.1000 instead. Although both are for use by all federal agencies their use by natural resource management agencies is usually away from large cities reducing the chance of interference greatly. By assigning the smokejumpers a CTCSS tone, potential interference is reduced greatly. When smokejumpers are assigned to a fire they often are the only forces present on a fire for an extended number of hours or days. They need a tactical that does not interfered with the locally assigned tactical, which is one of the first three NIFC tacs that might be in use on other initial attacks. They need something they can use on every fire they jump on now matter where that might be.

I should also mention that smokejumpers may be the only resources assigned to a fire for its duration, depending on size and burning conditions. They take the operation on from containing the fire to full mop up as local initial attack resources might be stretched thin on fires in more accessible areas. This is one reason that their are hundreds of smokejumpers assigned to all the smokejumper bases in the country.

The assignment of these for crew nets was shown in a 2008 NIFC study. That study recommended use of NAC's in the digital mode. The problems you outlined may have occurred, resulting in analog use with CTCSS tones. The amount of traffic, per crew, would not be heavy when on a fire. The crews have their choice of 3 of the narrowband commons on incidents. The first is to be used for mobilization of crews at or near their home quarters. Just to make sure this all makes sense here is the assignment of those four frequencies:

163.7125 - National Crew Net
167.1375 - Primary Crew Net
168.6125 - Secondary Crew Net
173.6250 - Tertiary Crew Net

I've noticed that on some channel plans agencies have substituted the 163.7125 for 163.1000 and 168.6125 for 168.350, most often by the NPS for tactical use in the larger parks. However, given the additional frequencies available post narrowbanding some have obtained tactical frequencies unique to a park.

The changes in use for some federal frequencies, whether that be national in the case of the case of 168.5500, or for some local use at a park, forest or BLM district is often after FIRESCOPE direction and CDF channel loads have been completed. There is also the factor of channel plans and direction needing to catch up with new assignments. For example, after the Inyo started using their forest net input as the output for a second net, splitting forest net into a south net and a north net, it took 2-3 years for FIRESCOPE and CDF to start listing things that way. I still see current channel plans only showing the old single forest net, which is now the north forest net.

I think this answers all your questions.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
One question I didn't answer is that of what to label 168.3500 as. In my scanners I have 168.3500 and 163.1000 labeled as "Federal Common." I have entered 168.3500 in another channel using CTCSS tone 123.0 Hz as "Smokejumper Tac." With the large channel capacity of the newer scanners I have some frequencies entered more than once to account for these differences.
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,244
Location
Vista, CA
Once again ExSmokey, thank you for the excellent info! Your information and detailed explanations of natural resource management operational procedures is always thorough and well presented and, at least from me, much appreciated!

I will make the changes you've outlined to my scanners' programming. Thanks again and best wishes for a Happy New Year!

-Mike
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Thanks for the compliment and a Happy New Year to you. Tomorrow's radio traffic is interesting no matter where you are, well in most locations. When I was in a somewhat remote area of New Mexico it wasn't interesting as there was virtually no law enforcement presence. There wasn't any proactive law enforcement in my end of the county, which had had a portion of and bordered this large, wonderfully isolated area that I miss very much.

I was incorrect when I stated that the NPS is using the first two of the four frequency narrowband federal commons. They use the first and the third. They have replaced a 163 MHz frequency with the narrowband frequency in the 163 MHz segment and the same for the 168 MHz frequency. It would not seem as though this is important, but the techs and other comm personnel of various agencies must as it is pretty consistent.

It would also seem that NIFC comm people would have anticipated the new frequencies available due to narrowbanding and obtained a national assignment of four frequencies for crew nets and maybe a couple for travel nets. Narrowbanding results in 80 channels per MHz and the fed has 12 MHz in the VHF High band. That's 960 frequencies, but all the other agencies were probably trying to do the same. At least they obtained a slug of new frequencies for air to ground use in different areas.
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
New Information about use of this frequency

I usually check my sources better than I did in this case. This time I read the direction I reported here, but didn't save or bookmark the source. Not having a valid source makes me uncomfortable so today between watching football and eating things I don't eat the rest of the year, I searched for the document I had read. I spent about 6 hours trying to find what I needed, but I could not find what I read yesterday. The document I found turned out to be even better as it was more current (April 2012) and contained more use information.

168.5500 has a primary and secondary assignment, with the smokejumpers having priority use and helicopter rappel operations have the secondary. There was an issue of some interference between the two uses on one particular fire involving these two uses. As a result the smokejumpers are now using a CTCSS tone of 123.0 (tone 2), the same tone they are using on their assigned tactical of 168.3500. The rappel operations are to use a CTCSS tone of 110.9 (tone 1). I'm going to enter 168.5500 in my scanner twice, one with tone 2 labeled "Smokejumper A-G" and another with tone 1 labeled "Helo Rappel Ops."

