**Communication Regulations**

[JeffDG]

I've gotten into the odd disagreement with proword-nazis.

Some will get, literally, angry with someone for saying "Roger that" on the radio.

My philosophy is:  What is the purpose of the radio communications?  Is it to utilize a system of prowords and standardized phrasology?  If so, then you are entirely justified in getting angry at someone for transgressions in proword use.  Me, I think the purpose is to transport information from the sender to the receiver.  In that case, saying "Roger that" transmits the information clearly to the receiver, and as such, the transgression is merely administrative in nature.

I would rather have 20 radio operators who occasionally slip and say "Roger that" using the radios and becoming proficient with them, than losing 18 of them because they're afraid of of accidentally using a word that's not on the approved list.

Your priorities may vary.

[SarDragon]

Based on my training and experience, I run on the strict side of proword usage, but there is room in my lexicon for "Roger that". In fact, I use it all the time, and don't get any flak from the really strict folks. It sounds less stuffy than Affirmative.

YMMV.

[Garibaldi]

Just as long as they don't say "Roger Roger". One is enough.

[ColonelJack]

They could always quote Fred, assistant to Super Chicken:

"Roger Wilcox!"

Jack

[Al Sayre]

I've gotten into the odd disagreement with proword-nazis.

Some will get, literally, angry with someone for saying "Roger that" on the radio.

My philosophy is:  What is the purpose of the radio communications?  Is it to utilize a system of prowords and standardized phrasology?  If so, then you are entirely justified in getting angry at someone for transgressions in proword use.  Me, I think the purpose is to transport information from the sender to the receiver.  In that case, saying "Roger that" transmits the information clearly to the receiver, and as such, the transgression is merely administrative in nature.

I would rather have 20 radio operators who occasionally slip and say "Roger that" using the radios and becoming proficient with them, than losing 18 of them because they're afraid of of accidentally using a word that's not on the approved list.

Your priorities may vary.

As an IC, I once had a one sided discussion with a CUL who was a bit too enamoured with the radios and jargon.  Basically, I said:  You are the Communications Unit Leader, your job is to see that we can communicate.  I don't care how well you can operate your fancy radio on multiple frequencies etc or that the pilot didn't use the right pro-words.  Use your radios, your cell phone, morse code, signal mirrors or build a fire out back and use smoke signals for all I care.  The important thing is that we have 2 way communications.  Now, go find out where my airplanes and ground teams  are...

[JeffDG]

I've gotten into the odd disagreement with proword-nazis.

Some will get, literally, angry with someone for saying "Roger that" on the radio.

My philosophy is:  What is the purpose of the radio communications?  Is it to utilize a system of prowords and standardized phrasology?  If so, then you are entirely justified in getting angry at someone for transgressions in proword use.  Me, I think the purpose is to transport information from the sender to the receiver.  In that case, saying "Roger that" transmits the information clearly to the receiver, and as such, the transgression is merely administrative in nature.

I would rather have 20 radio operators who occasionally slip and say "Roger that" using the radios and becoming proficient with them, than losing 18 of them because they're afraid of of accidentally using a word that's not on the approved list.

Your priorities may vary.

As an IC, I once had a one sided discussion with a CUL who was a bit too enamoured with the radios and jargon.  Basically, I said:  You are the Communications Unit Leader, your job is to see that we can communicate.  I don't care how well you can operate your fancy radio on multiple frequencies etc or that the pilot didn't use the right pro-words.  Use your radios, your cell phone, morse code, signal mirrors or build a fire out back and use smoke signals for all I care.  The important thing is that we have 2 way communications.  Now, go find out where my airplanes and ground teams  are...

I would suspect that the majority of ICs have had, almost word for word, that conversation.