SA Firefighter
General Discussion => SA Firefighter General => Topic started by: Mic10110 on January 21, 2011, 01:01:09 PM
-
also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle
-
also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle
*sigh*
-
also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle
*sigh*
Having trouble finding a care gland? :evil:
-
also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle
*sigh*
Having trouble finding a care gland? :evil:
I've got one... its just always empty!
-
I could be missing something here, but why cant the cfs use k codes? Its the professional thing to do isnt it and it makes communicating with adl fire easy and accurate?
-
What exactly is the purpose of codes?
I notice that many of MFS sitreps back to Adelaide fire use the relevant K codes...and then say what the code means....so it isn't shortening the message.
If you don't use codes all the time, it is very easy to forget them... numerous people are awful on the radio now..imagine them starting to talk, stop, keep the finger on the PTT button, while they look up a code for what they want......! Plain English is much easier (although some even struggle with that!)
Police use codes - and they are used all the time..... although when a code that is rarely used comes up, patrols are having to go to the cheat sheet to work out what it is....
From a police perspective, codes are great, as you have a large number of people on the same radio talkgroup, with different task to do. You learn very quickly to listen for the codes that relate to your task.
On a CFS radio pretty much all of those on the radio are going to do the same thing!
I think codes have their place, but CFS is not that place!!
Pip
-
i completely understand that many struggle when a radio is put in their hands (i personally found i put on a 'radio' voice), but there are only a handful of k codes that are really relevant to tasks the cfs face. I still believe they are useful and its not too hard to memorise a few codes
-
i completely understand that many struggle when a radio is put in their hands (i personally found i put on a 'radio' voice), but there are only a handful of k codes that are really relevant to tasks the cfs face. I still believe they are useful and its not too hard to memorise a few codes
oh what a lovely condescending view you have of CFS....we should be so greatful that you chose to spare time to deliver such platitudes
FYI - Many of us in the CFS particularly those of us on the urban fringe have just as broad a range of firefighting tasks presented to us as our cousins in blue have, with the possible exception of pressure sores from uncomfortable beds on night shifts.
As for K codes..... why the hell do u use them, you have an MDT. Move out of the 1960s/1970s...technology...and even the CFS move on. :mrgreen:
As for CFS using them....as Pip says, because many CFS types don't use a radio often (or if they do its a CB type), they struggle with basic RT skills. Making it more complicated isnt a wise move - some struggle with plain language
-
One very important "K" code for CFS,and it's normally is an inclusive one....such as "OH NO were ---K-- now", or "the fire has jumped the ---K--- track", this style of "K" code although not accepted by the management has been in use by volunteers for years.
Upon hearing of this "K" code it is universally understood that fire activity has elevated, or something out of the ordinary has occured and requires urgent attention!
Happy to help! JAFF
-
As for CFS using them....as Pip says, because many CFS types don't use a radio often (or if they do its a CB type), they struggle with basic RT skills. Making it more complicated isnt a wise move - some struggle with plain language
If we're working on the theory that "if most volunteers can't get their heads around it we should do it", then we may as well drop Rescue and Hazmat and Compartment Fire, and all those other more complex things we need to learn...
just sayin'
-
i completely understand that many struggle when a radio is put in their hands (i personally found i put on a 'radio' voice), but there are only a handful of k codes that are really relevant to tasks the cfs face. I still believe they are useful and its not too hard to memorise a few codes
And that is the problem...only a few codes to memorise...that's easy...until you come across something that is different.... and either don't use the code, or have to go looking at your cheat sheet for them...which defeats the whole purpose of having the K codes in the first place!!
Pip
-
"oh what a lovely condescending view you have of CFS....we should be so greatful that you chose to spare time to deliver such platitudes"
???
Dont patronise me, im not trying to be arrogant. My CFS station finds itself positioned completely in the urban area so we too see a wide ragne of jobs, but how any k codes do you actually use? we mainly use k 1-5 and k 55-99? so you cant sit there and tell me you use all of the k codes (k 40 for example) As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication and when you are on the way to an incident that the mfs arrive to first, it is always helpful knowing what is happening before you actually arrive at the incident.
