Check Verification Messages

[Hyperion]

Can I take a poll on who uses the check verification on long messages to control. My current Brigade do not but previous ones did. 

I’ve always been of the thought that it’s a good practical idea. Gives control the chance take down that segment of the message and allows the person relaying the message to know that, the segment of the message has been understood, documented and that they are ready for the next section. Negates the need for “repeat all after”. We currently just pause and second guess that it’s been received and understood. Might just start using it regardless! 

[Carl]

We use CHECK in GMFRS and have done since I started over 20 years ago. Our policy states the following:

Check

• Used when a lengthy message is being transmitted.
• The sender will break transmission periodically using the word 'CHECK'; this will enable the receiver to check that part of the message so far received. If, however, the transmission has been received and understood the receiver will reply 'CHECK' and the transmission will continue.
• If ‘CHECK’ is used to divide up a long or complicated mobilising message (i.e. ‘Fire Flash’), the receiver may answer ‘CHECK’ at each point, however at the end of the message, the pertinent parts of the message must then be repeated back to FC to ensure correctness.

[Becile]

Same as Carl for us

[Matt]

Humberside still use it.

[Mess6311]

Check is great for breaking up long messages giving control time to record on the log. But it drives me mad when someone sends an informative using check when its not needed e.g.

From WM.... check

or check right after the address. They know where you are! get on with the message! and the other thing is "message ends" when did that become a thing?! its "over"

[Carl]

See my latest Ops Matters @Mess6311  I share the same frustrations

[Hyperion]

Totally agree on the too early check message and message ends. Never understood that one when I say “over” straight after it! 

[Jet]

In LFB there is no use of the word ‘check’, but you are meant to speak at dictation speed and release the press to talk button on the microphone after long sentences to enable control to interrupt if needed.

One difference between GMFRS and LFB is that in GMFRS, each incident is allocated its own talkgroup, whereas in LFB there are only ever two (used to be three) talkgroups in use so the radio can become quite busy and control might need to urgently interject your message to address another RTS from a different incident, hence the momentary pauses on long messages. 

[Hyperion]

Jet, I can’t see the difference with regard to control contacting you or other priority messages passing through.

When you action “check” you release the mainscheme/air wave in any case. The benefit for me is that you have confirmation from control that the section you have just transmitted has been received, understood and documented. The long pause gives you no idea if the control Op is ready or has understood your message. 

[Aspire]

4 hours ago, Jet said:

One difference between GMFRS and LFB is that in GMFRS, each incident is allocated its own talkgroup, whereas in LFB there are only ever two (used to be three) talkgroups in use so the radio can become quite busy and control might need to urgently interject your message to address another RTS from a different incident, hence the momentary pauses on long messages. 

The ConOffs PTT has priority as it is their channel. If somebody is sending a long message without pause’s, Control can and will override, the minute they PTT if they need to.

[Jet]

@Hyperion I was merely stating the differences. For the record I like the use of the phrase 'check'. In LFB, without a request to repeat all or part of message, the assumption is the ConOff has received it. And for most messages, they repeat back to you and you confirm the message is correct.

@Aspire I was aware they can override your PTT, but I believe it's more for a chance for a ConOff to interrupt mid-message, as opposed to cutting you off mid-sentence. 

[TandA]

No use of “check” in Essex, just the mantra of dictation speed and occasional pauses with PTT released.  I always thought the release of the PTT was to allow other mobiles to interject with a priority if they needed to do so, rather than allowing Control to interject as they can, as has been said, simply override should the need arise.

That said, now with Control monitoring both our standard ops channels, priority access can be requested on the second channel if the default one is busy and Control will immediately call you back on the default channel to take the full priority message.

[Lumie]

@TandA in LFB, we press 7 on the radio to request control for a standard message and 9 for a priority. No need for a mobile to interrupt a message because they’d have to wait until control tells them to go ahead with their message anyway.

[TandA]

@Lumie Yes, different services do it differently.  I think (ok, I know as I am getting on a bit and remember it well) the procedure is a hangover from the old days of analogue radios, no button boxes and only one monitored channel in Essex. We still don’t use buttons so requests for priority access from mobiles are always initiated with voice requests.  If the radio is busy then it is either using one of these gaps  to jump in and transmit your priority request or by swapping to the second channel, a quick “ Control from 34P3 With Priority” and straight  back to the default channel where you will immediately be called back by Control.

[Carl]

28 minutes ago, Lumie said:

@TandA in LFB, we press 7 on the radio to request control for a standard message and 9 for a priority.

Same in GMFRS. As mentioned above, every incident gets its own talk group allocated on mobilisation. We simply book mobile incident and the channel changes to the correct talk group accordingly. Likewise when we book mobile available from the job, we move back onto the hailing channel