Using The International Phonetic Alphabet

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by WX4W, Mar 6, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: OK1UUad-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: FBNews-1
  1. KM5QS

    KM5QS Ham Member QRZ Page

    381 posts---- over half of which stated somewhere in them( no, I did'nt count them, I am not as anal as some) to do what ever works.
    Ain't this horse dead enough yet ? Of course , if you have nothing else to do-------.
    73 King Mercury 5 Quick Silver
    ps: w5edm , you are welcome on this grumpy old mans frequency anytime.
     
    WA7PRC likes this.
  2. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Must admit while I did not expect the thread to survive for quite so long it's clear that the "you'll use the phonetics I tell you to use" crowd has NOT won the day for many of the reasons stated. Do not allow the same crowd to tell you there is such a thing as "STANDARD" phonetics, not for ham radio stations under FCC jurisdiction. Carry on and use the phonetics that you find most helpful in your effort to communicate with others.

    By the way, if this thread should die out, fear not another will be along before too long to pick up the battle.
     
    WA7PRC likes this.
  3. WX4W

    WX4W Ham Member QRZ Page

    The number of posts means nothing. Multiple posts by one side or the other should only be counted once. It's not being anal to analyze data rather than make generalization that can't be defended.

    Just repeating an opinion multiple time doesn't make it correct.

    This thread should have long died but the "repeaters" who protest too much are keeping it alive.
     
  4. VE3VCG

    VE3VCG Ham Member QRZ Page

    As a follow up to my original post I must say that I'd didn't expect controversary over such an apparently benign topic. I say go with the flow, if you use NATO phonetics and I can understand you fine, but if something else works better also fine. Phones QSO's can be a challenge under the best conditions when parties are not native English speakers. I spent a good part of 15 minutes listening to a station in Brazil trying to sort out his call before attempting to make contact. The issue I had was his rather significant accent, heavy on the rolled R's etc. Not speaking anything but English I had to really listen carefully before I finally got it. He was using proper NATO phonetics but had to break form and use other words for the benefit of some stations. By one means or another everyone eventually got their log entry, except me trying to break into a pile up with 100 watts and a wire. Of course, there is a solution to all this, we could also just just FT8 - yes I'm just kidding. I don't want to start another controversy. I like FT-8 it's nice sometimes to work quitely without the need to sort out accents.
     
  5. PU2OYQ

    PU2OYQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Excellent approach, in fact there are cases that we spent minutes trying to decipher the call of the colleague who does not use the phonetic correctly. thank you. PU2OYQ Ronaldo
     
  6. SIMPO

    SIMPO QRZ Member

    Maybe it is time that it was part of the exam as operating standards have fallen dramatically. Ham radio is getting more and more like CB radio.
     
  7. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page


    Before it could be part of an FCC exam the FCC would need to change the regulations. Ham radio getting more and more like CB radio is, and has been, a topic for another thread.
     
    WA7PRC likes this.
  8. 9A5BWT

    9A5BWT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I must correct you - beat the dead horse, because you are factually wrong.
    1. No one said that you must use anything. We said from the start all the way to the 38th page that it helps us if you use standard phonetiscs or at least use them by default and then move to something else if that does not work.
    2. There absolutely is a standard recommended by ITU, IARU, CEPT, ARRL, all other national amateur alliances.
    3. You are mentioning FCC like all the world is following their rules and not just one country. No one on the "pro" side said it is the law.
    Your way of arguig is first "they are lying" and second "no one can tell me what to do beside my own governmant" which is first factually wrong and second off topic.
     
    KG7VTO likes this.
  9. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Feel free to state your opinion...I do.
     
    WA7PRC likes this.
  10. KK5R

    KK5R Ham Member QRZ Page

    In 1972, I went to a Morse code school while in the Army. I had already attended four CW schools (one in Peru and three in Brazil) and while the Army school was for six months, I had qualified in half the time by also learning how to use the Mill (typing) and other related classes. Then, because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I was pulled from the school at the halfway point and was made a Spanish/Portuguese linguist for the remainder of my three-year stint.

    Re phonetics, they taught the Alpha-Bravo-Delta system. In the CW school in Peru, I learned that there were three systems, the common system used by the Army here and two that were used by the Peruvian Air Force. The teacher was a retired Peruvian CW operator). Today, the standard has been the one we are discussing. The Army school taught that this was the system they used because when used with foreign operators, the majority of them easily understood the phonetic words used, moreso than any other combination of words. For this reason, I continue to use it. However, there are two reasons that I use to justify the use of these phonetics:

    1) It is a tradition; and
    2) We won wars using this system.

    Some use other systems because they think it's neat and to them it is. So be it. I do not mind what THEY do. And I hope they do not mind that I use the standard phonetics. So far, after three callsigns using standard phonetics, I have yet to find anyone who fails to understand when I give my callsign phonetically.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019

Share This Page