I getting the idea that many dont like the codes, but there really isnt that many to get your head around, and im upset that some view them as not appropriate for the cfs, but i believe we should try and be as professional as possible and learning k codes is no different to learning how to operate the radio itself
-
also (via online scanning) heard TTG CFS using K-codes for the rekindle
*sigh*
Having trouble finding a care gland? :evil:
I've got one... its just always empty!
sorry but the guys ragging on TTG using the k codes....really? i fail to see how this affects you in any way at all? as long as they are used accurately it shouldnt be your problem.
-
J Squared,
Maybe you need to refer to SOP 7.1
Radio Communications
• All personnel (CFS or SAMFS) when operating on CFS frequencies shall do so in accordance with CFS Standard Operational Procedures (K Codes are not to be used by CFS resources).
• All crews (CFS or SAMFS) when operating on MFS frequencies shall do so in accordance with MFS Standard Operational Procedures for Communication (K Codes are not to be used by CFS resources).
-
Dont patronise me,
oh no..I'm not patronising you....my sarcasm would never allow it
-
Its just old mate Chappy again, doing the same thing he has done since 198godknowswhen....we just laugh and move on....
-
No point of codes for CFS when everything has been working fine for the last few decades the way it is.
-
No point of codes for CFS when everything has been working fine for the last few decades the way it is.
:lol: :lol: thus we should never try anything new or use newer technology.... :roll:
-
I have a Foundation license for Amateur Radio which I do not use much. Certainly not enough to be confident with using all of the international Q codes.
Thus I use longer radio transmissions to make sure my message is accurate to the recipient, rather than risk using the wrong Q code.
Personally, I would hate to accidentally use a wrong K code at an incident.
But then I am in a different service in which we have enough issues using pro-words correctly. That includes me.
For me the purpose of radio is to pass information accurately.
-
This arguement has been going on for years, quite simple the Chief Officer SOP's state not, to so end of story.Move on :-D
-
This arguement has been going on for years, quite simple the Chief Officer SOP's state not, to so end of story.Move on :-D
If the Chief's SOPs told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too? :-P
-
This arguement has been going on for years, quite simple the Chief Officer SOP's state not, to so end of story.Move on :-D
If the Chief's SOPs told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too? :-P
Hey don't shoot the messenger, we have a GO who enforces it :-P
-
If the Chief's SOPs told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too? :-P
I'm pretty sure i saw the draft FGP for this and the Chief is alleged to have referred to a committee for a decision..... The CFS Lemming Mod is yet to be released into SOPS I think
-
The Chief doesn't sign off on them, they just put his electronic john hancock on everything...
-
Just because some brigades choose to follow SOP's and not use K-codes does not make them unprofessional! I'm ex military, and we were trained in the importance of clear concise radio transmissions, no codes were used then and I doubt if they are now. The importance of the basic radio transmission rules for a military application are just as relevant for the CFS, why introduce additional confusion or doubt. It just provides further opportunity to mess up.
-
Dont patronise me, im not trying to be arrogant. My CFS station finds itself positioned completely in the urban area so we too see a wide ragne of jobs, but how any k codes do you actually use? we mainly use k 1-5 and k 55-99? so you cant sit there and tell me you use all of the k codes (k 40 for example) As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication and when you are on the way to an incident that the mfs arrive to first, it is always helpful knowing what is happening before you actually arrive at the incident.
I getting the idea that many dont like the codes, but there really isnt that many to get your head around, and im upset that some view them as not appropriate for the cfs, but i believe we should try and be as professional as possible and learning k codes is no different to learning how to operate the radio itself
If you honestly think that "only a handful" of K-codes a relevent to what the CFS does, you've certainly got a very skewed view of the role the CFS plays in emergency management in SA. I find it surprising considering you're from a wholly Urban brigade (Didn't know the CFS had any of those, but sure...)
Lets take your K-40 example... Of course you're not going to use it... Until you are called to a Bomb Threat. You're not going to use K-1 unless you get turned out!
I think you missed the point of Jaff's post. K-Codes are NOT a universally recognised form of communication. Infact, they're not even recognised nationwide or statewide! It's only SAMFS that use them. Everyone can understand plain english and no cheat sheet is required!
