'Roger' does not mean 'Yes'

[FlightPlan]

Originally Posted by SM6WET

Here is some examples:
QSL - Can you confirm? I confirm. (here is the affirmative)
QRN - Are you disturbed by noise (atmospheric radio noise). I am disturbed by noise.
QRM - Are you disturbed by noise (other radio operators on same or near frequency). I am disturbed by noise.
QSB - Is my signal fading? Your signal is fading. (to be used when the signal is so weak you can only hear part of message).
QTH - What is your current position? My current position is.
QTC - Do you have any messages for me? I have messages for you. (to be used when relaying messages).
QRO - Should I increase my transmission power? Increase your transmitted power. It also means if you say your are QRO that you are transmitting high power.




Well, there is some ranting for you.
Please remember..... Roger means Received, not affirmative/confirm/understand.


Cheers,
Magnus

There are many more Q codes and are used in signal flags between ships when radio silence is required.

[MarkJ]

And lets keep the Army out of it as all Militaries are different... For example (putting the Army back into it )

Wilco is never used by us because it means Will Comply. If I am getting an order on the radio its from a superior so I dont say will comply because its a bloody ORDER. If one of my sub-units talk to me I dont say will comply because I am their bloody superior. I take info from them and give orders.

Affirmative isint a proword in my (or the US) army. (Us Army study link http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...nication.shtml )

So we used Roger and usually nothing, just own callsign and Over. No need to say Roger, Over. Just Over.


Anyway, we are not in the Army (whoevers), airforce, 747, Cessna, Navy or Coast Guard (Whoevers), so it doesnt matter diddly-squat what they do. As long as communications among boats and ships are clear and consise its all fine.

Except Over & Out. No Hollywood film would even say that anymore.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by monte

This is the way I was taught to make a call. Perhaps if people have trouble monitoring duel stations they should stick to one station.

Oh Contraire. I volunteer in the Coast Guard Radio room and I have about 8 radios on the bench in front of me. I silently thank every caller who goes to the trouble of saying "this is half a boat on six seven"
or seven three or 88 etc

There are many very valid reasons to be on a dual watch on your own boat, on 16 and on a channel that is being used for a race that you are sailing through, or on 16 and 12 if you are going up river in Brisvegas, etc etc.

[rwidman]

This thread may rival the one on COLREGS with a couple dozen pages of off topic posts overseen by several self appointed "experts".

[Factor]

Originally Posted by monte

On the same subject, something else I recently heard was the US coastguard using the term 'break' in longer transmissions. Also seemed a bit strange and something I haven't come across on marine VHF before..

'This is us coastguard vessel XYZ'

Break

' a pan pan has been initiated by ABC'

Break

'All vessels in the area etc...'

Break.....


"I think multihulls require less IQ to sail than a monohull" - Duckwheat

Has to do with repeaters, they time out after a while, and there will be a protocol regarding length of transmission, also has to do with giving the receiving station time to note the information.

[Bobcat]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Roger, wilco, over and out.

Presumably a pun ?

Roger, Wilco, Over OR Out ...

Over AND Out is contradictory -

- either you are handing Over and waiting for a response OR you are Signing Off!

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Anyway, we are not in the Army (whoevers), airforce, 747, Cessna, .....

BRM came to us directly from CRM and included the 'new improved' manner of responding to orders, requests and desires both on the radio and off.
All designed to avoid confusion of the 'send three and fourpence we are going to a dance' type.

If someone is swapping scone recipes on 69 I couldn't really give a monkey's what form is used.

[monte]

Mm scones. Let's discuss. Up one?

Btw if you're ever in st maartin best stay off the cruisers net channel for vessel to vessel chit chat when they're doing their morning thing, or risk the wrath of Mark

"I think multihulls require less IQ to sail than a monohull" - Duckwheat

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by CptBobDuv

And as far as roger is concerned .....yes THATS A ROGER IS FINE FOR YES

Yeah we really need the VHF gestapo?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by monte

That's funny, I was going to add that people stating the Channel they are using is strange. I've only noticed it a practice among American accented callers and it's not shown as part of the standard call procedure in the link you posted

Harbour control in busy harbours like Sydney, Brisbane, Gladstone, will monitor several channels on separate radios. It's helpful to them if you identify which channel you are calling them on.

[barnakiel]

I'm fine with roger this or that. It seems the phrase became a lore and procedures can be upgraded more easily than human habits.

Good rant BTW.

b.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Bobcat

Presumably a pun ?

Roger, Wilco, Over OR Out ...

Over AND Out is contradictory -

- either you are handing Over and waiting for a response OR you are Signing Off!

Not necessarily, to many it means "I'm out unless you have more to say"

[Rustic Charm]

Well, I've learnt from this thread that there is benefit in including channel broadcasting on, though I don't see it necessary on 16. In this area!

As for 'Roger', I can see 'roger' is far more useful radio procedure than 'yes'. For a start it's two syllables, which is the point of it. More likely to be picked up on radio than a single syllable.

I can't say I get annoyed at improper radio use, but it is pretty obvious over here. Few repeat their calling three times. I hear, 'oky dokey' a few times and also 'cheers mate'.

In Australia it is not unlawful to install or listen to a VHF radio, but it is to 'use' a VHF radio. I've not ever heard of anyone 'ever' being prosecuted for using one in an emergency without a license. We do, perhaps yearly hear of someone being prosecuted for intentionally abusing radio's and also setting of epirbs.

[Ozwizz54]

Hi All,

There are reason (nearly all good ones) for standards in communication. It's called clarity of meaning in communications. As someone who has been teaching languages (especially English) at all levels from pre-school to post graduate university levels and all over the world, the need for standardised meanings is absolute.

While it's fashionable to be rebellious in the western world, there's not much point being a rebel if it means the people around you simply have no idea what you are saying. I recently heard a student state: "She's so hot she's cool".

Originally Posted by SM6WET

Speaking about affirmative. You Americans and English whom has the English language as your mother tongue do not have a problem with this but affirmative is not a word which is learned in the first couple of 6-8 years studying English if you are born in a country where another language is spoken. In fact, I probably had 9-10 years of English studies in school and this word never popped up in my glossary homework. It stumbled upon me in other rooms. So when having a radio conversation with someone who uses English as a secondary language it may be wise to rather use roger, I understand or I confirm instead of affirmative in order to not be misunderstood.

A couple of clarifications for you Magnus:

• Learning general English would not bring the word "affirmative" into your course. It's a much more specialised word such as those you'd find in courses like Computer English, Legal English or Accounting English. So, it would be expected to be found in courses like Military English, Marine Communications English or Aviation English.
• And, no, it wouldn't be wise to use "Roger" when you are meaning "Yes" because it simply does not mean yes except in something like a Battle-of-Britain-type war movie. If non-native speakers of English are going to communicate in marine communications where English is the lingua franca (the standard language), the onus is on them to use correct terminology while communicating just as it is for us native speakers. Just as I am required to use the correct Russian words while shopping in a bazaar in Kazan in Russia. Having said that, it's also important for us native speakers to allow some flexibility and tolerance for those who are not fluent in English. Asking questions to clarify a non-native speaker's meaning is always a smarter alternative to making assumptions.

By the way, Magnus, your written English is excellent, so you clearly took your English lessons seriously.

While the clarity of meaning in communications is all important, the standardisation of terminology is vital to avoid confusion. Can't have one without the other. Reinventing languages is a dangerous practice especially in our nautical world especially when someone's life may be at risk.

All in favour of keeping radio communications standardised and simple,
David

[El Pinguino]

One thing that really gives me the irrits is when the the person at the far end ( often with english as a second language) doesn't understand what has been said so asks for a repeat and it goes like this....
'Our eta is 1300'
'Please say again'
'We expect to arrive at one o'clock, I repeat..we will be there after lunch..'

Yup - that will work....