national parks and wildlife

vk2fear · Post by **vk2fear** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:43 pm

Hi all have you herd that NPWS are going over to high band VHF was told about it at work the other day!

aircadet · Post by **aircadet** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:06 am

Hi,

When is this change over taking place??? will it be digital or in the clear??? have seen allocations poping up on the 162mhz ish band...

Farsouthscanner · Post by **Farsouthscanner** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:53 pm

The Vic DSE use 16xMHz so it might make comms with them easier.

centralcoastscanman · Post by **centralcoastscanman** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:16 am

that would actually make sense, two services trying to make communications across borders easier...

criten · Post by **criten** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:00 pm

I've heard transmissions on NPWS 160mhz. Seems like data to me and a very weak transmission! Also does not correspond with traffic on their PMR.

ivahri · Post by **ivahri** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:47 pm

The NP&WS PMR is migrating to VHF high-band. I believe the network is going to be analogue.

So what if they are on the same band as CFA? Fat lot of use that will be to someone in Grafton or Narrabri! Their argument for going high band was (a) compatibility with RFS (yes, I know RFS PMR is on UHF....) and (b) anything BUT UHF as then someone might force them to use the GRN and pull out base stations like Bondi Junction! This way they get left alone for another decade. Of course they argued that they couldn't get the coverage on UHF- but then they will not get 100% coverage on high-band either...

Cheers,

Richard

centralcoastscanman · Post by **centralcoastscanman** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:16 pm

I have only limited technical knowledge Richard, but if NP&WS put the money they spend on radios into the grn and had a couple of portable repeaters wouldn't that solve their problem.

ivahri · Post by **ivahri** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:41 pm

That would be too much like common sense! They actually could concentrate the money on putting more bases in to the areas that they alone need- like in National Parks. As you say- do that plus fit more UHF portable repeaters and they would actually be better off now & in to the future. Unfortunately a lot of people have a simple view that VHF gets in to places that UHF can't- that is only the case if you replace 1 VHF base for 1 UHF base and assumes that antenna performance will be the same. Antenna performance at UHF absolutely creams VHF and you don't have the noise that can be very bad at VHF (admittedly highband is better than 80MHz). But I sense the decision is yet another political one...

Cheers,

Richard

centralcoastscanman · Post by **centralcoastscanman** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:58 pm

ah ok thanks richard, not knowing much about vhf not really game to comment on it but thanks for confirming what i'd thought.

<rant>

thats the same for all services that run their own systems. The big culprits are NP&WS, Department of Health, Rural Fire Service for wastage of government money.

</rant>

cartman · Post by **cartman** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:08 am

There is a mention in the NSW tenders April 2009
A closed tender to specificlally nominated parties as in RFT 0900631

No other information listed.
However the NPWS did basically put all the information on the internet previously
Largely an exercise now to update location and frequency information
Sounds stupid but they did, which is why their radio systems are so well known (as opposed to somebody leaking a radio code plug)

Grant

scanSydney

national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife

Re: national parks and wildlife