Jump to content
Parkway

Affirm? Or Roger...

Recommended Posts

I started flying in 1965 and "affirmative" was commonly used. Those were the days of full reporting and I think that requirement helped create a higher standard of radio use.....call me old fashioned!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Head in the clouds said:

I dare say there have been some changes since the 1960s. I got my CPL in the 1980s and I never heard of Affirmative, it was always Affirm. Over and Out are still in use (never used together of course) but mainly for HF rather than VHF. Though in cases of poor VHF reception such as was the case on the far north coasts until 10yrs or so ago, they can still be helpful for understanding.

 

Roger is still in everyday use, as is Wilco.

 

Here is a link to the AIP - see pages 293 & 294 (Gen 3.4 - 25 5.) This is the current version issued a few days ago.

 

A few extracts -

 

AFFIRM        Yes.

 

NEGATIVE    No or Permission is not granted or
                     That is not correct or Not capable.

 

OUT              This exchange of transmissions is
                     ended and I expect no response from
                     you {not normally used in VHF or
                     satellite communication).

 

OVER            My transmission is ended and I
                     expect a response from you {not
                      normally used in VHF or satellite
                     communication).

 

ROGER         I have received all of your last
                    transmission [under NO
                    circumstances to be used in reply to
                    a question requiring READBACK or
                    a direct answer in the affirmative or
                    negative).

 

WILCO         I understand your message and will
                    comply with it.

 

I found a line there which read  Yes, Affirm, Affirmative, That is correct, so maybe there's an error there; I know you said your memory goes back to the '80s but I'm not so sure.

However, I can see the logic in using "Affirm" to avoid any "tive" confusion with negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

 Why do you say IF AT ALL. ?   The change appears to have been around 2006 in AUSTRALIA.. and I worked as a full time airline pilot for 25 years. and always used Affirmative  Never  Yes, Roger,,  Over or Out.  Plenty of Australian pilots operate internationally. Nev

 

I didn't mean any offence, I just wondered whether you might have picked it up while flying overseas. But since Silvercity has mentioned it was in use in 1965 then you probably just retained what you learned at the beginning, as many of us did.

 

When I started commercial in 1980s we used to be Maintaining (which soon became Cruising) and we broadcast to Traffic, which became All Stations and so on (and they later changed back again ...) - it took a long while to remember to use the latest version.

 

Either way, I'm sure Affirmative didn't become Affirm in or around 2006, it must have been at least 20yrs before that because I never heard it, nor used it from the beginning. A while ago I saw a 1980s VFG lying around a club hangar - someone's souvenir I guess - one of those orange plastic binders of the era, next time I'm down there I'll have another look, it may provide some insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I found a line there which read  Yes, Affirm, Affirmative, That is correct, so maybe there's an error there; ....

That's a different reference, it's a definition of the abbreviation AFM (Section Gen 2.2-32/page 186). It's not a spoken phraseology, it just indicates that that abbreviation can mean any of those plain-language definitions.

 

General and Meteorological Abbreviations

 

AFM      Yes, Affirm,
              Affirmative, That is
              correct

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You should note that OUT and OVER are NOT used in VHF communications which is ALL we use generally these days in RAAus and "Roger"  MUST NOT be used where readback is required. It should be discouraged in any case as just giving your callsign works better  Identifying YOU . Anybody could say roger, and you don't make a call without an ident. You terminate a conversation with just "ABC' and can add "clearing your frequency" if that helps. where you must transfer to another to  enter a circuit etc or give a 10 mile call.. 

 If "Affirm" is an abbreviation it makes sense, and it is claimed to be so,  but AFFIRM is a transitive verb with a quite different  and less appropriate meaning to Affirmative which is an adjective or a noun and  makes more meaningful sense in this context. The claimed risks of the endings being similar are not proven anywhere I can find and you are meant to EMPHASISE the  first part of both AFFIRM ative.. and it's opposite NEG ative  The original publications did everything Phonetically where Quebec for instance was KEE bec.  (from memory) but all the letters of the alphabet were similarly "modified" to be given the maximum transmitted  clarity. You sound like a right "GIT" when you do this in normal conversation, but  it was and is effective. Like I said in  in earlier post, the standard has dropped  off considerably. Most mumble , talk too fast,  key the MIC carelessly . Talk over others and make excessively complex and non standard calls.. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 You should note that OUT and OVER are NOT used in VHF communications which is ALL we use generally these days in RAAus and "Roger"  MUST NOT be used where readback is required. It should be discouraged in any case as just giving your callsign works better  Identifying YOU . Anybody could say roger, and you don't make a call without an ident. You terminate a conversation with just "ABC' and can add "clearing your frequency" if that helps. where you must transfer to another to  enter a circuit etc or give a 10 mile call.. 

