[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
The question of "proper" phonetics comes up several times a month in threads on QRZ.com. Unfortunately, the ICAO phonetics (alpha, bravo, etc.) present problems when regional accents in the United States are present and even more so when the person involved does not have English as their primary language. ICAO phonetics were adopted for use on radio circuits that are usually free of QRM, QSB, etc., by trained operators. Unfortunately, amateur radio operations are often not QRM, QSB, etc., free and the vast number of amateur radio operators are not professionally trained. The ICAO phonetics were adopted by the military decades ago and generally work well for military communications. However, military operators are very well trained. Those operators who are involved in "DX chasing" and contest operations often use geographic names instead of the ICAO phonetics. This procedure works very well when QRM and QSB are present as well as with operators who do not have English as their primary language. When working stations that have English as their primary language I do use the ICAO phonetics for my call: Kilo Nine Sierra Tango Hotel. However, when working DX my call is very often not fully understood. Under those circumstances I use: Kilowatt Nine Spain Texas Honolulu and my call is understood the first time 99.99% of the time. Then there is the case of a local YL operator who's call ends in the letter "i". She was working a DX station who just could not get the last letter in her call. She tried the ICAO "India" and that did not work. She tried the geographical name "Italy" and that did not work. Therefore she tried all sorts of words starting with the letter "i" and they did not work. Finally, in frustration she called out "idiot"! The DX station got her last letter that time! Basically, the ICAO phonetics are the standard for general amateur radio operations. Geographic names are the pseudo standard for working DX. But, as the local YL found out, you use anything that works! Glen, K9STH Head moderator QRZ.com Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sat, 4/9/11, John Papay wrote: Kevin, KF7MYK, provides a great example of what happens when operators do not use phonetics. You may think you are saving time by not using them, but the fact is that unless someone is familiar with your callsign, they may copy it incorrectly. You want everyone on the bird to have your callsign correct so they can call you with the right call rather than having to ask for it again in phonetics, or worse yet, getting it wrong. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not. It seems overly confusing to me. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K". Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer wrote: The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not. It seems overly confusing to me. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Glen, Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio Operator. Art, KC6UQH -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zook Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Mark Spencer Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K". Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer wrote: The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not. It seems overly confusing to me. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I couldn't agree more. When I am not being understood or I have repeated my call 5 or 6 times and the guy on the other end is still getting it wrong, a simple switch from Kilo to Kilowatt and zulu to Zanzibar is usually all it takes to be understood. Ron KK7Z -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zook Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:33 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Mark Spencer Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K". Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer wrote: The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not. It seems overly confusing to me. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB > From: kc6...@cox.net > To: gz...@yahoo.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org; mspencer12...@yahoo.ca > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Glen, > Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW > abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio > Operator. > Art, > KC6UQH > -Original Message- > From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On > Behalf Of Glen Zook > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Mark Spencer > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In > over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a > station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better > than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K". > > Glen, K9STH > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer wrote: > > The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where > there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume > the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if > the sender is also representing the letter w or not. > > It seems overly confusing to me. > > ___ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6029 (20110409) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6029 (20110409) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6031 (20110410) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6031 (20110410) __ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ___ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Actually, the "NATO" phonetic alphabet was NOT developed by the military. It was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the 1940s. It was adopted by NATO during the 1950s. Again, my position is that the ICAO phonetics usually work very well with those who speak English as their first language. It works fairly well with those persons who do not speak English as their primary language but who have been specifically trained in the use of ICAO phonetics. It generally works very well on radio links that do not have extensive QRM or QSB. However, when dealing with untrained individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and when QSB and/or QRM is present, geographical names work considerably better. The same arguments that are being presented herein are routinely posted in the discussions on QRZ.com concerning the "proper" phonetic alphabet. Frankly, the majority of people have made their decision and they are not going to change how they use the phonetic alphabets. Some use the ICAO phonetic alphabet no matter what and some people do adapt to the situation and use alternate phonetic alphabets of which the geographical name version is the most used of the alternate phonetic alphabets where amateur radio is concerned. When working DX through a "pileup" the vast majority of time stations who use geographic names are going to get through a lot faster than those who insist on using just the ICAO phonetic alphabet. This is contrary to the opinion of those who insist that the ICAO phonetic alphabet "must" be used. However, for those stations who routinely work DX the vast majority do use geographical names when working DX. Now when working "stateside" the vast majority of those operators do use the ICAO phonetic alphabet. I have "heard" these same arguments numerous times before concerning the ICAO phonetic alphabet versus geographical names. A relatively few persons who have insisted on the ICAO version do realize that the ICAO phonetics are not a "universal savior" where communications are concerned and do change their operating habits to fit the situation. But, those who insist that the ICAO version is the only "correct" phonetic alphabet generally are not convinced. Frankly, these discussions go on forever and no resolution ever happens. As such, those discussions are eventually shut down and things return to normal. As for me, I will continue to use the ICAO phonetic alphabet for stateside contacts and when the other station has English as their primary language. However, I don't like to spend a lot of time in "pileups" when working DX stations and therefore I will continue to use geographical names and work the station generally along time before those who use ICAO phonetics get through. Now getting back to satellite communications: Generally, since the vast majority of stations worked by United States operators do have English as their primary language, I definitely agree that the ICAO phonetics should generally be used. For stations who do not speak English as their primary language then using geographical names is definitely a viable alternative. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, nh6vb Scheller wrote: From: nh6vb Scheller Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics To: kc6...@cox.net, gz...@yahoo.com, "amsat-bb" , mspencer12...@yahoo.ca Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 3:16 PM Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB > From: kc6...@cox.net > To: gz...@yahoo.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org; mspencer12...@yahoo.ca > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Glen, > Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW > abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio > Operator. > Art, > KC6UQH > -Original Message- > From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On > Behalf Of Glen Zook > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Mark Sp
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I have to agree!! The phonetics in the phonetic alphabet were chosen for a reason. They are very hard to confuse with another letter. Fancy phonetics have no place in communications that you want understood. If you want to get a call sign correct use the standard phonetic alphabet. That way everyone is playing by the same play sheet. If you like to be misunderstood, continue to use your non standard confusing phonetics and you will get your wish. 73 Glenn WB4UIV At 12:14 PM 4/10/2011, Mark Spencer wrote: >The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially >where there >is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume >the letter k >is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is >also representing the letter w or not. > >It seems overly confusing to me. > >___ >Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. >Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! >Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Sorry, John. Information here needs to jive better with the history. ICAO developed a phonetic alphabet in the mid-to late 1940's to help the budding field of international aviation. They came up with an alphabet designed to be spoken (and mangled) by people of any mother tongue and be well understood by all others, even on less than wonderful channels. It works so well that ITU, maritime folks, generally, and many other well recognized organizations (including the US military) have seen fit to adopt it. When everyone uses the same alphabet, understanding is even better. See attachment for a recommendation, including the ITU recommended pronunciation guide. Seems to work just fine. I hope this helps. GL & 73, art. W4ART Arlington VA On 10-Apr-2011, at 11:26 AM, Glen Zook wrote: > The question of "proper" phonetics comes up several times a month in threads > on QRZ.com. Unfortunately, the ICAO phonetics (alpha, bravo, etc.) present > problems when regional accents in the United States are present and even more > so when the person involved does not have English as their primary language. > > ICAO phonetics were adopted for use on radio circuits that are usually free > of QRM, QSB, etc., by trained operators. Unfortunately, amateur radio > operations are often not QRM, QSB, etc., free and the vast number of amateur > radio operators are not professionally trained. > > The ICAO phonetics were adopted by the military decades ago and generally > work well for military communications. However, military operators are very > well trained. > > Those operators who are involved in "DX chasing" and contest operations often > use geographic names instead of the ICAO phonetics. This procedure works > very well when QRM and QSB are present as well as with operators who do not > have English as their primary language. > > When working stations that have English as their primary language I do use > the ICAO phonetics for my call: Kilo Nine Sierra Tango Hotel. However, when > working DX my call is very often not fully understood. Under those > circumstances I use: Kilowatt Nine Spain Texas Honolulu and my call is > understood the first time 99.99% of the time. > > Then there is the case of a local YL operator who's call ends in the letter > "i". She was working a DX station who just could not get the last letter in > her call. She tried the ICAO "India" and that did not work. She tried the > geographical name "Italy" and that did not work. Therefore she tried all > sorts of words starting with the letter "i" and they did not work. Finally, > in frustration she called out "idiot"! The DX station got her last letter > that time! > > Basically, the ICAO phonetics are the standard for general amateur radio > operations. Geographic names are the pseudo standard for working DX. But, > as the local YL found out, you use anything that works! > > Glen, K9STH > Head moderator QRZ.com > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > --- On Sat, 4/9/11, John Papay wrote: > > Kevin, KF7MYK, provides a great example of what happens when operators do not > use phonetics. You may think you are saving time by not using them, but the > fact is that unless someone is familiar with your callsign, they may copy it > incorrectly. You want everyone on the bird to have your callsign correct so > they can call you with the right call rather than having to ask for it again > in phonetics, or worse yet, getting it wrong. > > ___ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb http://afeller.us Gimme 3? I'm riding my 3rd event with Team-In-Training because cancer doesn't take a holiday! On 5-June-2011, I'm pedaling the Fletcher Flyer Century, a 100-mile bike ride near Asheville, NC. Please, make a tax deductible donation to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society today. Thanks for your support! Read the story at: http://pages.teamintraining.org/nca/fletcher11/afeller PLEASE, support us! ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing. Stick to the standard and it will work fine. Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: "Glen Zook" Actually, the "NATO" phonetic alphabet was NOT developed by the military. It was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the 1940s. It was adopted by NATO during the 1950s. Again, my position is that the ICAO phonetics usually work very well with those who speak English as their first language. It works fairly well with those persons who do not speak English as their primary language but who have been specifically trained in the use of ICAO phonetics. It generally works very well on radio links that do not have extensive QRM or QSB. However, when dealing with untrained individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and when QSB and/or QRM is present, geographical names work considerably better. The same arguments that are being presented herein are routinely posted in the discussions on QRZ.com concerning the "proper" phonetic alphabet. Frankly, the majority of people have made their decision and they are not going to change how they use the phonetic alphabets. Some use the ICAO phonetic alphabet no matter what and some people do adapt to the situation and use alternate phonetic alphabets of which the geographical name version is the most used of the alternate phonetic alphabets where amateur radio is concerned. When working DX through a "pileup" the vast majority of time stations who use geographic names are going to get through a lot faster than those who insist on using just the ICAO phonetic alphabet. This is contrary to the opinion of those who insist that the ICAO phonetic alphabet "must" be used. However, for those stations who routinely work DX the vast majority do use geographical names when working DX. Now when working "stateside" the vast majority of those operators do use the ICAO phonetic alphabet. I have "heard" these same arguments numerous times before concerning the ICAO phonetic alphabet versus geographical names. A relatively few persons who have insisted on the ICAO version do realize that the ICAO phonetics are not a "universal savior" where communications are concerned and do change their operating habits to fit the situation. But, those who insist that the ICAO version is the only "correct" phonetic alphabet generally are not convinced. Frankly, these discussions go on forever and no resolution ever happens. As such, those discussions are eventually shut down and things return to normal. As for me, I will continue to use the ICAO phonetic alphabet for stateside contacts and when the other station has English as their primary language. However, I don't like to spend a lot of time in "pileups" when working DX stations and therefore I will continue to use geographical names and work the station generally along time before those who use ICAO phonetics get through. Now getting back to satellite communications: Generally, since the vast majority of stations worked by United States operators do have English as their primary language, I definitely agree that the ICAO phonetics should generally be used. For stations who do not speak English as their primary language then using geographical names is definitely a viable alternative. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, nh6vb Scheller wrote: From: nh6vb Scheller Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics To: kc6...@cox.net, gz...@yahoo.com, "amsat-bb" , mspencer12...@yahoo.ca Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 3:16 PM Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB > From: kc6...@cox.net > To: gz...@yahoo.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org; mspencer12...@yahoo.ca > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Glen, > Engineers
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:52:37 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote: >This is a bunch of baloney! > >Stick to the standard and it will work fine. Experience trumps experts. I have a friend who's name went into the log as "Dred" because a South American ham kept hearing "Golf" as "Dog". So much for standards. I'll repeat my call several times to weak DX with the "standard" phonetics before switching to Geo name phonetics, which almost always get through in the first try. I'd rather be able to log the contact than please the standard bearers. Or maybe I should just use the amplifier more often 73 -Jim -- It's been said that if you give a million monkeys a typewriter each, one of them will eventually type Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I have found that Japan works much better than Juliet for the letter J. People keep hearing Juliet as India. don't know why, they don't sound anything alike, but that is what happens. 73s John AA5JG - Original Message - From: "Jim Shorney" To: "amsat-bb" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:38 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:52:37 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote: > >>This is a bunch of baloney! >> >>Stick to the standard and it will work fine. > > Experience trumps experts. I have a friend who's name went into the log as > "Dred" because a South American ham kept hearing "Golf" as "Dog". So much > for > standards. > > I'll repeat my call several times to weak DX with the "standard" phonetics > before switching to Geo name phonetics, which almost always get through in > the > first try. I'd rather be able to log the contact than please the standard > bearers. > > Or maybe I should just use the amplifier more often > > 73 > > -Jim > > > -- > It's been said that if you give a million monkeys a typewriter each, one > of them will eventually type Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now > know this isn't true. > > > ___ > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I've also had a frequent problem with Oscar being heard as Alpha, so I usually over-emphasize the Oh part. Greg - Kilo OH-scar 6 Tango Hotel And, yes, Ernestine (Lily Tomblin) made it very clear that it is "K" as in Knight. > From: aa...@fidmail.com > To: jshor...@inebraska.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:53:53 +0000 > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > I have found that Japan works much better than Juliet for the letter J. > People keep hearing Juliet as India. don't know why, they don't sound > anything alike, but that is what happens. > > 73s John AA5JG > ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup! I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present. I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics. I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion. Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds! One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet. I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore wrote: This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing. Stick to the standard and it will work fine. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
At 07:52 PM 4/10/2011, you wrote: >This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses >most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through >just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up >alphabet that it gets confusing. I could not agree more. over the years I think I have heard it all. But nothing and I due mean nothing works like the old standard. It's confusing enough living in a town named "LOUISIANA" in the state of " MISSOURI. John, W0JAB ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I agree Glen I use the ICAO phonetics for work, but I have terrible luck with them when working DX! Scott N6PG Sent from my iPhone ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Hi Glen, K9STH I agree completely with you and via OSCAR-10, OSCAR-13 and AO40 as well in HF when calling stations in South America I realized that for best understanding it was better to use geographical linguage instead of the ICAO phonetics and my call letters i8CVS becomes Italia Ocho Canada' Victoria Santiago or Italia Ocho Condensador Valvula Sintonia and with QRM,QSB and weak signals my call was better understud by people of espanish linguage. By the way when calling stations in USA the ICAO phonetics Italy Eight Charlie Victor Sierra sounded better for me. 73" de i8CVS Domenico - Original Message - From: "Glen Zook" To: "amsat-bb" ; "Jeff Moore" Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:43 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup! I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present. I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics. I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion. Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds! One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet. I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore wrote: This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing. Stick to the standard and it will work fine. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
When a station does not copy my call sign or anything else i use any mean to have them understand if international phonetics does not work i try something else period. Some called this the KISS way... "-" Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe DSTAR urcall VE2DWE WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
See comments in line below: Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY - Original Message - From: "Glen Zook" I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup! <== If everybody is using the same phonetic alphabet, then there shouldn't be any problem understanding what one is saying. I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present. <== Don't you ever wonder why you keep seeing the same arguments?? The ITU phonetic alphabet works fine if it's used. I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics. <== "Training" comes from use. What I don't understand is how you can advocate a phonetic alphabet that by your own admission isn't even documented legitemately anywhere let alone recognized or recommended. I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion. <== Could it be that they understand the quicksand you're standing on? Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds! <== There's nothing "sacred" about the ITU phonetic alphabet. It's just the current Internationally recognized and recommended standard that should be used. Anything else just confuses people. One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet. <== Public safety organizations use their own phonetic alphabet for the same reason they use their own numeric codes, to confuse the general public and make it harder for them to understand the info being passed. It has nothing to do with one being easier to understand than the other. I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications. <== You're right! As long as people argue against the accepted, documented, recommended prevailing standard, the discussion will go on. Come up with a documented, better phonetic alphabet and get it internationally recognized and recommended and then this discussion will go away (or at least be changed to an argument between the old and new standard). As long as there is no official alternative (and I don't give a rip about how long the geographic non-documented non-standard has been used), the internationally recognized standard is what should be used. You can play your word games all day long on DX, but as soon as you start working emcomm - you'd better be using the accepted standard or you're putting people's lives at stake. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore wrote: This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing. Stick to the standard and it will work fine. ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:17:49 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote: ><== Could it be that they understand the quicksand you're standing on? No. We know from long experience (35+ years in my case) that Glen is right. 73 -Jim -- Ham Radio NU0C Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.S.A. TR7/RV7/R7A/L7, TR6/RV6, T4XC/R4C/L4B, NCL2000, SB104A, R390A, GT550A/RV550A, HyGain 3750, IBM PS/2 - all vintage, all the time! "Give a man a URL, and he will learn for an hour; teach him to Google, and he will learn for a lifetime." HyGain 3750 User's Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HyGain_3750/ http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jshorney http://www.nebraskaghosts.org ___ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
