;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI (http://[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI)[/url]
Some what true. Right?
LOL never gets old. Personally I teach that per 100-3 unless it's bad conditions if the end of the transmission is understood then you don't have to say "over" every time.
Funny. (URL above is broke, here is the video)
Family Guy - Over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI#)
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2014, 02:26:30 AM
per 100-3 unless it's bad conditions if the end of the transmission is understood then you don't have to say "over" every time.
That may be true in CAP but other organizations expect an "Over" or an "Out" (but never both) at the end of each transmission. I'll see if I can find it but I believe a "Over" or "Out" at the end of each transmission is supposed to be standard emergency comms - just like the use of Plain English.
Roger That (only kidding).
Quote from: RRLE on June 07, 2014, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2014, 02:26:30 AM
per 100-3 unless it's bad conditions if the end of the transmission is understood then you don't have to say "over" every time.
That may be true in CAP but other organizations expect an "Over" or an "Out" (but never both) at the end of each transmission. I'll see if I can find it but I believe a "Over" or "Out" at the end of each transmission is supposed to be standard emergency comms - just like the use of Plain English.
Roger That (only kidding).
I've very rarely heard over or out being used on Fire or Police comms.
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2014, 01:51:10 PM
I've very rarely heard over or out being used on Fire or Police comms.
Followed by howls of laughter?
Quote from: EMT-83 on June 07, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2014, 01:51:10 PM
I've very rarely heard over or out being used on Fire or Police comms.
Followed by howls of laughter?
Sounds about right! :o
-----------------------------
I know that we never ever used over or out on any of the Air Force LMR radios that I've ever used.
Isn't that really a remnant of, or more appropriate for, times when the connection is poor or the communicator is inexperienced?
Usually operators of even fair experience can use succinct sentences, etc., and the closing of the circuit is a clue they
are done speaking.
The problem comes in with new communicators who don't wait for the repeater to grab, and/or 1/2-a beat to insure the
other side is done speaking.
Roger Roger - Airplane! (8/10) Movie CLIP (1980) HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfDUkR3DOFw#ws)
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 04:39:20 AM
Funny. (URL above is broke, here is the video)
Family Guy - Over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI#)
Thank you
Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2014, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: RRLE on June 07, 2014, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: Brad on June 07, 2014, 02:26:30 AM
per 100-3 unless it's bad conditions if the end of the transmission is understood then you don't have to say "over" every time.
That may be true in CAP but other organizations expect an "Over" or an "Out" (but never both) at the end of each transmission. I'll see if I can find it but I believe a "Over" or "Out" at the end of each transmission is supposed to be standard emergency comms - just like the use of Plain English.
Roger That (only kidding).
I've very rarely heard over or out being used on Fire or Police comms.
Never been a standard in any emergency comms i've been involved with in the last 25 years. A fireman slipping and saying "Over" on the fire radio is met with just as much laughing, teasing and/or eye rolling as when someone accidentally drops a "10-4" on a CAP radio.
The only place I've ever heard "Over" and "Out" used religiously is on railroad frequencies. Even on marine channels, if you're not the Coast Guard, you're not using them.
Agree with everyone that says everywhere but CAP "over" and "out" are met with guffaws. You never hear it on any ATC comm. Professional pilots (military, airline, corporate, charter)would be severely embarrassed. ;D
Or saying "Roger Wilco."
Quote from: CyBorg on June 09, 2014, 01:55:09 AM
Or saying "Roger Wilco."
What's wrong with "Roger, Wilco"?
Roger = Message received and understood.
Wilco = Will comply.
So what's the problem?
Quote from: PHall on June 09, 2014, 02:07:42 AM
What's wrong with "Roger, Wilco"?
Roger = Message received and understood.
Wilco = Will comply.
So what's the problem?
It's redundant - Roger is implied with Wilco. It's difficult to comply with a message that hasn't been received and understood.
Quote from: PHall on June 09, 2014, 02:07:42 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 09, 2014, 01:55:09 AM
Or saying "Roger Wilco."
What's wrong with "Roger, Wilco"?
Roger = Message received and understood.
Wilco = Will comply.
So what's the problem?
From CAPR 100-3:
WILCO
I have received, and understood, and will comply. (Note: Since the meaning of the proword ROGER is included; the two prowords are not used together.)
It amuses me how much people who don't regularly use radios as a part of their profession obsess over proword technicalities. I can tell you from experience that generally, saying things like "over" and "out" are usually unecessary, and in fact take up an incredible amount of time, relatively speaking. They just end up hindering the flow of conversation for the most part.
Want to talk on the radio like RealMilitary actually does? Keep it short, to the point, and professional. Try too hard by over using prowords, etc......and you'll come off as an amateur. :)
Something I have seen multiple times at CAP exercises is the field unit will pause in the middle of their transmission for some reason, long enough for someone to presume they've finished talking, so the other party will start transmitting, resulting in a pile-up. This is common for newer operators, but not too uncommon for 'experienced' CAP operators.
It also comes down to common practice. I have waited for someone to formally end their transmission since where they stopped was not a logical stopping point. I don't know if they intended to stop there or they got distracted or had to check on something.
When I was in the fire service, the radio conversations were usually much shorter than CAP conversations and had fewer back and forths in the conversation. IIRC, the average was three.
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.
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.
Just as long as they don't say "Roger Roger". One is enough.
They could always quote Fred, assistant to Super Chicken:
"Roger Wilcox!"
Jack
Quote from: JeffDG on June 10, 2014, 03:33:57 PM
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...
Quote from: Al Sayre on June 10, 2014, 09:07:58 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 10, 2014, 03:33:57 PM
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.