The chance of hearing rappel ops is lower than it was 5-10 years ago. Forest Service Region 5 had about 50% of its helicopters qualified to do rappelling, now there are only 3 or 4 in the region. I don't know why this has happened, but I suspect the expense of the flight hours necessary for qualifying is to great. Given that most helitack crew members are seasonal, turnover is a factor. Another issue might the need to use this insertion is not enough to justify the expense. Lastly, the risks involved might result in finding a suitable landing zone further from fires where the crew has to walk more. That is a SWAG (scientific wild a** guess), scientific only because I worked for the USFS and was involved with fire management my entire career.

Here is my source regarding the 168.5500 assignment. Note that they didn't specify the frequency, but there are a few other sources that show the frequency as "national smokejumper air to ground."

https://www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=16920
 

FlashP

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
196
Section 4.2.3 of the NTIA Redbook calls out proper use of the 168.35/163.10 pair.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
The conditions allowing simplex use of 168.3500 would seem to preclude a blanket assignment of the frequency for one use all the time, such as its use as a smokejumper tac. Using this frequency is only allowed when all four of the new federal government common frequencies are already in use. I've seen quite a few long term assignments of this and 163.1000 in various channel plans I've seen, current ones of course.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
If the jumpers, rapellers, and cargo droppers are all using 168.55, then there is going to be a problem. Even with separate PLs. Especially with separate PLs. Many many many people do not seem to understand how PL works. Or am I really really really missing something?


-------------------------

I posted this is June of 2012


Peter S <zerg90@gmail.com>

6/6/12

to firerad2, firerad2, sonofrcma, sonofrcma


https://docs.google.com/open?id=1WrIv2NKy3BuDtBBfc43Do62uRUk7b5R14jLylBCUX8zBrSmm_3i7DZ3cyd0n

168.55 - PL 123.0 - smokejumpers

168.55 - PL 110.9 - rappel / RADS

does NOT seem like a good idea to me
 
Last edited:

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
If the jumpers, rapellers, and cargo droppers are all using 168.55, then there is going to be a problem. Even with separate PLs. Especially with separate PLs. Many many many people do not seem to understand how PL works. Or am I really really really missing something?


-------------------------

I posted this is June of 2012


Peter S <zerg90@gmail.com>

6/6/12

to firerad2, firerad2, sonofrcma, sonofrcma


https://docs.google.com/open?id=1WrIv2NKy3BuDtBBfc43Do62uRUk7b5R14jLylBCUX8zBrSmm_3i7DZ3cyd0n

168.55 - PL 123.0 - smokejumpers

168.55 - PL 110.9 - rappel / RADS

does NOT seem like a good idea to me

Great find on that June 12 document. I was looking for such a document, but could only find the safety bulletin. You must be the King of Internet Searching. We could give you the nickname "Googler." Thanks so much. If I ever have another situation where I keep finding dead ends I will PM you. Thanks for saving everything you find to your Google website. That really helps.

Smokejumpers have the priority and cargo dropping occurs after all jumpers for a portion of a fire, or an entire fire, are on the ground. If the incident is a Type I or II then other air to ground and ground tacticals would be available, although they wouldn't be exclusive assignments. Having the frequency on pl avoids having one crew get confused with the others traffic. If they are in the same vicinity and transmitting simultaneously the pls won't help much.

Having smokejumpers and rappel operations on the same fire is not frequent. Smokejumpers are brought in and they jump as close to the fire as safely possible. Rappelling delivers firefighters closer to the fire when helispots and jump zones are not in the vicinity, a condition found in large areas of dense timber.

The safety bulletin stated that having pls on the frequency would be tried and if not, another frequency allocation would be necessary. Hopefully, with narrowbanding, another frequency with nationwide use clearance can be obtained. The 168.5500 national assignment and nearly non-existent ground use of the frequency was ready made for use by the smokejumpers. Even though the frequency was installed in most radios, at least the higher capacity mobiles, it was not used for such. Most radios had the frequencies used for initial attack on other jurisdictions and incidents are assigned a tac frequency at the time of dispatch. Thus arriving resources from other agencies and jurisdictions don't need a common to make initial contact.

On a large incident where both types of operations are close and last for an extended period, the incident could ask for authorization to use other frequencies not currently used in the area by other agencies. They have to obtain this authorization from the radio comms duty officer at NIFC.
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,244
Location
Vista, CA
In addition to what ExSmokey has just outlined I would like to add some relevant technical details.

Analog FM benefits from a characteristic known as "the capture effect". In essence, co-channel signals with widely varying signal levels can coexist to some limited extent because the weaker signals get completely occluded by the stronger ones without significant heterodyning (the "squeal" you may hear from competing analog AM variant co-channel signals) and other perceived audio effects to the listener. That is, let's say there are two groups using the same frequency with handheld (say, with transmit power levels of 2 to 5 watts maximum and using the usual low/negative gain "rubber ducky" type antennas) analog FM radios separated by a reasonable distance (I don't know, how about 3 to 5 miles or so) so as to allow both groups to hear each others' transmissions albeit with noticeable differences in signal levels. Now, assign both groups differing CTCSS tone codes for their transmitters and respective receivers unique to each group. Now, what you will find is that they can coexist quite easily as long as units in each group are not seriously overlapping each others territory (in other words, members of each group tend to stay within close proximity to their respective group's area of operation and do not cross well into the opposite group's area). As human aural communication dominated radio chatter is, in most professional situations and certainly in the situations described in this thread, kept to a minimum and statistically highly unlikely to simultaneously occur between the two groups (high level of simultaneous transmissions over a period of time - not statistically likely) in all probability the two groups will hardly, if at all, even notice each other radio-wise and interference would be minimal to non-existent.

