[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics

Sun Apr 10 17:52:37 PDT 2011

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  Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses 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" <gzook at yahoo.com>

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 <nh6vb at msn.com> wrote:

From: nh6vb Scheller <nh6vb at msn.com>
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
To: kc6uqh at cox.net, gzook at yahoo.com, "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>, 
mspencer12345 at 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: kc6uqh at cox.net
> To: gzook at yahoo.com; amsat-bb at amsat.org; mspencer12345 at 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-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
> Behalf Of Glen Zook
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM
> To: amsat-bb at 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 <mspencer12345 at yahoo.ca> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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