[Scan-DC] Interoperability

[Marcelrf@bellsouth.net]

Eco14@aol.com wrote:

> The idea that everyone can talk on one channel is a nice concept.  It's not
> quite as simple as it sounds.  I can't speak for the nuts and bolts & flipping
> switches part of it but just getting multiple agencies who use different
> terms, different vehicle/officer identification terms, different radio codes, and
> different procedures, would be a nightmare.

Not really PSWAC performed  a study and recommended  on shared systems agencies use
"Plain English" when operating on a common channel. 10 codes, Signals are
discouraged.

>  It would be great if only one
> person in the chase talked at a time.

According to proposed guidelines on the lead vehicle (or aviation unit) on point is
to communicate with the dispatcher.
The supervisor should only intervene on the radio when the chase becomes to
dangerous.


> Anyone who has listed to scanners or who
> works in the public safety field knows it's not uncommon to get stepped on when
> trying to transmit a message.  Compound that with three helicopters,
> supervisors, and the rest of the responding units, and it would be a mess.

Some departments use "Busy Channel Inhibit"  on 800 mhz systems.
(The safety of this is under review)

>
>
> On mutual aid incidents where unit designations are changed to fit the lead
> jurisdiction, it can get confusing.  Montgomery's Engine 11 becomes Engine 901
> when it runs into PG.  Montgomery's Engine 101 becomes Engine 710 when it runs
> into Fairfax.  Add in more units who have not been assigned switch over unit
> designation and it gets worse.
>

I'm sure the CAD tracks it. In NYC we have the same situation E44 becomes "Acting"
E222 and so
on when they "Cover" for other units. It's very common.

>
> Since that concept is not often used, the personnel in the field and at
> communications are not well practiced at in the concept.  Command & control would
> also be overwhelmed by all that chaos on the radio.  Expecting all the units
> from last night's chase to all talk on one channel is unrealistic.  Anytime
> multiple agencies are involved, you can expect them to continue to use multiple
> channels.
>

It depends on the agencies involved. Many departments have a set plan and there is
little confusion.
 MD, D.C. & VA all have new system coming on line or due to and I'm sure the details
have not been worked out
as of yet.

The problems you describe above are all addressed by PSWN.  The problem that is not
addressed by PSWN is politics. Jurisdictions are reluctant to relinquish control in
certain situations.  Many do not employ the recommendations set forth by PSWN and
other Federal agencies who have spent extensive amount of time and money researching
and implementing  the guidelines. many of the issues have been thought threw the
issue remains is how do you disseminate this to the troops.

http://www.pswn.gov/admin/librarydocs6/status01.pdf


--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG