10-06

MTL_Emergencies

Member++
Database Admin
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
188
Reaction score
120
Location
Quebec, Canada
Un peu comme un 10-07, mais "non officiel" donc pas besoin d'envoyer toute la cavalerie. Il arrive que certains 10-06 se transforment en 10-07+
 

VORTAC

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
148
Reaction score
18
Location
Montreal
Intervention nécessaire - risque d'aggravation faible.
 

ve2vfd

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
20
Reaction score
6
Location
Montreal, Canada
10-06 = Incendie avec risque de propagation peu probable et les resources acheminées sont suffisantes. Peut devenir un 10-07 si nécessaire.
Ca remplace l'ancien code "10-22 avec feu" (qui n'avais aucune allure car 10-22 = services non requis).

10-06 = Fire with low risks of propagation and the dispatched resources are sufficient. Can be upgraded to a 10-07 if needed.
This replaces the old "10-22 with fire" code (which was nonsensical as 10-22 = services not required).
 

plaws

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
52
Location
E Hawkesbury Twp, ON
This replaces the old "10-22 with fire" code (which was nonsensical as 10-22 = services not required).

I hate to say it, but this makes sense. It used to mean "J'abandonne l'unité" ... Back In The Day™ ... doubt there is anyone on the job currently that was there in 1983 ...

This one has bugged me (for >40 years) ... 10-07/08/09 have to have the 0 because otherwise the meaning is changed. Dix-six, OTOH, isn't like that.

 

VORTAC

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
148
Reaction score
18
Location
Montreal
Spoken in French, some numbers may be misinterpreted. As a precaution, it was best to add a 0 in front. 10-6 and 10-10 are very similar in pronunciation.
 

VORTAC

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
148
Reaction score
18
Location
Montreal
Tu as raison VE2VFD. La nature du code 10-07 a beaucoup évolué depuis les années 80 et il était temps qu’il y ait un changement.

Si au départ le but de ce code était simplement d’informer un incendie fondé, plusieurs unités se sont ajoutées au fil des années lors de l’annonce d’un 10-07. Si bien que si la force de frappe initiale était largement suffisante (genre incendie dans un garage 20x20), plusieurs 10-18 étaient donnés à tous les 10 minutes pour éviter de transmettre un 10-07 et ainsi déplacer des unités jugées non nécessaires. Ça finissait avec un 10-22 à l’exception de tous. Plusieurs vont se souvenir aussi d’entendre un 10-07 mais des 10-22 pour tel chef, etc. Chacun cherchait sa méthode.

Voilà quand même plusieurs années qu’il y existait cette zone grise avec le 10-22 et que plusieurs attendaient un changement.

You're right, VE2VFD. The nature of the 10-07 code has evolved considerably since the 1980s, and it was time for a change.

While the initial purpose of this code was simply to report a confirmed fire, several units were added over the years when a 10-07 was issued. So much so that if the initial response force was more than sufficient (like a fire in a 20x20 garage), multiple 10-18s were issued every 10 minutes to avoid transmitting a 10-07 and thus diverting units deemed unnecessary. This would end with a 10-22 being issued to everyone except the designated fire chief. Many will also remember hearing a 10-07 but 10-22s for a particular chief, and so on. Everyone was trying to find their own method.

This grey area with the 10-22 has existed for several years now, and many have been waiting for a change.
 

plaws

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
52
Location
E Hawkesbury Twp, ON
Spoken in French, some numbers may be misinterpreted. As a precaution, it was best to add a 0 in front. 10-6 and 10-10 are very similar in pronunciation.
Of course. I was thinking of the issue of dix-neuf vs dix-zero-neuf (etc) and not dix-six/dix-dix ... You *could* have explained that to me when someone gave me the original code sheet (laminated in plastic, perfect for attaching to the sun visor in a District Chief's station wagon) 40 years ago! 🙃
 
Top