Talk:Radiotelephony procedure

message: Five by five, Mayday, roger, wilco, and co. all need to come over here. Any air cadet or civil air patrolman or similar knows they don't merit separate articles. Yes, no, cancel? I'm going to add to the others anyway until I get thoughts on the merger. --Fighter 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate pages for single expressions 

message: By Angelo:
This from the article 'Albacore: Bronwyn, Bronwyn, Bronwyn* this is Albacore, over. (*3×1, repeating the receiver's callsign 3 times, and the sender's once, is very amateur sounding:[citation needed]'  is wrong.
The receiver is always mentioned three times, regardless if you address another ship, a radio station or call MAYDAY.
I don't get why people who obviously have no radio certification dare to edit the main page ...
188.99.225.131 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receiver called three times 

message: I don't agree with your statements that "roger wilco" and "over and out" amount to saying the same thing twice. Regardless of how people may define them now, their original meanings were quite clear:
Roger = understood
Wilco = will comply
Over = I have finished speaking (with the implication that the conversation is continuing)
Out = I am ending the conversation
Neither of these pairs is in any way mutually exclusive.
Rejoinder: When I served as an artillery RTO (radio telephone operator) in the Army National Guard, "over" meant that the frequency was open for the other station to reply, and "out" meant that your station was signing off.  Thus, "over and out" is a contradiction in terms, because it would mean: "go ahead and reply, but I am not listening." NelsonLB 07:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to edit Roger_Wilco in that case. Astrolox 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger vs. Wilco, Over vs. Out 

message: This came off the "radio code words" page 
Radio Communication Procedure Words
Source: from Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188 and Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms and the UNHCR Procedure for Radio Communication
* SOS is a general distress call used by ships and aircraft worldwide. It was created in the early days of radio telegraphy, because of its simple Morse code structure ( ... --- ... ) and subsequently the backronym Save Our Souls was coined.
Edited by Angelo:
That is wrong. The correct word for "distress" is MAYDAY. SOS is only still in use if the only thing you have is Morse.
188.99.225.131 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Code words: Topic overlap 

message: I'm confused by the choice of tower and aircraft names ("Binary" and "Hexadecimal") in the example.  Are these names chosen to imply additional meaning, that is "Hexadecimal 35F" should be translated by the reader into decimal 863?  If they're just meant to be names, then please use something more generic.
15.243.169.71 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower and aircraft names in example 

message: At least in my ARES group training, there was a distinction between out and clear - out meant that the conversation was over, clear meant not only the conversation was over but that you would no longer be monitoring the frequency. Was that just our groups weirdness, or general practice? Psu256 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out versus Clear 

message: Removed words message and send as this is old voice procedure and no longer used.  Going to amend more later. Will include ore realistic call signs, drop call signs after first message and response.  Also an all stations call should always end in out not over.  Think this should prob be changed to CC1 call. Stupidstudent (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Military Example 

message: Around here (in Ohio) on the public safety bands, "out" is hardly ever used to mean "I'm done transmitting."  "Clear" is mostly used, and there are variations.  The station terminating the call may say, "I'm clear," as in, "I'm done transmitting and I have no more traffic."  He may also say, "That's clear," or "You're clear," with the implication that "I understand your message, and I have no further traffic."
The bigger issue here is with the use of "out."  A routine traffic stop may being as follows:
Officer: "Nine-Sam-Twenty-Three, traffic stop."
Dispatcher: "Nine-Sam-Twenty-Three, go ahead with your plate."
Officer: "Nine-Sam-Twenty-Three, I'm out with Ohio passenger/commercial/personalized/etc. Adam Boy Charles David Edward Frank ..."
Dispatcher: "Nine-Sam-Twenty-Three, that's clear, standby."
Note the usage of "out" here doesn't mean "done transmitting," it is short for "out of service," or "out on a stop."  I hear this used primarily for traffic stops, but also pedestrian stops (i.e., "I'm out with one at the corner of 12th and Vine."  In this context, "out" is used to notify the dispatchers that this officer is already responding to a call or is otherwise preoccupied.
70.62.254.122 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out vs. Out of service/Unavailable and Phonetics 

message: I disagree that this page should be merged. The topic of procedure words is sufficiently unique and poorly understood that merely placing it as a subsection of another page will diminish its visibility and make it harder to find and understand.
I can understand, however, based on the current content of this page, how someone might come to the opposite conclusion. This page currently lacks many procedure words and some additional detail on their use. Once that is incorporated, I think it will become clear that the procedure words page is sufficiently unique to stand on its own and be referenced by the voice procedures page.
Also, I find the voice procedures page to be lacking much detail as well. It should discuss radio nets and net procedures, message handling, and a few other topics, each of which should then be covered in more detail on dedicated pages.
For PSU256: I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of clear vs. out, but have never been able to find any documentation that lists a definition for both terms, and many other amateur radio operators disagree, saying their meaning is the reverse. However, the meaning of out is clearly defined in ACP 125(F) and many other documents as meaning "end of my transmission to you; no replay necessary", with no mention of going off the air. I have heard some stations use the proword "closing" to indicate they are going off the air, and this does mesh with the proword command "close down" found in ACP 125(F) and other documents, so I would suggest "closing" as a more appropriate replacement for "clear".
--Peter K. Sheerin, K6WEB (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote against merging

message: Should this article be split into sections for different types of phraseology, e.g. military, CB, fire/rescue, aviation, and maybe also a "common" section?  — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We could start creating a new aviation-specific article straight away, but I think it might be best to start sorting this one out first. I suggest creating sections like SheeEttin suggested above. Starting with the "Common" one, then relegating anything specific/non-standard down into other sections. We do need sourcing for this. I have references for marine VHF and amateur radio, but not much on other specific usages. If a section becomes too big, we can then split it out based on WP:SPINOUT. That's the best way to go rather than fragmenting the big picture before we start. We should avoid what some of this seems to be - i.e. somebody's memories of the kind of things he used to hear somewhere (WP:OR) - and stick to citable sources and official recommendations. I think we need to standardise our use of typography too - bold, capitals, monospace in a box, example callsigns etc. so that it has some consistent meaning. --Nigelj (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The other place where some of the mess is, is Procedure word. Note also the suggestion to merge the two. Another thought: in that article, a lot of space is given to Mayday and other urgency calls, each of which have their own articles. --Nigelj (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by user 

message: Quote article: (example: given a climb to 10,000 ft, the pilot replies "[Callsign] climbing to One zero, Ten Thousand")
Im my opinion it should rather be: "[Callsign] climbing altitude One Zero Tousend". The term "to" should be avoided when used together with numbers, as it can be (and has fatally been) confused with "two". For aviation the standard phrase "climb altitude nnn" has been introduced, but I cannot find the original reference. 
Also in my opinion 10000 ft should be read as "One Zero Tousend".
Finally, altitudes above 5000 ft are traditionally measured against the standard atmosphere of 1023 hpa at sea level. This is accompanied by referring to them as flight levels. 10000 ft would therefore be "Flight Level One Zero Zero" or "Flight Level One Hundred". Msc280 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altitude Example 

message: This is very commonly misconceived as correct voice procedure (as mentioned in a much older discussion above).  But shouldn't this common misconception at least be acknowledged as such in the article? Halsteadk (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Indeed, that's why I came here -- to learn more about whether and to what extent the use of "Over and out" is incorrect.  Seems to me that in a specialized topic such as "Voice Procedure", this very common usage (or misusage, as the case may be) ought to be mentioned.  Why isn't it?  Captain Quirk (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over and out 

message: Would it be worth linking to articles about aircraft crashes caused principally by poor radio procedure? I'm thinking of Flying Tiger Flight 66, where the non-standard phrase "descend 2 4 0 0" was understood to be "descend to 4 0 0", and the Tenerife Disaster where the now non-standard "Taxy to position for take off" was understood as "Taxy to position and take off". 194.176.105.132 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation examples 

message: In the United States Army, the phrase copy is used to confirm to the other party with proof that you understood what was transmitted to you.  It is used as follows:
"You, this is me, 'here is the message', how copy, over"
"You, this is me, I copy 'here is the message', over/out"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.163.80.2 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As with most of the comments and suggestions above, what we really need for this article is citable sources per WP:V. Online current training manuals, other text where on-air traffic is reliably reported etc. Those would be good. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Copy" 

message: I vote against merging.
This article is a mish-mash of procedure words from various services, along with some example on-air language, but does not contain a solid description of voice procedure that matches that taught in any radio service.
Instead, the content should have the elements of voice procedure common to all radio services added, such as Calling, Break-in procedure, passing messages, emergency communications, etc., and then the merge re-evaluated.
I believe at that point, it will be determined that it will be appropriate to maintain the aeronautical phraseology as a separate article, and perhaps add new articles for the other radio services.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetesGuide (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote against merging--major restructuring needed 

message: Is "standby" a single word (as in the noun, "on standby") or should it be two words (as in the verb, "to stand by")? — Loadmaster (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standby vs. Stand By 

message: I'm about to remove all the unsourced content under Procedure words and replace it with the list from ACP125, and in looking at the current list, one in particular stands out as being one I have heard in movies, but I haven't found a source for. Can someone find a source to cite so this can be added back in?
CALLSIGN-ACTUAL/CALLSIGN-NINER — Sometimes an individual (generally a superior) may have a person monitor the network for them. Saying "actual" after their callsign asserts you wish to speak to the specific person the callsign is attached to. ex: calling the callsign "Headquarters" would often get junior clerk or similar. Calling (or identifying yourself as) "Headquarters-Actual" would indicate that the commander of the headquarters detachment, and thus the entire unit to which it is attached, is requested to be spoken to, or is actually speaking. (In Canadian use, this is Callsign-Niner, with "9" designating a unit commander. An individual monitoring the net but is not the actual commander may use the call-sign "Niner-Zulu". As well, the codeword "Sunray" is also used to designate a unit commander.)</blockquore>
PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CALLSIGN-ACTUAL source? 

message: Actual
actually
bicycle
breathe
century
decide 
describe
disappear 
exercise 
favourite
length
library 
peculiar
position 
possess
possession 
probably 
recent 
reign
sentence 
separate
strength
surprise
therefor
various 2A00:23C4:4C09:AE01:9424:96D:12CF:1A6C (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling