If you want to get technical, geographic names has been a "standard" much longer than the ICAO phonetics. However, it is fine with me if you insist on using the ICAO phonetics when in a DX pileup. That just means that I am generally going to work the DX first!
As I keep saying, there is a place for ICAO phonetics and there is a place for geographic names. I do use ICAO phonetics when working stateside and generally with operators who speak English as their primary language. But, when in a pileup trying to work a DX station I definitely switch to geographical names because I work the DX MUCH sooner!
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, John Becker w0jab@big-river.net wrote:
From: John Becker w0jab@big-river.net Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ITU Phonetics - Kilo To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 4:43 PM At 02:34 PM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
Again, geographical names have become the defacto
"standard" where working DX is concerned.
So we are having a QSO and I tell you my QTH is Louisiana, Missouri and you then think to yourself "say what" followed be "does not compute"
Look it up at QRZ dot com.
Again there is nothing wrong with the standard
I for one will never use your "de facto" standard when there is already one that has been in use for years and years and years.
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb