OPINIONS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY
Communications for the Toledo (OH) Fire and Rescue De-partment have been part of my responsibilities for more than four years. We currently operate on an 800 MHz trunked radio system. The system provides services for police, fire, and several other city departments. Our system is currently an analog system. We have no plans to look into a digital system at this time. In light of other larger departments’ concerns with digital, I would like to let others work out the bugs before we take the next step in communications.
My involvement in communications is overseeing a captain and seven other officers, one instructor, and 18 civilian dispatchers. I also supervise Radio Service, which repairs the infrastructure of the system and installs and repairs the city’s radios, both mobile and portable. What I know about “Why, when an officer pushes his ‘push to talk’ button, someone in dispatch hears it, and vice versa” you could fit in my fire helmet. That’s my captain in Communications and radio service supervisors’ problem and the reason I rely on them so much.
I do know that part of the controversy over “digital vs. analog” deals with a major city’s experience with the new “bells and whistles” digital radio system. Unlike analog radios that have their share of “dead spots”-especially inside buildings, older analog systems sort of “fade away” when reception begins to weaken-digital either works or it doesn’t. It may be a bit better inside buildings, but you lose the more “staticky” transmissions that seem to fade away but still can be understood. It works, then it doesn’t! There have been several close calls where the incident commander and others on the scene couldn’t hear transmissions of crews inside the fire building.
There should be some “rules” on the fireground. One rule should be that we have radios that work-all the time! We can send people to the moon, but low bid gets us radios that work “sometimes.”
-John (Skip) Coleman, deputy chief of training and EMS, Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue; author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997) and Managing Major Fires (Fire Engineering, 2001); editorial advisory board member of Fire Engineering; and member of the FDIC Educational Committee.
Question: What type of radio system do you have, and are you experiencing any problems with it?
Frank C. Schaper, chief, St. Charles (MO) Fire Department
Response: If there is any one thing that needs to be fixed in the emergency business, it is radio communications. It seems no matter what type of system you use, there are shortcomings. Whether it is an 800 MHz system, a 154.00 VHF, or anything else, all radio systems have problems.
One of the major problems is that modern systems are too complex. Just understanding radios is difficult enough. Today most systems are computer-driven. Add computers to the mix, and we have real problems.
There are answers. Money is one answer. But before you spend millions on a radio/ computer system, you had better have a knowledgeable person in the dispatch office who understands both computers and radios.
Hopefully, these issues can be brought to the attention of the federal government. Grant money is needed for newer and better systems that really work. Communications are critical. Most things begin at the 911 Center.
Steve Kreis, assistant chief, Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department
Response: We currently use an analog radio system primarily on VHF frequencies but are working with Motorola on design and installation of an 800 MHz digital trunked system. Because our frequencies are not repeated, we have not experienced the same type of radio problems as many jurisdictions that have the newer digital trunked radio systems.
Our new system will be specifically designed to provide “in-building” coverage throughout the service area. The system will be extensively tested to ensure that the required coverage exists before any fire department units begin using the system. Any structures not having “in-building” coverage will have the necessary equipment installed to ensure the required coverage.
The system is being designed to provide a car-to-car “guard channel” that bypasses the trunking system when firefighters are unable to communicate using the trunking system. The “guard channel” will allow firefighters who are reasonably close to each other to communicate directly with each other. The channel would be located in the first and last positions of the radio dials in every radio “deck” to allow a firefighter in trouble to just spin the dial in any direction, until it stops, to get to the “guard channel” that the incident commander and command team will be monitoring. This capability should eliminate the chance that personnel will not be able to communicate because they can’t reach the trunking system.
The new digital trunked radio systems have some features that should make communications on the fireground more efficient and lead to safer operations. Anytime technology changes, there will be successful systems and those that require a little extra work. We in the fire service must learn from each other and be diligent about understanding the capabilities of new technologies.
Joseph Floyd, assistant chief, Columbia (SC) Fire Department
Response: There is no doubt that all radio systems have problems. Most manufacturers state that 95 percent coverage by radios is “sufficient” coverage for radio systems, but we who have to deal in severe emergency situations believe that 100 percent coverage by portables is needed for safety.
Our department, although toning out equipment by digital means, basically operates on an analog 450 MHz system. We have “dead zones” on the existing system and have been concerned about the coverage we have as the department grows. The City of Columbia is in the midst of designing an 800 MHz system to replace the existing system and, hopefully, we should get better coverage.
During the design stage, we told the consultants that we feel that the 95 percent rule is totally inadequate for our operations. We have questioned the use of building-installed systems to enhance communications and eliminate any chance of lost communications during operations. We are researching all possible solutions to this problem before the system is designed.
Bob Oliphant, lieutenant, Kalamazoo (MI) Department of Public Safety
Response: I sought the input of some radio engineers with regard to “dead spots.” Their response was that “dead spots” were more a matter of how the system was engineered and had little to do with whether it was analog or digital. They did seem to believe that “dead spots” were less of a problem with a digital system, but without knowing more about specific systems, it would be difficult to analyze their problems. The engineers agreed that digital systems were the future.
We currently have an 800 analog system with trunking that has served us well. It is approximately eight years old and is a big improvement over the old 150 system. It gives us the ability to have multiple channels, which is a big help. We occasionally experience “dead spots” but not to the same degree as we did with the old system. Departments around us have gone to digital or will be going to digital in the near future. I don’t know when we will, but I think it is inevitable that the technology will force us to change.
Leigh Hollins, battalion chief, Cedar Hammock Fire Rescue, Manatee County, Florida
Response: Cedar Hammock Fire Rescue uses an 800 MHz analog trunked system, as do most county and emergency agencies in Manatee County. All of our 911, station notification, and dispatch services are provided by the Manatee County Department of Public Safety through the Emergency Communications Center (ECC).
We have a committee that works with the county on issues relating to communications. The present system has been in place approximately 13 years and has served us well. There has been talk over the past couple of years about changing to an upgraded digital system, although the final decision has not yet been made.
We have not experienced communications problems like those experienced when some larger departments placed their new radios in service. However, we are aware of areas in our district that are communication “dead spots,” and we have identified buildings in our district inside which our portable radios do not perform well.
We have addressed these two issues in a couple of ways, with limited success. One way is to switch over to the conventional simplex mode of communications (radio to radio) when a problem arises. The downside of this potential solution is that changing over a radio to the simplex mode is not as easy as it may sound. For apparatus operating at a scene, either all operators need to know how to do so (what knobs to turn or buttons to push) or a person familiar with the various mobile radios needs to “make the rounds” and change all apparatus radios to simplex mode. For portable radios, the same would apply except that for interior crews, it would be extremely difficult to do so in darkness and with gloves on. In addition, if we go to the simplex mode, ECC cannot hear us and vice versa-not a good situation by any standard.
Another way to help with “dead spot” or “dead building” communications is to purchase a “com-link” to allow communication between two different systems-such as linking 800 MHz and VHF systems or the analog and simplex modes together or the analog and digital modes (Sarasota County personnel, to our south, use 800 MHz digital, requiring us to communicate with them on mutual-aid incidents). Such com-links must be custom engineered, and we have not had very much success with them.
As with most other fire departments in the country, we have communications issues that we are not always able to solve. We do our best to stay up with current technology and realize that sometimes alternatives may be the only way to overcome these issues. One such alternative is to identify the problem areas and buildings and deal with them from several strategic angles so that even if radio communications are lost, we would still have emergency communications in place, not necessarily “radio” communications though.
Providing SCBAs with integrated PASS devices, verifying that everyone entering the building has their PASS devices turned on, assigning an officer at the entry door to “listen” for trouble and “shout” instructions, having an independent (nonradio) “evacuate” signal identified, having personnel trained to “think” outside the box in case they lose radio communications-these are all ways we can communicate.
We all know that when fire incidents do not go well, or when a brother is hurt or lost inside a fire, communications are almost always at the top of the list of problems brought up at a critique or investigation. Therefore, approach the issue of communications failure with the attitude, “This happened; now what are we going to do to make sure it doesn’t happen to us again?”
Mike Nolen, assistant chief, Lewisville (TX) Fire Department
Response: Communications on the fireground have always been extremely important for fireground efficiency and safety. Unfortunately, we see the results of poor communications all too often in firefighter injury and fatality reports, with firefighters sustaining serious injuries or paying the ultimate price-a line-of-duty death. These reports also reveal to us that we have not understood the mistakes of others because the results of poor communications keep repeating themselves: had a missing lapel microphone, had the portable radio on the wrong channel, did not know how to change radio channels, did not have a portable radio, and so on.
The Lewisville Fire Department installed a Motorola 800 trunked radio system in 1984, and we have experienced a fair amount of success with it. We have six fire stations and 20 pieces of equipment. Each apparatus has a mobile radio with a communication system. Our on-duty officers and drivers have a portable radio assigned to their position and, after October 1, 2001, each on-duty firefighter will have an assigned radio. As with any radio system, we have some challenges that have been apparent since we installed the system. A few buildings in our city have “dead spots” that make radio communications difficult at times. However, we experienced the same problems with the “old” high band system. Occasionally, we will have some radio feedback because personnel are standing too close to each other during transmission. We try to emphasize good, solid radio discipline to overcome this situation. Since our system has a repeater, one transmission can be covered by another transmission, or you may hear a “busy” signal when radio traffic is heavy. Again, these situations are rare and, over time, we have adjusted accordingly.
We will update our communication system from analog to digital after January 2002, and we are told that the voice communication will be clearer.
The greatest advantage with the 800 radio system is the ability to talk to our neighbors. The radio talk groups for the vast majority of departments we work with can be found in all our portable and mobile radios. Mutual-aid events run so much more smoothly than when face to face was the only way we could communicate.
Radio communications are vital to our ability to serve our communities and provide a safe environment for our firefighters. The 800 radio system has its advantages and disadvantages like any technological device.
Richard G. Sterne, battalion chief, District of Columbia Fire Department
Response: The District of Columbia Fire Department has switched its radio communications over to an 800 MHz digital trunked system. As chief of the 6th Battalion in the downtown area, I have found that these new radios are my worst nightmare come true. Before the new radios were issued, we were told how much they would expand our communications capabilities and enhance incident command by allowing multiple channel operations on major incidents. We would gain the ability to communicate with suburban fire departments and other emergency agencies; and there were hospital, mutual aid, and even national frequencies among the hundred or so available with 16 channels in each of umpteen different “zones.” Safety of members operating on the fireground or potentially hostile medical locales would be enhanced by the emergency button feature, which would let the dispatcher automatically know which member was signaling in distress.
What we got was not what was prom-ised. Members operating in large buildings routinely get “honked out” of the system (this refers to the honking sound made by the radio when you are “out of range” of the digital signal); in other words, this high-tech system doesn’t work where you are. As time went on, we have had the system frequently not work in the basement of two-story rowhouses, not to mention the fifth underground parking level. Units on the fireground downtown have been honked out when they entered the alley behind large buildings to cover a rear position. I have been honked out on the mobile radio in the chief’s vehicle sitting in the middle of a six-lane street! Often, when the radios are in a borderline reception area, they “think” they are in range but what comes out of the speaker is unintelligible gibberish. When this is happening, the radio does not “honk,” so the poor guy inside talking is under the mistaken impression that he is actually communicating.
I am not a radio technician, so I don’t really know the reasons for these things happen-ing. We’ve heard that there are not enough repeater/transmitter sites in the city and if there were it would work. Who knows? At a million-plus a pop, let’s get ’em by the dozen! The bottom line is that when all these bad things happen to make the system not work, we are forced to switch to the only ONE analog talk-around channel for any hope of communicating with each other short of runners or speaking trumpets. This creates a whole different set of problems.
Units are assigned an operating or tactical channel when dispatched to an alarm; mobile and portable radios are switched to the assigned channel while responding. The companies get on the scene; enter the building; and, after a bit, they get honked out. Some members promptly switch their portables to the analog talk-around channel; others ignore the honk and stay on the assigned channel; inevitably some switch to the wrong channel. It really is hard to turn those little knobs just right when you’re wearing big, thick, NFPA-compliant gloves and can’t see in all that nasty smoke! The roof team and wagon drivers don’t get honked, so they stay on the assigned channel like they were told. Now the chief sitting outside in his vehicle doesn’t know if the companies inside aren’t giving reports or just don’t like him anymore. The only way we have found to get around this is for the chief to carry an extra portable and monitor analog talk-around as well as the assigned digital tactical channel, not to mention another channel for talking to the dispatcher. With all these channels to cover, the aide has to help so he can’t leave the vehicle to go do his duties, such as recon the building and report on fire conditions, extension, and so on. He has gone from aide to communications assistant!
And, at the most hazardous locations, such as high-rises and basements, when we switch to analog, the highly touted emergency button no longer functions!
I advise any chief considering a system like this to be very, very critical in making his decision. We all thought our old four-channel 154 MHz radios were inadequate, but I think we’d be happy to take them back now.
Ron Hiraki, assistant chief of employee development, Seattle (WA) Fire Department
Response: Following the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, the City of Seattle recognized the need for a new radio system for public service agencies. City leaders joined forces with county leaders and asked voters to approve funding for a new countywide 800 MHz radio system. The funding was approved, and during the next few years the new radio system was designed. The technology of the 800 MHz radio system was still new. There were only a few areas in the United States that had working 800 MHz radio systems. The City of Seattle proceeded with development, installation, and testing. The Seattle Fire Department was scheduled to be the first major department to use the new radio system.
In 1994, the Seattle Fire Department transitioned from a 450 MHz duplex/simplex radio system to the new 800 MHz trunked radio system. Initially, there were many problems with “dead spots,” particularly in basements, in the “high-rise canyons” of downtown Seattle, and in the middle of the street on the “wrong” side of a hill or low spot in the city. This created many operational challenges as well as serious concerns for firefighter safety.
We identified changes needed to improve the 800 MHz radio system. However, labeling the new radio system as “worse” than the old system was common, since the new radios and the new radio system constantly communicated with a central controller and made a “bonking” tone when the radio was not able to send or receive a signal. Did the new system have problems, or were the new radios “bonking” and telling us about “dead spots” that we did not know about before? The answer to both questions was yes.
Fortunately, the original design of our 800 MHz radio system included some simplex radio channels. While radio engineers worked on a permanent solution to the problem, incident commanders were issued and instructed to use two radios. They kept one on the designated 800 MHz radio channel and the other on the designated simplex channel. If firefighters got into an area where they could not communicate on the 800 MHz radio system, they would communicate with the incident commander on the simplex channel. The IC would then have to relay messages to the Fire Alarm Center.
The permanent solution was to add more antenna sites to the 800 MHz radio system. When the Seattle Fire Department went on line in 1994, there were four primary antenna sites. Several more sites were added immediately to correct the problem. Since that time, the radio system has grown to include nearly 20 antenna sites countywide. Additionally, several smaller antennas were added in key problem areas such as the “high-rise canyons” and in large hospital complexes.
This has improved the radio reception and transmission throughout the city. ICs still carry and use two radios. However, the system has improved and the need to use the simplex channels has been greatly reduced.
Our radio system is an analog system. We had opted for a digital system back in 1994. We tested some digital equipment at the time and noticed a one- or two-second delay between an IC’s transmission and what came out of the speakers of other radios on the fireground (e.g., other portable radios, speakers in apparatus cabs, and pump panels). This delay was very irritating, and the group felt that it would further complicate communications on the fireground. Therefore, Seattle chose the analog system. We do have a couple of digital channels on our system for confidential communications.
