Radio rogered

[ QUOTE ]

These are standardised, as are Q codes, so:
"boat name" QRZ?
would be acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

On marine VHF? I doubt if 1 in 50 yotties would know what that meant.

Only amateurs use Q codes, and even there its a bit daft for voice!

QSL?
 
[ QUOTE ]
mmmmm

it was a question in the written examination for a caa radio license issued by hmg - so I beg to differ /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hmg = her majestys government, so yes it was issued by our caa
 
Apologies for link - nevertheless, the point is that there are people learning radio procedure in different environments - the UNHCR is presumably for land, marine and aviation based people - and then bringing that learning into a sailing/marine environment and it's hardly realistic for people to unlearn them for some arcane reason that nobody really gives a shot about.
 
Q. What has the Sabah Amateur Radio Society's protocols got to do with MCA protocols?
A. SFA
--------------------
hammer.thumb.gif
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
 
At the risk of being shot down again - or even worse, handbagged: /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

From what I can gather from other replies, Roger is commonly used in other radio spheres, and in US waters. So it seems inevitable that it will slip into common parlance here.

However, I was taught that the use of recognised prowords was to avoid confusion and get the message across in the manner you suggest. So using only recognised prowords could be an advantage in an emergency, especially if the transmission was weak, perhaps saving valuable moments.

Of course, in such a situation, proword etiquette, if that is what it is, might be the last thing on anybody's mind, although learning and using them in routine VHF transmissions would help.

An extreme example, perhaps, and maybe not applicable to Roger, given its increasing usage, but worth a thought?
 
I'm Brit, trained in radio use by RYA (very proper!) but am surrounded by Americans in this corner of the tropics. When I first arrived several years ago, their use of 'Roger', (call-sign)+ "Come Back", "10-4", "Break" etc really bugged me. However, their radio comms. actually do flow much better than those I hear (and adopt) when I'm back on the Solent!
They seldom need to use the word "over". The converstion just seems to flow and it takes much less time to complete the communication. A lot of the Brit Formality is a hang-over from the old pre-VHF days when comms were crackly and difficult. IMO (modified!) I now prefer the more relaxed way of the Yanks and Canadians. Maybe we Brits aught to loosen up a bit?
 
I love the way that you fear that 'Roger' may slip into common parlance here, that is presumably what every one is banging on about. It was common parlance for years, but now it is not meant to be used, because people could misunderstand it, when you pick up a radio mike you start to deal in jargon, everyone knows what Roger means and if you didnt you probably shouldnt be using a radio.
 
Despite my attempts to keep this light you seem determined to make it personal, if, when you refer to "you" at the end of your post, you mean me (if you follow).

As you say, everyone knows what Roger means, but I never called that into question. So I presume I can continue to use my radio, albeit in a rogerless fashion?
 
10 codes

The mention of the "10" codes from the good ol' US of A reminds me of my early days in the North Sea when there were a load of yanks about. You could hear all these "10" codes on the platform radio, so someone invented the "9" codes for our own use.

I've forgot them all now, but it was something like -

Voice 1- "There's something here I want you to see"
Reply - "914" (Meaning - I don't give a sh*t)

or

Voice 1 - "What are we going to do about (xxxx)"
Reply - "916" (Meaning - Pardon me sir, but I think you mistook me for someone who gives a sh*t)

It was hilarious at the time, and the yanks hadn't a clue what we were on about - Which was even better.
 
it was used for illustraton purposes only - havnt got a clue who they are but their website explains the globally used abbreviations in radio speke very well.

I dare say there is a brit/gov website somewhere but I cant be fagged trawl google all day to find it. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
Roger and Wilco are both used in aviation radio procedure.

"Roger" simply means "I have received your last transmission", but there is no check that what was received was what was actually sent. Hence, a potential for error.

"Wilco" means I have received your last transmission, understood it, and will comply." Again, no absolute check that what was received was what was sent, and again, room for potential error.

The only way to confirm that what was received is what was sent, is to repeat what was received. Too many accidents have occurred by assumption.
 
"ROGER" means 'Message received and understood.' subtle difference to my mind.

most used one are on the web site offering in my earlier post.

/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
Aha - but the same old problem arises - how does the sender know that what they sent was what was actually received? Again, the source of many an accident. It is always best to read back what was sent to avoid doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top