Message Received Article

[Guest]

Regarding that "Message Recieved....Message Understood" article on FireEMSAlpha.com, what did you think?

I understand and agree with the concept, but here in Westchester at least if you repeat back orders, you're just going to have that much more radio traffic.

[tbendick 27]

I have read one of FEMA's training bulletins on the same topic. They recommend the exact same thing, repeat back orders received.

Working as both a EMT, Firefighter and an Aide at times, I will say that it is helpful at times to do this.

One recent example I can remember was something simple, Engine boss gave a message to the MPO, which wasn't heard clear. Thinking the boss had called for water the MPO, charged the hose line and at the same time repeat the message back. When the MPO repeated back that he was charging the line the boss now knew 2 things. 1, water was one the way and 2 the MPO didn't get the correct message.

However there are many other times, when someone says a floor or side of a building which is heard incorrect. Repeating it back will give the person sending the message a chance to correct it, in the event it was received in error.

[210 91]

If you ever listen to LA City news audio clips of vehicle chases or past events such as those two gunmem a few years ago that where armored up and went on a shooting spree, the dispatchers repeat word for word what the officers transmit through the entire ordeal. Takes a little longer but the instructions are clear. It's also dispatcher CYA for any potential negative outcomes or lawsuits etc.

Edited August 30, 2006 by 210

[IzzyEng4 427]

Dispatchers are trained to "echo" a calling unit's response. This was set up by APCO years ago and is part of thier training course to make sure that if other units did not hear a transmission due to whatever reason, the dispatcher is a "relay" of the message again. This was mainly started back in the old non-repeater days of low band radios and mixer off systems. Yes berevity should be used but the feild units must remember that otherwise I will repeat word for word the instructions they give. That is how I was trained as a dispatcher.

I do beleive that a dispatcher should be able to shorten up a message if there is a lot of un-pertinent information being transmitted out to them. As long as the original message is not diverted from.

Edited August 30, 2006 by IzzyEng4

[CAM502 6]

10-4

[AFS1970 504]

Editing out the non-pertinent info is an iffy thing at best, because it requires the receiver to decide what is important in what the sender said. It can be done, but only if everybody is trained to know what is important.

A policy we had in the Dispatch Center where I work (although it is enforced intermittantly) is that any transmission that changes the status of an incident or unit needs to be repeated.

Especially in the Volunteer service, when you are responding and depending on a pager for your radio traffic, and all you keep hearing is received.....received.....received....and maybe a time or a unit number, you really can't tell if the units on scene are calling for a second alarm or canceling all other units. Repeating messages would certainly eliminate the confusion.