If you want to be as professional as possible, stop running your own race, read your SOP's and adhere to them. It's not hard. They're there for a reason.
sorry but the guys ragging on TTG using the k codes....really? i fail to see how this affects you in any way at all? as long as they are used accurately it shouldnt be your problem.
As above, you're not a red truck, you have your own set of rules. Follow them.
It affects me, because if I turn out with a bunch of SAMFS wannabes running their own race, they in turn make it hard for me and my crew to understand what is going on, merely because we don't crack a fat at the first sign of "Sekret Fireman Kodes".
Are you going to start memorising the 700 codes? As well as situation found, action taken, location of detectors and all the other stuff SAMFS love to pass via R/T?
If CFS back the use of K-Codes, then by all means we can embrace them. But is it really that hard to keep it to plain english? As has been said time and time again above, plain english makes things far easier to understand and often times ends up being far quicker than looking at cheat sheets.
-
Havent bothered to read most of this.
But from my point of view [sitting behind a centracom in Adelaide Fire], i would rather CFS and SES [yes they do it on occasion on B001] did not use K-codes as simply put too many don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion.
Besides, its in the CFS SOPs.
-
Also stop woffling on, listen to VicFire and learn how to talk on the radio, concise and to the point...and they get told to shutup if they woffle
-
As jaff stated they are a universally recognised form of communication
Say what!!!.........Did you actually believe something that I posted........You must be new on here!
-
Wasn't "ragging on TTG for using them". I'm be happy to use K-Codes but the rule book clearly says no CFS crew are to use them (CFS, EMA or MFS area)
BTW - Does anyone know the history behind K-Codes? Are the recognised world wide, Australia wide or SAMFS? :wink:
-
SAFB/SAMFS only
-
New Zealand Fire Service also use them, in fact I think thats where we got them from, Mr Bruce who was the SAMFS CO back in the early 80's came from there.
-
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement.
-
k40 is not an arrival code, it is an informative code.
55, 66 ,77, 88, 99 are arrival codes
-
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement.
That is exactly why we don't use K Codes......K40 isn't one, certainly not an arrival !
-
k 40 is an arrival code, so if the cfs appliance was using k codes you would only use that if you were arriving first to an mfs area otherwise you would use k 2 or your normal radio procedure. take change of quaters to an mfs station for example, k codes make it clear and precise for appliance movement.
Thank you for proving exactly why the CFS do not, and should not use K-Codes.
-
Why let CFS use K-codes when most can't even use the phonetic alphabet correctly. There's only 26 words in that and the first letter is a dead giveaway, yet so many can't even do that...
-
sorry my mistake i ment informative after arrival. there are only bugger all codes that the cfs would use anyway. if you dont use them whilst in mfs area you just make it harder for the coms opperator. but it needs to be wide spread you cant have some brigades using them and others not.
-
sorry my mistake i ment informative after arrival. there are only bugger all codes that the cfs would use anyway. if you dont use them whilst in mfs area you just make it harder for the coms opperator. but it needs to be wide spread you cant have some brigades using them and others not.
Are you sure about that? After all we just had a comms operator on these forums, in this very thread specifically say:
But from my point of view [sitting behind a centracom in Adelaide Fire], i would rather CFS and SES [yes they do it on occasion on B001] did not use K-codes as simply put too many don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion.
Besides, its in the CFS SOPs.
So, vandog, how exactly does it make it harder for comms operators? Your own inability to use K-Codes highlights this more than any academic argument possibly could. If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?
[EDIT: Edited for clarity!]
-
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?
?
-
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?
?
In reference to vandog, after using your post as a quote to outline how his "If you don't use them in MFS area it makes it harder for Comms operators" argument has no merit. I then went on to suggest to vandog, that if he could not get the meaning of the K-40 code correct on an internet forum where he has no time restraint and is able to re-read his post as many times as he would like, then the chances of him getting it right in a pressure situation on the fireground were little to none. Thus illustrating the fact that CFS volunteers "don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion" thus making it far harder for comms operators, as you so well pointed out.
(we're on the same side this time ;) )
-
I think you missed the point of Jaff's post. K-Codes are NOT a universally recognised form of communication. Infact, they're not even recognised nationwide or statewide! It's only SAMFS that use them. Everyone can understand plain english and no cheat sheet is required!
