Radio procedure

[RiverAux]

The Nov issue of the AZ wing newsletter had this from their Comm officer:

Remember your hierarchy when communicating. Mission bases are above camps, camps are above aircraft and aircraft over ground teams. This hierarchy decides who ends the conversation. For instance, when an aircraft calls mission base to report something, often the AOBD is nearby and hears the radio call. The AOBD may have a question or new orders for the aircraft, but if the aircraft says "out", mission base has to call them back, wasting airtime. It is for this reason that mission base is always the one to say "out".

Example
Arizona Mission Base, CAP Flight 345 over
CAP Flight 345, Arizona Mission Base, over.
We are at the North IP headed south, over.
Understand you are at the North IP headed south, over.
Read back correct, over
Arizona mission base, out.

I have never heard this before.  The way I was taught, both communicators go through the "out" process at the end of the conversation and have never heard anything about a protocol about which communicator goes "out" first.  Thoughts?

[KyCAP]

While I have never heard a protocol like this expressed in writing, it is logical that the resource that is best suited to stay on the air the longest should "loiter" for the resource most "exposed" to make sure they are through communicating.

[scooter]

"Out" is a carryover from the early days of radio communication. The operator had to manually switch his radio from transmit to receive modes so had to tell the other operator he was doing that by saying "over" (to you). "Out" was used to tell the other operator he was signing off. As far as I know, CAP is the only organization to still use "out" on transceiver radios. Maybe the Army still does on FM.

[PHall]

I would love to see what regulation/manual/operating instruction/etc. he is using to back that up.
Because that is just plain bogus.

[MIKE]

... OUT This is the end of my transmission to you and no answer is required or expected

[KyCAP]

I think that there are two "points" in this thread.  One is the syntax of using out and the other is "who terminates the conversation so a to not strand the conversation" protocol to which I was referring.

[Eclipse]

There's no hierarchy of station.  Now we have to carry a chart of who is allowed to say "out"?

The initiating station is the one which is supposed to decide when the conversation is over.

If Mission base hears something they don't like, they simply initiate a call when the first one is over.

Most of our people use a radio just a few times a year, the whole point is to make things as simple and clear as possible.

I'd be willing to guess that the above has generated more than a few arguments, and I can't imagine the "fun" their people will have when integrating with people from other states.

[SarDragon]

As for the hierarchy thing, I've never run across that. I've always seen it as whoever needs to start the exchange does so, and whoever ends it also does so.

Regarding the specific pro words, that what it says in the reg, and that's how I teach it in my ROA classes. That's also what I was taught by a retired AF communicator, when I first got into the comm business.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

There are more important things to do in CAP than dictate who terminates a two-way radio transmission. And this is laughable.

No station "outranks" another. And transmissions end when business is complete on both ends. It's presumptuous to say that one designated station can say "out" before another.

As long as "out" is said, and it's not accompanied by the words "over and," WHO CARES who says "out" first?

[lordmonar]

The Heirarchy thing is complete bunk!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Remember your hierarchy when communicating. Mission bases are above camps, camps are above aircraft and aircraft over ground teams. This hierarchy decides who ends the conversation. For instance, when an aircraft calls mission base to report something, often the AOBD is nearby and hears the radio call. The AOBD may have a question or new orders for the aircraft, but if the aircraft says "out", mission base has to call them back, wasting airtime. It is for this reason that mission base is always the one to say "out".

If the originating station is the "subordinate" under this policy, what if they get cut off with an "out" from the "superior" without getting all the information they needed?

Like I say, too much time leaves idle hands. And we all know what idle hands are.

[Pylon]

Do people really have nothing better to do than to create complex hierarchies where there is no true need?   If I'm using the radio on a mission, guess what my main intent is?  To communicate what I need to and get on with the actual mission.  Radios are just a tool to help us accomplish a means; they should not be like some complicated 18th century aristocratic ball with arcane rules which must be learnt and memorized and carried out with a certain stiffness and strictness.

Seriously - we're talking about two people communicating by a radio.  If the message gets through and is understood, then we're done here.  Find something else to pontificate about.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

So where's the next hierarchy gonna be?

Anyone with an HF radio outranks anyone with a VHF unit.

Fixed-base units outrank air units outrank mobile units.

Any unit with a four-digit call sign has the status of an ant.

Up is down, down is up, and neither outranks sideways.

Any questions?

[Gunner C]

As for the hierarchy thing, I've never run across that. I've always seen it as whoever needs to start the exchange does so, and whoever ends it also does so.

Regarding the specific pro words, that what it says in the reg, and that's how I teach it in my ROA classes. That's also what I was taught by a retired AF communicator, when I first got into the comm business.

I'm an old communicator, too.  You are right - That's just the way it is, whether military, CAP, or Ham.  True, the initiating station does, by CAP reg and by ACP, close the exchange.  But experienced communicators know when to terminate a transmission.  It is hardly ever a problem.

The only time anything comes close to this is during a directed net when the NCS controls all flow of traffic and net stations must secure permission to transmit to another station within that net.  But that's not what we're talking about here unless they're taking this standard and applying some weird spin to it.

CAP has a strange way of taking the simplest of activities and putting a strange spin on it.

__
AR

[BuckeyeDEJ]

CAP has a strange way of taking the simplest of activities and putting a strange spin on it.

Is it possible that's because of a subconscious desire that everyone wants to be able to tell others what to do?

(I've seen some CAP members who shouldn't order themselves around, let alone others! One of them, I see every day in the mirror.)

[RRLE]

As far as I know, CAP is the only organization to still use "out" on transceiver radios.

Your guess is wrong. The Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard still use it.

The following is from the USCG Aux Boat Crew Seamanship Manual, Chapter 11 Communications, Section B. Prowords and Common Abbreviations, Table 11-3 Prowords:

OUT Used following the last line of the message transmitted, signifying the end of the transmission and nothing follows. No reply is required or expected.

OVER Used following a transmission when a response from the other Station is necessary. It is an invitation to the other Station to transmit.

Same manual and chapter, Section D. Radio Operating Procedures, 11.D.1. Basic Radio Discipline:

Proper prowords. Use proper prowords, ending each transmission with “over” and the last with “out.” Never say “over and out.”

The info is also in the air crew training material and the general comm training material.

From the USCG COMDTINST Radiotelephone Handbook M2300.7A, pdf page 12, Authorized PROWORDS:

OUT: End of transmission no reply necessary.
OVER: End of transmission respond back

The second out in the CAP procedure is meaningless. The first station to "OUT" has stated they are not listening for a reply. So who does the second station think is listening for their "OUT"?

[JoeTomasone]

There is no "second out" in reality - the flow would normally be as in the example in the OP.   I do agree, however, that the hierarchy concept is a tad odd.

True, the initiating station does, by CAP reg and by ACP, close the exchange.

Citation, please?

[Gunner C]

There is no "second out" in reality - the flow would normally be as in the example in the OP.   I do agree, however, that the hierarchy concept is a tad odd.

True, the initiating station does, by CAP reg and by ACP, close the exchange.

Citation, please?

CAPR 100-3

[MIKE]

He means a direct copy and paste from CAPR 100-3.

[ol'fido]

This seems to be a case of someone who saw a problem that didn't exist and tried to find a solution for it.  Or it could be the phenonena that occurs when somenone gets a new staff position. They feel the need to initiate new rules and procedures so that they can "own" their slice of the pie and enhance their sense of importance. Whether these rules and procedures make sense is immaterial.