Why don't all operators use Nato phonetic?

[jdobbs2001]

Its confusing with all the different words people use, why not stick to what works and whats quick to identify and write down?

 

[JustLou]

Why is it confusing?

 

[profiledescent]

ITU/ICAO/NATO all the same, and for a reason. The guys who use other words are usually trying to set themselves apart from the crowd, sort of like a peacock. Same as the guys on crystal clear FM or digital who insist on using Q codes, cop talk, or all of the CB slang phonetics. I hear them say "agh" and "um" a lot too. Oh well, it's a hobby.

They aren't usually very successful in pile ups, field day, contesting, or EMCOMM.

removes spoon from pot

 

[teufler]

I asked that once

phonetics used in the navy and what is used in ham , and what is used in public safety are all different. Some make up phonetics, point is phonetics are used to better understand what the other person is saying. If you can figure it out, phonetics must have worked. It is confusing, particularly when working with public service units during Ares event or Cert Drills. You don't want to sound like a country bumpkin, so you try to remember their phonetics. Sometimes is a hodgepog of phonetics. Do you use Baker or Bravo. Is it November or Nora. It doesn't matter as long as the message was passed and understood. There is always CW.

 

[majoco]

point is phonetics are used to better understand what the other person is saying

Right. The correct phonetics make it even easier to understand garbled callsigns in a pileup. I don't answer those who gabble something incomprehensible. Using the official phonetic alphabet makes for better communication between people who don't speak the same language well and with an accent.

 

[byndhlptom]

Phonetics

Problem is, there is not an international concensis as to what is the correct Phonetics (as referenced previously).

NATO is a relatively small organization (as compared to international Hams or even US law enforcement). Most of these groups do not interface with each other (or minimally). so they use what they have agreed to internally. I suspect that if you dug deeper, you will find hundreds of Phonetic "flavors" being used world wide..

You will probably never get these (and other groups) to standardize on a single set

 

[kayn1n32008]

Problem is, there is not an international concensis as to what is the correct Phonetics (as referenced previously).



NATO is a relatively small organization (as compared to international Hams or even US law enforcement). Most of these groups do not interface with each other (or minimally). so they use what they have agreed to internally. I suspect that if you dug deeper, you will find hundreds of Phonetic "flavors" being used world wide..



You will probably never get these (and other groups) to standardize on a single set

And even then, hams from NATO countries do not always use NATO phonetics...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JustLou]

Right. The correct phonetics make it even easier to understand garbled callsigns in a pileup. I don't answer those who gabble something incomprehensible. Using the official phonetic alphabet makes for better communication between people who don't speak the same language well and with an accent.

You do realize that "people who don't speak the same language well and with an accent" are more than likely not going use what you consider the "official phonetic alphabet".

 

[WB4CS]

On HF I've always used the "DX'ers phonetics" because it's easier for people who do not speak English as a primary language to understand. You'll find these phonetics pretty standard on the HF bands and have been used for decades.

A......AMERICA, Amsterdam
B......BOSTON, Baltimore, Brazil
C......CANADA, Columbia, Chile
D......DENMARK
E......ENGLAND, Egypt
F......FRANCE, Finland
G.....GERMANY, Guatemala, Geneva, Greece
H.....HONOLULU, Hawaii
I.......ITALY
J......JAPAN
K......KILOWATT, Kentucky, King
L......LONDON, Lima, Luxembourg
M......MEXICO, Montreal
N......NORWAY, Nicaragua
O......ONTARIO, Ocean,
P......PORTUGAL, Pacific
Q......QUEBEC, Queen
R......RADIO, Romania, Russia
S......SANTIAGO, Spain, Sweden
T......TOKYO, Texas
U......UNITED, URUGUAY
V...... VICTORIA, Venezuela
W......WASHINGTON
X......X-RAY
Y......YOKOHAMA
Z...... ZANZIBAR, Zulu

 

[k6cpo]

On HF I've always used the "DX'ers phonetics" because it's easier for people who do not speak English as a primary language to understand. You'll find these phonetics pretty standard on the HF bands and have been used for decades.

The problem with using country names is that the operator on the other end might think that's where the person is calling from...

I won't usually respond to someone using other than the "traditional" phonetics because I don't want to take the time to figure out what he is saying. I've been using the NATO phonetics for so long now, they are second nature.

