InterceptRadio.com Forums

Maybe Sean can answer this, but I'm curious why there is no AMB talkgroup for South King, like the one used by Seattle Fire and Norcom.

It would be ideal for the on scene unit to speak directly with the TriMed dispatcher, but even if the on scene fire unit didn't contact the TriMed dispatcher directly, the radio contact from Fire 2 to TriMed would be much quicker than the phone call they make now.

I know for a fact that improving the ease of communication would make coordination between on scene units and the TriMed dispatcher, and thus the incoming AMB, easier.

I can cite some specific incidents where this would have greatly increased safety for the AMB crew and help with scene access and response time.

Curious what the board thinks ... is this just a political thing?

_________________
Rob
N7LXI - Seattle

User and Dispatch policies.

_________________
I generate Board Warnings

I have found that not being able to transmit on somebody else's channels boils down to a lot of politics and bull shit.

Here in the county, it would be much easier for a Sheriff's Deputy to get on scene of a motor vehicle accident, hop over to the fire channel and advise injuries or what not. Currently, the Deputy gets on scene, advises his dispatch what he sees and then dispatch calls fire dispatch on the phone and gives the information. Same thing if any fire guy needs to get ahold of a Deputy. The fire guy contacts fire dispatch who then calls over to the Sheriff's Office and lets that dispatcher know and then that dispatcher gathers the information and calls back to the fire dispatcher. A lot of wasted dialing/ringing time when radio is instantaneous.

That is something that has always bugged me about Yakima County's 911 & Dispatch is a lot of stuff goes on over phones instead of over the radio. Broadcasting over the radio can also be heard by others needing the same information. Broadcasting over the radio is instantaneous and there is no delay in getting the information you need. There is no scanner in County Fire dispatch so they don't monitor the Sheriff's Office channels; so if something goes on in the county, fire dispatch isn't aware of it until someone calls in with the information.

ON THE CONTRARY, I can see in a few situations when a phone is a better alternative. The sheer amount of people talking on a radio channel is one good reason to not allow others to transmit on your channel. If something is happening on your channel and somebody butts in that isn't involved or wastes valuable radio time, that's going to be a problem. The amount of noise in a dispatch center, especially during a large scale incident is another reason to not have unneccessary noise in the background to have to listen too. And of course there is always information that is better talked about over the phone vs. radio.

Of course I'm sure there are other pros and cons for both sides and I hope I havent digressed too much fromt the topic at hand...

_________________
Interoperability is an attitude, not a technology.

+100..

It took an act of god to even get a tac channel programmed in (simplex) that worked on both FD and PD radios (back east)...

_________________
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Before the VHF went away, all of the AMB radios had the Fire channels programmed as receive only, just so we could get an idea of what was going on. It was VERY handy when units were advised to stage due before a scene was secured by County, when the on scene units needed specific equipment or when the on scene units would provide better access information, cancel the incoming AMB or advise that they needed the AMB to upgrade to RED.

Now, we're told to bring a scanner if we want to hear what's going on.

_________________
Rob
N7LXI - Seattle

Hmmmm....

At least for the small cities, eastside fire can and does switch over and talk directly to PD.... but not county sheriff. And such a switch is extremely rare....

I'm not talking about fire talking to the Sheriff, I'm talking about Fire speaking to the responding private ambulance dispatcher directly.

Like, Seattle talkgroup 1968 and Eastside 22288

_________________
Rob
N7LXI - Seattle

Heck, I heard just this last week of a school district having law enforcement channels programmed into their radios so the school district personnel could talk to law enforcement during an incident. What a great concept...not in Yakima County though...

_________________
Interoperability is an attitude, not a technology.

WTF?


I wouldn't want school admin on PD talkgroups..... maybe a tac channel, or rx only..

'Umm... we need some help down here.... we have a kid who's refusing to get on the bus'

'Last unit 10-9?'

'I need the police, @ Robert Smith High School, can we get some help to get this kid on the bus?'





bad, bad idea...

_________________
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Well, your talking about self-dispatching police to a school bus which is a whole different game.

_________________
Mt Wave SAR member
Support Search & Rescue: Get Lost!
http://www.mwave.org

If they have it, they'll use it.....

_________________
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Not sure if there's a need to have an "AMB" TG for Valleycom users, as both Trimed and AMR receive their dispatch notifications via Valleycom. For most Valleycom user agencies, an alphanumeric page is sent out right at dispatch along with the selected fire/ems units.

This speeds up the AMB dispatching time, and allows these transport AMB's to go enroute faster. Their enrout status is confirmed to Valleycome by a phone call from their respective dispatchers. Now other agencies do not have auto dispatching of AMB's at the initial dispatch of a call call. Kent and Souht King Fire and Resce are two such departments. They "order-up" an AMB through Valleycom once they determine they need one, which is either enroute (based on CAD info they're reading via MDC), or when they arrive on-location.

Now the issue of AMB's having the ability to talk directly with fire units is a completely different issue. This is where I would draw the line. Would not want that, nor would I support that in any way. Let's keep in mind what the AMB's are used for: non-critical BLS and/or non-ambulatory patients. Yes there is a case to be made for on-scene coordination for a large-scale incident or whatever, but I've never had ANY problems coordinating multiple AMB's relaying it through Valleycom. The AMB's almost always get the correct information regarding routing, instructions, staging, etc.

Consider that TriMed dispatches by Nextel only. If nextel goes down during an event, all of their ambulances are down too. If the phone system goes down, all of AMRs radios go down too. Not exactly the robust interoperability one would hope for. You think the fire service might be a little too busy to transport during a disaster?

The key here is the almost:



I've responded to a scene where Fire was told to stage and we would have been on scene, NOT staged, had we not "overheard" the information on Fire 2. It can take a while for the info to get from "there to here".

In the instance of Fire talking directly to the Ambulances, I agree. Not needed. Nor would I support it. (Neither would anyone else.)

But, fire units talking directly to to the AMB dispatcher, absolutely needed. All the routine traffic, The AMB requests, best access information, RED upgrade requests, Code Green cancellation requests and ETA requests. All could be handled MUCH more expeditiously by fire talking directly to the AMB dispatcher rather than ValleyCom who calls the AMB dispatcher who nextels the AMB to gets the info who then calls back VC and then VC radios the info the fire unit... whew.

Wouldn't it be easier if it was like this?

"TriMed from Aid 72."
"Aid 72 go ahead"
"Aid 72 needs an AMB to 212 and West Valley. Send them Red."
"OK, Aid 72, Your RED AMB is coming from 188th and Orillia."

Done and done.

I think I've beat this dead horse. :horse:

It'll never happen. But it would make life easier for all involved, and maybe make it safer for the BLS AMB crews responding.

_________________
Rob
N7LXI - Seattle

As Sean said "User and Dispatch Policies". The Seattle - Tacoma - Everett area is a "Metropolitan Area". It ranks as the 15th largest metro area in the United States. 60 % of Washington States population lives within this "metro area". The Seattle Fire Dept. ranks as one of -- if not THE best Fire/EMS agencies in the United States. It has its' policy and procedures as does Valley-Com. LA City Fire Dept uses 18 -- 800 mhz frequencies -- NON-trunked -- for all operations. One channel is used for EMS unit to unit -- operations and command. Indeed -- when you have a need for "inter-communications" -- there should be a channel or talkgroup assigned or available for such a need or use. But each agency needs to set it's own policy & procedures. Every radio within the system should have access to at least one or more "interoperabilty" channel or TG. Using those channels or talkgroups -- on a day to day basis might be the answer.