Motorola or IUOE BU12 
2 Likes
OH… believe me, we spent most of the afternoon talking about the implications that this WILL have. We didn’t want to shoot the messenger (but we put holes all over her). I asked, since it came from the Washington office, if they could come out to CA during the first part of an incident and really take a good look at what they have done. That will probably never happen but I asked anyway. This is great discussion on this and I’ll take this back to our next meeting.
Firescope Comms. is not taking this sitting down!
6 Likes
I wonder if it has to do with them making the frequencies “controlled unclassified information.”
2 Likes
this is comical. government at its finest.
I am trying to remember if i have been assigned a NIFC TAC during IA.
2 Likes
I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. What other tac would be assigned? Around here it is usually NIFC Tac 2 or maybe 3. Been that way for decades.
4 Likes
NIFC TAC 2 is about the standard for the BDF.
4 Likes
That was brought up…
1 Like
@Birken_Vogt Region 5 has its own TAC channels is what I was referring to. 3 of them IIRC. sorry its been about 24 years since I left the outfit. Most of our IA is using CAL-FIRE Tacs even on the forest on the north/east side of the Trabuco District. Its just due to the hopscotch nature of dpa.
So with that confirmed NIFC TAC channels are assigned during IA (outside of Region 5 tacticals) what in gods name is going on? Who in their right mind would do this? I have never understood how each district didnt have its own tac let alone each forest. Its the feds they got tons of frequencies.
2 Likes
Talked to some folks sounds like only nifc tac 2 was authorized in R5 for IA. So we are losing one channel. As far as removing the rest if they are going to make the tacs/cmnds on the fly out of a pool of freqs then its a good recommendation. You would not want to think your dialed in on NIFC TAC or command 5 when the freq was different for this incident like the command 25s etc etc. this seems draconian but perhaps this will get the forests to lobby for their own tacticals for IA.
1 Like
Up here on the Tahoe, I have not seen anything used except NIFC Tac 2 for IA. Maybe some chat on R5 Project. I am aware of the 3 special R5 tacs but they only seem to appear a few days in as part of an organized 205. I am sure things are different down south but up here there is not much competition for frequencies so they use what they always have. I am sure the NIFC Tacs 1, 2, 3 go back into the 1980s at least when nobody ever thought of unclassified controlled information. They were just glad to be off low band and have a radio that had more than a switch from Rpt/Tac. Programming was via a pocket knife which I am sure most of you know.
I am not even aware of a frequency that could be used for IA tac that is not one that seems to be outlawed by this decision.
I am not sure this change will fix all the FS problems they may be having in the fire area. It does not seem to be very timely.
2 Likes
We run IAs on R5 Tac 4, 5 and 6 all the time.
3 Likes
I can see some of the bigger issues, having a practice across the US and the NIFC service area and standardization across that. R5/CA has driven the current practice and naming conventions, and FireScope has pushed to have the out of region IMT’s that get deployed here to follow our practices which is different from what is done across the rest of the US and is taught in a COML class outside of CA/R5. So what is the correct decision? Do we stick to 150 years of tradition and /or lack of progression (sorry COML hasn’t been updated in 20 years plus for the federal class) Or do we look at what has been working in the most active Region/State for the last 20 plus years with the help of FireScope?
3 Likes
For IA tacticals, the VFIRE and VTAC channels are appropriate. I figure we’ll still be able to have the three R5 tacticals in the FIRESCOPE VHF channel plan.
3 Likes
VFIRE is supposed to be an interop group. To be used between more than one agency. Also it is in the LG part of the spectrum. Which is very limited already Not really appropriate for the Feds to use on their own small fires when they have gobs more spectrum available on the Fed side than LG/State will ever have.
VTAC is even worse to use, it is to be used for comms between different types of agencies such as law/fire.
I know it does not always get done like this, sometimes VFIRE are used on LG IA Tac, but nobody should try and make it worse. The V channels are very limited already.
3 Likes
Where did the ICS system start ? Was it a creation of the Feds ?
I seem to remember back in my foggy memory that it started in Southern California with local coordination between the state and Forest Service leaders. It grew and improved with use until 9/11 when FS personnel used it to assist the FDNY and the NYPD in their coordinating of activities in the rescue, search and then recovery from the towers. Then all of a sudden it became this great FEDERAL Program (Washington) they created to be changed and spread all over the country (ICS-100, ICS-200, ICS-300 and ICS-400 )
It is interesting how one of the most inter-mixed areas in the country ( population, multi-agency fire departments, fire prone areas with a fire season.) Can create an excellent system to be assumed by bureaucrats then dictate how all should be used back to those who created it. In this case, changing the comms operation in the slow time of the season instead of tweaking to obtain improvement.
5 Likes
FIRESCOPE
Following deadly wildfires in Southern California in 1970, the state of California along with Cal OES and various local fire departments formed FIRESCOPE . “It’s an acronym. It stands for FIrefighting RESources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies,”
4 Likes
1981-12-12-ICS-120-1.pdf (2.0 MB)
Attached is the very first FIRESCOPE ICS Operational Systems Description that was the initial text for I-220, Basic ICS. All of the thoughts that many have written above about interagency cooperation and, particularly, interoperability are contained in the attachment.
2 Likes
This federal edict is very concerning for many reasons surrounding not only the growth made with interagency cooperation since the inception of FIRESCOPE, with firefighter safety which is often the top issue or in the top three issues of nearly every after-action report, with operational efficiencies and with the workloads and costs of deleting NIFC programmed frequencies in agency radios. The latter stated workload and cost impacts of reprogramming radios will be huge.
Couple the latter reprogramming impacts with specific agency radios that require their technicians to touch or program? How about having to reprogram all the mobile radios which is typically not done today?
A workaround if the NIFC frequencies must be better controlled by NIFC was mentioned by a high-ranking chief at this week’s FIRESCOPE Board of Director’s meeting. He stated don’t remove the frequencies just seek NIFC approval for their usage at the time of need. Great idea but still just a work around.
Why not just leave this proposed change alone and inform the reputed Boise author of this idea to learn about interagency efficiencies?
3 Likes
So many things to say about this, and such nonspecific initial information in the first post. Not the OP’s fault of course.
Frequencies are resources to be ordered on a fire like any other resource.
Here is an analogy I just thought of: All fed fire engines are to be stored at a yard in Washington DC until needed. Then they will be shipped to the fire.
I think some pencil pusher thinks that specific frequencies are like encryption keys to be guarded, and that this edict will somehow enhance OPSEC from nefarious actors. Of course nefarious actors are not the main hazard 25 miles back forest road 32N64-1027 but confused comms could be.
3 Likes