Interoperable Communications

[barbosa10 7]

Why is our nation’s communications network for emergency responders slow to progress?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Why is our nation’s communications network for emergency responders slow to progress?

Who is going to pay and & the technology does not exist.

[barbosa10 7]

Captain, i agree with you on whose going to pay for, i can see government funding would be a major problem but i find it hard to believe that an advanced country like the US does not have the means to create a separate network system dedicated to first responders.

I am creating a thesis for graduate school and the topic i have chosen is the Ineffectiveness of Communications for Emergency Responders During a National Disaster. Hopefully i can gather enough input from knowledgeable sources to help create a plan to stress the importance of interoperable communications between different agencies.

[Bnechis 3,961]

i find it hard to believe that an advanced country like the US does not have the means to create a separate network system dedicated to first responders.

We have 100's of frequencies...i.e. a network. But you can not expect 1,000 of responders to communicate on the same frequency. Also we have found if you put to many frequencies in the radios that members never use, the members do not remember whats there or worst, they end up on the wrong channel on an every day call, which puts everyone in danger.

I am creating a thesis for graduate school and the topic i have chosen is the Ineffectiveness of Communications for Emergency Responders During a National Disaster. Hopefully i can gather enough input from knowledgeable sources to help create a plan to stress the importance of interoperable communications between different agencies.

After 9-1-1 DHS made a big deal about interoperable communications between different agencies and has since spent 100's of millions in radios. They forgot we already have interoperable communications between different agencies if we just follow unified command as outlined by DHS, it seams the people at DHS missed that lesson.

[wraftery 1,275]

We have 100's of frequencies...i.e. a network. But you can not expect 1,000 of responders to communicate on the same frequency. Also we have found if you put to many frequencies in the radios that members never use, the members do not remember whats there or worst, they end up on the wrong channel on an every day call, which puts everyone in danger.

After 9-1-1 DHS made a big deal about interoperable communications between different agencies and has since spent 100's of millions in radios. They forgot we already have interoperable communications between different agencies if we just follow unified command as outlined by DHS, it seams the people at DHS missed that lesson.

Hurray Barry!

We need two basic things: The ability to talk to someonne when we need to, and the ability NOT to talk to them if we don't need to.

DHS will get to interoperability right after they define "What's a Rescue Unit?" That will take a while the way it's going.

When we do get interoperability, I'm absolutely certain we will have to "Press 1 for English" to get on the net.

Meanwhile, if a resource doesn't have your frequency, leaving a man with a radio at the command post has a pretty decent track record.

PS: A few years ago, our government created the Joint Forces Command because they thought our Armed Forces should be able to talk to eachother. Makes sense, eh? Well, they are closing the Joint Forces Command this year due to budget cuts.

Edited March 21, 2011 by wraftery

[SteveOFD 176]

The Department of Homeland Security has issued the latest version of the National Interoperable Field Operations Guide (version 1.4). This Guide provides information on frequencies that are dedicated (Nationwide) for FCC Part 90 licensees to use. It lists frequencies available for all licensees (VHF-Lo, VHF-High, UHF, 700, 800 & Federal) to use for interoperability.

As Capt Nechis noted, the more frequencies you provide in your radios, the greater the probability that someone will end up on the wrong frequency, or may not know how to operate the radio to get to a frequency they are assigned to use at that event. I have had to explain to my members that we (our FD) have access to three seperate and distinct radio systems, and neither one of them can talk to the others. Even if we only operated on two Systems (i.e. Westchester's UHF Trunked System, & Fireground (simplex) radios) we would still have confusion. I have had members tell me they could not find (trunked system) Fire 12 (talkgroup) on their Fireground (simplex) radio. They told me they could only find "Firegrounds" 1-8, but not Fire 12. Then there is a terminolgy problem (which the above link to the NIFOG version 1.4) attempts to solve. Currently in Westchester County, in the Trunked Radios, there is a conventional (non-trunked) bank of frequencies. There are "Ground Ops" 1-8, which are the exact same frequencies that in our Portables that are commonally referred to as "Firegrounds" 1-8. So one radio is labeled "Ground Ops" and another is labeled "Fireground" and they both can talk to each other. This is what the NIFOG is trying to clarify in regard to labels for common frequencies.

Now, with that stated, everything could still fall apart without discipline, and a strong Incident Command System in place. The more responders responding means that the ICS needs to expand to direct where the resources are to be utilized, and what frequency they will be assigned. Just as within the ICS, a supervisor can effective only supervise a set number of personnel, the same is similar with radio frequencies, only a set number of resources can effectively be assigned to a particular frequency. The more resources utilized the more frequencies will be needed to effectively track these resources, because if all resources try communicating on the same frequency at the same time it just isn't going to happen.