RFS Fireground VHF vs UHF

[Bass Junkie]

Hey guys,

Speaking to some contacts in Gosford, they're still using the old VHF analogue fireground channels, yet everywhere I read seems to say that these aren't in use any more.

Does anybody know of any other districts that are still using the VHF fireground channels? Any brigades out there still actively purchasing VHF radios?

[Phil]

within the last few years Benelec provided and is a approved portable for use with the NSWRFS Fireground

Specifically the BL500V which is a VHF 255 Channel portable

[Bass Junkie]

Interesting! I remember the UHF channels were used a fair bit for operations stuff - i.e. group officers and sector commanders back to base, so I guess they're keeping VHF around for a while for crew comms.

[peteramjet]

so I guess they're keeping VHF around for a while for crew comms.

I don't think there are any UHF fireground channels, only VHF. From memory some areas use/used UHFCB channels on the fireground, but their usage was never official. Unless there are new digital UHF fireground channels, which I don't believe there are, the only offical channels are the VHF ones.

[Newy1234]

Hey guys,

Speaking to some contacts in Gosford, they're still using the old VHF analogue fireground channels, yet everywhere I read seems to say that these aren't in use any more.

Does anybody know of any other districts that are still using the VHF fireground channels? Any brigades out there still actively purchasing VHF radios?

I know what you are talking about, I do remember reading somewhere (can not remember where) that the RFS had UHF fireground frequencies and were changing over, but like you, I have not seen any evidence of this happening. Radio reference lists the UHF frequencies. Seems abit strange they would move to UHF since VHF HI is IMO the best frequency range to use for the terrain etc they come across on the firegrounds.

[railscan]

Given the fact that VHF and UHF portables are generally 5 and 4 watts respectively and also that VHF portable antennas are a compromise (helical as opposed to quarterwave) it would make little to no difference in the field if firegrounds were VHF or UHF.

I think that VHF was selected because it is less crowded than UHF and less likely to suffer adjacent user interference. It also means that RFS can be assigned a truly statewide allocation know they will not be sharing it with anyone else. The same cannot, as a rule, be said for UHF.

R

[peteramjet]

Radio reference lists the UHF frequencies.

May need someone in the RFS to advise what their intended use is. I personally haven't seen them used for fireground activities.

[railscan]

The Americans don't come to Aussie Scanners for their frequency information, we should not rely on Radio Reference for ours.

R

[Bass Junkie]

As a bit further info - Gosford brigades still don't have any UHF portables other than the ones issued to group officers, and neighbouring districts only get the one portable, so it definitely couldn't be used for any traditional fireground usage. The UHF ops channels are used pretty frequently (my personal exposure to it was up in Bilpin a few years back in a group vehicle), but I've still never seen those fireground channels used.

I guess they'd be for complex structure fires?

The Americans don't come to Aussie Scanners for their frequency information, we should not rely on Radio Reference for ours.

R

Show me a more accurate database that integrates with almost every piece of scanner software

[railscan]

Did I mention scanner software? I thought I clearly said, "frequency information". As far as 'accurate' database I would suggest that is a very subjective matter. The so called accurate database relies on the information provided by several thousand subscribers. Statistics dictate that several thousand subscribers cannot be accurate. Garbage in - Garbage out, especially when it comes to data outside North America.

If you want a debate on the merits and or deficiencies of RR, then bring it on? I can guarantee much bandwidth is going to die in the process.

R

[Bass Junkie]

Did I mention scanner software? I thought I clearly said, "frequency information". As far as 'accurate' database I would suggest that is a very subjective matter. The so called accurate database relies on the information provided by several thousand subscribers. Statistics dictate that several thousand subscribers cannot be accurate. Garbage in - Garbage out, especially when it comes to data outside North America.

If you want a debate on the merits and or deficiencies of RR, then bring it on? I can guarantee much bandwidth is going to die in the process.

R

Don't wanna drag this thread off-topic but I can totally see what you're saying - it's a similar argument to the merits and pitfalls of wikipedia. I work in the IT industry so I see it from a different angle - I see a really well designed site that may have a bit of US-centricity but is unsurpassed in features and user experience.

RR is looking pretty accurate for their RFS page, the only thing it's missing is the VHF fireground frequencies, which I'm submitting now.

[railscan]

......the only thing it's missing is the VHF fireground frequencies, which I'm submitting now.

Which begs the question, why support an overseas business - and that is what RR is, a business, when we have numerous people spending their time, money and effort to promote the hobby here?

I just don't understand the need or desire to supply RR with data, that in one form, is then SOLD back to you. All you are doing is contributing to Lindsay Blanton's retirement fund.

R

[peteramjet]

Which begs the question, why support an overseas business - and that is what RR is, a business, when we have numerous people spending their time, money and effort to promote the hobby here?

I just don't understand the need or desire to supply RR with data, that in one form, is then SOLD back to you.

R

While I feel neither one way or another towards RR the answer to your question is a fairly simple one - there is no similar alternative.

Forums such as this (and the plethora of others) are fantastic for discussion, but they don't list the information in an easy to read format that doesn't require a person to be logged in with a whole number of different accounts over a number of different sites. Compare that to RR, where anybody can view and copy the info without any membership (let alone payment).

If there was a similar Australian based option I would agree entirely with your sentiments, but until that time there is little alternative.

[railscan]

Boy I feel a headache coming on...

That is my very point. We have the basis for an alternative in 'Forums such as this (and the plethora of others)' but for reasons best known, RR seems to have some magical attraction for scanner users in Australia. Information posted on this and others forums is quickly submitted to RR at almost warp speed. Whether it is by people looking for reflected glory or trying to get their name in print I am buggered if I know.

Generally speaking a lot of the non US/Canada/Mexico data on RR is out of date and just plain wrong. Why? Because RR a North American company is trying to be all things to all users and it just doesn't work. And all those Premium members did make a payment in order to download the data directly into their scanners. So your comment '(let alone payment)' is a little misguided. Yes you can look at the data and yes you can copy and paste and yes you can do all that and more without being a member or whatever.

Once again I suggest that we have the brains trust here to do that why, why do we insist on supporting overseas forums? God knows before the internet and other factors took over, I tried via CB Action magazine and Radcomms magazine to promote the scanning hobby here in Australia. But it appears to be, that along with everything else in this country we have become lazy and are willing to let someone else, offshore naturally, to do all the work and they reap the benefit.

And if you and others think RR is pinnacle of scanning forums and you wish to support the business, go right ahead.

If this thread can be locked, do everyone a favour.

R

[peteramjet]

That is my very point. We have the basis for an alternative in 'Forums such as this (and the plethora of others)' but for reasons best known, RR seems to have some magical attraction for scanner users in Australia.

Basis maybe, but at the present, there is no suitable single site (as in one singular site with all the info) that would be an Australian alternative. I am a member of 6 (or more?) Australian based scanning type forums, and unfortunately none have similar lists/layouts to RR - that is why it is an attraction to some people. No sign up and no log in to access and/or use the info is another.

I personally like discussion, which is why I frequent forums. I also like to make and confirm my own scanning lists to a greater degree than what RR provides. Not all in the hobby however feel this way, actually I would go so far to say the majority would be happy with pre-made lists compiled by others. That is where RR excels.

And all those Premium members did make a payment in order to download the data directly into their scanners. So your comment '(let alone payment)' is a little misguided. Yes you can look at the data and yes you can copy and paste and yes you can do all that and more without being a member or whatever.

You initially brought up payments for RR by stating the data was sold back to you - indeed it is, but only if you want it pre-programmed for your scanner. I was simply stating that you don't need to pay (or be a member) to access info if you just want to view and/or use it.

That is different to a forum such as this, where you need to sign up and be logged in to view information. And don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be any other way, but that is the attraction that RR has for many people.

And if you and others think RR is pinnacle of scanning forums and you wish to support the business, go right ahead. If this thread can be locked, do everyone a favour.

Neither I (nor any other poster) eluded to RR being the 'pinnacle of scanning forums'. You asked what the attraction to RR was (and asked us to 'bring it on' re discussion) and I posted my observations on the same. No need to take it personally.

[Phil]

Back on topic please, otherwise it will be locked