911:: Marking Time

[Guest guest]

I have a procedural question. Up until about 5 years ago, we had no CAD system

to assist with the logging of units. With the addition of the cad, we still

maintained a paper log redundancy. Every unit that was on radio for something

" non-call-for-service " was acknowledged with " ok <unit> " . If a unit was

responding to a call for service, we answered with " <unit> <time> " . All units

in the field would track their own times, using what we gave on the radio, for

their reports.

Along with the CAD system, came the ability to send a report, with times,

to a remote printer located in the firehouse, squad building, or station house.

A year ago we abandoned the paper logs and rely solely on the CAD system. The

paper logs are still available, in the event we lose CAD for some reason. Now

here is my question :

Several dispatchers have asked if it would be satisfactory to acknowledge

all units, all of the time, with " <unit> ok " . We have allowed one shift to

begin using this as a test. It sounded really awkward the first few times I

heard it, but it is beginning to grow on me. There is no obvious need to say

the time anyway, since everyone gets a printout at the end of the incident.

Question number two :

What is used by your agencies to signify to the field unit that you

have recieved and understood their transmission, particularly when their

transmission contains specific information and/or instruction ? We are

attempting to standardize how we answer these transmissions. Examples of what I

hear are ; received, copy, ok, understood, and acknowledged. The only

one I truly do not like is " received', because it is OFTEN misunderstood as

" repeat " .

THOUGHTS?

J. Fred Ayars

Senior PST

Salem County NJ

>