Taxi drivers
 

Is it just me? In the back of a cab on the way home and the taxi driver got into a radio conversation about a pick up. Two at a time transmitting so the conversation went on and on as they repeatedly trod on each other.

1. The word roger was repeatedly used, incorrectly, over and over again, my ears were practically bleeding
2. The verbosity was incredible! No wonder they kept talking over each other

Honestly I thought I was going to get an "over and out" any second. It took all of my mental strength to not grab the ptt out of his hand and scream, at the top of my voice, "ROGER DOES NOT MEAN YES OR UNDERSTOOD IT JUST MEANS YOU RECEIVED THE EFFIN MESSAGE AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT ACT ON THE INFORMATION FFS"

Does it grate on anybody else too or is it just me?

</rant>

Pimpernel leader answering, Pimpernel leader answering, your message received and understood.

Point is, the one that succeeds in talking over the other one so much that the other one gives up is the one who gets the fare. Nothing else matters.

Actually ROGER does mean understood, as well as received.

But yes - some people shouldn't be allowed near a microphone until they've had a bit of training.

But surely if the taxi driver's employer hasn't trained them in proper use of the radio, that's not exactly the driver's fault.

G

one pilot used to wind the CP up something rotten by giving it "Convoy" RT on the company frequency.

Signing off with 10-4 rubber duck always obtained quite a voluble and violent outburst.

Not according to CAP 413... :)

Lots of things were wrong in the sixties:E

Irritating to listen to, but not a problem for anyone if it's just cabbies chatting, surely? Don't ever switch on a CB radio...

From CAP413 the definition of ROGER is "I have received all your last transmission".

There is no assumption of understanding. You could receive a message containing technical information, which you do not understand, but as long as you have received the message, even if it means that each word has to be spelled phonetically, then the response is ROGER.

An interesting ambiguity - WILCO is "I have received your message, understood and will comply", but in the current CAP 413 as you say ROGER is "I have received your message".

I can't think of any situation where I would use ROGER if I had not understood the message - even if at current iteration that's what CAP 413 says. Can you?

I'm sure at some point where I was learning "and I have understood" was in there, but I don't think I have any old manuals to check the point.

G

Cabbies tend to treat Radio as a direct-connect telephone. As far as it goes, it's a private "circuit" they're on and in a lot of operations, they pay for their pset on that circuit......why wouldn't they feel free to gossip on spare bandwidth?

Regarding "Roger" the following can be punctuated to make perfect sense. :} "Does roger roger roger roger roger roger roger rogers roger rogers roger rogers rogers roger rogerson."

Despite the definition of roger in the 413, the manual also strongly hints at the fact that roger can be used to mean 'understood and received" to transmissions that contain information. Not instructions.

Example"

"BIGJET 347, LVPs in force"
"Roger, Bigjet 347"

As pointed out, you aren't going to say roger unless you understand the message fully.

The manual also says that roger can be used to acknowledge instructions, essentially having the same meaning of wilco. Chapter 2 page 1 for those interested.

The CAP413 seems to contradict itself a little.

Non-avaiation or marine civvie R/T
 

Hi Pompey,

Years ago I used to work for a local authority public works department. They had a radio service to communicate with field staff that operated from our central depot.

The radio-telephone technique was almost straight from the nineteen-thirties; 'roger' wasn't used but 'come in please' regularly was. Other than that it was just street language.

I formed the impression that if I was to use ICAO radio-telephone technique, nobody would get my messages. My messages would be far too short and quick for them to be understood and they would never catch up with something spelled out over R/T with the international phonetic spelling system.

The reason for all this is simple. All (non-aviation or marine) radio licence holders are supposed to train their staff in the use of radio language, but in fact none of them ever does. In part this is due to rapid staff turnover. If you have people like truck-drivers and street sweeping gangers using radio, you are going to have to have a constant radio course running, which some will never pass, and some times you are going to have to give a radio to someone who has not been trained because the regular guy is off sick and the only available backup is someone new.

I fear we are stuck with this situation. Anyway, Star Trek is no different. On Friday I heard one of them say 'come in please'.

Just give up: it ain't worth it.

BP.

There is a story about a 'security guard' who got into a lift and inside were two attractive young women. Trying to make himself seem important, he keeps shouting into his radio :
"Come in number two. Code 7. Over"
"Come in number two. Code 7. Over"
"Come in number two. Code 7. Over"

After a while the radio bursts into life and a voice booms out : "You are number two you f***wit. What the f*** do you want?"

Yes. ATC relaying technical matters from pilot to company (Not that I have had to do it in recent times now that most Coys have their own ops freqs). No requirement to understand the message in such a situation, and probably best not to try...

Our RFFS uses 'received' instead of 'Roger', 'Wilco' or 'Pass Your Message' eg. 'Rescue One, Tinpot Radio'....'Rescue One, received'...(Thinks: I haven't transmitted any message text yet...)...'Rescue One Stand Down'....'Rescue One, received'....etc. Somewhat disconcerting.

Pimpernel Leader, it was ELFIN who was calling...

I don't think there is a need for a standardized R/T standard across all frequencies, and I personally don't care about "sloppy" radio techniques on non-aviation frequencies.

In the example above, and in a few more examples, the users of said frequency are all located in a geographically limited area, are mostly know to each other, there are no non-native English speakers on frequency and most of all, there is far less time-critical information being passed around. (It's not like you're waiting on a landing clearance on short final, while your colleague starts yapping about a sewer pump not working.)

So in those cases, the system still works with far less radio discipline and far less training than what we're used to as pilots. And as long as the system works (for them), who cares?

Heck, there are even differences in procedures between aeronautical and maritime frequencies. Even though their users may be more or less alike (professionals but non-native speakers, and time-sensitive information passed around), the technical characteristics of the maritime frequencies (where most, but not all of the "channels" actually consist of two frequencies, and the shore station copies traffic from the ship->shore onto the shore->ship frequency when the shore station is not speaking) lead to different standards.

Dunno what the taxi drivers are like round your way, but most places ...

Pimpernel Leader, it was ELFIN who was calling...

Then he should pass his Elfin message!!

...for Elfin Safety reasons...

Hereabouts virtually none of taxi drivers speak English well, which is nominally the local language. The solution is automation - taxi drivers haven't talked on the radio in a decade or more unless there is something abnormal underway.