From: dnewkirk@arrl.org (Dave Newkirk)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Speaking Of Q-Codes...
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:24:38 est
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.radio.amateur.misc, jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:
>In article <9208241522.AA10228@ucsd.edu> William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM writes:

[deletions]

>>>I was quite suprised, not only that they were using what I had thought were
>>>more or less exclusively Amateur Radio codes, but also codes that are not
>>>appropriate for VHF/UHF FM. I've never noticed this before, and have  yet
>>>to hear it localy on the public service bands.
>>
>>why aren't q-codes appropriate on VHF (besides the often cited and entirely 
>>bogus reason of codeonlydamnit)?
>
>Because in voice communications the use of Pro-Words instead of Pro-Signs is
>the appropriate procedure. 'Standby' instead of 'QRX' and 'Roger' instead of
>'QSL' are pro-words.
>
>BTW, Q-codes are inded approriate in the same modes on VHF/UHF/SHF as they
>are on HF/MW/LF, namely CW. It's not a matter of frequency it's a matter of
>the mode.
>
>Q codes were developed to 1.) standardize and 2.) make efficient (i.e. quick
>and reliable) communications.
>
>The reasons are not entirely bogus, they probably just need to be explained
>better. The idea behind Pro-Signs (like Q codes) and Pro-words and other
>communications techniques is to efficiently communicate, not promote tradition
>or nostalgia.
>
>You're welcome to do whatever you want as an individual, but when people
>come together for a common porpoise, it helps to cooperate and use standards.
>When this purpose is emergency services (and training thereof) I, as a 
>operator contributing my efforts to ARES/RACES operations must insist on proper
>procedures. As a Army MARS station, the ARMY insists... :)
>
>>must work for them.
>
>Seems to be a new trend, see my postulate for a possible reason...
>
>>bill wb9ivr

Folks, it's urban legend that "Q signals" are for use only during 
radiotelegraphy communications. Appendix 14 (Miscellaneous 
Abbreviations and Signals to Be Used for Radiocommunications in 
the Maritime Mobile Service) of the International 
Telecommunication Union Rules and Regulations tells how to use 
them during voice operation as well as radiotelegraph. Paragraph 
4913 of Article 65 (General Radiotelephone Procedure in the 
Maritime Mobile Service) states specifically "(2) To facilitate 
radiocommunications the service abbreviations given in Appendix 14 
may be used." I've heard them used during aeronautical voice 
communication as well (communication of *QMH*, which, if I 
remember right, conveys atmospheric pressure in millibars ASL for 
altimeter calibration).

True, some of the ITU voice procedure seems clunky (you make a 
question out of a phone Q signal by following it with the initial 
group ROMEO QUEBEC  [for RQ, meaning "request"] and *CQ* is 
renderable as CHARLIE QUEBEC). Also true, hamdom isn't the 
maritime mobile service--*but it's a matter of official record 
that Q signals aren't just for radiotelegrahy.*

What *isn't* reflected in the international regs--not that this is 
drivingly significant--is our hammy tendency to use Q signals 
metonymically. The international regs are silent about QRN 
becoming a noun, or QRM working as a verb, for instance.

I suppose that doesn't matter; we've just expanded their usage. 
They are, after all, supposed to *facilitate communication.* And 
they can do so in radiotelegraphy *and* voice--assuming that 
attempting to use them doesn't trigger an argument about their 
unsuitability for the mode in use!




David Newkirk, WJ1Z                     |  voice: 203-666-1541 X280
Senior Assistant Technical Editor, ARRL |  fax: 203-665-7531
225 Main St, Newington CT 06111 USA     |  net: dnewkirk@arrl.org