Gentlemen. Thank you for your information. I will bring your video to the attention of the Yuma Amateur Radio Club morning net when I check in tomorrow . (I am continuously licensed since 1955 (CW) qualified). 73, W6DRO On the air since 1955
I think there's a distinct difference. Calling "clear" not only signifies end of a QSO, but also you are leaving the frequency. I've heard others end their QSO with their callsign. A few seconds later, someone calls them and they don't answer. Had they ended with "<callsign> clear", the other operator would know they are no longer there. It's probably splitting hairs and, at least around here, the additional traffic on a repeater isn't burdensome. Ok?
When standard phonetics are used, we don’t need to translate. “Alpha” doesn’t start with the letter “A”, but rather “Alpha” is “A”. If you use non-standard phonetics, why not just use the letter? There are zero reasons to NOT use the one global standard!
When I am asked to repeat my callsign, I always say: "This is K7JEM, Knight Seven Jalapeno Eight Mnemonic." That usually works. Usually.
Another fun video, keep 'em coming. You guys remind me of Click & Clack the Tappet Brothers, maybe we should call you Click & Chirp the Tap it out in Morse Brothers. Instead of 73s, maybe we should say 146 or even 219.
Thats not called daft but standardization. Our entire hobby uses standards all over. We use the same Q-codes, we use the same units for voltage, current, power, frequency, time etc. So why complain about a standard phonetic aplhabet?
Thanks, Dave. Or you could get on the net and start using a lot of 73's and "there's" and see what happens. 10-4? Quin, K8QS Subscribe to "Ham Radio Perspectives" YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3MJT8o8-XMxF8XROf7Q5GA/videos
Like it. Chirp... We actually started the video series as Dit and Dah the Morse Brothers.... Quin, K8QS Subscribe to "Ham Radio Perspectives" YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3MJT8o8-XMxF8XROf7Q5GA/videos
To be sure, there is no requirement for a specific phonetic alphabet. That being said, there is an advantage in communicators agreeing on some kind of standard to avoid confusion. Since I was interested in aviation, I learned the NATO phonetic alphabet, and that seamlessly carried me through my time in the military. Over my 50+ years as a ham, I have heard a variety of "cute" phonetics used, and there is always a slight mental "stutter" as I translate them, which is not the case with the NATO version. Since one of the tenets or radio communication is clarity, I (and many others) prefer to use an accepted standard for this, but if you want to use your own version, there's no law against it. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet
And where does the FCC in Part 97 say that standard is required as it relates to ham radio? You have a strange definition of "utter nonsense". Would mind giving us the link that indicates this "global standard for phonetics". And the list of those phonetics as it all applies to ham radio?
Indeed, except for the UK and our colleagues across the pond. Not everything should necessarily be so rigid. I particularly go out as xylophone guatemala or in dx xray/xylophone germany. For some strange reason, or not, it picks up better than golg. 73.