 If "Affirm" is an abbreviation it makes sense, and it is claimed to be so,  but AFFIRM is a transitive verb with a quite different  and less appropriate meaning to Affirmative which is an adjective or a noun and  makes more meaningful sense in this context. The claimed risks of the endings being similar are not proven anywhere I can find and you are meant to EMPHASISE the  first part of both AFFIRM ative.. and it's opposite NEG ative  The original publications did everything Phonetically where Quebec for instance was KEE bec.  (from memory) but all the letters of the alphabet were similarly "modified" to be given the maximum transmitted  clarity. You sound like a right "GIT" when you do this in normal conversation, but  it was and is effective. Like I said in  in earlier post, the standard has dropped  off considerably. Most mumble , talk too fast,  key the MIC carelessly . Talk over others and make excessively complex and non standard calls.. Nev

No, AFFIRM is not an abbreviation, the abbreviation is AFM and as shown above, the abbreviation AFM has no relation to the spoken response AFFIRM.

It doesn't really matter whether the use of Affirm for Yes is grammatically correct English or not, because as you conceded earlier, if it's in the AIP then that's how it is to be done. If they decide that we should say Wibble for Yes, then so be it, classic English or not ...

As far as Roger is concerned, in practical terms it's rarely used as a single word response but if you keep in mind it's purpose is to indicate a fully understood communication, an example of a complete response might be - Roger, ABC is holding clear of runway 12. Hence more information has been supplied than would be by the suggested use of just the call sign. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, old man emu said:

"Affirm" is a word with several meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. However, none of these meanings can be construed as "Yes".

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affirm

Does that really have anything to do with it? See my post above, ref Wibble. I think it's a bit scary that people just don't 'get it'. No wonder the OP is confused ...

 

It's a Code - y'know? - we're all supposed to understand the same simple few words (or created words) that are intended to be hard to confuse with other words, so that communication can take place in difficult radiotelephony circumstances and noisy surroundings.

 

But then you've got some who say that anything that isn't perfect English isn't acceptable, and others who seem to think any change from the old days is an abomination.

 

No wonder CASA/DCA/DoA has/had little patience with recreational flyers, I think you'll find the present day CPLs just get on with what phraseology is required rather than worrying about whether it's a 'transitive verb' or not  007_rofl.gif.c0acfa65b346376a3dbfced8cc47aa8b.gif . Then again it's an ICAO thing, but it seems every personal opinion here is considered more relevant than those of an international organisation trying to make people of different native languages understand each other.

Edited by Head in the clouds
it needed it - poobah
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IBob said:

Just be sure to get an Affirmative before you Roger...)

If I was about to be Rogered I'd respond Negative.

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system was completely revised after the war. The older able ,baker. etc. What the US do is important  as most of the world's flying is done there, and they manage (much better than we do ) to run a good scene. Radio procedures here are a crock.. Radio is a good addition to see and be seen which is by itself a bit of a gamble.. I haven't seen much on radio procedures and technique being promulgated in years. Nev

Edited by facthunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All arguments aside, my main point was I have a habit of saying affirm in situations that really warrant a roger 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We said fife and niner and affirmative when I started. Turning base, not turns base. Cranked out a hf aerial in the bush. Them was the days.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this clarity.I will now use AFFIRM not AFFIRMATIVE.I started flying in 2005 in South Africa,we were using AFFIRMATIVE and ".........ready for Departure".It became weird to me when I came here around 2010 to just say "....................ready" when ready to enter the runway.It`s interesting to note at times we are copying the American way without realising how wrong it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for several years as a radio operator in a Fire Control Centre for NSW Rural Fire Service.  We were the conduit for all radiotelephony between FCC & the fireground.  Since all rural fireys are volunteers, with varying experience, standards of radio calls differed greatly. 

