Author Topic: New BOMS response format (Read 13867 times)

Zippy · « **on:** January 24, 2008, 07:05:31 PM »

Quote from: uniden on January 24, 2008, 06:57:05 PM

19:58:33 24-01-08 MFS: MFS *CFSRES INC084 24/01/08 19:58,RESPOND GRASS FIRE,MAIN NORTH RD,ELIZABETH DOWNS MAP 52 A 12 TG182,ADEL BOUND SOUTH OF ULEY RD ON LHS,SAIR55 ELZ331

Is it just today that this has started happenning??

Yeh, automatic GRN GO-TO channel listing. Hopefully should work well even if its two brigades responding to a location along a border.the listed talkgroup should be the incident talkgroup

Im very confused as to why the first bits of the message are now:

MFS: MFS *CFSRES INC061 - DATE

Should just be MFS: *CFSRES INC#61: RESPOND

would be great if the DATE was put at the end of the message

WITH ALL THIS, STILL REMEMBER TO BOOK MOBILE WITH ADELAIDE FIRE

safireservice · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2008, 08:25:04 PM »

Quote from: uniden on January 24, 2008, 06:57:05 PM

19:58:33 24-01-08 MFS: MFS *CFSRES INC084 24/01/08 19:58,RESPOND GRASS FIRE,MAIN NORTH RD,ELIZABETH DOWNS MAP 52 A 12 TG182,ADEL BOUND SOUTH OF ULEY RD ON LHS,SAIR55 ELZ331

Is it just today that this has started happenning??

Seems to have started this afternoon. Good idea until they start putting TG182 on calls in CFS area. Have had a few try to tell us to use TG 182 in the past in CFS area. They ended up talking to themselves.

Zippy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2008, 08:38:26 PM »

just another fact of the BOMS not suiting the CFS. Combining MFS protocol with CFS Protocol just doesnt mix well.

chook · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2008, 09:03:20 PM »

Tell me why Zippy?
Isn't a case of a bit of give and take? Mind you we can't talk to either of you guys which means we can't up or down grade responses when we get there first

Well not easily anyway (switching channels & contacting Adelaide fire can be a pain).
cheers

Zippy · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2008, 09:09:20 PM »

Why SES dont have the CFS Channels programmed in..who knows!

Multi Agency Talkgroups dont get utilised enough ey...

MFS like's to operate in one small set of Talkgroups, while CFS its a multitude mostly due to reducing the strain on the GRN system....hence they are completely opposite. And it is generally the MFS operators who seem to have confused the two sets of operational/response procedures. (the Ex CFS ones do a great job...cranks

)

Note: i could be incorrect, or saying things that i know are incorrect...i call this..."its been a long day"...

...Also who really wants to weed through a lot of pager message jargon that isnt helpful e.g RAMCO ,RAMCO MAP 0 0 0

Stop for Rant # 283

Pipster · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2008, 11:53:09 PM »

Maybe I mis- interpreted your post Zippy.....are you saying RAMCO was the pager message jargon, or the other bits of the message....?

Pip

chook · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2008, 06:09:09 AM »

Ah Zippy you are right of course but that is because everyone was allowed to set up their GRN to suit themselves. Not much point having a government radio network that can't talk to each other (putting aside Multi agency).
Multi agency is hard rub for some, interestingly last debrief I was at highlighted the problems with communications - solution give everyone another services hand held

.
The issue you describe, as well as many others is each thinks their way is best without look at alternatives.
I agree the extra bits in the message are not required (fat fingered maybe?)However the TG idea is good - at least everyone is on one channel once there you can all go to your CFS TG.
Communications is one of those areas which should be standard across all of the emergency services, it is time that our collective senior managers did something about it! It would be nice that by next fire season I'm able to talk to the fire services command at an incident without having to carry two (or more) hand helds.
cheers

Zippy · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:08:50 AM »

Pip....was outlining the Map/Location being useless as its mearly the Town name Repeated Twice...and Map 000 0 0...how useful

Weeding out the Job Details just gets harder and harder...well not hard...just takes more time for the brain to put it all together.

Personally i believe that it would have been better to just go from CFS SOCC to the SAFECOM COMCEN at the time the software for SACAD was implemented. Save a lot of screwing around.

Zippy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:22:26 AM »

Warning....another rant....ignore it if it looks silly

Quote

MFS: MFS *CFSRES INC072 24/01/08 17:05,RESPOND To,PRINCES HWY,GLEN OSMOND MAP 131 H 12 TG182,TRUCK LEAKING SOMETHING - INVESTIGATE,BURN19 GLO441

From this message the important stuff i get from it is:

It is Incident #72
Its either on Glen Osmond Road, Glen Osmond or the Freeway, Glen Osmond
The Talkgroup for comm's is 182, which i doubt is correct for Burnsides role.
and, The most important information: Truck leaking something, investigate.

In Airsource:

MFS: CFSRES INC#72: RESPOND TRUCK SPILLAGE INVESTIGATION, GLEN OSMOND RD, GLEN OSMOND, *GRN 150*, BURN19 GLO441:

Hopefully that puts my thoughts into how to appreciate delicate information to make sense for Pagers, not just MDT's.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:02:02 AM »

that's on the freeway not glen Osmond road zippy and it is MFS turf from th tunnels down so 182 is fine.

Plus does it matter what tg is assinged as long as we can talk to each other so what.

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:14:48 AM »

Actually, SAMFS area ends at the Mt Osmond Overpass, (and Gleneagles Rd), but as bittenyakka said, its still in MFS area.

safireservice · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:05:20 AM »

Just a quick question has this "new" format been introduced with any consultation or has it just been "done"?
And do they really have to have MFS twice at the start?

Zippy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:06:33 AM »

ah ha....good point safireservice2009

Mike · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:17:15 AM »

We were asked/told about it a while ago...
The talkgroup will be that of the primary brigade.

safireservice · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:22:33 AM »

Quote from: Mike on January 25, 2008, 11:17:15 AM

We were asked/told about it a while ago...
The talkgroup will be that of the primary brigade.

More than likey told it will happen.
Im surprised it's not MFS: MFS MFS MFS MFS *CFSRES: RESPOND GRASS FIR.... just so we know where it came from.

Or they didnt try changing it to *MFSRES:

safireservice · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:35:10 AM »

Just noticed a few pages going out now about the new format. Looks like a case of its done, now we'll tell you about it.

jaff · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:48:31 AM »

SOP 10.14 the grn talkgroup of the primary brigade will be included on the initial page and subsequent alarm upgrades.
This SOP has been around and agreed on for about 2 to 3 months, but software upgrades at Adelaide Fire have been delaying its introduction till now.

Cheers Jaff

chook · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:49:27 AM »

Yep we weren't told about the extra bit either! And great you have an SOP describing whats going on however does that include everyone? As what talk group you guys work on doesn't mean squat to us

(refer to earlier post).
Anyway thats democracy at work - again!
cheers

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:16:42 PM »

What happens if it's a CFS/SES response, isn't it primary for both the brigade and the unit?

chook · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:36:21 PM »

That was my point TG123 dosn't mean much to us same as B23 doesn't mean anything to you guys.
So it would have MFS:MFS Blah blah blah TG123(or what ever it is) TGB23(or what ever). I stand by what I said earlier for you guys with the same radio setup its fine, but for us ther is no point.
cheers

Zippy · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:59:06 PM »

Its just another wave in a turbulent storm on the high seas

SA Firey · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2008, 01:20:51 PM »

How lonng a format do we have to have.......

MFS: INC# 055 RESPOND RCR PRINCES HIGHWAY,GLEN OSMOND TG182 GLO441,BRN19 *CFSRES:

SIMPLE

Bowforce · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:21:23 PM »

Thats a great way of doing it SA Firey.....almost too simple

pumprescue · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:31:15 PM »

Go the armchair guru's !!

uniden · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2008, 04:01:35 PM »

The jobs in MFS areas should really be TG150 shouldnt they? Not 182 the chit chat channel. MFS stations were advised of the change to the format on the day that it started by email.

Author Topic: New BOMS response format (Read 13867 times)

pumprescue

uniden