Actually, the "NATO" phonetic alphabet was NOT developed by the military. It was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the 1940s. It was adopted by NATO during the 1950s.
Again, my position is that the ICAO phonetics usually work very well with those who speak English as their first language. It works fairly well with those persons who do not speak English as their primary language but who have been specifically trained in the use of ICAO phonetics. It generally works very well on radio links that do not have extensive QRM or QSB. However, when dealing with untrained individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and when QSB and/or QRM is present, geographical names work considerably better. The same arguments that are being presented herein are routinely posted in the discussions on QRZ.com concerning the "proper" phonetic alphabet. Frankly, the majority of people have made their decision and they are not going to change how they use the phonetic alphabets. Some use the ICAO phonetic alphabet no matter what and some people do adapt to the situation and use alternate phonetic alphabets of which the geographical name version is the most used of the alternate phonetic alphabets where amateur radio is concerned. When working DX through a "pileup" the vast majority of time stations who use geographic names are going to get through a lot faster than those who insist on using just the ICAO phonetic alphabet. This is contrary to the opinion of those who insist that the ICAO phonetic alphabet "must" be used. However, for those stations who routinely work DX the vast majority do use geographical names when working DX. Now when working "stateside" the vast majority of those operators do use the ICAO phonetic alphabet. I have "heard" these same arguments numerous times before concerning the ICAO phonetic alphabet versus geographical names. A relatively few persons who have insisted on the ICAO version do realize that the ICAO phonetics are not a "universal savior" where communications are concerned and do change their operating habits to fit the situation. But, those who insist that the ICAO version is the only "correct" phonetic alphabet generally are not convinced. Frankly, these discussions go on forever and no resolution ever happens. As such, those discussions are eventually shut down and things return to normal. As for me, I will continue to use the ICAO phonetic alphabet for stateside contacts and when the other station has English as their primary language. However, I don't like to spend a lot of time in "pileups" when working DX stations and therefore I will continue to use geographical names and work the station generally along time before those who use ICAO phonetics get through. Now getting back to satellite communications: Generally, since the vast majority of stations worked by United States operators do have English as their primary language, I definitely agree that the ICAO phonetics should generally be used. For stations who do not speak English as their primary language then using geographical names is definitely a viable alternative. Glen, K9STH Website: http://k9sth.com --- On Sun, 4/10/11, nh6vb Scheller <[email protected]> wrote: From: nh6vb Scheller <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics To: [email protected], [email protected], "amsat-bb" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 3:16 PM Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.....etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Glen, > Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW > abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio > Operator. > Art, > KC6UQH > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Glen Zook > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM > To: [email protected]; Mark Spencer > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics > > Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In > over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a > station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better > than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K". > > Glen, K9STH > > Website: http://k9sth.com > > > --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer <[email protected]> wrote: > > The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where > there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume > the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if > the sender is also representing the letter w or not. > > It seems overly confusing to me. > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6029 (20110409) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6029 (20110409) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6031 (20110410) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 6031 (20110410) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
