[amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
domenico.i8cvs at tin.it
Mon Apr 11 12:44:27 PDT 2011
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
By the way when calling stations in USA the ICAO phonetics Italy Eight
Charlie Victor Sierra sounded better for me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Zook" <gzook at yahoo.com>
To: "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>; "Jeff Moore" <tnetcenter at gmail.com>
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
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore <tnetcenter at gmail.com> 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 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