Talk:Pan-pan

message: I don't think it necessary means urgency, I think a pan-pan is something like a breakdown or medical problem. --uberdog 22:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect. PAN PAN is the pro-word proceeding a Urgency Marine Information Broadcast. It is used in cases of emergency prompting immediate action by any Vessels in the vicinity. It is always used exclusively in cases of distress, at least in America, and the Coast Guard does not use it for mundane broadcasts such as weather. Such informational broadcasts use the pro-word SECURITE before their transmission. I am updating the page to reflect this. --Coldbourne 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that would not require a PANPAN call. PAN-PAN is used for radio priority (one priority level below MAYDAY). If you need police assistance on landing, but you're not going to be landing for an hour, you don't need radio priority. cagliost (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Pan-pan

message: At 02:44, 21 October 2006, a user at 68.221.51.12 added the following without comment:
Protocol indicates that there is at least a 3 minute radio silence period at the top and bottom of the hour for three minutes to keep airwaves clear for Pan-Pan calls. For example; silence from 0600-0603hrs, and 0630-0633hrs.
In essence, this is correct, but I think the wording should be improved and I think it has been added in the wrong place.  Maybe it should be near the top of the article; maybe it should also be mentioned in Mayday where it is even more important, and also in Marine VHF radio, 2182 kHz, Marine and mobile radio telephony etc? 
Does it only apply to maritime radio?  I know it does, but what about aeronautical radio?  Another question is, where is there a reference to the original source of this 'protocol' or 'operating procedure'?  The best I can find is http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-guidance-regulation/mcga-mgn/mcga-mld-page.htm?textobjid=99ABF1A5D7392DA6&printout=1
This is fairly official but clearly not the original definition.  Somewhere it might be worth mentioning the, now historical, H+15 min and H+45 min CW silence periods that used to be applied on 500 kHz too. All of these can be illustrated very nicly by a photo of one of those ship's clocks that had these silence periods marked in red and green on the face.  Maybe this deserves a whole new article - but what's the name of these? Hourly radio silence periods? Marine radio listening times?
Too many questions... I'm stunned into temporary inactivity :-) --Nigelj 16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-minute silence periods 

message: Currently the MCA and RYA are telling us that pan-pan medico should no longer be used and a standard pan-pan should be used when asking for medical advice. I think the article should possibly reflect this change.
Colonel-shoe 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a written source for this? If so, edit the article and cite the source. Be bold! Kev (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the MCA's own website maritime safety information, which tells you the procedure for medical advice link calls. Also I have an email from the MCA stating that pan pan medico was never an officially sanctioned international procedure word, it just slipped into common parlance. I am new to wiki and would not be confident on how to cite these sources, if indeed they would be acceptable. I will do it, if I could possibly get some help. Colonel-shoe 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  : Is there a risk of confusion with "Pan Pan Medical", which signifies that an aircraft is a protected medical transport operating under the Geneva convention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.85.37 (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pan pan medico 

message: I have included an IPA pronunciation of "pan-pan" from it's wiktionary entry. Dreammaker182 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation is "pon-pon" not "pan-pan". I'll have to go through my FCC manual to find a reference because I can't find an authoritative reference on-line. However [this Wikipedia article] says "pon-pon". Rsduhamel (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are 100% correct and I changed the article to reflect it, with two citations from US Coast Guard sources. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: That's an odd term to use. Wouldn't "mnemonic" suffice?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.67.134 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aide-memoire 

message: This whole article is a bit off. I know in America at least it is Pan-Pan-Pan All Stations... among other errors. Another instance of the problems with wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:The usage is currently sourced to Transport Canada. I have UK RYA instructional books here that say the same thing. Have you any reference that recommend what you suggest for US waters? I thought these things were standardised internationally, so it would be interesting if the US CG was currently recommending such usage. --Nigelj (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The procedures do indeed trace back to international standards.  Ideally a source such as the ITU regs would provide a clear international endorsement.  In any case, "Pan-Pan-Pan" is quite incorrect.  The USCG Radiotelephone Handbook and FAA publications are both examples of US sources that conform to these standards. --Requiem Aristos (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Frenchnocentric 

message: Its PAN PAN everywhere except the Americas, repeated 3 times, 
PON PON, PON PON, PON PON, ALL STATIONS ALL STATIONS ALL STATIONS
2602:63:C3E6:4400:2D18:7A5A:48C1:A072 (talk)73 DE KM4QKW  —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PON PON PON PON PON PON 

message: The article states that an RAF Chinook was hit above Baghdad, issued a Pan-pan call and safely recovered to Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. Point-to-point with a fully fuelled Chinook and overflight permission from Iran this is probably possible but I doubt it happened like that. The blurb of the book referenced talks about operations in Afghanistan so I'd guess that it's the Baghdad part of the statement that's wrong thanks to a confusion between The Green Zone (The International Zone of Baghdad) and the Green Zone (The fertile area of Helmand province down the route of the Helmand River). Does anyone have the book and knows what the sentence should actually read? 164.11.157.175 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sources available online describing the book about the pilot of the RAF Chinook say that he operated in "the green zone of Afghanistan"  rather than Baghdad, Iraq. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF Chinook incident 

message: In the international commercial aviation world, we are advised not to use PANPAN in certain countries like Spain, where it is allegedly not widely understood. However I can't find a source for this. cagliost (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not widely understood?