Hatrack River Writers Workshop: conversations through two-way radio / cb

This is topic conversations through two-way radio / cb in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004340

Posted by halogen (Member # 6494) on :

Say you have a bit of dialog like this (In this example I've removed everything and just left the dialog):

quote:

"Tower this is Sanitation-Uniform-Seven-Three-One. Over."
"Acknowledged Sanitation-Uniform-Seven-Three-One, good morning Diego. Over."

"We have a Ten-Fourteen, requesting a clean slate. Over."
"Acknowledged. Let's see here, you have three other locations scheduled for today so I'll give them to Sanitation-Uniform-Two-Zero-Five. Tower Out."

I tried to make the conversation based off a little research on two-way communication (end everything with "over" unless you are finished then end it with "out". Repeat the last request. "Acknowledge" everything).

This seems like it would be difficult to read. That or most people would just glaze over it. Is there any benefit to trying to make radio dialog sound realistic? Or should it be something like:

quote:

"Tower this is SU731."
"Acknowledged, good morning Diego."

"We have a 10-14, requesting a clean slate."
"Let's see here, you have three other locations scheduled for today so I'll give them to SU250. Tower Out."

In the second quote I removed the lettering, "Acknowledged", "Over" and the repetition. Does the use of these elements jar up the dialog or do you see it as necessary? How would you approach two-way-radio or CB dialog?

References:
http://zena.secureforum.com/ontheground/action-medical/static/library/radio_protocols .htm

http://www.commserv.ucsb.edu/faculty_and_staff/support/800mhz_usage_guidelines.asp

http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/training/unhcrradio.html

http://clubs.juniata.edu/esscqrs8/SOGs.html

Transcripts:
http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/f/f059.htm

http://austmia.com/TRANSCRIPTOFRADIOTRAFFIC.htm

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/26.html

[This message has been edited by halogen (edited October 28, 2007).]

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

First one is better in my opinion.

I think the key is keeping the reader aware that the characters are following a comms protocol.

Whether that is the same as CB protocol is up to you.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 28, 2007).]

Posted by Rommel Fenrir Wolf II (Member # 4199) on :

well the first sounds simmiler to how we talk on the "NET" as it is called by the army. and sence i have been brain washed by the army when i see s i think searia and u is uniform and 7 is sev e is tree 1 as un.

the only bad thing is hot micing. god that is annoying.

Rommel Fenrir Wolf II

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

First one read more "authentic" as a military or professional operation somewhere. Second was marginally simpler to read (but letter/char combinations - SU172 for ex - are not all that easy to read in my opinion) but it feels like it lost some authenticity.

I don't know what the ACTUAL authentic way to represent any of this is. I'm just commenting as a reader. I had no trouble following the first dialogue, and as it stands you can actually do it without dialogue tags, if that's of any benefit.

Posted by JeffBarton (Member # 5693) on :

I like the first version better. Since it is a more formal dispatcher/control tower network, the less formal cb terms should be avoided as you do, good buddy. I would actually miss the 'over' and 'out' if they were omitted.

One point I always have trouble with in such radio procedure is that I don't know the ten-calls and don't use them enough to make it worth memorizing them. There's no clue in the radio dialog what 10-14 means. That's the point, of course, to state the message briefly by using the code. I'd need a clue somewhere else in the story as to what Diego really wants.

Posted by Stewie72 (Member # 6774) on :

I definitely preferred the first. It gives you that official feel. It might be the military in me but I was able to follow the first much easier. I found my self rereading the second and trying to put the phonetics back in.

I would make a suggestion that you don't mix your phonetic Alphabet. Use the military, fire, ems or Law Enforcement phonetics. For the quote it would be sierra-uniform and not sanitation-uniform. or for LE it would be Sam-Edward.

http://www.police-scanner.info/glossary/phonetic_alphabet.htm

Also check out:

http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html

for a list of Ten Code definitions.

[This message has been edited by Stewie72 (edited October 30, 2007).]

Posted by DebbieKW (Member # 5058) on :

I liked the first version better. I've never used a two-way radio, but I know just enough to expect and be able to follow the first version. I didn't find it difficult to read or understand.