9 Line Medevac Request

[NateF]

I had some interesting reply's on the last communications topic I posted, so I'm onto another one.

The Army, and I have to assume the other branches as well, have a variety of "fill-in-the-blank" type standard formats for messages. When I was still in the Army, most everything was done in the plain language way CAP and ever increasing numbers of agencies do things. In theory, some people might see things like the 9 mine medivac as "codes", which we can't/shouldn't use, but I don't take that view. I think we would have a number of applications for this tactic if it was done right.

If you are unfamiliar, this is how these things work (with regard to a medical evacuation request):

1. A medical evacuation is needed and certain information needs to be relayed every time one makes a request.

2. The person who will operate the radio gathers the required info.

3. Instead of explaining what information you are about to give each time, each line is always the same and identified by a line number like this:

(http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/First_Aid/9-line-medevac-request.shtml)

4. So one might say: "Line 1 _________. Line 2 __________. Line 3 Alpha. Line 4 Bravo. Line 5 two Alpha - one Bravo." And so on. This allows a long, complex message to be sent without having to describe everything over and over.

A few applications might be for the information required for a find or for half hour or hour check-ins and so forth. Thoughts? Obviously this one, the medevac is useless for us, but it wouldn't be hard to make up two or three of these for our most common, and lengthy, transmissions. Shortening them and reducing air time while also improving clarity. I know this would be a bit of a hassle in some cases if individual wings all made up their own, but that's not really much of a problem since National HQ could do the leg work to standardize them.

[arajca]

This is the same as some of the old reports (TEMPEST RAPID?) we used use on HF. National tried it again on the last national commex and communications is looking into this format again with ops at the higher levels.

[NateF]

Exactly!

I really like that it eliminates, what, 70%+ of the superfluous yapping that one needs to do on the radio? At least. A lot harder to forget what info you actually need also.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

What I like about this sort of standardization is that it would make it very easy to create cards that you coul give to everyone so that no matter what, anyone could call for medical help if their team leader becomes incapacitated. The basic brand new GTM3 could easily call in for help by themselves by reading a little paragraph that they just fill in the blanks, where they are who is hurt, and how bad they think the injured person is.

[SarDragon]

I like the idea.

Now all you have to do is get the whole bunch of movers and shakers to agree on the format and content. And then get all the players to use it properly.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

That's the beautiful thing about this sort of standardization, you don't have to get everyone to use it the same exact way. They just need to have it on hand. If they have it on hand, they will want to use it, and because they will just be reading it off of a card, they can't really get it wrong. You just read it and wait for the response.

I have been thinking of implementing this in our squadron for a while. Sometimes standardization really is a big help. This is one of those times because not everyone works well in stress as big as having an incapacitated GTL. And if you just have to read it, it doesn't take that much thought, and what you need can get out a lot faster if you just read it off, rather than thinking it all through step by step.

[davidsinn]

Take phone off belt.
Dial 911.
Give address or let them track my GPS beacon.
Done.
Why overly complicate things?

[RRLE]

Take phone off belt. Dial 911. Give address or let them track my GPS beacon. Done. Why overly complicate things?

The cell system and almost all other comms went down in Katrina. The cell system failed during Wilma in a few hours when the batteries ran out of power. The phone system was out for days. Amateur radio was about the only thing that was working.

The problem with the card system is that it assumes that both ends of the radio have the card and know the system. In a Katrina-like event one end of the comm system may be an outsider, likely the ARRL or SATERN, and they will not have a clue what you are talking about if you start reading your abbreviated radio transmission. It is for situations like Katrina and Wilma that plain language is required. In a Katrina/Wilma like event the card system is a code and should most likely not be used.

Even worse, if you train your ground teams to use the code/card, they will be useless when they have to talk to outsiders. That is not a reputation that CAP comms needs or should have.

[Hawk200]

The problem with the card system is that it assumes that both ends of the radio have the card and know the system. In a Katrina-like event one end of the comm system may be an outsider, likely the ARRL or SATERN, and they will not have a clue what you are talking about if you start reading your abbreviated radio transmission. It is for situations like Katrina and Wilma that plain language is required. In a Katrina/Wilma like event the card system is a code and should most likely not be used.

Even worse, if you train your ground teams to use the code/card, they will be useless when they have to talk to outsiders. That is not a reputation that CAP comms needs or should have.

Then just "plain english" the message. "I am [here]. I have 3 people with [these injuries and priority]. One needs a ventilator. This area is impassible with ground vehicles, so send a helicopter, we'll mark our location with branches in a shape like an 'X'. These people are civilians." Done.

Easy adaptation, and knowing beforehand what you're going to be sending on the radio is important. Too many things get delayed because the details aren't known before hand. It's not bad having a reputation of efficiency, especially when it saves lives. Standardization is a good thing.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Don't just limit this to "pure" CAP reports and such.  When talking to Lockheed-Martin to file a flight plan you DO NOT have to read the description of each data block.   You can either:
Just tell the briefer what the data is, providing a brief pause for them to be able to write/type the information (VFR , C172slant Golf, etc.)
Or if you really need to talk, just say "item 1- VFR, item 2- C172 slant Golf, etc.

When talking on the radio, Think - you are telling someone the time, not how to build the clock. BE BRIEF.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

The card shouldn't be a way to abbreviate the message, it should be a whole radio transmission that has a fill in the blank setup for your situation. Still in plain English.

[bflynn]

Clear, common language communciations is a key element of the Incident Command System.  We can use seperate frequencies, but we need to keep to common english for communciations.

[NateF]

Well two things from the comments:

1. The problem with radios in general is that you assume everyone has the same comm plan. Right? Somehow, we manage to get by just fine, I assume because operations always include a comm briefing, at least in a perfect world. With national standardization you wouldn't even have this problem. Unless the same thing would apply to prowords.

2. And about prowords, half their point is brevity,  I don't think adopting other standard means of brevity is or would be against the regs in spirit or in letter. Some thing like:

"we have the football and will be returning to the concession stand to adopt a rino, over"

Now that's a code. What it might mean, I have no idea, and that's the point. If we are using standard, brief, formats, either in sentence form or like the 9 line medevac and the similar call for fire, that isn't encoding anything. With that said, if you had a few standardized formats, why you would add extraneous words into the mix, just to make it sentences instead of a list, I have no idea. What I do know is that the Army also demands plain english, uses the ICS system in some cases and doesn't consider their 9-line medevac or call for fire support and so on to be not "plain english".

I think the arguments for and against are coming down to mere semantics, rather than substantive issues, but the question on these things always seems to end up being "how does one define plain english", rather then what the question was originally. If you end up talking to someone who feels you are speaking Greek, I assume they will mention it, and you would be able to revert to a less efficient, longer, wordier, but understandable format.

[abdsp51]

Even in the Army this is location specific and and unit specific. 

[NateF]

Absolutely it is, but there are a few that are at least universally known and understood even if particular units don't choose to use them. It changes by theater as well, but that doesn't mean standardization is impossible or difficult, even if it hasn't been attempted. Even without standardization I fail to see a daunting issue, comm plans change every mission, the repeaters to use, the call signs involved, the target, the terrain, etc., etc., but that lack of standardization doesn't typically have a major adverse effect on operational abilities and effectiveness.

[Flying Pig]

I prefer the 9 Line CAS brief