The capture effect makes this very doable - a strong received analog FM signal will completely erase (from the point of view of the listener) a weaker one with no significant audio artifacts such as are present on analog AM signals. Of course there are limitations - the levels need to be different by a minimum certain amount and if they are too close in level the effect is lessened and with nearly equal level signals you will get serious degradation. But, with simplex handheld VHF radio sets using less than 5 watts of transmit power into typical inefficient negative gain "rubber ducky" antennas, a geographical separation of even a couple of miles would easily allow co-channel use assuming factors such as height and intervening terrain are equal and not significantly "helping" some signals while "hurting" others (obviously, there are factors which can allow some signals to propagate longer distances with less attenuation relative to others taking different paths within the same area but these are complexities that are difficult or nearly impossible to predict when dealing with constantly moving handheld units with extremely widely varying antenna pattern changes).

Given what ExSmokey has said about the typical radio frequency usage characteristics and operational procedures for such operation it is highly unlikely that there will be a statistically high probability of both smoke jumpers and rapellers operating simultaneously when in so close a proximity of each other so as to defeat the FM capture effect and make their radio usage problematic. I would think it VERY strongly likely that the "powers that be" would not allow this and would, if necessary, simply assign a separate tactical frequency from one of the common federal pool to each group. In fact, if the two groups are really operating so close to each other simultaneously so as to make co-channel radio usage an issue then I would assume that they would actually combine their forces and desire a common common communication channel anyway (if they were trained correctly, then they could simply turn off their "PL" and communicate between each other in carrier squelch mode on their main channel - though in today's hugely multi-channel radios I would think it more likely that they would simply be authorized to go to a "new" separate "common channel" in such an unlikely case).

The use of CTCSS ("PL") means each group does not get annoyed and confused by each others traffic - as you are well aware and are pointing out here, however, it does not guarantee no interference between each group. From a practical aspect, though, the FM capture effect and sufficient geographical separation between groups helps here, to some degree and to an effective degree when in simplex low power usage such as this.

There are ALWAYS exceptions to such cases, of course. Life is full of chaotic complexities that cannot be mathematically predetermined and predicted perfectly no matter how much data is available. Yes, absolutely, it would be BETTER to assign smoke jumpers and rappelers separate radio frequencies if possible but the available federal frequency pool and assignments are as they are - be aware that predicting the actions of non-technical politicians and other "lesser" bureaucrats by technically knowledgeable folks tends to give the latter group severe headaches and nausea and, I suspect, unfortunately, though I can't imagine why given the logic we (technical folks) use, that the opposite is also, so sadly, true. To date, we humans have yet to achieve perfection despite the huge amount of data we have yet acquired. Study up on chaos theory, complexity theory, nonlinear differential equations and general life non-deterministic weirdness and you will find that not all is as good ol' Newton and his ilk would have liked. Buuuut...that stuff still works PRETTY good for us as long as we don't take it TOO far!;-)

In any case, yes, in a perfect world, the jumpers and rapellers would have their own completely unique communication channels along with all several billion members of the human race on this planet but, alas, for so many complicated technical, political, psychological, economic, geographic, and lord-knows-what other human frailties and facts of sentient biological life in the current era of our existence, 'tis not to be.

If you (Zerg) are terribly worried consider this - most of the business Part 90 pool operates this way with huge numbers of co-channel users operating in VERY close proximity with each other. Yes, occasionally destructive and notable interference does occur but not to such a degree that it seriously hampers operations MOST of the time. Business use can be argued to be less important to emergency first responders' use, of course but the data is there to observe nonetheless.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
"Mike" - how many people do you think will be killed or maimed because of the shared use of 168.55? "Mike" - can you tell us a little about who you are?
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
Another good question to consider - if there are absolutely no other freqs available such that smoke jumpers and rapellers can be given separate exclusive channels, then is it better to use 2 PLs, 1 PL, or no PLs?
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Another good question to consider - if there are absolutely no other freqs available such that smoke jumpers and rapellers can be given separate exclusive channels, then is it better to use 2 PLs, 1 PL, or no PLs?

You are presenting a hypothetical question. All the official information presented here is limited to the existing frequency assignments only. The safety gram presents the possibility that a separate, exclusive use frequency for rappel operations may needed in the future. If another exclusive, nationwide use frequency is obtained then pls may not be needed. In southern California, however, interference from illegal uses in Mexico may require the use of pl. I would think there would be a pl assigned to each type of operation at that time, or that 110.9 would be used for both, since both air guard and national flight following use that tone. This is all speculation and too soon to tell, if at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top