If you want to be as professional as possible, stop running your own race, read your SOP's and adhere to them. It's not hard. They're there for a reason.
if half the cfs appliances/ stations use them and half dont if course things are going to get ballsed up! and old mate that was 1 comms operator out of how many? and if the cfs would get them right it would be much easier for coms in a pressure situation. either all in or none in. and if the SOP'S say not to use them then y arent there brigades being instructed not to?
And numbers if you cant differentiate from a computer with no codes infront of you to a fire call which you have the travel time to work out your code with the codes should be there infront of you if you are first arrival in mfs area which happens how much?
-
Why are we continuing to argue that we should only use K-Codes upon entering SAMFS area? We don't live in the good old days of two comcens, we only talk to Adelaide Fire operators (usually). Does it not follow, that if this is the case, and as some allege, poor Adelaide Fire can't handle comms without K-Codes, that we should be using them regardless of response area?
We talk to the same people, so why does an imaginary line on the road matter?
At the end of the day, I would just be happy to get a decent arrival message and informative SITREP in plain english from CFS Brigades. Until people can do that, there is no way in hell the should be allowed to use coded shortcuts.
-
Why are we continuing to argue that we should only use K-Codes upon entering SAMFS area?
the same reason that they want to use the K-codes in the first place? - an inferiority complex perhaps?
two different agencies doing a not dissimilar job....with a slightly different focus in some areas- but happen to use a lot of similar equipment. Anyone who's ever been in the Army will know what the term "chocolate soldier" means......
(and no..before you jump on me it's not a racially prejudiced slur!)
-
A concise arrival message would be nice. Rather than "yeah we are here" and nothing more until someone in a group car physically gets on scene.
-
If you can't get it right in written form on the internet, how sure can you be that you'll get it right, under pressure on the fireground?
?
In reference to vandog, after using your post as a quote to outline how his "If you don't use them in MFS area it makes it harder for Comms operators" argument has no merit. I then went on to suggest to vandog, that if he could not get the meaning of the K-40 code correct on an internet forum where he has no time restraint and is able to re-read his post as many times as he would like, then the chances of him getting it right in a pressure situation on the fireground were little to none. Thus illustrating the fact that CFS volunteers "don't actually know them well enough and get them wrong on occasion" thus making it far harder for comms operators, as you so well pointed out.
(we're on the same side this time ;) )
No probs, wasn't sure with the way i was qouted originally.
A good point is raised by numbers too, by your logic Vandog, you want to use k-codes in MFS area [GRN 150], but in CFS area you want to use plain english [say GRN124] and yet you are talking to the same operators... And no i am not the only one who would like to see CFS stop 'trying' to use k-codes, just the only one that bothers to read some of this dribble at times.
and if the SOP'S say not to use them then y arent there brigades being instructed not to?
My friend, the SOPs are the instruction.
-
Probably has a lot to do with you not reading them or your brigade not advising you and perhaps your part of that generation that thinks writing Y instead of Why is acceptable !
-
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night
Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?
-
Contact Adelaide Fire to either upgrade the response to your first job or default your second job to another brigade. (Correct me if I'm wrong please) AdFire will keep sending jobs to a brigade until they say no more. Thats what an OIC does... If your the OIC make sure you have balls and make the decision......
-
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night
Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?
Individual CFS resources are not tracked as part of the current CRD setup. Thus individual CFS appliances updating their response status is useless as Adelaide Fire turnout a brigade rather than individual resources.
As Mic10110 said, that's the role of the OIC to notify Adelaide Fire of their brigades inability to respond to an incident.
-
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night
Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?
And a K code would have fixed that issue how....?
Pip
-
They would have called ALERTS and the brigade should have organised additional resources at that time. Thats the system the CFS STATE have organised.
As stated, we keep sending the jobs to brigades unless they tell us theyre unavailable.
-
well thats an all round $hithouse system.
At what point does everyone stop stroking their own individual ego's and start realising that adelaide fire needs to co-ordinate and manage the resources it has.....instead of just being a dispatch function.
