Radio Communication in Westchester

[dwcfireman 656]

As I mentioned in another thread, why is the radio communication system in Westchester County is over-complex? I understand that there are a lot of cities and jurisdictions that want things to work the way they want, but it seems to me that everything here is a bit overboard when it comes to the radio/dispatch systems.

The first big thing I'd like to focus on is the need for TWO SEPARATE RADIO SYSTEMS. Why? We get dispatched low band, respond and talk from car to car via trunk, and operate on fire ground low band channels. Can we not find a way to use the trunk system to dispatch? Can we not use the ground ops channels instead of FG1 through 8?

And why do so many departments choose not to be dispatched by 60 Control? Wouldn't a consolidated e911 system work for us?

The way I see it is that the trunk system has all of the technology to do what we need it to do, which is COMMUNICATE (albeit I don't know if you can be dispatched on it....refer to the question above). I just find it ridiculous that the radio communication system for Westchester County is incredibly complex. I'd really love some good answers on this, because this has been boggling my mind for almost seven years now.

Edited January 4, 2015 by dwcfireman

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) And why do so many departments choose not to be dispatched by 60 Control? Wouldn't a consolidated e911 system work for us?

2) The way I see it is that the trunk system has all of the technology to do what we need it to do, which is COMMUNICATE (albeit I don't know if you can be dispatched on it....refer to the question above). I just find it ridiculous that the radio communication system for Westchester County is incredibly complex. I'd really love some good answers on this, because this has been boggling my mind for almost seven years now.

1) Yes it would, but a consolidated system needs to include all e911 not just fire/ems. If the cops are not on board, then this will never work properly. And the cops are the ones who set up the e911 system to protect their little fiefdoms.

2) Before we set up our radio system, we met with the county to discus the "proposed" trunk system. We were told the trunk system as designed would a) not cover 100% of our district and unless additional tower licenses were obtained, it would never work properly in the southern part of the county and It was not designed for the day to day use that our department needs of its radio system. So we built our own and for our purpose, ours is vastly superior.

[PEMO3 523]

The problem boils down to one simple issue: my toys, my sandbox. While the trunk concept is great issues such as end user cost for equipment and county restrictions as to who gets access and who doesn't makes it difficult (important to avoid system overload). Alot of agencies opt for their own frequencies because then they uultimately have control. Again, my toys, my sandbox. Occasionally I had actually wondered if the system would have been better served had it not gone trunked but if each battalion was issued a UHF pair if that would have worked better. I also don't knowif the trunking system could do department pagingand if it could with the cost of individual receivers for each member be out of reach of most department budgets.

[v85 212]

I will play devil's advocate here and wonder why no one seems to want to acknowledge the downsides of consolidation.

Here are some that I know of, all of these coming from real life experiences with the centralized dispatch point in our county.

1. Lack of accountability. With the local dispatch centers there is better accountability in that if a dispatcher makes a mistake, the fire or EMS chief can go to the police chief and have the tapes pulled and appropriate corrective action taken. With the centralized center, any complaints that are submitted get dropped into the memory hole and you hear the same dispatchers making the same mistakes over and over again.

2. Lack of accountability (part 2). Local dispatchers follow local protocols designed by the agencies they service. Centralized dispatch follows their own protocols. Don't like it? tough, deal with it.

3. Loss of local knowldege: Even with all of the computerized maps and reference sources, there are some situations that you can't beat local knowledge

4. Competition for air time. With budgets being the way they are, this is a very real concern as you could end up with too few dispatchers listening to too many channels. Also could happen because of poorly designed radio systems trying to put too many departments on too few frequencies or talk-groups.

Now, I am not against consoldiation per say. But it needs to be done correctly, and after careful study to see if it is really the best option

[Dinosaur 844]

I will play devil's advocate here and wonder why no one seems to want to acknowledge the downsides of consolidation.

Here are some that I know of, all of these coming from real life experiences with the centralized dispatch point in our county.

1. Lack of accountability. With the local dispatch centers there is better accountability in that if a dispatcher makes a mistake, the fire or EMS chief can go to the police chief and have the tapes pulled and appropriate corrective action taken. With the centralized center, any complaints that are submitted get dropped into the memory hole and you hear the same dispatchers making the same mistakes over and over again.

2. Lack of accountability (part 2). Local dispatchers follow local protocols designed by the agencies they service. Centralized dispatch follows their own protocols. Don't like it? tough, deal with it.

3. Loss of local knowldege: Even with all of the computerized maps and reference sources, there are some situations that you can't beat local knowledge

4. Competition for air time. With budgets being the way they are, this is a very real concern as you could end up with too few dispatchers listening to too many channels. Also could happen because of poorly designed radio systems trying to put too many departments on too few frequencies or talk-groups.

Now, I am not against consoldiation per say. But it needs to be done correctly, and after careful study to see if it is really the best option

I don't know your county and can not speak to your personal experiences but generally speaking your arguments against a regional 911 system are flawed. The State of Rhode Island uses a statewide 911 center and as you get further away from the northeast more and more people approach things at the regional level. Not just dispatch but everything, hmmmm. Wonder if they're on to something.

1. Accountability at the local level is a joke. I have heard incompetent local dispatchers and they worked for decades because there was zero accountability.

2. Protocols get established by the dispatch center and the agency. There isn't a take it or leave it line in the sand. Although some completely unrealistic expectations may not be met.

3. If local dispatchers were moved to a regional 911 center they would still have the local knowledge. It isn't like Yonkers would suddenly be dispatching Albany or vice versa.

4. If the system is built properly this doesn't happen. Westchester's trunked system wasn't built properly. It was never really designed for emergency services and because NYC also uses some of the frequencies, the county had to limit where some frequencies are used and their power or some nonsense like that.

Westchester's demographics are ripe for all kinds of consolidation. Nobody has the balls to do it though. But sticking to the communications issue, there are so many radio frequencies in the county that they could probably build a state of the art system using combinations of VHF and UHF with repeaters and all that other geek stuff that would be truly impressive. Of course nobody wants to do that.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't know your county and can not speak to your personal experiences but generally speaking your arguments against a regional 911 system are flawed.

1. Accountability at the local level is a joke. I have heard incompetent local dispatchers and they worked for decades because there was zero accountability.

2. Protocols get established by the dispatch center and the agency. There isn't a take it or leave it line in the sand. Although some completely unrealistic expectations may not be met.

3. If local dispatchers were moved to a regional 911 center they would still have the local knowledge. It isn't like Yonkers would suddenly be dispatching Albany or vice versa.

1) Yes it may or may not be a joke on the local level, but we have no say in the accountability in another agency

2) You clearly do not know our county. Their absolutely is a take it or leave it on many issues. Many are locked in because of the programing of CAD, which can not always be modified to deal with the needs of local agencies.

3) Local dispatchers for the most part can not legally be moved because of the civil service system. When we moved to the county only 1 of our retiring dispatchers went to work for the county and that helped till he retired.

One problem with relying on maps is pronunciation of street names. Many of our streets were named after the family farms that were there in the 1700-1800's and most were French Huguenot names. They get butchered regularly, even with primary dispatchers assigned to us. This is not a slight on the dispatchers, but when you go from 100's of streets to 10,000's you can not expect them to know it.

[dwcfireman 656]

2) Before we set up our radio system, we met with the county to discus the "proposed" trunk system. We were told the trunk system as designed would a) not cover 100% of our district and unless additional tower licenses were obtained, it would never work properly in the southern part of the county and It was not designed for the day to day use that our department needs of its radio system. So we built our own and for our purpose, ours is vastly superior.

So far this is the answer I like, and it seems to make sense. It now baffles me that the county would purchase a radio system that they KNEW wouldn't work throughout the entire county....then again, it would make entirely too much sense to purchase a system that covers the entire county .

Another question I have is what ever happened to switching the low band to high band? Or am I thinking of another county that was trying to do that? I recall vaguely that Westchester was trying to convert to high band radios, by my memory of this is vague.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) So far this is the answer I like, and it seems to make sense. It now baffles me that the county would purchase a radio system that they KNEW wouldn't work throughout the entire county....then again, it would make entirely too much sense to purchase a system that covers the entire county .

2) Another question I have is what ever happened to switching the low band to high band? Or am I thinking of another county that was trying to do that? I recall vaguely that Westchester was trying to convert to high band radios, by my memory of this is vague.

1) Westchester is the hardest location in the USA to get FCC Licenses, Their are more licenses in NYC than anywhere else and we can not interfere with that. We also have to deal with Long Island and NJ. So within a 15 mile radius at the southern end of the county you have 100's of radio systems. And you must remember its not just emergency services.

When they were developing it, they were trying to cover the best they could with the limited availability of frequencies.

2) I do not think that was Westchester

[SECTMB 612]

This subject is being discussed in January 2015. I'll check in again in January 2020. I'll bet not much will have changed.

[Bnechis 3,961]

This subject is being discussed in January 2015. I'll check in again in January 2020. I'll bet not much will have changed.

I thought the feds will force us all to change by then

[x635 4,066]

Great topic, dwcfireman.

In regards to radio equipment.....

As technology develops, I don't see why radio systems are getting more complicated to operate. You should be able to simply select a channel, and talk to who you need to. The radio should do the rest of the work. It should be over simplified, if anything. Not everyone is a radio buff, and not everyone wants to have to think through a complicated mess of instructions every time they need to use a radio.

With interoperability, that's supposed to make things simpler, but it complicates things even more, often requiring a whole separate set of radio equipment in addition to the ones departments already have

I personally feel that the County should have set one standard goal for spec'ing and purchasing radio equipment for everyone 20 years ago Every one would have been on the same page by now. Problem is, every municipality has to set up there own radio system in their own separate way and has invested thousands into it. There are other counties in NY that have one radio system spec for the entire county. Westchester County needs a polarizing radio technology to consolidate the radio system in a way that works for everyone. It is possible, and will take a lot of time, the County would have to do a lot of work to prove themselves that radio system and related equipment would work.

I do acknowledge that a large part of the problem is frequency availability and licensing, and in that regard the FCC and the Federal Government really needs to update the laws to meet current day technologies.

[PC_420 28]

.... You could have to work off Putnam's system.... So feel lucky

[trauma74 111]

Westchester could easily model their radio system like the one in Rockland County. I dispatch on the Rockland system and have not found any issues with it.

[Remember585 815]

Westchester could easily model their radio system like the one in Rockland County. I dispatch on the Rockland system and have not found any issues with it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't there been one or two instances where your new dispatch system failed, and departments had to man their stations and dispatch themselves? (I am hearing this third party so it may be inaccurate).

[res6cue 67]

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't there been one or two instances where your new dispatch system failed, and departments had to man their stations and dispatch themselves? (I am hearing this third party so it may be inaccurate).

At around 1730 hrs on July 2nd, 2014, there was a hardware failure with the simulcast controller for UHF fire paging on 470.800. The failure was caused by a lightening strike in the rear parking lot at 44-Control, which caused damage to the port on the controller that gets the audio from the consoles in the radio room. For just under two hours, there was no dispatch audio coming out over 470.800, however the tones and dispatch audio were still broadcasting fine over 46.18. Most departments still had low band pagers issued out, with some UHF pagers already in the mix. Yes, departments were advised to muster manpower to standby at the firehouses so they could minimize the impact of those who had UHF pagers missing calls during those two hours. The failure did not result in a doomsday scenario, as all departments were able to monitor dispatch over 46.18 with the low band equipment that was still in place.

Within a few weeks of the failure, a more robust backup UHF paging solution was aggressively implemented. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a failure like this to smack some sense into those controlling the purse strings.

Note that none of this had anything to do with the 700 MHz trunked system, which continued to operate at 100% capacity during the UHF paging failure.

[dwcfireman 656]

I personally feel that the County should have set one standard goal for spec'ing and purchasing radio equipment for everyone 20 years ago Every one would have been on the same page by now. Problem is, every municipality has to set up there own radio system in their own separate way and has invested thousands into it. There are other counties in NY that have one radio system spec for the entire county. Westchester County needs a polarizing radio technology to consolidate the radio system in a way that works for everyone. It is possible, and will take a lot of time, the County would have to do a lot of work to prove themselves that radio system and related equipment would work.

I grew up on the single radio theory that is used by Monroe and Livingston Counties (where I started my fire career), as well as the many more counties throughout the state do. Westchester's radio system threw me a new kind of wrench that I had never seen before, and it started to become frustrating when someone convinced me to start riding in the front seat again (different topic for another time haha).

I can still recite all 10 channels on my Monroe portable, and Livingston County only had/has 4 fire channels (1,2,3, and 46.16). Albeit, Livingston County is mostly rural, and Monroe County is much less populated and diverse as Westchester is, but it always seems like there should be a better option to use down here. As a former lieutenant in both a Monroe County agency and a Westchester agency, I can concede to the fact that I HATE carrying TWO radio (that's with the Westchester agency, for those who aren't following). Don't get me wrong, I got used to it, but I prefer having one radio blaring in my ear instead of more.

[Morningjoe 162]

What Westchester needs, is

A) A lot more dispatchers period

a Dispatcher assigned to each incident

C) a radio system where each incident is assigned a specific Tac or Ops channel i.e."60-Control to Smithville, 123 Main Street, Structure Fire, Utilize Tac 2 for fireground, Tac 3 for Tanker Ops"

D) a radio system where the dispatchers can hear the actual fire ground communications, for safety and logistical purposes

E) a radio system that doesn't have dead spots throughout the county, or dead spots 5' inside of a building

F) a radio system that everyone uses.... Fire, Police, EMS.

[Dinosaur 844]

What Westchester needs, is

A) A lot more dispatchers period

a Dispatcher assigned to each incident

C) a radio system where each incident is assigned a specific Tac or Ops channel i.e."60-Control to Smithville, 123 Main Street, Structure Fire, Utilize Tac 2 for fireground, Tac 3 for Tanker Ops"

D) a radio system where the dispatchers can hear the actual fire ground communications, for safety and logistical purposes

E) a radio system that doesn't have dead spots throughout the county, or dead spots 5' inside of a building

F) a radio system that everyone uses.... Fire, Police, EMS.

G) A lot fewer chiefs and a lot more Indians.

H) Fewer departments based on logic, study, response times, resources, and capabilities.

I) Less politics in the process.

Now I'm going to go buy my winning PowerBall ticket... LOL

[Spartan052 43]

What Westchester needs, is

A) A lot more dispatchers period

a Dispatcher assigned to each incident

C) a radio system where each incident is assigned a specific Tac or Ops channel i.e."60-Control to Smithville, 123 Main Street, Structure Fire, Utilize Tac 2 for fireground, Tac 3 for Tanker Ops"

D) a radio system where the dispatchers can hear the actual fire ground communications, for safety and logistical purposes

E) a radio system that doesn't have dead spots throughout the county, or dead spots 5' inside of a building

F) a radio system that everyone uses.... Fire, Police, EMS.

well it just so has it that onondaga county operates like this and it works fairly well

[Bnechis 3,961]

well it just so has it that onondaga county operates like this and it works fairly well

And they have less than 1/2 of the population of Westchester. (500,415 less)

Housing Units: 169,000 more housing units in Westchester

Land area is 340sq miles more in Onondaga (trees not people)

Persons per sq miles: almost 4x more density in Westchester.

This all means their system might not work so well here

[Bnechis 3,961]

What Westchester needs, is

F) a radio system that everyone uses.... Fire, Police, EMS.

Why do we need police & fire on the same radio?

Its bad enough now, 3 the volume of activity on the radio and find that running a plate is more important than person trapped

[Spartan052 43]

And they have less than 1/2 of the population of Westchester. (500,415 less)

Housing Units: 169,000 more housing units in Westchester

Land area is 340sq miles more in Onondaga (trees not people)

Persons per sq miles: almost 4x more density in Westchester.

This all means their system might not work so well here

this may be true, do we know what type of system PG county in maryland uses

[velcroMedic1987 330]

Why do we need police & fire on the same radio?

Its bad enough now, 3 the volume of activity on the radio and find that running a plate is more important than person trapped

We don't need police and fire on the same frequency but if they were on the same system we would all be able to communicate when operating at the same incident. This is preferable to having two, three or even more different radios in your vehicle or weighing you down as portable radios.

Pinellas County, FL had a system back in the 90's when I worked there. It was a trunked network and you were put in a talkgroup with whatever units were responding to your incident - car accident with injuries, police, fire and EMS all on the talkgroup for the incident. Tow truck, DOT, whoever else could be added as necessary.

If it was a major incident and you needed to break out for further talkgroups.

Onondaga can also get almost any frequencies licensed they need. They're more than 100 miles from any other big cities (especially NYC) and far from the Canadian border so they don't have to worry about that.

[mllax14 18]

this may be true, do we know what type of system PG county in maryland uses

In December 2009 the county officially launched the new Motorola 700 MHZ digital public safety communications radio system and to accommodate the new system, the county built 21 new radio towers, partnering with the state to build five of those. The total cost of the system was approximately $76 million, with $14 million in federal and state grants. The system is operated by PSC (public safety communications) that moved to their new building in May 2011. PSC dispatches the Fire/EMS department, County Police Department and County Sheriffs office. Basically each Dept (fire/ems, PD and SO) have their own dispatchers, supervisors and call takers that all fall under the PSC umbrella, the fire dept works off of talkgroups. With a main channel used for dispatch then units switch over to the designated talk group for that specific call all of which have a dispatcher that is dedicated to that channel. The system works pretty well.

The COG is short for metropolitan Washington Council of Governments each county works together on a multitude of levels including public safety/ homeland security

COG numbers

0 - DCFD

1 - Arlington County

2 - City of Alexandria

3 - MWAA (Metro Washington Airports Authority - Dulles & Reagan)

4 - Fairfax County (includes Fairfax City)

5 - Prince William County (includes Manassas and Manassas Park)

6 - Loudoun County

7 - Montgomery County, MD

8 - Prince George's County, MD

9 - Frederick County, MD

hopefully the links help with the info you want.

http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/911/Pages/default.aspx

and here is some info about the COG radio system

http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/aF5YWFhf20100917063924.pdf

Edited January 17, 2015 by mllax14

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Mllax, actually in the past few months Charles County has been added as agency #10.

Howard County and Anne Arundel also use similar systems that allow us to talk to them, even though they aren't part of the COG.

A few months back during an incident at Six Flags America we had PG County, Howard County, Fairfax County and Andrews AFB talking on the same channel with no complicated patches or $1 million dollar FieldComm units necessary. Everyone just switches to PG Talkgroup 8-Delta-3 and we're good to go.

If we can get the technology to support 2 states and a major city on one system, then why can't Westchester county do the same?

Edited January 16, 2015 by SageVigiles