 

The old Standard Operating Procedure for radio terminology called for "affirmative". I have personal experience of the difficulties this causes, when the operator is not speaking clearly (raging bushfire outside the cab), when terrain degrades the signal, and when the first couple of seconds is not transmitted after the ptt button is pressed due to the system itself.   Even asking for a repeat still often results in multiple    "##@%&*<%#..ative"  Only the last syllables come through.

 

It is clearly unwise to use two words sharing much of their sound when their meanings are opposites. So eventually the SOP's were changed and "Affirm" became the required word, with the emphasis on the first syllable.

 

This mostly worked, except for a few older hands. These guys complained that they'd been trained to use affirmative, they'd always used it, & didn't see the point of changing.  Had they heard what we heard, with scratchy radio transmissions sometimes conveying urgent and important information, they may have appreciated the need for change.

 

Bruce

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 5:37 AM, old man emu said:

Obviously, since I first encountered it back in the early 70's. 

 

But you didn't answer my question: "When was the last time someone asked you if you would like a drink and you answered, "Affirm"?"

 

Also, Isn't "Yes" a better word to use? It's short and does not sound like "No".  Most transmissions are clipped at the beginning.  "-ative" could be "affirm-ative" or "neg-ative"

I have to disagree with that a little with regard to using the term 'YES'. . , being a very short word, it is easily missed  when ( as many pilots seem to do in my experience ) press the PTT at exactly the same time that they begin speaking resulting in the first fragment of the message being lost.  ( VOX Effect ) waiting for just a second gives the radio / intercom combination time to lock into transmit. . . Being a pedantic barstard, I always teach this in my radio courses,. . . using the Norman Collier 'Broken Mic lead' example. . . For this reason I still believe that Ayfirm is better than Yes.  Although I would not advise using it in response to a question from a wine waiter, unless you were dining in the Royal Aero Club restaurant. . .and the Wine waiter was also a Wineviator. . . .

 

This doesn't mean to infer that you are wrong BTW. . .

 

I also prefer UNABLE with regard to an instruction to which you would find it difficult or indeed impossible with which to comply.

Edited by Phil Perry
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see someone is teaching the results written in blood after WW2 Phil.

BTW, if you could get hold of a STOL you could probably still get in and out of the paddock which remains at Berwick. Monash Uni failed on the site, and half of it it still grassland.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Good to see someone is teaching the results written in blood after WW2 Phil.

BTW, if you could get hold of a STOL you could probably still get in and out of the paddock which remains at Berwick. Monash Uni failed on the site, and half of it it still grassland.

 

Oh Turbo,. . .I have looked at it Longingly on Goggly Earth. . so sad. . .that place contains some wonderful memories for me.   I doubt of CASA would allow me a licence, since DCA said at the time, that my vision was so bad ?) that I should not be allowed to engage in international navigation, as I had no useful sight in my left eye. . .odd that they allowed me a GA PPL,. with which I flew to PNG and Indonesia. . . and that I got a commercial in the UK later, and flew cargo, ferry and Air taxi for money for quite long time. .. but that aside, I'm getting on a bit now mate, 68.5. . .so If I ever get the chance to visit again, I'd need some young buck in a Stol to do that for me. . .  a Dornier 17 would be nice. . . ( ! )   They used to use one of those from Berwick for towing banners, with such messages as. . 'BUY A FROZEN MARS BAR'  etc. . .lovely machine ( 235 HP I think ) but they wouldn't let me near the thing after I bent Keith Hatfields DH82A  ( VH-TIG )! Although it wasn't really damaged, I just nosed it into a very shalllow ditch in a crosswind whilst taxying . . .!  Hit the switches and stopped the prop first though. . .

Edited by Phil Perry
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clipping the beginning of a transmission seems to be a problem universal to all voice over ether systems. Early in my police career, my then girlfriend (who became woman soulmate) was a police radio dispatcher . She always told me to press the button; count to two, then transmit. But you know how pillow talk gets confusing.

 

The crop of 1952! Now is the time for it to be drunk.

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×