[Scan-DC] Unit 5 Enroute Rt 301 PG

[Doug Kitchener]

I thought these radios had a capacity of about 8000 (no exaggeration) channels, or talkgroups, or "things"... if that's the case, or even if they (only!) have a capacity of 5000, I can't understand why, at least from a hardware standpoint, that interoperability would be difficult.

Having said that, I'll say what I decided earlier I wasn't gonna say... most of these jursidictions around here can't run themselves, so it's no surprise to me that they can't interface with each other.  :(  There, I said it.

If they all went to Walmart and bought a bunch of FRS radios, they'd have interoperability!

(Ah already ten-four'd ya!)

Sent from my ancient Dell desktop.

----------------------------------------
> From: w4jecom at w4je.com
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:01:46 -0500
> To: russdavies at verizon.net
> CC: fivealarmphotography at gmail.com; scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Unit 5 Enroute Rt 301 PG
>
> I could understand BWI not being able to talk to PG while still at BWI due to distance, but since PG was going to give them portables upon arrival, then the issue was on-scene communications. Even just a simplex channel would have allowed interop. Did they not have even that?
>
> On Dec 6, 2011, at 18:34, Russ Davies <russdavies at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Could it have just initially been an issue of range? I know that PGFD is one of the zones in the Anne Arundel portables, but only in the portables which limits the range. Coming off the BWI property I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been able to get the PG system until they were further south. Just a thought.
> >
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, "Jerry Hoyt " <jerryinva at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am sure there is, maybe not specifically for these two agencies. I did a major report for a counter-terrorism graduate school class at Hopkins which discussed how this was still a problem for the National Capital Region, but that was a few years ago. Lexus-Nexus provided some useful links.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Clegg Andrew W." <aclegg at nsf.gov>
> >> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:54:41
> >> To: <jerryinva at hotmail.com>; <fivealarmphotography at gmail.com>; <knbrooks at wusa9.com>
> >> Cc: <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
> >> Subject: RE: [Scan-DC] Unit 5 Enroute Rt 301 PG
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a link to a published news report regarding the lack of
> >> interoperability between PG and BWI during this incident? I find this
> >> astonishing, more than 30 years after Air Florida. If there is no
> >> published report, this should be forwarded to a news organization for
> >> broader exposure (WUSA9, perhaps??).
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> >> [mailto:scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jerry Hoyt
> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:32 PM
> >> To: Matt Stevens ; knbrooks at wusa9.com
> >> Cc: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> >> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Unit 5 Enroute Rt 301 PG
> >>
> >> Ahhh. The ugly old monster of lack of interoperability rears its ugly
> >> head again.