[amsat-bb] Re: ITU Phonetics - Kilo

Glen Zook gzook at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 10 15:57:14 PDT 2011

If you want to get technical, geographic names has been a "standard" much longer than the ICAO phonetics.  However, it is fine with me if you insist on using the ICAO phonetics when in a DX pileup.  That just means that I am generally going to work the DX first!

As I keep saying, there is a place for ICAO phonetics and there is a place for geographic names.  I do use ICAO phonetics when working stateside and generally with operators who speak English as their primary language.  But, when in a pileup trying to work a DX station I definitely switch to geographical names because I work the DX MUCH sooner!

Glen, K9STH

Website:  http://k9sth.com

--- On Sun, 4/10/11, John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net> wrote:

> From: John Becker <w0jab at big-river.net>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ITU Phonetics - Kilo
> To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 4:43 PM
> At 02:34 PM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
> >Again, geographical names have become the defacto
> "standard" where working DX is concerned.
> So we are having a QSO and I tell you my QTH is Louisiana,
> Missouri
> and you then think to yourself "say what" followed be "does
> not compute"
> Look it up at QRZ dot com.
> Again there is nothing wrong with the standard 
> I for one will never use your "de facto" standard when
> there is already one 
> that has been in use for years and years and years.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list