Not only will this mean resources are better utilised, but you can begin to maintain a record of what works, what doesn't, and who needs more resources in their areas.
Everyone sits here arguing that some silly codes will fix everything without looking at the bigger picture! - maybe a few insular bubbles need popping and eyes opened....
-
the theory was that basic MDTs would be introduced when SACAD surfaced... but $$$
-
Bordey has it in one!!
-
An example of the CFS using k codes would of been last night
Both Roseworthy appliances, 34P & 24P responded to an incident around midnight last night. As you do, they both individually notified adelaide fire that they were responding to the incident. Half an hour later, they were paged to respond to an RCR in Hewett, which 359 were also called to. The issue was that they were still at the first incident (and hadn't notified they had finished their first incident 'cos they hadn't) and had to release one of their appliances to the RCR and then call for assistance from other brigades to assist in the first incident. Maybe if they were allowed to use K codes, Adelaide fire would of known they couldn't respond to the RCR and they would of sent another brigade to assist 359. What happens if the first incident was a k99 and then they were asked to attend a RCR with confirmed entrapments around the same time?
And a K code would have fixed that issue how....?
Pip
Didn't say it would fix it, just saying that if CFS used K codes they would be able to let Adelaide fire know when they are K3 or transmit a K44 when a sitrep becomes available so they know when they are available if another incident come up in their area like last night
-
Also the Group Officers should manage what appliances are where.If they get another call, they can call up comms and ask for more appliances.
-
again..shouldn't the one communications centre have the "big picture" as to what is going on statewide if they're supposed to be doing all the CRD?
**queue broken record**
-
Completly agree if we had a big enough fund to implement it. Til then, drop the ego, forget any wanna be type behaviour and co-ordinate a response. I'ts not hard to tell AdFire your busy and can't take further calls. It's all there in the MOU's
-
01:03:42 10-02-11 MFS: FURTHER INFO - CAR HAS SKIDDED ON DIESEL, CRASHED INTO TRUCK WITH PERSONS POSSIBLY TRAPPED IN THE VEHICLE. DRIVER OF TRUCK IS K41. - CFS Light Group Officers Response
From Adel fire to CFS :???? K code?
-
I'd be the same message they sent to the MFS appliance attending the same call.....
Pip
-
We've all seen Adelaide Fire page out K-Codes to CFS appliances before, eg: I believe Bute CFS got paged to a K99 House fire a few months back. It's very different when your use K-Codes all day every day in your job, and you perhaps slip at some hour of the morning. It's far different to a CFS wannabe learning all the K-Codes then screwing up their usage.
And, as Pip said, often a single message hits multiple sources.
-
And although the CFS guys may have been confused in the paging format it also puts more info onto one page which is nice
-
When I was with an EMA brigade, I used K Codes just to annoy people who jump up and down on this forum quoting the SOP,s. The fact is nobody really gives a rat's. Use them or don't use them. Ad fire certainly couldnt care less. It doesn't matter. The only people who care are those listening to their scanners who have nothing to do with the job. Go and mow your lawns people or count your coin collection. It would have been time better spent than arguing about nothing. :-) :-( :-D
-
When I was with an EMA brigade, I used K Codes just to annoy people who jump up and down on this forum quoting the SOP,s. The fact is nobody really gives a rat's. Use them or don't use them. Ad fire certainly couldnt care less. It doesn't matter. The only people who care are those listening to their scanners who have nothing to do with the job. Go and mow your lawns people or count your coin collection. It would have been time better spent than arguing about nothing. :-) :-( :-D
I agree Bonny, In fact I agree that much I might start giving arrival messages in Mandarin Chinese!...and when people complain....Ill just tell em "tfuu kingfra isht"...who cares what the SOPs are I , I make my own rules....so there!
-
My guys got confused the other morning over these firetrucking things.
AdFire: Roger your K-1
Appliance: Please repeat
AdFire: Roger your K-1 mobile
Appliance: Yes we are mobile. Whats K-1 mean?
Adfire: Roger your mobile
SOP 7.1 Dated August 2011 says K-Codes are not to be used by CFS resources.....
-
cfs can use K codes 0,1,4 and 5 now as thats what shows up in cad. when u book, offline, mobile, clear of call and back at station.
And when it is busy and there are many brigades coming up together the use of those could allow quicker radio transmissions ( just depends on how competent the appliance radio operator is)
-
Its not that hard to use the K-codes all you need to do is tell AF when you are mobile and back at station
-
SOP 7.1 Dated August 2011 says K-Codes are not to be used by CFS resources.....
Cool, looks like they weren't then.
-
SOP 7.1 Dated August 2011 says K-Codes are not to be used by CFS resources.....
Cool, looks like they weren't then.
Alex is right, they were only used by Adelaide fire ;)
However, i fully back the idea of using K-Codes on regional talkgroups now. After hearing all the dribble by surrounding groups and even local brigades, it's a waste of valuable attention that Adelaide Fire could spend elsewhere during a busy period.
CFS needs to get into the mind set, that we need to keep our messages *VERY* brief, unless one of three things happen:
- Incident Escalation. (This in itself should be kept to 2nd Alarm, 3rd Alarm, 4th Alarm, or Specialist resources)
- Adelaide Fire wanting to clarify information from a particular resource calling.
- The resource wanting to gain further information.
The example of Sturt group appliances not talking to Adelaide fire, undermines the actual need for SACAD.
"Adelaide Fire Strathalbyn 34P"
"Send Strathalbyn 34P"
"Strathalbyn 34P K1 incident 81"
"Roger, Strathalbyn 34P K1, Adelaide Fire Out"
"Adelaide Fire, Strathalbyn 34P"
"Send Strathalbyn 34P"
"Strathalbyn 34P, K5"
"Roger out"
Nice and Simple.
Whats even better you say? effing mobile comm terminals.
-
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
-
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
***wish we had a like button *** :-D KISS principle..
-
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
in my opinion.....a verbose and time wasting way of constructing a radio message. Identifying yourself everytime u speak, waiting for a response from the intended station....all that old radio operator crap went out with pedal HF radios.
Time with the button pushed is valuable time someone else cant transmit....and both fire services waffle on like its facebook chat. When the scheiße is hitting the whole house...not just the fan, very brief meessages are needed to save cluttering up the TG.
These days with modern filtered digital coms (even with SAGRN) the old methods of pre-warning your intended station can be dispensed withn - unless you want to address something out of the ordinary. We always talk to Adelaide Fire when we go mobile.....so why say it?....it just takes up air time. Yes yes...they might be busy...but they can ask for it again if they miss it.
My suggestion for the above is;
Strath 34P mobile incident 81, Strath 34P
Adelaide Fire Roger
(repeating ur c/s in case like half the CFS you forget to wait for tone before u talk). No need for out , over, under or the old favourite "over and out good buddy" - just a waste of frequency time
-
+1 for Simple language. It actually makes more sense (so it won't happen) for the MFS to cease using K codes for voice communications and stick to plain English words like "mobile" "arrived" "upgrade to" "stop" etc. If you want to send codes then get data terminals and push the buttons. If they don't work/won't be provided then plain English makes for less confusion and decoding.
Dave P.
-
plain language. Most radio ops don't do the role day in and out. It's hard enough for some to use the right pro words, can't imagine what would happen trying to remember k codes.
-
Posted on: Today at 05:44:02 PMPosted by: DaveP
+1 for Simple language. It actually makes more sense (so it won't happen) for the MFS to cease using K codes for voice communications and stick to plain English words like "mobile" "arrived" "upgrade to" "stop" etc. If you want to send codes then get data terminals and push the buttons. If they don't work/won't be provided then plain English makes for less confusion and decoding.
Dave P.
You only have to remember a few codes and if you're already having a brain meltdown because you need to decode them then ....... there is a problem!
[Posted by: vsteve01
plain language. Most radio ops don't do the role day in and out. It's hard enough for some to use the right pro words, can't imagine what would happen trying to remember k codes.
Seriously, how much simpler can you get?
Again........ remembering 3 or 4 K codes really isn't that hard!
Also, when communicating verbally (via radio), some things need to be repeated because they need to be acknowleged. I needs to be kept simple of course but each operator needs to know they have been recieved and understood.
