|
|
Post by WebBoss on Nov 29, 2007 16:46:38 GMT -5
I wasn't actually mentioning that for for any reason other then a little personal venting.
To me, IMHO, it's ironic that we get extended disertations and play by play accounts on an alarm call, but on calls where something's actually burning, we get "We're here... It's out... We're available."
There isn't anything in writing saying you have to give play by play or not. Just an initial report (which I like to leave out on BS calls to keep people wondering) and on working incidents, 20 min progress reports.
Especially on the NW zone, people are talking about how much congestion and how EMS needs their own channel. Well how about we all police ourselves and think about what we say. How about we all try utilizing the ops bands more and more. How many times do we even have to listen to people having to be told to go to the ops bands? Even that ties up precious moments of air time.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3105 on Nov 30, 2007 5:46:58 GMT -5
This is going to sound nit-picky, but the switch from NW to Ops has to take place at a clearly defined time in the incident in order to ensure that it's done reliably. Case in point: maybe I'm wrong but we talk/give orders on NW until the crew exits the apparatus, then they're on Ops....otherwise I'm trying to listen/respond on two channels, depending on who's talking on what. If the crew is getting ready, they can hear the initial orders on their headsets prior to leaving.
I'm actually of two minds when it comes to transmission length; while I certainly appreciate brevity, mumbling something or using "verbal shorthand" to convey something important will usually always lead to misunderstanding. People simply don't comprehend how they're being heard/understood...they assume everyone knows what's in their head and what they're trying to say. Lurker touched on this in an early thread: the art of clear, concise communications that accurately conveys your message without a lot of extra verbiage.
Some guys can do it, others use ten words when three would suffice.
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Nov 30, 2007 8:15:07 GMT -5
.they assume everyone knows what's in their head and what they're trying to say. Lurker touched on this in an early thread: the art of clear, concise communications that accurately conveys your message without a lot of extra verbiage. Huh? What are you trying to say?  In general I think its a balancing act depending on the person, the situation, and what else is going on. I will add that if you get carpal-tunnel of your mike-finger.. you might have a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by 3105 on Nov 30, 2007 8:24:17 GMT -5
I agree...and what gets my blood boiling faster than anything else is the "I have no idea what I want to say but will push the mike button anyway", usually accompanied by a lot of "Uhhhs, Ummms, Ahhhhs....".
Radio discipline is a whole 'nother topic in itself...
|
|
|
|
Post by shader101 on Dec 7, 2007 19:20:13 GMT -5
we dont have a ops to nw switch problem all port are on ops 99% of the time all drivers have a ops port also so the only one really on nw to central is the duty officer and chief after all the trucks have signed on. heres what boils my blood a working job on whatever r-1 then everone working that r-1 for their normal runs gets told to move to r-2 when they are paged out, but they sign on on r-1 then move to r-2,3,4 whatever why not just put the working job on r-2 3 or 4 and let the rest of the group use r-1 like they normaly do would eleminate all the move to r-2 chatter on the working jobs channel
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Dec 7, 2007 22:51:17 GMT -5
heres what boils my blood a working job on whatever r-1 then everone working that r-1 for their normal runs gets told to move to r-2 when they are paged out, but they sign on on r-1 then move to r-2,3,4 whatever why not just put the working job on r-2 3 or 4 and let the rest of the group use r-1 like they normaly do would eleminate all the move to r-2 chatter on the working jobs channel Moving the job to a different channel is just asking for trouble. All it takes is for one apparatus on scene to miss the order to switch to have a disaster. Technically everyone not associated with the job should switch to R(N+1) automatically on the "All hands" and future runs dispatched accordingly automatically. If one or two people forget, or out of habit talk on R1 then Central politely (or not so) tells them where they should be. Scenario #1, the job moves: Worse case? Somebody misses it and mega-bad-things happen. Scenario #2, everyone else moves: Worse case? Someone forgets, everyone else gets annoyed and posts on TWD. |
|
|
|
Post by WebBoss on Dec 8, 2007 6:42:36 GMT -5
Voyager that last line was perfect.
I too support moving the working incident to the secondary channel, as long as that move happens from the first dispatch. No rationale is that it's not too hard to correct units as the sign on for the first time. My other thought is that with the working incident, the crews and ultimately the radio operators will be paying more attention and be working the details out whereas the BS calls are just treated as such and there is no care in the attention to details.
I do, however, fully understand the reasonings you have. I'm just off the fence about this topic - 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. There will be problems somehow no matter how we do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by youknownothing on Dec 29, 2007 23:00:51 GMT -5
Well here's my opinion on the subject concerning both equipment and procedures. At this point we're not going to change either so we have to just deal with what we have to work with in this county.
When it comes to equipment, if you use it enough, or train on it if you don't have alot of runs, it's really not that difficult to use. It can be confusing, but as with all new things, it becomes easier as time goes on. While I hate using 2 portables as the driver on a major incident when there is no chief officer (one on Ops and one on R-1), its my job and I have to know the equipment just like any other piece of equipment.
Another thing I have found with the new equipment, unlike with our old equipment, you now have the opportunity to hear EVERYONE. This not only gives you the opportunity to hear just how bad people sound on the radio, but it also gives you a really good laugh.
When it comes to the new policy, again, it is what it is. I'm confident that the committee put together a policy they felt was complete and is in the best interest of the fire service. If you are truely against the policy, feel free to help rewrite it when they go to make revisions to the policy. If you attended the training, use the radio on a regular basis, or do continual training, you should be able to survive when using the system.
What does annoy me is the use of "unapproved" vehicle typing designations. The policy designates the vehicle typing to be used when responding to calls, its not up to us to BLATANTLY stray from the policy. What's even worse is when Central acknowledges the unapproved designation instead of correcting it on radio.
While i'm sure that statement will piss someone off here's my reasoning for stating my feelings on the matter. If we allow people to use whatever designation they choose, then whats to stop anyone else from using or making up their own designation? Like it or not it's Freelancing, and we all know that freelancing has been known to kill and injure firefighters.
All and all the system is better than the old system in most ways. As I said in the beginning, it's not gonna change so lets make the best of it and use the system to our advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3105 on Dec 30, 2007 5:39:16 GMT -5
The only "gray area" in our radio use is that awkward time period from arriving on location to actually getting out of the truck....we have it set up that all radio transmissions to a specific crew are made on NWR1 UNTIL the apparatus arrives, then it changes to Ops after the crew debarks.
It's probably me, but I use the headset when we're responding...first to be able to hear, the second to protect what little hearing I have left.....which means I can't really monitor the Ops channel well. Nothing's more frustrating than to have the arriving officer try to call me on Ops when 1) we might still be too far away to receive a clear transmission, 2) the rest of the crew doesn't hear the orders.
|
|
|
|
Post by WebBoss on Dec 31, 2007 10:10:55 GMT -5
It's nice to see some educated debate on such a topic where there are a lot of people with a lot of different opinions.
The theory behind the Response and Operations channels actually comes to Burlington County by way of FDNY. The portables are supposed to be on the OPS band, and should be turned on whenever the apparatus is "On the Air." The OPS radios should be turned on as soon as the apparatus is boarded, not when arriving at a scene. I agree that using the OPS radios is limited to range and distance, but this range is very realistic when you consider what the principle behind the theory is.
Fire Departments should have standard policies in place dictating the courses of action for the responding units. In mutual-aid cases, the departments that play together frequently, should also be sharing and developing their polcies together, as well as training on them. By doing this, there becomes a dramtically reduced need to depend on radio communications while enroute to incidents. All to often responding companies get confused or conflicting orders simply because one chief may do things differently then another, and the communications may just not be clear enough to define the course of action requested.
Headsets present another challenge to radio users. While they are a tool in the tool box, the do at times hamper the ability to ensure that everyone in a responding unit is up to speed with what's going on. I know that personally, I do not wear a headset when I'm trying to gear up or DON my SCBA, and if the speaker is not turned up, it's very easy to miss our orders. Now if the officer (or driver) were just using the radio and hand mic, the entire crew is surely going to hear the radio. By not putting too much faith in the headsets, now you can also hear the OPS portables as well. With todays apparatus, headsets are more of a luxury item, not a nessecity.
One other item...
As with any thread on this forum, everything is open for discussion. The radio policy has its times of being a "Hot Topic" and is surely something that is open for discussion. Everyone on here has shared some very good ideas. The radio policy is something that is currently open for frequent reviews, and can easily be changed by proactive ideas with credible information to support the requested changes. IT CAN CHANGE, and in the near future, there are somethings that will be changing. Welcome to Democracy boys and girls! We may not all get our way all the time, but with the right research, planning, and presentation, no good idea should ever be left behind. This is the place for discussion, which leads to ways of covering those 3 points. This is not the place for negativity. Disagreements, by all means, but do it respectfully. It's much easier to ask "Why" some places do things one way versus another, instead of just being negative to those who may not be thinking on the same page as you (or me).
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 1, 2008 7:27:17 GMT -5
Respectfully Boss, I disagree with the headset thought, primarily (surprise!) from a health aspect...they help protect our hearing from the long term effects of enthusiastic Q'ing. There's a bunch of Philly firefighters around with diminished hearing capacity due to overexposure to loud noises....bear in mind I said "over exposure", meaning a long term, chronic effect that accumulates over time. No one goes deaf from one or two incidents...which then fools us into thinking it's not harming us in the long term.
Take it from an aging person's viewpoint: protect it NOW so you won't sound like me in the future ("Repeat? Did not copy your last transmission..")
With that in mind, I am strongly in favor of the IC giving initial orders over the Response channel..if everyone's plugged in, they should hear it (providing they're paying attention and not screaming like a bunch of banshees). Transmission reliability isn't an issue on the digital, as it is on the analog (Ops).
Saying that training and standardized procedures can solve communication problems is like wishing for world peace...nice, but not exactly realistic. Too many factors to count unfortunately come into play in those first few critical moments when clear, concise information is an absolute necessity. Teaching everyone how to talk on a radio correctly is a daunting task..it CAN be done, but realistically, you're always going to have screamers and ramblers (hence the 30 second cut-off).
Speaking strictly for myself (ie: old, crotchety, and unable to multi-task), I NEED the damn headset just to hear...and can't monitor both NW and Ops in a reliable manner. Yes, that's because I'm older, but trust me, all of you will arrive at this point sometime in the dim future.
Having espoused all that, I am in total favor of monitoring Ops on the way in, then switching all crew communications to it once we get off the apparatus and go into action...this seems to work well in my experience.
What bugs me is the use of venacular (ie: verbal shorthand) and non-universal slang as well as a culture that encourages brevity to the point of incomprehension. Your transmission should be as short as possible while still maintaining clarity...your message should be unambiguously clear. THAT is an area we need to work on...I can't tell you how many transmissions I hear that could mean one of several things...and the sender's response is usually "But they should have known..." Known what? Arrrgghhh!
As far as changes go, I think ANY policy needs to be revisited on a regular basis....if nothing else, that's just good management technique. Invariably, some things will work well and some won't...we need to keep an open mind about ideas and concepts that could potentially improve the situation and not bury our heads in the sand.
|
|
|
|
Post by opsoverkill on Jan 1, 2008 12:50:28 GMT -5
I agree with papa cheese on this one. Protect your hearing. My TV gets louder every year for me to hear it. So says my wife. but with her it is definitely selective hearing.
Number 1- Why does everyone have to hear the orders etc. Keep the portables on OPS 1. The officer will either get orders on R-1 or go Face to Face with the person giving the orders. He then can return to his crew and fill them in. I believe that is one of the problems then tend to occur on the fire grounds is lack of keeping a engine, truck or rescue crew together. Thats the reason everyone wants to know what is going on instead of having you officer rely the info to you. It has gotten better with the rit because they stick together.
|
|
RngrVnc33
Forum Captain
Keepin' It Moist
Posts: 131
|
Post by RngrVnc33 on Jan 1, 2008 19:36:45 GMT -5
What bugs me is the use of venacular (ie: verbal shorthand) and non-universal slang as well as a culture that encourages brevity to the point of incomprehension. Your transmission should be as short as possible while still maintaining clarity...your message should be unambiguously clear. THAT is an area we need to work on...I can't tell you how many transmissions I hear that could mean one of several things...and the sender's response is usually "But they should have known..." Known what? Arrrgghhh! In reference to the above, [glow=red,2,300]TAKE UP [/glow]means to RECALL or THE PROCESS OF GATHERING YOUR TOYS AND GOING HOME! Learn it, love it, and now you dont need to ask me when I say it! |
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 1, 2008 21:35:06 GMT -5
What bugs me is the use of venacular (ie: verbal shorthand) and non-universal slang as well as a culture that encourages brevity to the point of incomprehension. Your transmission should be as short as possible while still maintaining clarity...your message should be unambiguously clear. THAT is an area we need to work on...I can't tell you how many transmissions I hear that could mean one of several things...and the sender's response is usually "But they should have known..." Known what? Arrrgghhh! In reference to the above, [glow=red,2,300]TAKE UP [/glow]means to RECALL or THE PROCESS OF GATHERING YOUR TOYS AND GOING HOME! Learn it, love it, and now you dont need to ask me when I say it! Vince...there are certain fire related phrases that are universal..and of course, "Take up" is one of them...a time-honored and heavily traditional turn of phrase that most of us readily understand and acknowledge. My problem is with "non-universal" slang...the seemingly "cute" phrase or expression delivered in an attempt to sound "cool".....such as, "Have the bone box move to the side...", or "Ask the Five-O to block the street.", or "recall everything but the first due BRT'...while we've all heard it and even laughed at the sender's creativity, sometimes doing this can be more confusing than helpful, depending of course on who listening and attenpting to comprehend. Personally, I've always preferred: [glow=red,2,300] "Shut down and pick up"[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by shader101 on Jan 4, 2008 15:00:01 GMT -5
papa cheeze wasn't it all the crazed concerts you when to in the 60's that really made your hearing diminish lol
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 4, 2008 20:52:52 GMT -5
papa cheeze wasn't it all the crazed concerts you when to in the 60's that really made your hearing diminish lol Concerts? I went to concerts? All I can remember now is going to large, smoke filled buildings that WEREN'T on fire...LOL |
|
|
|
Post by shader101 on Jan 4, 2008 22:26:10 GMT -5
lol and you were like clinton you didnt inhale right, remember anything u say can and will be read by your kids lol
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Jan 5, 2008 6:04:27 GMT -5
lol and you were like clinton you didnt inhale right, remember anything u say can and will be read by your kids lol Held my breath the entire time, shader.......LOL |
|
