Everytime I have dealings with the local police departments, I come away confused by their haphazard way of communicating over radio.
I was taught the NATO phonetic alphabet and US DoD radio procedures by my father. My stint in the US Army reinforced this training and taught me how useful it is when multiple organizations (like the US Army Europe, the British Army of the Rhein, and the Budeswehr) use the same procedures for talking on the radio and spelling out words phonetically. Even people seperated by a common language 
had no trouble being understood. Radio comms between US and British units were often clearer and more easily understood than conversations between those soldiers at a gasthaus after the exercise (alcoholic influence notwithstanding).
Why don’t non-federal civilian agencies in the US use the same procedures? Aren’t a large number of police officers and EMT/firefighters veterans? In my experience, nearly every department has a slightly different set of the ubiquitous “10-codes” popularlized by the citizens’ band radio culture. Why the insistence on obfuscated communications when life and death is often in the balance?
In the MP law enforcement activities that I supported, there was often a small number of people attempting to promulgate that “10-code” crap. Senior NCOs and officers without civilian law enforcment ambitions usually discouraged it since it made communications less understandable and we were supposed to be soldiers first, cops second.
The 10-codes are going away in places. Large cities often use disposition codes after an assignment in addition to the 10-codes.
The only reasons I can think of not to use the NATO phonetics is to sound less military-like or that the adopted versions are easier to memorize. For example, in Illinois, there seems to be a tendency to use common words and first names instead of some of the NATO phonetics.
Alpha = Adam
Bravo = Boy
Delta = David
Hotel = Henry
India = Ida
Zulu = Zebra
and so forth. Some are the same as the NATO version.
But the FAA also uses the same radio procedure and phonetic alphabet as NATO. That rather kills the para-military arguement.
I like this quote from the article you cite:
The cited article quite clearly sums up the operational insanity that the 10 codes create.
Maybe this means something good will come from the Committee for State^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Department of Homeland Security, after all.
The Federal Aviation Administration is, of course, a federal agency which you excluded in your OP. Feds do tend to use the NATO phonetics. The FAA is also be more likely to encounter foreign radio traffic which would be good reason to stick with an internationally recognized protocol.
Sewalk
Military and local law enforcement (LE) radio needs are probably quite different (I was not a soldier so cannot say for sure). However, what is haphazard about LE communication?
If you are addressing the use of different codes by different agencies, well, I’m sure they’ll be more standardized over time.
If you’re addressing the use of codes, then what is haphazard about being concise? Similarly, what is obfuscated about a radio code which my partners, supervisors, and dispatchers all understand?
I’m not attacking you, just wondering how to address your question.
For example, at any large LE agency, there may be dozens of people at one time all relying on one radio channel for receiving dispatched calls, answering calls, coordinating among officers, etc. I personally find it very annoying when I need to communicate NOW and someone is getting chatty on the airspace which I need.
The article cited is an interesting case but not necessarilly representative of the nation’s LE needs.
AZRob
I think his objection was that it is hard for people from different agencies to understand each other. The haphazard part is that they all chose different codes.
It’s a good question whether plain speaking will cause congestion, though. Perhaps they need a nationwide code system instead.
Does every agency have only one channel? For example, does the New York City police department share a channel?
IME, there is a general trend away from 10-codes in emergency services. It can definitely make it difficult for people to communicate. For example, at the ambulance service I work for, we often run mutual aid into a large city we border. If we go “Code 10” into that city, it means we’re responding emergent to a call. If I go into the next county over (which is also part of our jurisdiction) and go “Code 10” it means officer needs assistance, send the cavalry!
Also, IME, plain talk doesn’t cause more radio congestion. Compare the following examples with 10 codes (those that I’m familiar with, anyway) versus clear text.
-
103, 10-23.
103, on scene. -
103, code 3 (hospital name)
-
103, emergent (hospital name)
-
103, code 3, 10-52 (location)
103, emergent, MVA (location)
It’d be pretty much unheard of for any agency to have only one radio channel. Here’s a list of NYPD radio channels that I found. Again, at the service I work for, we have 6 channels- dispatch, admin, 3 special event channels, and a tac channel. We also routinely use the police dispatch channel and multiple fire department dispatch and tac channels.
I can’t believe nobody pointed this out but Alpha should be Alfa. The purpose of the NATO phonetics was to cross language barriers and most languages don’t pronounce PH as F, so it should be spelled Alfa.
Wouldn’t most languages pronounce ‘mike’ with two syllables, then?
I dunno, but in English, it seems that Lima would be pronounced (ly-mah) like the bean, but it’s correctly pronounced (lee-mah) like the capital of Peru (Spanish vowel pronunciation).
Has the pronunciation guides and spellings etc.
The reason the military needs to have a extensive and consistent system is because you have tens of thousands of people who are scattered all over the world who may, on a few hours notice, be put in a situation where they have to communicate via radio with somebody they’ve never even met. In such a situation you cannot allow any “local dialect” to arise.
But law enforcement communications are relatively closed systems. The people who are using such a system are pretty much the only ones who will use it - it’s not like the Chicago PD is going to deploy 500 policemen to New York City. So each agency can develop its own system, teach it to its own people, and not worry if it’s different from other agencies. I work in a law enforcement agency - we never call other agencies over the radio, even those we work with.
In theory, you could develop a national law enforcement radio communications protocol. But you’d spend a lot of time and money doing it. And then you’d have to convince hundreds of independant agencies to adopt it (good luck). And even if you were successful, the system would be temporary. Due to the lack of actual radio communications between agencies, each one would begin to drift into its own style. Within a couple of years, you’d be right back where you started.
FAA controllers want to hear standardized phonetics.
One that seems to cause a lot of trouble is Sierra for S…because it starts in a C sound.
Lots of hams will substitute “Sugar”…also Sierra is one of only a handful of 3 sylible phonetics.
India, Juliette,November, Romeo, Uniform.