-
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
I'm all in favour of keeping things simple, but
"Adelaide Fire, Strath 34P is K3"
is a lot quicker than saying
"Adelaide fire, Strath 34P is at incident but available to respond".
There are some cases where a K code is much faster and easier.
-
Posted on: Yesterday at 10:31:08 PMPosted by: CFS_Firey
Quote from: Pipster on Yesterday at 11:03:18 AM
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
I'm all in favour of keeping things simple, but
"Adelaide Fire, Strath 34P is K3"
is a lot quicker than saying
"Adelaide fire, Strath 34P is at incident but available to respond".
There are some cases where a K code is much faster and easier.
You can even forget the 'is' part .... and even the 'Adelaide Fire' part.
-
Posted on: Yesterday at 10:31:08 PMPosted by: CFS_Firey
Quote from: Pipster on Yesterday at 11:03:18 AM
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
I'm all in favour of keeping things simple, but
"Adelaide Fire, Strath 34P is K3"
is a lot quicker than saying
"Adelaide fire, Strath 34P is at incident but available to respond".
There are some cases where a K code is much faster and easier.
You can even forget the 'is' part .... and even the 'Adelaide Fire' part.
Have to agree. Using callsigns at the start of every transmission is NOT required. The whole point is once you establish who is calling, and who they are calling, until an OUT is given, that is the conversation that is happening.
In phone conversation we say"Hi Pip, this is Fred calling". Pip would say oh Hi Fred, Fred doesnt then keep saying Pip at the start of every sentence, nor does Pip (not that I have spoken on the phone with her...who knows??). Hence radio does not need this either!!
-
How about a button box?
(SHOCK. HORROR.)
-
How about a button box?
(SHOCK. HORROR.)
+1
One less sport stadium can buy 100,000 of these.
-
One less sport stadium can buy 100,000 of these.
+1
-
Button boxes would be the best solution.
-
Posted on: Yesterday at 10:31:08 PMPosted by: CFS_Firey
Quote from: Pipster on Yesterday at 11:03:18 AM
Isn't
"Adelaide Fire Strath 34P"
"Send Strath 34P"
"Strath 34P mobile incident 81"
"Roger, Strath 34P, Adelaide Fire Out"
Just as easy?
Pip
I'm all in favour of keeping things simple, but
"Adelaide Fire, Strath 34P is K3"
is a lot quicker than saying
"Adelaide fire, Strath 34P is at incident but available to respond".
There are some cases where a K code is much faster and easier.
You can even forget the 'is' part .... and even the 'Adelaide Fire' part.
Have to agree. Using callsigns at the start of every transmission is NOT required. The whole point is once you establish who is calling, and who they are calling, until an OUT is given, that is the conversation that is happening.
In phone conversation we say"Hi Pip, this is Fred calling". Pip would say oh Hi Fred, Fred doesnt then keep saying Pip at the start of every sentence, nor does Pip (not that I have spoken on the phone with her...who knows??). Hence radio does not need this either!!
Duuno if my conversation would go quite like that - Fred is a lad of few words!!!
The difference between a radio conversation, and a phone conversation is that you only have two participants on the phone conversation. On a radio conversation, there may be multiple conversations occurring / trying to happen on the one talkgroup.
Having said that, the CFS FGP needs to be changed, to reflect the changes in our radio communication technology, so we can get rid of many of the pro words (like over, out etc) and try & teach people to use less of the radio time.
Pro words like over / out etc came about because if you were listening to an HF radio, it was often the only way you knew someone had finished their message, as it was often very difficult to hear on those type of radios!
Pip
-
Totally agree Pip. Over is a dinosaur proword.....you can now hear the PTT release at the end of a transmission. I still think out is required, to designate to anyone else on that TG that the conversation has ceased and any other user can now transmit.
SAAS seem to do quite well without the use of out and over, as do SAPOL. Not sure why we still need them.
-
I still think out is required, to designate to anyone else on that TG that the conversation has ceased and any other user can now transmit.
listen before speaking.....an underrated SAGRN skill
-
I still think out is required, to designate to anyone else on that TG that the conversation has ceased and any other user can now transmit.
listen before speaking.....an underrated SAGRN skill
As someone who works on the radio side frequently....so very true!