Assumed knowledge.

[Crescendo]

A lot of these things change, sometimes eveven every year. I'm just sharing what I know, what I use. I'm an active military pilot.

 

OK, I may need to eat some humble pie myself then. Let me know if I've got it wrong.

[311Gryphon]

Thanks, Crescendo. That clears some things up. I'm more of an interested bystander trying to understand what is going on in the game and some of the conversation was confusing me based on the fact that what is being discussed just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

 

Anyway, thanks.

[IdleBoards]

The brevity terms being discussed haven't changed in decades.

[Crescendo]

Again, in the interest of clarity, the problem with the term "MUD SPIKE" or "MUDSPIKE" is not because it sounds too smiliar to SPIKE and could be confused over the radio. I repeat: it is not because it looks like or sounds like SPIKE.

 

The problem is that MUD is to do with ground things, whereas SPIKE is to do with aerial things. The two are by definition incompatible, and therefore saying MUDSPIKE is like saying nonsense.

 

To argue that MUDSPIKE is bad because it could be misheard, or lost in radio static, or whatever, is to argue that it is bad for the wrong reason. The right reason is that it's like saying "married bachelor".

 

MUD and SINGER are for ground only.

 

NAILS and SPIKE are for air only.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Crescendo

[Crescendo]

Thanks, Crescendo. That clears some things up. I'm more of an interested bystander trying to understand what is going on in the game and some of the conversation was confusing me based on the fact that what is being discussed just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

 

Anyway, thanks.

 

No problem. I'm just an interested layman as well, but I can say I have read the various brevity documents.

 

You're right, honestly it's not really a big deal. But pedantry is a fiercely competitive sport in the simulation commuinity. :helpsmilie::lol:

[Nealius]

Pedantry.....I'm glad to finally have a term to assign to these pissing matches :)

[Robert1983NL]

I prefer to skip the "I'm an active military pilot" thing because there's no way for that to be proven.

It's actually pretty easy to prove. I could send you a PM with a photo of my license for instance, with this forum on my monitor in the background.

Or like last time, I flew by a village where a forum member lives. Unfortunately he wasn't home lol, but I could repeat it.

 

Back ontopic, what I've said is what and how I'm used to use these brevity words and terms/procedures. And yes they often change. Just like calls like 'tango/contact/hostile', the exact usage often changes and isn't always too clear. But anyway, if what I'm used to in reality causes a stir here on the forums, I'll just keep it to myself, I don't care. No need to share.

[Crescendo]

I thought SINGER was used when the RWR indicates a launch, but no launch can be visually seen? As in visual confirmation that there is no launch is made before announcing SINGER.

 

 

SINGER (type w/direction)—Informative call of RWR indication of surface-to-air missile launch.

---

 

By definition SINGER means the RWR is indicating a SAM launch, nothing more.

 

By calling "SINGER" you are saying "My RWR is showing a SAM launch". Seeing the missile with your own eyes (or not) has no relation to this brevity call.

[metalnwood]

Or like last time, I flew by a village where a forum member lives. Unfortunately he wasn't home lol, but I could repeat it.

 

Holy sh*t, bet the tax payers would be happy to hear the pilots are doing fun runs to 'prove' to anonymous internet dudes who they are. Even better they will do it again when guys are not home lol.

 

It's a serious thing this forum competition :)

[311Gryphon]

No problem. I'm just an interested layman as well, but I can say I have read the various brevity documents.

 

You're right, honestly it's not really a big deal. But pedantry is a fiercely competitive sport in the simulation commuinity. :helpsmilie::lol:

 

Not to get too far off subject, but the online firearms enthusiasts are quite the same if not worse. Hold your pinky in the wrong place while shooting or squint your left eye a little too tight...or better yet say a firearms manufacturer's name with a different accent, and people are going to jump on you.

 

I've had a look at several of the brevity documents but without getting in and using it much of it is lost on me. It will take time.

[Crescendo]

But anyway, if what I'm used to in reality causes a stir here on the forums, I'll just keep it to myself, I don't care. No need to share.

 

Ah, man, no reasonable person wants to silence anyone. That's not the intent

 

It's just that one would think that the reason for brevity in the first place is to prevent precisely the sort of thing that is happening in this thread. You come up with a term, assign an unambiguous definition, and then publish it in an offcial document that everyone agrees to use and train with. Maybe it's messier than that in the real world, but that's how it should work.

 

I mean no disrespect, and I don't want to come off like a handicap golfer giving tips to Tiger Woods, but some of the things you have said are wrong according to these documents (e.g. "Spike(d): airborne radar searching"). If you use that erroneous definition of SPIKE in the real world, then it throws the whole concept of published and accepted brevity definitions into disrepute.

 

That, or it just doesn't matter that much in the real world compared to what we armchair pilots like to think. For all I know different countries/services/squadrons/whatever all define things slightly differently, which must make joint operations frustrating.

[Home Fries]

This is a great discussion, despite any disagreements (which are at least passionate).

 

Not to throw more gasoline on the "operational pilot" fire (I'm a former US Navy NFO myself), but the truth is that even with the publications the way they are, the best way to learn the nuances of the brevity codes is training. "The book" is not always clear, and to confuse things more, the USN/USMC could use the same codeword for different things than USAF, and then NATO has its own specific entries. Combine this with the fact that many operational flyers don't know all of the brevity codes (I operated over water, so I only learned that "mudspike" is a no-no in this thread), and people even use them incorrectly in real life, and yo have a mess.

 

The point is that just because someone uses a brevity code differently doesn't necessarily make them wrong, and just because someone is an operational pilot or knows the NATO pubs doesn't make them right.

 

So far this thread has consisted of legitimate, albeit passionate discussion. I just wanted to keep this going and to pour some oil on the water.

[Nealius]

SINGER (type w/direction)—Informative call of RWR indication of surface-to-air missile launch.

---

 

By definition SINGER means the RWR is indicating a SAM launch, nothing more.

 

By calling "SINGER" you are saying "My RWR is showing a SAM launch". Seeing the missile with your own eyes (or not) has no relation to this brevity call.

 

That makes sense. I have rarely actually used SINGER since my head is out of the cockpit and looking for smoke trails as soon as my RWR lights up, and the majority of the time it's a valid launch anyway. I typically skip SINGER and go straight to DEFENDING <system/location>

[Robert1983NL]

Holy sh*t, bet the tax payers would be happy to hear the pilots are doing fun runs to 'prove' to anonymous internet dudes who they are. Even better they will do it again when guys are not home lol.

 

It's a serious thing this forum competition :)

 

No, just a coincedence that this village was right near a preplanned navigation leg. The Netherlands is a small country :)

[311Gryphon]

That, or it just doesn't matter that much in the real world compared to what we armchair pilots like to think. For all I know different countries/services/squadrons/whatever all define things slightly differently, which must make joint operations frustrating.

 

This is something I've wondered before. It seems that when watching various videos where I'm lucky enough to hear the radio chatter on the chatter isn't all the same. Maybe it is and my untrained ears don't pick up on it, but it sounds slightly different. Therefore I've often wondered if perhaps it's the old issue of working with people closely and learning the nuances of their version of the proper terminology that makes a military machine well oiled. Somewhat like members of sports team learning to work together well, or even business associates. Sometimes there are little "guidelines" for various occupations but every place that employs those guidelines does so slightly differently.

 

So whether that is true or not, it makes a lot of sense.

[Robert1983NL]

Checked my checklist for the brevity words today. It actually says on top of the first page: CHECK FOR UPDATES REGULARLY.

 

So yeah, brevity words' definitions DO change. And also different units use different intepretations of brevity words.

[IdleBoards]

A handful of brevity words are added, deleted, or updated in the "3-1.1" each year to keep up with current technology and tactics. Of the current set of brevity words, 95% of them are the same as they were two decades ago. Specifcally, SPIKE, NAILS, MUD, and SINGER have been the same since long before Desert Storm.

 

The idea that different units have different intrrpretations of brevity words is, well, preposterous. The ENTIRE point of brevity is to allow pilots to speak a common language, and to communicate voluminous information with far fewer words.

 

You simply CANNOT have different units using terms in a manner not prescribed in the book. People will die. This is a fundamental truth that every (combat) pilot is taught.

 

ROGER is not AFFIRMATIVE is not WILCO. You can't use these terms interchangeably, just like you can't use any of the other terms interchangeably.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This is something I've wondered before. It seems that when watching various videos where I'm lucky enough to hear the radio chatter on the chatter isn't all the same. Maybe it is and my untrained ears don't pick up on it, but it sounds slightly different. Therefore I've often wondered if perhaps it's the old issue of working with people closely and learning the nuances of their version of the proper terminology that makes a military machine well oiled. Somewhat like members of sports team learning to work together well, or even business associates. Sometimes there are little "guidelines" for various occupations but every place that employs those guidelines does so slightly differently.

 

So whether that is true or not, it makes a lot of sense.

 

It may not be a well oiled machine, it may be similar words being used interchangeably when perhaps they shouldn't. I've had first hand experience of this in the civil aviation world at least, and it has the potential to cause serious misunderstandings.

[311Gryphon]

It may not be a well oiled machine, it may be similar words being used interchangeably when perhaps they shouldn't. I've had first hand experience of this in the civil aviation world at least, and it has the potential to cause serious misunderstandings.

 

This is typically true in any business or line of work. Many terms may be similar or misused. I've had it happen very recently in regards to my job because another company's employee was using the term width when they should have used thickness. In this case, it's pretty well lined out which dimensions are labelled what but someone may or may not follow the guidelines.

 

So therefore I have to assume it can happen in military applications as well although I'm under the impression that it shouldn't happen as much because there is more standardization, training, and discipline involved as there should be. In business you just waste time and maybe a little money sorting through confusion. In the military you could be wasting a life or two and that's a much larger issue. To me it means that there is a very large benefit to working closely with a person or group of people that you know very well because you will use terminology the same way and understand what people mean when they say things.

 

And I just wanted to try this emoticon out :gun_rifle:

[Robert1983NL]

You simply CANNOT have different units using terms in a manner not prescribed in the book. People will die. This is a fundamental truth that every (combat) pilot is taught.

Man lol... Don't overreact like that!

ROGER is not AFFIRMATIVE is not WILCO. You can't use these terms interchangeably, just like you can't use any of the other terms interchangeably.

Now you're just comparing apples with pears.

And I believe one of the worst aviation accidents with the highest number of deaths was caused by the word affirmative... Typical that you use affirmative... Do you REALLY use that in real life? I thought it was banned decades ago.

[IdleBoards]

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you can use incorrect brevity in combat and NOT endanger lives? I have a hard time believing that a military aviator could make such an argument.

 

I also have no idea what you're trying to say about "affirmative". You are aware that the three brevity terms I listed are unique, and mean different things, right?

 

You think AFFIRMATIVE was banned? And you're a pilot? You're pulling my leg, right?

[Cookie]

Well, the word actually IS banned, at least in this part of the world. The proper term would be "affirm".

[Nealius]

What's the official definition of AFFIRMATIVE? I found ROGER (acknowledge transmission but not indicative of compliance) and WILCO (will comply) but not AFFIRMATIVE.

 

Nevermind, found it in my Aviation English teacher's book, but under AFFIRM as Cookie said. It looks like most of the ICAO stuff is done in British English...I wonder if that's why AFFIRM is preferred over AFFIRMATIVE.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Nealius

[Flagrum]

What's the official definition of AFFIRMATIVE? I found ROGER (acknowledge transmission but not indicative of compliance) and WILCO (will comply) but not AFFIRMATIVE.

 

Nevermind, found it in my Aviation English teacher's book, but under AFFIRM as Cookie said. It looks like most of the ICAO stuff is done in British English...I wonder if that's why AFFIRM is preferred over AFFIRMATIVE.

 

Is that really an AE / BE thing? Afaik:

 

"(to) affirm" is a verb

"affirmative" is an adjective

 

(and for my (non native speaker) ears, "affirm" sounds much more natural in a conversation. I would guess, they just had to choose one variant and that's it? :-) )

[IdleBoards]

AFFIRMATIVE is the correct phraseology in the US, and in the US armed forces.

 

Also, AFFIRM means AFFIRMATIVE, so... no ambiguity there.

 

The tactics used by the Air Force rely in the abilty to send and receive vast amounts of infirmation in a dense - possibly jammed/degraded - comm environment. Brevity is the vehicle used ti accomplish that task.

 

The US Air Force (and the other forces too, I'm sure) spends an exorbitant amount of time learning, teaching, practicing, and perfecting the use of brevity in a training environment, so that it comes naturally during combat.

 

For some reason Robert laughs off the importance of brevity, and suggests that its okay to use brevity terms in nonstandard ways. Clearly, that's not compatible with the stated purpose of brevity.

 

I dont know how else to say it.