'Roger' does not mean 'Yes'

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by monte

I have a Dual watch, tri scan VHF. I have no trouble keeping track of calling stations and as noted above I've never encountered this practice of stating the callers Channel in Australia or Europe. The only time I've heard it appears to be by Americans on small vessels (not ships) and most commonly in charter areas.

The practice of citing the calling channel isn't particularly addressed in training courses (that I know if); probably more like one of those things that have evolved out of a necessity of sorts.

For example, I learned by listening to others doing that, wondering why, and then discovering why as our own radio procedures evolved.

We have two scanning radios. During one part of the season, one radio scans 16, 13, 09, one of the weather stations (for weather alerts only), and sometimes 22A (USCG secondary working channel). The other radio scans 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 78A. I'm busy doing other stuff, so it helps if somebody calling me tells me which channel.

And then I decided I could sometimes do that too, if it might help the callee. The marina monitoring several channels, for instance (16, 09, and working). Or around here, channel 09 is designated as the alternate hailing channel, so it's not uncommon for folks to be scanning 16 and 09, not knowing which one a call came in on.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm a little surprised by my Australian comrads supporting identifying the Channel your calling on. Regardless of how many channels your monitoring, if someone is 'calling' I assume their calling on 16.

Around here, that wouldn't be a good assumption. Channel 13 is more likely to be the first channel used by one of the tugs, and channel 09 is the alternative hailing channel (to reduce traffic on 16), so calls on any of those three are quite common.

-Chris

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by osirissail

What gets strange here is that new boaters/cruisers do not know that the "no license/permit" rule does not apply to when they leave USA territorial waters. If you take your boat/radio, etc to the Bahamas or elsewhere on the planet you need to get the ship's license and additionally an operators permit for yourself. Just like everybody else in the world.

Correct, but to get both a ships license and a restricted operator permit, it's purely a financial transaction, no classes, no test, just send money.

[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. The training manual for an Australian VHF operators licence is worded pretty similarly to the Canadian page linked by the OP (see below)
It sounds like until the US has some kind of minimum training and certification requirement for operators the random calling procedures will continue
I can see a need for stating the callers channel if not using channel 16, but while using channel 16 I'll be sticking to the format prescribed by the Australian authorities, unless special rules apply to specific countries or harbours.


4.8 Single Station Call
When an operator wishes to establish communication with a specific station, the following items shall be transmitted in the order indicated:

Call sign of the station called (not more than three times).
The words "THIS IS".
Call sign of the station calling (not more than three times).
Invitation to reply.
Examples: FREIGHTWAY TWO FIVE ZERO
THIS IS
FREIGHTWAY MONTREAL
XMT FIVE NINE
OVER

VYD FIVE SEVEN LA RONGE
THIS IS
VXX ONE TWO FIVE PRINCE ALBERT
OVER

[goboatingnow]

just to extend what I said about calling channels

under GMDSS, channel 16 is primarily a DISTRESS and calling channel. But it is not the ONLY calling channel. vessels are required to monitor ch 13 where a risk of collision exists and can be hailed on that channel directly , port operations etc are also hailed directly on the channels as set out in the various harbour lists. Many CG radio stations are hailed directly in their working channel etc ( as are marinas etc ) IN fact for good practice, wherever possible you should NOT use channel 16 for routine calling where an alternative exists


its instructive to listen to ships and port operations working regular correspondence. Theres none of this "OVER", " ROGER" etc nonsense


I heard recently coming in Dublin port one night.

" Dublin Port, Nordic Saga"
"Go ahead Nordic Saga"
" dublin port nordic Saga, at reporting buoy G. pilot has departed "
"Nordic Saga, Dublin Port, good watch and good night"

Not a PRO-WOrd to be seen.

[goboatingnow]

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. The training manual for an Australian VHF operators licence is worded pretty similarly to the Canadian page linked by the OP (see below)
It sounds like until the US has some kind of minimum training and certification requirement for operators the random calling procedures will continue
I can see a need for stating the callers channel if not using channel 16, but while using channel 16 I'll be sticking to the format prescribed by the Australian authorities, unless special rules apply to specific countries or harbours.


4.8 Single Station Call
When an operator wishes to establish communication with a specific station, the following items shall be transmitted in the order indicated:

Call sign of the station called (not more than three times).
The words "THIS IS".
Call sign of the station calling (not more than three times).
Invitation to reply.
Examples: FREIGHTWAY TWO FIVE ZERO
THIS IS
FREIGHTWAY MONTREAL
XMT FIVE NINE
OVER

VYD FIVE SEVEN LA RONGE
THIS IS
VXX ONE TWO FIVE PRINCE ALBERT
OVER

Sorry , there is NO specific license or operational requirement outside DISTRESS CALLS, to structure your voice call in that way. many " guide books" and courses, adopt a so-called good practice , that in many ways is completely over the top

[Wotname]

OK, curious here and agree roger does not equal yes.

In your part of the world does :
yes = affirmitave
or
yes = afirm

???

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Wotname

OK, curious here and agree roger does not equal yes.

In your part of the world does :
yes = affirmitave
or
yes = afirm

???

