West Metro Fire Channel

[RISC777]

Okay, I heard a new one and am curious...
FD Dispatch said to use TAC 8.
What ID is TAC 8?

I know of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. (Is there also a TAC 6?)

 

[jfab]

I don't have either on my radio and I used RR database to program them in. Dispatch could have made a mistake or it's a new ID they have added that no one knows about!

 

[RISC777]

It was repeated and emphasized three times, so it made me notice it. And, yes, it could be a new TGID, and I didn't have time to do a search at that point to try to identify it.

 

[jfab]

It was repeated and emphasized three times, so it made me notice it. And, yes, it could be a new TGID, and I didn't have time to do a search at that point to try to identify it.

I'll do some research and keep my eyes open!

 

[datainmotion]

Try 06-028

 

[RISC777]

Try 06-028

Makes sense since 7 is 06-027.
So is 06-026 TAC 6 ?

 

[skipshark773]

06-028 and 029 are not valid AFS IDs. try 06-030.

 

[RISC777]

:lol: I love how some IDs get mixed around.

 

[skipshark773]

I just confirmed that 06-030 is TAC-8 for West Metro Fire. Sounds like Red Rocks operations are currently taking place there.

 

[cl]

Question West Metro FD Dispatch
What is with them? Especially at night the dispatch channel sounds like they cut the power down to 1/2. The mobiles come in fine. Anyone and everyone on the FG/TAC channels come in fine. But not the Dispatcher. Is it just me?

Hey, this is from another thread, but I've noticed this personally, and wondered if anyone else has.....

Tks

 

[skipshark773]

I have never personally heard this. Is it just the audio that comes in low? or does reception drop out too?

 

[cl]

From what I've heard here in littleton (kipling/c470) area, the voice is almost inaudible, but you can hear the background hiss..... that's how you know something is happening...

 

[eyes00only]

:lol: I love how some IDs get mixed around.

There are never any tg's ending in 8 or 9 in an EDACS system that I have seen. I'm sure there is a 'digital' reason for this, but I'm too stewpid to understand it :roll: .

Jerry

 

[skipshark773]

From what I've heard here in littleton (kipling/c470) area, the voice is almost inaudible, but you can hear the background hiss..... that's how you know something is happening...

Strange, I have never heard it do that before. Ill give a listen this evening and see if i can duplicate it.

 

[datainmotion]

There are never any tg's ending in 8 or 9 in an EDACS system that I have seen. I'm sure there is a 'digital' reason for this, but I'm too stewpid to understand it :roll: .

Jerry

Could those be possibly reserved for another purpose?

 

[scanlist]

Here's the deal.

Real EDACS radios are programmed in decimal. The binary world revolves around hexadecimal (16) in the trunked radio world. There is a pattern of blocks with EDACS as in 0-15 for Agency, Fleet & Sub-fleet.

For some reason when the BC245XLT was designed by uniden they went with the idea that sub-fleets were in blocks of 8 (0-7) which was the case in early PST 16 EDACS systems at the time as opposed to 16 (0-F) which was the case in the final G.E. version that Denver and practically all existing EDACS based systems use now.

One of the claims in the late 90's was that the 245 and 895 scanners could not display A-F properly so they went with blocks of 8 subfleets for the display. This limitation, if this really was the case back in 1999, is carried on with the current line of scanners for continuity.

If you really take a close look at how Denver has each Police district setup on their system each district has a block of 16 TG's. The Same goes for Aurora PD.

So no there are no hidden, reserved secret squirrel TG's. Just a carryover of early scanner limitations from the first EDACS capable scanners.

Phil.

 

[datainmotion]

So no there are no hidden, reserved secret squirrel TG's.

Phil.

Gosh - been awhile since I've heard "secret squirrel"!