Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. #41
    Forum Member 1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    USAF 389th SAC


    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    I clicked on the wrong link and took the test before I read the course.

    Passed of course.

    I glanced through the course, I must have missed the part about 800 mhz radio systems.
    Congrats on PASSING...I knew you would...

    This is a quote from one sect. of the "actual" IS-704 course;
    Communications problems are not limited to systems being destroyed or not functioning. Similar problems arise when agencies cannot exchange needed information because of incompatible systems. NIMS identifies several important features of public safety communication and information systems.
    Communication systems NEED to be:
    Interoperable—able to communicate within and across agencies and jurisdictions.
    Reliable—able to function in the context of any kind of emergency.
    • Scalable—suitable for use on a small or large scale as the needs of the incident dictate.
    Portable—built on standardized radio technologies, protocols, and frequencies.
    Resilient—able to perform despite damaged or lost infrastructure.
    • Redundant—able to use alternate communication methods when primary systems go out.
    I did not see anything "specific" on 800 MHz either, however...being REDUNDANT and RESILIENT come to mind. If the infrastructure is damaged or lost...i.e., towers, antennas, alt. power supply's [generators], etc., a comm. PORTABLE system on STANDARD frequencies is essential.

    This is where and why DHS is putting [ARES] Amateur Radio Emergency Service into play, VHF/UHF...[standardized frequencies] across the nation.

    Interoperable also comes into play...especially when mutual-aid arrives [often from a large city several miles distant with several units], with archaic VHF/UHF, non-trunked radios...to an area with the latest 800 MHz system.

    I don't think it is possible or practical today since many have chosen to have their OWN SYSTEMS in place for whatever reasons...to have "ideal" communications at any major incident, but this is what NIMS/DHS/FEMA are wishing/hoping/striving for.
    Last edited by 1OLDTIMER; 08-20-2009 at 05:38 PM.

  2. #42
    Forum Member 1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    USAF 389th SAC

    Exclamation Fire Companies Turn off "NEW" Radios

    Aug. 20--Firefighters from three southwestern York County fire departments will stop using the county's new $36 million radio network at fire scenes because of reliability concerns, will instead rely on radios tied into the county's old analog network.


    Excellent SAFETY decision by; Hanover Fire Commissioner James Roth and Chief Troy Snyder.

    So much for progress...which is only an illusion.

  3. #43
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Pt. Beach, NJ


    From the latest article...

    "One option for firefighters to remedy the problem at incidents is to change settings so that they don't have to rely on the new network towers to transmit signals, Bistline has said. The signal would instead transmit directly from one portable radio to another.

    Roth said that might be one solution, but the process at the moment is too cumbersome. The radios need to be reprogrammed to make the switch easier."

    I'm confused as to how this process could be too cumbersome. My portables all have both repeater (not 800 trunks) and simplex channels. Reach down, switch the channel, and you easily go from repeater to simplex and back. How is that too cumbersome?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wichita FF's getting "heat" from "Tonight Show" stunt
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-31-2008, 10:54 AM
  2. Define "Attacking a fire" opposed to a "defensive"
    By WannabeFDNY in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 12:58 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-11-2003, 07:06 AM
  4. "Boy, this ****es me off!!", "This is SICK!!", "Prejudice/HATE are BAD
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-07-2003, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts