Ever wondered why the phonetic alphabet is what it is? Well in this month's QST you'll find a nice article that's a good mix of communications and aerospace education explaining why.
Here's a link to a PDF dump of the article I uploaded: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fqu1f390bfrsvp3/QST%20-%20June%202015%20%5B70%20-%2071%5D.pdf?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fqu1f390bfrsvp3/QST%20-%20June%202015%20%5B70%20-%2071%5D.pdf?dl=0)
That table 6 is interesting.
I'm curious how exactly to reconcile ICS's demand for simple common terminology and no codes or what-have-you, and the use of prowords and a phonetic alphabet, which are sometimes themselves referred to as codewords.
To what extent has the military, IMO-ICAO communications model been embraced in the modern (civilian governmental) interoperable communications environment?
It's interesting that the IAMSAR Manual still requires use of the International Code of Signals (1969), which called for use of the international phonetic alphabet in existence at that time. Some key provisions are:
Pronounciation for the letter N is specifically pronounced NO-VEM-BER (not NO-VEM-BAH)
O is pronounced OSS-CAH (not OSS-KUR)
P is pronounced PAH-PAH (not PAH-PAH)
Q is pronounced KEH-BECK (oddly not KAY-BECK even in international circles)
V is pronounced VIK-TAH (not VIK-TUR; while November, Oscar, and Victor all end in "R", why are the "R"'s not all pronounced?)
The figure/number 0 is pronounced ZAY-ROH (not ZEE-ROH)
3 is pronounced TREE (not THREE)
4 is pronounced FO-WER (not FOR)
5 is pronounced FIVE (not FIFE)
Quote from: TexasBEAST on May 22, 2015, 03:06:08 AM
I'm curious how exactly to reconcile ICS's demand for simple common terminology and no codes or what-have-you, and the use of prowords and a phonetic alphabet, which are sometimes themselves referred to as codewords.
To what extent has the military, IMO-ICAO communications model been embraced in the modern (civilian governmental) interoperable communications environment?
It's interesting that the IAMSAR Manual still requires use of the International Code of Signals (1969), which called for use of the international phonetic alphabet in existence at that time. Some key provisions are:
Pronounciation for the letter N is specifically pronounced NO-VEM-BER (not NO-VEM-BAH)
O is pronounced OSS-CAH (not OSS-KUR)
P is pronounced PAH-PAH (not PAH-PAH)
Q is pronounced KEH-BECK (oddly not KAY-BECK even in international circles)
V is pronounced VIK-TAH (not VIK-TUR; while November, Oscar, and Victor all end in "R", why are the "R"'s not all pronounced?)
The figure/number 0 is pronounced ZAY-ROH (not ZEE-ROH)
3 is pronounced TREE (not THREE)
4 is pronounced FO-WER (not FOR)
5 is pronounced FIVE (not FIFE)
Very nice Beast. Now run some of those pronunciations past say a native Korean speaker or maybe a Russian speaker.
The results will not be what you're expecting!
I don't get that. How is NovemBAH, for consistency's sake with OsCAH and VicTAH, any more difficult for a Korean than NovemBER?
And if a Russian can say NovemBER, then why can't he say OsCAR and VicTOR?
It's the inconsistency which leaps out at me.
I was just pointing out the pronunciations for figures/numbers because they are not entirely consistent with what ICAO and CAP directives have called for in the decades since the International Code of Signals was published, and yet the IAMSAR Manual still calls for the InterCOS to be used today.
It further illustrates the communications interoperability issues in SAR: IAMSARM/InterCOS, vs. NATO/ICAO/CAP, vs. LEOs.
I have been in Public Safety Communications for 20 years and also CAP for almost as long. We train at the PD on different phonetics such as A-Adam B-Boy C-Charles and so on. On numbers I was trained to say Thu-ree and not tree even in CAP back in the 90s.
Texas....you are puting too much thought into it.
No-Vem-Ber vs No-Vem-Bah.......who cares.....it is the NO that is important. And that means N.
Phonetics are absolutely compatible with common terminology. Codes can obscure meaning. Phonetic alphabets add clarity. Specifically they clarify characters in difficult noise conditions. B, C, D, E, G, P, T, V, and Z can call sound similar under lousy conditions. Using the phonetic alphabet clears things right up.
Once upon a time I worked in airport law enforcement and used two phonetic alphabets simultaneously. The differences didn't affect interoperability at all. Any reasonable listener can figure out what's going on:
ALPHA WHISKEY ECHO SIERRA OSCAR MIKE ECHO = AWESOME
ADAM WILLIAM EDWARD SAM OCEAN MARY EDWARD = AWESOME
Even folks who don't know a phonetic alphabet can figure out how to send messages, most of the time. You might hear stuff like this but it still works. All bets are off if other languages are an issue.
AWKWARD WEASEL EVIL STINKY OFTEN MONEY EVIL = AWESOME
Turn on a ham radio and you'll hear all kinds of custom phonetics. They still work.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on May 23, 2015, 03:19:27 PM
Phonetics are absolutely compatible with common terminology. Codes can obscure meaning. Phonetic alphabets add clarity. Specifically they clarify characters in difficult noise conditions. B, C, D, E, G, P, T, V, and Z can call sound similar under lousy conditions. Using the phonetic alphabet clears things right up.
Once upon a time I worked in airport law enforcement and used two phonetic alphabets simultaneously. The differences didn't affect interoperability at all. Any reasonable listener can figure out what's going on:
ALPHA WHISKEY ECHO SIERRA OSCAR MIKE ECHO = AWESOME
ADAM WILLIAM EDWARD SAM OCEAN MARY EDWARD = AWESOME
Even folks who don't know a phonetic alphabet can figure out how to send messages, most of the time. You might hear stuff like this but it still works. All bets are off if other languages are an issue.
AWKWARD WEASEL EVIL STINKY OFTEN MONEY EVIL = AWESOME
Turn on a ham radio and you'll hear all kinds of custom phonetics. They still work.
Turn on a police scanner and you will hear the same. "Thats spelled A...uh....applesauce....D....um...doorknob...."
Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2015, 05:21:23 AM
Texas....you are puting too much thought into it.
No-Vem-Ber vs No-Vem-Bah.......who cares.....it is the NO that is important. And that means N.
Haha! You're probably right.
I just wanted to point this out lest any of the communicators out there get to thinking or proclaiming that this has all been worked out to a super precise science. The circuit boards and antennae? Sure. But the
practice of radio communications is still very much an imprecise art form. The multiplicity of standards--as you say, all of which can be considered acceptable--goes to show it.
Working EMS I've heard my dispatchers use such gems as H as in Ha-Ha and K as in KitKat.
Gnat, herb, knife, opossum, etc. Great fun.
I had a citizen giving me information and attempted to use phonetics. They advised me X as in Axe.
Quote from: TarRiverRat on May 24, 2015, 11:42:52 PM
I had a citizen giving me information and attempted to use phonetics. They advised me X as in Axe.
I both love and hate when a caller tries to give me phonetics but doesn't know the actual phonetic alphabet, "O as in um....uh...Octopus..."
From a former Senior Member in my Squadron who was a police officer. They had a dispatcher who happened to have the last name of Wright. One day he decided to use his name as a phonetic for W, "W as in WRIGHT." Of course over the radio it sounded like "W as in RIGHT." According to the story he took a bit of a ribbing.
Quote from: TarRiverRat on May 24, 2015, 11:42:52 PM
I had a citizen giving me information and attempted to use phonetics. They advised me X as in Axe.
"Like the body spray?"
>:D
Quote from: PHall on May 22, 2015, 03:12:53 AM
Quote from: TexasBEAST on May 22, 2015, 03:06:08 AM
I'm curious how exactly to reconcile ICS's demand for simple common terminology and no codes or what-have-you, and the use of prowords and a phonetic alphabet, which are sometimes themselves referred to as codewords.
To what extent has the military, IMO-ICAO communications model been embraced in the modern (civilian governmental) interoperable communications environment?
It's interesting that the IAMSAR Manual still requires use of the International Code of Signals (1969), which called for use of the international phonetic alphabet in existence at that time. Some key provisions are:
Pronounciation for the letter N is specifically pronounced NO-VEM-BER (not NO-VEM-BAH)
O is pronounced OSS-CAH (not OSS-KUR)
P is pronounced PAH-PAH (not PAH-PAH)
Q is pronounced KEH-BECK (oddly not KAY-BECK even in international circles)
V is pronounced VIK-TAH (not VIK-TUR; while November, Oscar, and Victor all end in "R", why are the "R"'s not all pronounced?)
The figure/number 0 is pronounced ZAY-ROH (not ZEE-ROH)
3 is pronounced TREE (not THREE)
4 is pronounced FO-WER (not FOR)
5 is pronounced FIVE (not FIFE)
Very nice Beast. Now run some of those pronunciations past say a native Korean speaker or maybe a Russian speaker.
The results will not be what you're expecting!
Native Russian speaker here. When are we doing the conference call?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 27, 2015, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: PHall on May 22, 2015, 03:12:53 AM
Quote from: TexasBEAST on May 22, 2015, 03:06:08 AM
I'm curious how exactly to reconcile ICS's demand for simple common terminology and no codes or what-have-you, and the use of prowords and a phonetic alphabet, which are sometimes themselves referred to as codewords.
To what extent has the military, IMO-ICAO communications model been embraced in the modern (civilian governmental) interoperable communications environment?
It's interesting that the IAMSAR Manual still requires use of the International Code of Signals (1969), which called for use of the international phonetic alphabet in existence at that time. Some key provisions are:
Pronounciation for the letter N is specifically pronounced NO-VEM-BER (not NO-VEM-BAH)
O is pronounced OSS-CAH (not OSS-KUR)
P is pronounced PAH-PAH (not PAH-PAH)
Q is pronounced KEH-BECK (oddly not KAY-BECK even in international circles)
V is pronounced VIK-TAH (not VIK-TUR; while November, Oscar, and Victor all end in "R", why are the "R"'s not all pronounced?)
The figure/number 0 is pronounced ZAY-ROH (not ZEE-ROH)
3 is pronounced TREE (not THREE)
4 is pronounced FO-WER (not FOR)
5 is pronounced FIVE (not FIFE)
Very nice Beast. Now run some of those pronunciations past say a native Korean speaker or maybe a Russian speaker.
The results will not be what you're expecting!
Native Russian speaker here. When are we doing the conference call?
As soon as you arrange it! >:D
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 27, 2015, 05:18:18 PM
Native Russian speaker here. When are we doing the conference call?
Um...in NoWEMber...??? :o
(I don't get it. I'm not aware of any conference call.)