'Roger' does not mean 'Yes'

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by monte

Thanks for clarifying a few things A64 regarding calling and licence requirement etc. Perhaps having non trained operators is causing a lot of the confusions, with most operators being 'trained' by uncle Fred or gramps.

It sounds like until the US has some kind of minimum training and certification requirement for operators the random calling procedures will continue

FWIW "formal" (not Gramps) marine VHF radio training in the U.S. isn't completely non-existent; it's just not connected directly to the licensing process... which as A64 notes, is only monetary for this class of licensing.

But the USCG Auxiliary and the US Power Squadrons -- at least -- do include modules about radio usage in their standard boating safety courses. I believe most of the sailing organizations that offer comprehensive training do to, too, but don't know that for sure.

Those courses have not traditionally been mandatory, although more individual States are mandating at least some kind of operator training, although usually (always?) with older bubbas being grandfathered. I'm not informed about whether that kind of mandatory training does or does not include radio training.

-Chris

[budm303]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes, actually is not a common thing to have to say , Typically round where wed say

" All copied" not Roger ( sounds too much like the airplane movie)

"Affirmative " for Yes

" All understood" followed by repeat of order.


using the term roger, makes you sound like a CB operator.

I've been using ROGER ("I understand") since WWII. One word is better than two, keeping channel clear. Not so much WILCO ("I will comply") as response to a direct order. Flying in other countries, "O.K." seems to work everywhere. English is supposed to be the mandated language for air traffic, often ignored by 'controllers' (should be 'advisors'), particularly in Spanish venues. Don't know about now, but flying in Russia required an interpreter in the cockpit, because they wouldn't use the international convention. Then there is the problem with dialect. I once went into DumDum (Calcutta/Kolkata) where the tower operator was Indian, learned English from the blokes. Neither of us could understand the other. Since low on fuel, just said, "I am landing," and proceeded. Oops! There was a fence about a third of the (fortunately long) runway that had not been NOTAMed. There is a good reason for following the prescribed terminology. KIS,S.

[jrbogie]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

FWIW "formal" (not Gramps) marine VHF radio training in the U.S. isn't completely non-existent; it's just not connected directly to the licensing process... which as A64 notes, is only monetary for this class of licensing.

But the USCG Auxiliary and the US Power Squadrons -- at least -- do include modules about radio usage in their standard boating safety courses. I believe most of the sailing organizations that offer comprehensive training do to, too, but don't know that for sure.

Those courses have not traditionally been mandatory, although more individual States are mandating at least some kind of operator training, although usually (always?) with older bubbas being grandfathered. I'm not informed about whether that kind of mandatory training does or does not include radio training.

-Chris

even training to be a pilot in the u.s. students are taught very little about radio phraseology. the reason that is, i'd assume, is that how you say what you say really doesn't matter when communicating with atc. just speak clearly using common english terms and phrases and controllers all over the planet will be able to understand you.

[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

[monte]

Originally Posted by budm303

I I once went into DumDum (Calcutta/Kolkata) where the tower operator was Indian, learned English from the blokes. Neither of us could understand the other.

Did you try wobble your head from side to side while you spoke?



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

[goboatingnow]

I've been using ROGER ("I understand") since WWII. One word is better than two, keeping channel clear. Not so much WILCO ("I will comply") as response to a direct order. Flying in other countries, "O.K." seems to work everywhere.

AT sea, in my experience the use of the term " ROGER" is sparse, unless connected with cabin boys etc ( that was a joke OK )

Hence it is not understood by many people as to whether its a " yes" or merely a confirmation that you have understood the communications.

Hence my advice to refrain from its use, especially where the recipient is not a native english speaker.

[jrbogie]

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

'break' is commonly used when the speaker is speaking to one station and needs to speak to a different station quickly without lifting his thumb off the transmit button. for instance;

united 232 turn right heading 090, break, american 15 climb and maintain flight level 230, break, delta 1515 traffic two o'clock, four miles.'

[Bulawayo]

Oops, how can it be over AND out?
Its either 'over' or 'out' - it cannot be both.

[jrbogie]

Originally Posted by Bulawayo

Oops, how can it be over AND out?
Its either 'over' or 'out' - it cannot be both.

sure it can. over means i'm done transmitting, your turn. out means this conversation is finished. over and out means i'm done transmitting and this conversation is finished.

[alctel]

In Canada I had to take both a VHF course for my pilots license and then another one for the marine VHF license. Both were very similar, though the marine one had more detail in it, as it had a segment on DSC (what it is and how to use it).

[Bulawayo]

No, sireee,
'Over' means you are passing the conversation back to the other party.
'Out' means you are finished.
Over and out is therefore a contradiction. I agree that we hear it frequently but I have never heard a licenced Ham user make this fundemental error.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jrbogie

sure it can. over means i'm done transmitting, your turn. out means this conversation is finished. over and out means i'm done transmitting and this conversation is finished.

nope, if you say " over and out" , you are in effect telling the other side to respond to a dead transmitter . its nonsensical.

in an analogy with phone , it would be like, while speaking to you wife, " Hey hon, what time is that restaurant booked for", and then slamming down the phone,

[tankersteve]

"break" is also used in the military to allow unkeying a microphone during a longer transmission. This can prevent enemy RDF efforts, or allow someone else to hastily 'break' into the conversation with important info. However, my experience has been that it allows some folks to pause and think after they started the transmission, as they hadn't thought about what they were going to say prior to the transmission beginning.

At least in the Army, 'roger' is a fairly informal or catchall 'yes' or 'ok'. 'Wilco' acknowledges and states you will comply. 'Acknowledged' is a more formal receipt of the transmission. 'Copy' refers to having recorded the information (copied).

But while ensuring brevity, speaking clearly is usually the most imporant quality in a good transmission.

Tankersteve

[jrbogie]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

nope, if you say " over and out" , you are in effect telling the other side to respond to a dead transmitter . its nonsensical.

in an analogy with phone , it would be like, while speaking to you wife, " Hey hon, what time is that restaurant booked for", and then slamming down the phone,

phone/radio apples and oranges. a phone cannot break squelch. two can speak at the same time. two hot mics mean nobody on the frequency can talk. but i agree that over and out is nonsensical as is losing sleep over roger, affirmative. all that matters is plain speaking more so on a radio than a phone.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jrbogie

phone/radio apples and oranges. a phone cannot break squelch. two can speak at the same time. two hot mics mean nobody on the frequency can talk. but i agree that over and out is nonsensical as is losing sleep over roger, affirmative. all that matters is plain speaking more so on a radio than a phone.

I wasn't however aware that you r radio could retune mine, after I issued my over and out and turned to another channel

over and out is the signature tune of the great radio unwashed