WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

This week the Albany SES air-obs helped in the search for a missing tourist, swept out to sea in a rip at Bremer Bay.
There were problems communicating between air-crew and ground crews
Afterwards it transpired that two groups were on different bands, one was on UHF the other VHF, even though they were using the same channel number.

More inter-agency comms training needed methinks

I think installing the correct radio's would help, or simply have a aviation hand held radio.

Helitak_670 wrote:I think installing the correct radio's would help, .

Not really an issue of "installing", as the Bremer units were using their WAERN vehicle radios and their hand held VHF radios, as far as they were concerned they were doing the correct thing
The Albany units turned up with handheld UHF radio and told to use Ch 121
Neither group realising they were on completely different bands, hundreds of megahertz apart

or simply have a aviation hand held radio.

Not standard issue and I'm not sure about licencing ie who can / can't use an airband radio, callsigns etc

A proper briefing beforehand at Bremer should have picked up the issue

this is the reason the FESA radios are coloured. to identify them.
although i think only some of the portables are coloured

Seems to be a common problem, with the old network being switched off down here I'd say that perhaps everyone needs to be put onto the one network to streamline all the emergency services resolve these kind of issues. There will still be a few teething problems to work out. eg. Being at a fire recently, we had 2 active firegrounds, all on the one channel, causing too much radio traffic so that you couldn't get in to speak.

* Colouring the radios would not have necessarily picked up the problem as the Albany team was pretty much put straight onto the plane
* If you want to start a decent bun fight, get the country bush fire units talking about losing the 70 Mhz channels
NOT HAPPY

What I think should have happened was the UHF Channel numbering should have continued on after the VHF Channels
say for example
Channels 1 - 500 VHF
Channels 500 - 550 UHF
There would be no confusion then
and personally I think FESA should keep the 70 MHz channels

One of the big pushes for the new WAERN channels is to try to prevent problems with other repeaters on the same frequency interfering with each other. Most repeaters now have a separate frequency from the others. This prevents repeaters from the south being heard on repeaters in the north.

Similarly two VFRS stations in close proximity have their own simplex channels, preventing reception by one station of the other.

I have been witness to both and it caused problems. There was simply not enough space in the 70MHz allocation to create more channels.

A number of BFS vollies I have had dealings with have stated that the interference issue is a big one, especially during the summer fire season when trough lines develop down the coast and tropospheric induction causes our channels to be interfered with by other repeaters at least 400km away.

There will always be complaints with any new system. (Look at the WAPOL digital system for one.) It is very easy to criticise something that has only been around a short time. As with the introduction of any new system, training and familiarisation is the key. With WAERN, most of the complaints I have heard came from those who used it least.

floppy wrote:This week the Albany SES air-obs helped in the search for a missing tourist, swept out to sea in a rip at Bremer Bay.
There were problems communicating between air-crew and ground crews
Afterwards it transpired that two groups were on different bands, one was on UHF the other VHF, even though they were using the same channel number.

More inter-agency comms training needed methinks

Nev

Were they not running it through a unit like SLSWA have that acts like a repeater to a degree and takes it from the VHF band to UHF band and vice versa?

I dont know about the Albany incident, but the new WAERN radios do have the cross-band repeater feature - so one team on UHF can communicate with another on VHF - but only if they know what band and channels each other is on!!

I think some of you guys are missing the point, this isn't a problem caused by the radios
lack of features, colouring etc

It's primarily a problem caused by lack of experience of working inter-agency, a lack of appreciation of how the other team works. It should have been picked up in the briefing.

The field controller should have been able to sit at his/hers WAERN radio monitor both channels ( VHF and UHF ) and transmit on either or both as need arises, no need for cross band repeating.
was the point of my first post

floppy wrote:I think some of you guys are missing the point, this isn't a problem caused by the radios
lack of features, colouring etc

It's primarily a problem caused by lack of experience of working inter-agency, a lack of appreciation of how the other team works. It should have been picked up in the briefing.

The field controller should have been able to sit at his/hers WAERN radio monitor both channels ( VHF and UHF ) and transmit on either or both as need arises, no need for cross band repeating.

Code: Select all

training and familiarisation is the key.

was the point of my first post

Nev

You are correct but it would also be radio related as well wouldn't it? Why go through the middle man when you can use the cross band repeater?

I'm not sure where this thread is going, if your gripe is just about a lack of appreciation I think you're wasting your time.

You are correct but it would also be radio related as well wouldn't it? Why go through the middle man when you can use the cross band repeater?

Because in many cases the middleman controls the radio net, and often next to him is a person keeping the operations log, and somewhere behind them is the incident controller.

I'm not sure where this thread is going, if your gripe is just about a lack of appreciation I think you're wasting your time.

It is simply an observation - not a gripe

"and personally I think FESA should keep the 70 MHz channels"

Nev"

66-88Mhz is not very good when there is hills around ive herd the new system has alot better range.

For the Albany incident there should of been during the briefing pointed out what bands aswell as being writen down where the team can visualize it.

I have to make up alot of briefings for an organistation outside of the emergency services and thats what we do even if we are only using one band.

Mmmmm. Sounds like a failure in Incident Management. A communications plan is essential to operations and would have prevented this. AIIMS 101.