|
Post by Robert Repasky on Jan 2, 2009 15:12:55 GMT -5
I was just wondering why "cars", "units", and some responding officers aren't always acknowledged, but a drunk with a radio was....REPEATEDLY! I'm glad you asked. First of all, "cars" do not exist and should not be used on Fire 1. The County Chiefs Association decided years ago that Car designations would no longer be used and the 911 Center will not acknowledge them. The main reason why a car was first used was if someone was using a Chief's car without the Chief present, they could be contacted in an "emergency" situation only. However, some departments went above and beyond that and started handing out radios, whether it be mobiles or portables and giving a person a car designation since they weren’t an officer. As for not being acknowledged, the policy states that the comm. center will acknowledge the first responding "officer", the responding apparatus, and the first unit on scene. We do not have to acknowledge anyone else, but we will acknowledge the 1,2,3 Chiefs. We do document each responding person that calls in the CFS. As for "Units" on EMS, they do not make up a crew for the ambulance so they don't get acknowledged. I can understand why some departments wants to know if someone is responding so they have an idea who they have coming or if anyone is responding to the station to get a truck, but they should do it on the talk around channel 2. Have you ever listened closely to a box alarm where you have 2 or 3 departments responding and anyone with a radio wants to call in and be heard? It's very frustrating as the IC to get any orders out when they can't get a word in edge wise, or the Comm. Center trying to relay vital information to the Chief and can't get any air time because everyone is on the radio. The bottom line is radios are for emergency use and should be used that way. Just think if you have a firefighter go down and call a "MayDay" but nobody heard it because XX-Car-XX or XX-FP-39 was calling to say they were responding from 15 minutes out.
|
|
|
Post by Medic12 on Jan 2, 2009 18:06:23 GMT -5
I know Bradford County has the MDC 1200 capability, is there a way that you can mandate all Fire Depts and EMS Companies to put identifiers in their radios so you can tell who the douche bag is thats tying up the airwaves?
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Jan 2, 2009 22:54:33 GMT -5
Yikes, you just used the big "M" word! It's my understanding that all departments have already been asked to participate in the MDC system. For whatever reason, only a few departments and EMS services have complied. It's a shame because it would certainly be beneficial in this county... be it safety, accountability, open mics, impersonators, or just immature fire personnel who are skilled in the art of douchebaggery. As for that whole "mandate" thing, it's tough to force anything on anyone in the emergency services. What are you gonna do? Kick the majority of the fire, ems, and police in the county off the radio? Not gonna work. As much as I would love to say I have all the answers, I don't. There is very little anyone can do about many of the radio issues in this county, except for, of course, the chiefs and ems managers/captains policing their own personnel. If everything operated how I wanted it to work? Every single radio would be identified by an MDC code... nobody would be on fire 1 but chiefs, captains, lieutenants, and apparatus (and even then, the captains and lieutenants would have to use their discretion on box alarms)... everyone would talk on the radio one at a time and only speak when they had something intelligent to say... everyone would be respectful... and if anyone broke the rules, they would be disciplined by their chief/manager/captain. Just my $0.02
|
|
|
Post by 2Truck on Jan 3, 2009 9:48:44 GMT -5
It's about time that the Chief officers start controlling the radios in their departments. Who has them, why do they have them, and what are they doing with them? Does Bradford County not own the radio system that is used? If that is the case they are the responsible party that is listed on the FCC documents and therefore have the right to control who can and can not use the frequencies. The last that I knew it was easy for anyone to go and buy a portable or mobile for their own personal use and then have someone do the programing for the counties frequencies. As for the youtube issue, I was very dissapointed that someone would do that to their brothers. It's sad that someone takes a bad situation and broadcasts it to the entire world. I surely hope Chris that you are proud of yourself for doing so. You just showed the lack of respect for the brotherhood that exists in the fire service!
|
|
|
Post by charlie foxtrot on Jan 3, 2009 11:52:31 GMT -5
he showed a lack of respect WHAT!!!! how about the TARD on the radio as there working a fire, Respect i think not, lets not turn the blame on someone else, take it and learn this is the perfect time for Bradford to put the identifiers on the radio, speak up chiefs/comm center make it MANDATORY!!!! just my pennies Capt 58
|
|
|
Post by ambcapt58 on Jan 3, 2009 20:54:38 GMT -5
As for the youtube issue, I was very dissapointed that someone would do that to their brothers. It's sad that someone takes a bad situation and broadcasts it to the entire world. I surely hope Chris that you are proud of yourself for doing so. You just showed the lack of respect for the brotherhood that exists in the fire service! What's the difference, you listen to some of the people on the radio, they clearly have no respect for their department, county or themselves. Several act like that every time they're on the air. I have no respect for people that abuse their privileges as emergency personnel. Maybe the guilty party needs a little shame in the spot light so they can get their head out of their posterior, and slap a little professionalism on when they turn out.
|
|
|
Post by FIREFIGHTER16 on Jan 3, 2009 21:23:54 GMT -5
I have to agree with Capt 58 on making the identifiers mandatory. We as a comm center own the frequencies and need to police them. If I have to go around to every fire dept with a laptop and a programmer, I will. The identifiers were already suppose to be done by the departments, but it wasn't mandated. We need to stop worrying about making people upset because we mandate it.
"These are my thoughts and not the thoughts of my employer or my department."
|
|
|
Post by chief322 on Jan 4, 2009 13:54:40 GMT -5
Thad;
I think that the use of identifier tags is great however how is even this controlled? While CFO @ Monroeton, I placed a portable radio at every riding position on my primary engine as well as squad. This ensured every person donning SCBA had the necessary communication device needed in a dangerous enviorment. How would this have been tagged? From a safety standpoint, I would only, as IC, known that E3 portable would be missing, should PAR be enacted. It would not identify the user, as that could very.
Jamie brings up a very interesting aspect. Mobile and portable communications are readily available for private purchases. Even though I have been out of active firefighting for 3 years or more, I still own and possess two portable radios. Although I do not have a use for them at this time, I will not sell them because I do not believe they should be in just anyone's hands.
I do not condone what happened on New Years Eve, in fact I think that should the culprit be found, he be prosecuted for his actions as it was an interference of an emergency condition. That being said though, and through no fault of the dispatchers, every individual that called in that night on the radio to just say "Happy New Year" was guilty of going against county protocol about using the frequency for non-emergent transmission. I listened to most of them, and there were many of them.
Should those example be reprimanded by their respective CFO's for their involvement that night as well?
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Medic12 on Jan 4, 2009 14:11:59 GMT -5
Not going too in dept with the portable issue, but if you have riding assignments on your truck you could have something such as E-3 Officer, E-3- Nozzle, E-3 Backup, E-3 Hookup, E-3 Layout etc. Also if you have an officer on board most likely they would use their own radio anyways.... The radios can also be programmed with the emergency activation button, which has been very valuable numerous times in "Mayday" situations where the FF was physically unable to speak his distress message...
|
|
|
Post by chief322 on Jan 4, 2009 16:57:10 GMT -5
Sean - you are whole-heartedly correct about adding the "mayday" signal to the portables assigned to riding positions. I did not assign tasks to seats, as my engine or squad company would be given different assignments upon arrival. I left task assignments up to the company officer on the piece. I don't believe that allowing personnel that are part of a formed crew on an emergency scene to have a portable radio being an issue. Mis-use of these devices, as well as mobile radios, as noted on numerous occasions on New Years Eve are.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by FIREFIGHTER16 on Jan 5, 2009 1:50:55 GMT -5
Tim, Sean has the right idea of identifying each radio, but I agree with you, it shouldn't be by assignment. My idea of identifying each radio would be E3-P1, P=Portable of course. This would give the FCO and the county an idea were that radio came from and the FCO would know who is using it.
|
|
|
Post by Medic12 on Jan 5, 2009 23:30:03 GMT -5
Dibble, You caught on to what I said and I didn't even have to draw you a picture. Im so proud pumpkin . You and Tim are both correct, it doesn't have to be the riding assignment (as we all know you don't always have every seat filled) but it would be a start. At least if you activated a Mayday the comm center could notify the IC that there is a distress signal from 7E-3 or 16E-1 and hopefully the IC has a rough idea of where that crew is. I would still definately label the officers radio and then do the 7E3-P1, 7E3-P2 etc
|
|
|
Post by bornagian on Jan 12, 2009 0:43:57 GMT -5
You could mandate radio MDC codes but past experiance has shown that it won't be followed. If the county wants to truely keep only "authorized" units on the system you will need to go to a trunked network. Trunking allows the county to authorize each radio for use on the network and can control what channels they have access to, etc.
Just my 2 cents, its an expensive project but would be worth it in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Jan 12, 2009 14:29:06 GMT -5
Of course they won't follow. The guilty ones either don't know they sound like idiots, or don't want anyone to know they're the ones acting like idiots. Either way, no "mandate" will take their glory away. Your idea with trunking is noble, yet way too expensive for our small-town county. The citizens in the area don't even understand the need for readdressing, or a reliable ladder truck covering an entire section of the county... there's no chance in heck anyone will go for a project as expensive as that just to control a handful of morons who shouldn't be in the emergency services to begin with. The best option has been discussed time and time again with little to no success. Regulate your own personnel. Plain and simple. Get the cars, FP's, and joe-blow FF's off Fire 1. Yank the radios from officers who abuse their radio privileges. Don't sell your personal radios to anyone who shouldn't have one. Simple stuff can go a long way. Even if we got rid of the bad apples, the identifiers are still a great tool for safety and accountability. The departments who have the desire but don't currently have the capability should look into upgrading their radios to MDC capable units anyway, regardless of any issues with radio traffic. I understand that some brands have the ability to program identifiers, just not in the MDC-1200 format. Maybe something can be worked out to make that an option too. Who knows. But at least it's a start.
|
|