WAS: Locates, NOW: totally redundant acknowledgements

August 7, 2002

At 11:59 08/07/2002 -0400, said:

>i just get tired of saying 10-4 all the time, and if an officer ask a

>question that requires a yes answer, i'll sometimes just say affirmative.. i

>see nothing wrong with it..

I think the point was missed here, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The

issue WAS NOT whether to use " affirmative " or " 10-4 " (that IS a separate

issue because 10-4 does NOT mean " yes " but " Acknowledged your

transmission " ); instead it was a discourse about acknowledging an

acknowledged message.

I am careful to use " affirmative " when I am indicating an affirmative

answer to an inquiry. " Do you still have the RP on the phone? " would be

answered either " affirmative " or " negative. " Not " 10-4 " or.... well,

" no. " <grin>

Affirmative is a perfectly acceptable answer to a yes/no question. " 10-4 "

-- IF your agency uses that aural brevity code -- is NOT the same as

" affirmative. " 10-4 means " I copied your message. "

Let's say you give a unit a detail. The unit acknowledges the detail.

There is no need for the dispatcher to acknowledge the acknowledgement. I

hear dispatchers responding, on the air, to a unit who has just said,

" 10-4, enroute " with their own, redundant " 10-4. " (Or " copy. " Or whatever

words one uses in one's respective radio nomenclature.) Look, you sent

them on that call, they said they're going, there's no need to acknowledge

their acknowledgement.

No big deal. It's just redundant; that was the whole point of the string.

<shrugging> As is this, I suppose!

Happy to be here, proud to serve.

Olmstead

Communications Supervisor

~on the Central California coastline~

" Not presumed to be an official statement of my employing agency. "

Home E-mail: mailto:gryeyes@...

Recommended Posts