"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Da Shadow wrote:


But there are strong recommendations from the various Amateur Radio

Socities

that you do.

And I have heard many times in pile-ups --- ITU Phonetics only and
some

DX

operators won't answer you with any other phonetics.

--
Lamont Cranston


Wow, it must be something for these "operators" to be so anal! If a
person only answers me because I speak a certain way, then I'll forgo
their blessed contact.

- Mike KB3EIA -



There's often quite a good reason for it. Many DX stations only have a
minimal grasp of English and departing from the ICAO phonetics can cause
them real problems in getting the call sign correct.

Do they really have that bad a grasp, I wonder? Language barrier would
argue in favor of the "country" type phonetics instead of the ICAU
versions. In the short time I have been a ham, I have made use of the
languages I have learned in the past, and worked at picking up others. I
sure as anything would work hard at picking up English if I was planning
on working DX.


It actually is not rare for a DX station to know practically no English at
all (it is even more true in a contest that includes DX). Some are simply
interested in running contacts. All they can handle is a signal report and
call sign. So using the phonetics THEY want or are accustomed to is the
polite thing to do.

Keep in mind that the ICAO phonetics were developed with certain criteria in
mind. One of these is that they be relatively easy to pronounce even if the
person doesn't otherwise speak English. Another criterion was that even if
mispronounced, listeners could still ascertain what letter was intended.
For example, the French may actually pronounce "Charlie" as "Sharlie" but
the listener is still able to get the right letter. Germans may pronounce
"Whiskey" as "Viskey" but we still get the letter correct. Americans will
mispronounce "Quebec" and "Papa" but again the other station has a very good
chance of getting it correct. Another criterion was that the words be of
reasonable length, neither excessively short or excessively long. Although
the ICAO phonetics sometimes are poor in meeting all the criteria, the
country name approach is often poorer in this regard (e.g. Zanzibar is just
way too long).

Now I have used phonetics other than the ICAO upon occasion. However I
always start with the ICAO and switch only if they can't seem to understand,
which happens on shortwave with the noise and interference. Fortunately
that is rare for me. My call seems to work quite well with the ICAO
phonetics. On the other hand, my OM sometimes finds it necessary to use
"Sugar" instead of "Sierra" and "Germany" instead of "Golf". The soft,
sibilant sound of "Sierra" often gets lost in the hiss of noise and the
throaty "Golf" seems almost to get "swallowed" when spoken and sometimes
doesn't come through well. Still this does not mean one should disregard
the ICAO set.

The objective is always clarity of communication. Standardization of
approach generally helps this. That is why the ICAO developed its phonetics
and why amateur organizations encourage the use of this set.

Again it goes back to what the brain has been trained to do. To someone who
is accustomed to using "Zulu", the phonetic "Zanzibar" can cause the brain
to momentarily stumble in getting the letter. Then a repeat is required.
Would you rather repeat the phonetic several times or use one that the
station is accustomed to so they can get it on the first try?

In looking at your call, you are fortunate (just as I am) to have one
composed of letters that comes across easily using the ICAO phonetics.
There should be no need to use any other set with a call such as yours and
other phonetics could actually be confusing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE