Aural Brevity Codes (ABC's)

[bcjack]

For centuries, public safety agencies have used ABC's to communicate. Over the years, with the advent of the Incident Command System (ICS), and SEMS (Standardized Emergency Management System) there has been a move away from 10 and 11 codes to the use of "Clear Text" or in plain english, saying what you mean in plain english. I have noticed that Law Enforcement has been resistant to moving to "Clear Text". Does anyone have an opinion or reason why this is so? I have noticed that in those Communications Centers that dispatch LE, Fire and EMS, the Dispatchers seem to have a really tough time jumping from 10 and 11 codes to clear text, depending on which radio they are conversing on. They have a tough enough time doing their job without having to be forced to speak multiple languages on the radio.

I'm new here, so be gentle on me!!!!

[Welpe]

Greetings from the next largest city north of you. :smile:

The dispatchers at our agency seem to have no problem switching between codes. I don't really have a problem using them, especially since the hills in our area don't always allow for clear transmissions.

[Your Mentor]

I've worked with a few allied agency dispatches and the USNPS mandated plain language on the air. Conversely, I ran wants checks through a border state HP and they returned everything to me in their 'special' 10 and 11 codes. I didn't have a clue what they were saying and had to ask for plain language explainations. That was all at a time when I was assigned in the deep desert and CHP dispatch dead spots were everywhere. For the most part, however, we dispatch only through CHP dispatches and so forget the differences in those codes. I for one prefer using codes for brevity and since I have worked mostly in rural areas I want the scanner jockies to only know what they have to. In fact, I find myself calling dispatch on my cell phone more often which is even more efficient if you're dealing with something odd. At least out here where the dispatchers aren't real busy. However, I've always wondered, as have many others, why there isn't a national standard for aural brevity codes. You'd think IACP would have addressed the issue years ago. If they ever do, you know CA POST will also adopt the standard. Of course, CHP is even more stubborn about yeilding to new ideas so I imagine we'll always stick with our codes. One thing I've also noticed is that our list of codes is extremely small compared to other agencies.

[Tom]

True That! Allied agencies have BIG 11 and 10 codes. As a matter of fact our 10-35 to allied agencies is a time check!!!! (our 10-37) At least it is for my wifes agency:biggrin:shock:ubt:

Tom

[bcjack]

Sooooo...What is the difference between "What is your 10-20" and "Where are you?" What is the difference between "Gimme a 10-29" or "Check one for wants?"

It is time to have all agencies speak the same language!!! English!!!

[CHP Explorer]

The reasons that these codes were developed was to save time. For example, Your on a stop its faster to say "Unit X: 27,28,29 on a stop at 3rd and main" compared to "Unit X: I need a DL Check, Reg Check, and also Wants and my location".

Personally I think when a dispatcher hears it clicks they already know what you want. Like a second nature thing. If that makes since.

[x MAIT]

bcjack,

I think the most important part of the codes is the officer safety factor. When you are stopped on the 710 freeway in East LA, with the driver standing next to you and 3 of his friends sitting in the car and dispatch returns with the code for stolen vehicle, armed, it is very important to simply reply in a calm tone with the code for backup, rather than let the suspect know what you are saying.

As for saving time, I can remember...... anyway, there was a time when you could respond to a call from dispatch by just clicking your mike twice. But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far.........

[SB 405]

Yeah x Mait but I bet a guy like that has been around the block more than once with the law and I wouldn't be suprised if he knew the code for a stolen vehicle. So while you wait for backup you have this guy at gunpoint while his three buddies are all giving you stink eye out the back window and God knows what they have in mind. Can you run the plate before the stop to help avoid such a problem and get backup in the roll a little quicker? Or is this just me livin' in a perfect world?:lol:

[SB 405]

I've worked with a few allied agency dispatches and the USNPS mandated plain language on the air. Conversely, I ran wants checks through a border state HP and they returned everything to me in their 'special' 10 and 11 codes. I didn't have a clue what they were saying and had to ask for plain language explainations. That was all at a time when I was assigned in the deep desert and CHP dispatch dead spots were everywhere. For the most part, however, we dispatch only through CHP dispatches and so forget the differences in those codes. I for one prefer using codes for brevity and since I have worked mostly in rural areas I want the scanner jockies to only know what they have to. In fact, I find myself calling dispatch on my cell phone more often which is even more efficient if you're dealing with something odd. At least out here where the dispatchers aren't real busy. However, I've always wondered, as have many others, why there isn't a national standard for aural brevity codes. You'd think IACP would have addressed the issue years ago. If they ever do, you know CA POST will also adopt the standard. Of course, CHP is even more stubborn about yeilding to new ideas so I imagine we'll always stick with our codes. One thing I've also noticed is that our list of codes is extremely small compared to other agencies.Mentor,ever find yourself having to look up a code,you know for the real rare stuff?

[x MAIT]

SB 405

I was just talking about one of my rollers. If I thought something might be hot, I would run it and wait for the return before I stopped it. The one I talked about was just a "routine" speed stop. Everything worked out ok, obviously.

[carcop]

There is actually a big push nationwide to try to go to "Clear Text" over radios. Lots of resistance for many reasons but I think it will actually happen at some point. With the advancement of radios and coverage, the "save time" agrument is really not that strong. There are many things that can be said plainly that take just as much as using some codes. In reality, what do you really save. In the past, sure, coverage was not as advanced as it is now so short was key.

As for the "people listening on scanners" argument goes, lets face it, anyone who is really into listening to us already knows or will quickly learn the brevity codes. Hell they are published all over the place. They are not a classified document and can be found for just about any LE agency. The only ones who will be confused will be the kids or the "first timers". The general public, sure, they may not know what the codes mean but they are only listening when we are standing next to them on a stop. I do believe that some codes need to be kept, 10-36 for example, I want some code when the info you are about to give me in front of the suspect is of "great importance". Officer safety thing for sure.

Many departments (not us) use a trunking system or encryption so they general public will not be able to hear the radio traffic, only squelches. These systems are becoming very common and the general public is not able to obtain the PL tones that will allow their radio to "understand" LEO radios. I'm sure in time, as with most things, they will. But, as for now it is one of those steps that will make "clear text" more appealing.

Just a quick example of "bad" communication with 10 codes. The last agency I worked with 10-10 meant officer needs emergency assistance....... Here it means Off duty. BIG FUBAR if help was needed from a joint agency.

[bcjack]

Thank you carcop. 10-10 means Off Duty for CHP and many others, 10-10 means OFFICER NEEDS HELP in another agency, and 11-99 is probably not even a factor in the 10-10 "I need help" agency. "Send me some help" or some similar version of that seems a lot easier to say than 11-99, 10-10, 10-40, 10-36, 999, 998, 997, or whatever.

[nobody33]

As a dispatcher I like 10 codes for the most part.

At the CHP it seems like the officers and dispatchers used the codes, and knew them pretty well. At the local PD's I have worked for- this is not the case. Many people only know a few, common, codes, even though there are maybe 50-60 authorized. I think that probally due to CHP officer going through the same academy, while local PD's come from academies all over (typically). Seemed like there was more emphisis on the codes at the patrol. I can remember in high school writting 10 codes 100 times each if I missed them on a weekly test as an explorer.

I think back up requests should be standardized state wide. One for Officer down, one for code 3 help, and one for code2. It's always a pain hammering that out with mutual aid requests and sometimes it's wrong- in the game of telephone or intercom an officer screaming for "backup" becomes a code 2 request, or an officer asking calmy for another unit somehow gets a army of units code 3, etc etc.

San Bernardino SO has "10-89" request for an armored gunship. How cool is that, but I bet if it was used people wouldn't know what it ment anyways.

[bcjack]

Armored Gunship???? Was that purchased with Homeland Security Grant funds????:shock:

If so, give me a 10-89 tooo.

[Welpe]

Armored Gunship? Man, that'd be sweet for Mardi Gras here. :badgrin:

[nobody33]

Armored Gunship???? Was that purchased with Homeland Security Grant funds????:shock:

If so, give me a 10-89 tooo.

Haha, no been around a while, they can shoot out of their helicopters with shoulder weapons.

[dw]

Armored Gunship???? Was that purchased with Homeland Security Grant funds????:shock:

If so, give me a 10-89 tooo.

Alameda County SO has an gunboat (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/feature.html) to patrol the bay -- and yes, it's for Homeland Security.

[Mac]

Alameda County SO has an gunboat (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/feature.html) to patrol the bay -- and yes, it's for Homeland Security.
Nice article. That looks like a pretty good gig!

[bcjack]

New info on the Codes VS. Plain English ("Clear Text")...

According to Officer.com, LE Departments must begin using "Plain English" for inter-departmental communication by October 2007 or risk losing grant funding. Internal communications continue to be 10 codes, but inter-agency or inter-departmental must be in "Plain English"...

[Dipmo]

New info on the Codes VS. Plain English ("Clear Text")...

According to Officer.com, LE Departments must begin using "Plain English" for inter-departmental communication by October 2007 or risk losing grant funding. Internal communications continue to be 10 codes, but inter-agency or inter-departmental must be in "Plain English"...

I remember recently reading that the Homeland Security Secretary retracted the plain English requirement while he was speaking to the Chiefs of Police Conference.


http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=26084

[bcjack]

Dipmo:

Newer article...


http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=27215

[bluiis911]

In our Comm Center we monitor all the local Allied Agencies and I find myself concerned with officer safety when I hear their dispatchers use clear text. Use of 10 codes allows the officer to receive, as well as give, information without the "bad guy" or scanner chasers knowing exactly what is going on. I feel an officer's safety is greatly compromised by using clear text.

[bcjack]

bluiis911:

A few years ago that may have been true...Today...99% of the people that have a scanner, and I would bet 99% of the "Bad guys" know the codes...Soooo who are we really "Coding" for???? I think it is tradition...:confused:

[Mac]

As the name implies, the codes are for brevity more than anything else. Requesting a "28" is shorter than asking for a "registration check", and dispatching an "11-25/11-26" is more brief than saying "disabled vehicle blocking the traffic lane". Putting out an 11-79 takes less airtime than saying "traffic collision with ambulance enroute", etc. It doesn't seem like much when considered in the context of one or two transmissions, but if you work an area that has a high volume of radio traffic, it certainly adds up quickly. The time wasted on clear text could be the time needed for an officer to put out a cover call or 11-99.

Since the advent of MDCs, I use them for everything I can to save airtime....and wish everybody else would, too. It certainly cuts down on the amount of radio traffic!

[bcjack]

Another article to read...

http://www.news-herald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15669950&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=6

[Cameron]

It seems that using ABCs is essential to the safety of the officer in any type of situation, in that the "bad guys" will not know what communication is happening between the officer and dispatch.

So, instead of going "clear text" nationwide, why not have a national standard on ABCs? Sure, some people would take the trouble to learn them, but most dummies would probably never figure it out.

Dummies, of course, being the people who you've stopped that that have a warrant for their arrest.

[bcjack]

Cameron:

I agree with your point about having standardized ABC's...But it will NEVER happen. We can't get two neighboring communities to use the same ABC's. Also, we have a new standard coming down on us that is called NIMS...National Incident Management System that over 60% of the nation is going nuts about. The primary reason for everyone going nuts and fighting the change is solely because it is based on the California ICS or Incident Command System (aka SEMS). Even though California has used ICS/SEMS for nearly 40 years, and on some of the World's largest disasters, it isn't good enough because "It came from California".

[Your Mentor]

I wish we had MDC's out here Mac. I'd use it all the time. Of course, then I wouldn't have anyone to talk to. :neutral:

[Mac]

I wish we had MDC's out here Mac. I'd use it all the time. Of course, then I wouldn't have anyone to talk to. :neutral:
'Ya kiddin'??? With an MDC, you can talk to anybody in the state! Between an MDC and a cell phone, the world is at your fingertips. :smile:

The MDCs really are great, though....you can pull up your incident logs while enroute to a call and get all the info that dispatch doesn't give you over the air, see what everybody's doing at a glance, pull up your unit history, etc.....very handy tools.