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.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I know there are enough complaints about poor radio procedure to fill several books, but the one that irks me most is when someone says 'roger', when they mean 'affirmative.' If you don't know the correct pro-word, then just say 'yes'. 'Roger' just means you've received/understood the transmission. If you don't know what you're doing on the radio, there are resources that can help - RIC-22 — General Radio Operating Procedures - Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

And while I'm on the soapbox - most people can or do have their radios set on dual or triple watch - if you hail someone, you can't be expecting them to be looking at the display screen of the radio to see what channel you're hailing on - tell them the channel. "A this is B, calling you channel 72." Easy.

- Rant over

I've been around long enough to know that trying to get people to do what you believe is the "right thing" is pointless. Right or wrong you're not going to change people's behavior unless you are a police officer or a judge. Even then that doesn't work on the more dense folks.

That said, I believe your example "A this is B, calling you channel 72." is incorrect.

The way I've read it is that you are supposed to call the other station's name three times and wait for a response. Then you identify yourself. And you would typically be hailing them on 16 and they would be monitoring 16 so the channel is not necessary. You would suggest a channel for communication once you have connected on 16.

[goboatingnow]

The way I've read it is that you are supposed to call the other station's name three times and wait for a response. Then you identify yourself. And you would typically be hailing them on 16 and they would be monitoring 16 so the channel is not necessary. You would suggest a channel for communication once you have connected on 16.

this is only what happens in textbooks. it is not how its done in real life, you may be hailing on a working channel, you may be hailing on an " agreed" channel etc

in routine comms, whatever works, is understandable by the receiving party and is clear and generally unconfusing is sufficient

PS

The way I've read it is that you are supposed to call the other station's name three times and wait for a response.

This part is factually wrong, you always identify yourself in any hailing process, there is no requirement to say anyones names , once, twice , three or four time etc. ( there are some suggestions as to how many times you repeat the identification in different circumstances )

DAve ( ex- CEPT marine VHF instructor )

[Canibul]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

And while I'm on the soapbox - most people can or do have their radios set on dual or triple watch -

Totally agree about Roger ( and Wilco) but the idea that MOST people listen to several channels at the same time is ridiculous here. They do not.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Just so Ya'll know, as far as I can concern US VHF radio operators are required to take no test or training whatsoever, just buy the radio and start asking for radio checks on 16
That should I hope explain some of what you hear from US operators.

There's a good reason for that. Not requiring a license encourages more boaters to equip their boats with marine VHF transceivers and that's good from a safety standpoint. It would be nice if they had to take a test to prove they knew how to use it but it would also be nice if they had to take a test to prove they knew how to operate the boat.

It's probably best to let them have the radio so they can call for help.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

this is only what happens in textbooks. it is not how its done in real life, you may be hailing on a working channel, you may be hailing on an " agreed" channel etc

in routine comms, whatever works, is understandable by the receiving party and is clear and generally unconfusing is sufficient

So textbooks are pointless?

Not knowing where you operate your boat, I can't comment on your "real life" remark. I can say that the USCG routinely does just what I stated. Repeats three times. Many other boaters do as well. Usually the ones in trawlers or larger sailboats. Folks who have travelled a bit.

Some operators, of course, say "Hey Bubba, got your ears on?"

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by rwidman

There's a good reason for that. Not requiring a license encourages more boaters to equip their boats with marine VHF transceivers and that's good from a safety standpoint. It would be nice if they had to take a test to prove they knew how to use it but it would also be nice if they had to take a test to prove they knew how to operate the boat.

It's probably best to let them have the radio so they can call for help.

The evidence in countries with licenses , is that boaters fit VHFs anyway , and then realise they need a license. Their is a significant amount of unlicense operaters out there, and the authorities on the radio, do not seek to ban those that may or may not have a license.

Hence your argument is moot, The US in fact decided to free issue licenses out of bureaucratic inefficiency rather then any conscious process

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by rwidman

So textbooks are pointless?

Not knowing where you operate your boat, I can't comment on your "real life" remark. I can say that the USCG routinely does just what I stated. Repeats three times. Many other boaters do as well. Usually the ones in trawlers or larger sailboats. Folks who have travelled a bit.

Some operators, of course, say "Hey Bubba, got your ears on?"

There are many " textbooks" and instructors that will seek to establish protocols where no official ones exist. some are stated as " good practice", some makes sense some doesn't.

As a former VHF instructor , the key things you were getting across in VHF communications were clarity and simplicity of communications, knowledge of the radio , use of DSC, the position of VHF in the GMDSS rescue hierarchy , etc

Yes in a Mayday voice comms, there is a standard " process" taught that include the " three" identifications , often this is extended by people in routine calls. primarily this is to ensure that the user has imparted sufficient information ,if the radio then went silent etc

But calling with one , two or four identifications is in itself , in routine communications , is fine as long as the circumstances are appropriate

( for example if I am in a rally with an agreed working channel, I will use a single identification , as brevity on a busy channel is more useful that " standard " procedure )

The use of ambiguous words like ROGER and WILCO, etc should be avoided, some are throwbacks to telegraphic usage, use simple english like . " I understand " , " I will comply", " all copied and understood" etc.

dave

[jrbogie]

ha. as a commercial pilot for forty years i always got a kick out of 'proper radio phraseology mall cops.' newbee air traffic controllers would attempt to chastise veteran pilots for our 'misuse' of one term or another. long time controllers appreciated that the only thing that matters is clarity. roger, affirmative, yes, sure, all work in getting the message across and there is no time for petty bs about being fcc correct. get over it and just talk on the damn radio.