 

[JustLou]

Wow. I'm amazed. I never thought hams would ignore other hams based on the phonetics they used. ... And I thought it was bad when the Techs got ignored on UHF/VHF and the Generals got ignored on HF. smh

 

[robertmac]

People today tend to agree to disagree. Use whatever they darnwell feel like. Thus the CB mentallity. I go with one and stick with that. If doing a net and someone uses something other than NATO, I will respond with NATO as that is the one I know. I don't ignore them, but I will not use their phonetics in replying. Heard one long time user on HF trying to get his call sign to the person he was talking to. Being an olt timer he used just about every phonetic he could think of but it wasn't until he used NATO phonetics that the other person finally got his call right.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The trouble with nonstandard phonetics is that the receiving operator has to know how to spell whatever alternate words the sender is using in the sender's language.

 

[WB4CS]

The problem with using country names is that the operator on the other end might think that's where the person is calling from...

I won't usually respond to someone using other than the "traditional" phonetics because I don't want to take the time to figure out what he is saying. I've been using the NATO phonetics for so long now, they are second nature.

That might be true for new operators, but anyone that has spent any amount of time on the HF bands will recognize the "DX phonetics".

As for you not responding to someone using phonetics other than the ones that YOU feel are appropriate, while that's your prerogative, that is certainly an elitist attitude to have. I don't care if someone says "Willy Baba Four Cesar Smily" I'll still talk to them. Now, I may not like their "cute" phonetics, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore them.

You also have to realize that Amateur Radio is not a "US Only" club. There is no one phonetics alphabet that is "standard" to every country. NATO is certainly popular, but so are the "DX Phonetics" I posted. Also, APCO phonetics are widely used. There isn't one list that's "correct."

I have no clue how long you've been on the HF bands (Edit: Looks like you've been licensed since 1/18/2011), but I've been around for over 20 years and I've heard the "DX Phonetics" used by more DX than the NATO phonetics. But, that's just my opinion. I spend more time talking on the radio than I do ignoring people on the radio

 

[prcguy]

I think the problem is people are too lazy to learn the ITU/NATO phonetics recommended by the ARRL and used by the US military and most everyone else.
prcguy

 

[WB4CS]

I think the problem is people are too lazy to learn the ITU/NATO phonetics recommended by the ARRL and used by the US military and most everyone else.
prcguy

Laziness may be part of it, but also you use what works. I know from experience when trying to work a pileup on HF that I've had better luck using the DX Phonetics than the NATO ones. It's subjective, but it's worked well for me in the past.

Yet another reason why I love CW. No need to worry about phonetics

 

[majoco]

Here's a definitive answer...

ITU PHONETICS

...and particularly interesting is the statement...

In 1947 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), adopted rules and procedures that standardized phonetics. The reason? TO SAVE LIVES. There are documented incidents where aircraft (and lives) have been lost as a result of phone traffic being misunderstood or unreadable as a result of non-standard phonetics and thereby miss-communication between pilots (usually by those whose primary language was not English) and ground control stations.

 

[AK9R]

Folks, the requirements of the ITU, ICAO, or NATO do not directly apply to amateur radio in the U.S. Part 97 only "encourages" the use of a phonetic alphabet when identifying a station by phone emission, but it does not specify which phonetic alphabet. See 97.119(a)(2),

 

[n5ims]

Under normal conditions where it's important that the information be understood completely, I agree that standard phonetics is important. At other times, not so much. If the #1 goal is to transfer the information with upmost clarity, use the standard. If the goal is to be remembered and stand out (especially in a pileup or contest situation) than use phonetics that help you stand out, even if they're not standard (but they still must be clearly understood!).

I do know that when I was working field day with the Greater New Orleans Amateur Radio Club (W5UK), we got much better response with our call sign as "Whiskey Five Ugly Kisser" than we did using "Whiskey Five Uniform Kilo". Same with the nearby Jefferson Amateur Radio Club (W5GAD) where "Whiskey Five Guys And Dolls" worked much better than "Whiskey Five Golf Alpha Delta".

 

[JustLou]

Folks, the requirements of the ITU, ICAO, or NATO do not directly apply to amateur radio in the U.S. Part 97 only "encourages" the use of a phonetic alphabet when identifying a station by phone emission, but it does not specify which phonetic alphabet. See 97.119(a)(2),

Thank you...