Does anyone else hate the NATO phonetic alphabet?

Post Reply New Topic

I hate situations where someone tries to spell something out to me using the phonetic alphabet. It's well intentioned, but there's just something about my brain that just loses the plot when people try to use this system.

I think the absolute worst was when I had a work phonecall that took way longer than it should have because the customer insisted on using the phonetic alphabet even though I asked multiple times for him to just please spell it out plainly without all this H for hotel, F for Foxtrot malarkey.

S for Sierra is one that bugs me. I know that the name Sierra starts with an S, but when I'm hearing that in real time in quick succession, the first part registers in my brain as a C. In the same way that the words 'Sea' or 'See' sound a lot like C but start with an S. By the time I've made a quick mental note of it being S not C, they've moved on to a whole list of letters.

I notice that a significant amount of people don't say 'F for foxtrot, S for Sierra, T for Tango', instead they'll say 'Foxtrot Sierra Tango' and expect you to quickly follow along.

My brain defaults into trying to find a story, a connection, between those words, especially if they haven't explained beforehand that they're about to start spelling a word out to me. So, I'll buffer and wonder, what is this person going on about? Then I'll realise and curse at myself because now I'm behind in trying to decode this nonsense.

I've also noticed that if it's a long word, sentence or phrase (such as an entire email told to me using the phonetic alphabet) my brain is going to get very overwhelmed and confused. I won't remember what letter we're on or what we were doing. I'll probably end up unintentionally writing the example words (writing Tango by mistake when trying to keep up with the sheer speed at which the speaker is going, forgetting that we're using the phonetic system halfway through and then realising that I've messed up far too late).

In my current job, if someone starts using this alphabet I'll say OK, the letter C or I'll say it quietly to myself as I work it out. And so on for each letter that I decode. Sometimes, they'll catch on and start sounding the letter out as such - Ay, Bee, Cee, Dee and so on. This makes me happy as it's a lot easier for me to understand. Frankly I wonder if I should just start asking outright for people to spell this way.

Unfortunately, some folk seem to get very annoyed and angry with my reluctance to use the NATO phonetic alphabet.

'Oh but it's so much easier! I don't get why you struggle with this!'

Easier for whom, mate? Certainly not me. I've wanted to scream at you but in polite society we don't do that.

I hate when people start slow baby-talking at me afterwards when they see I'm struggling with the rapid-fire use of these example words. I swear I'm not an idiot. However, I do seem to struggle with this a lot more than most. It's a lot like how people act when they realise how bad at maths I am and no longer view me as a functional adult.

Bravo Sierra, that was a wonderful Foxtrot dance you performed at the Hotel.

(Also most people don't follow the official code and make up their own, so - *screams*)

I know it but I've never had a customer use it in my years of working phones in the USA.

I love the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet (aka NATO Phonetic Alphabet) and find it very frustrating when people attempt to improvise their own phonetic alphabet on the spot. Naming the letters can be frustrating as well because too many of them can be confused (P and B, and S and F are the two examples that first come to mind). This can be compounded in some some accents vs. other accents.

This mostly was an issue when I did tech support, especially when providing/requesting serial numbers and similar. I kinda struggled with the opposite problem you describe. It's intuitive enough that I default to Whiskey-Foxtrot-Tango-November-ZERO-ZERO-Bravo and expect others to be able to follow along without further explanation (especially) after it's been modelled; like, if they need a model the first time so they know C like Charlie, K like Kilo, S like Sierra, etc that's fine, but please don't make me include the explainer the second time around—we were just over that already.

It's easier and less ambiguous, but only after one has memorized it (although their knowledge doesn't need to be perfect, so long as they remember how C, K and S are represented) and so long as it's recognized that it's being used.

It's not entirely fair to expect people to recognize it immediately and it's fair to be considerate that some people might struggle with processing that communication style without it reflecting on their intelligence more broadly; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also feel on par with having to explain how letters works to another grown adult. Like, try to imagine having to explain a C like a part of a circle, the triangle with a line for an A, a T like a cross, to another adult that you had assumed was literate.

And I recognize that not being literate also isn't inherently reflective of a person's intelligence, but a lot of people might struggle with keeping that in mind in that moment.

If the other party is incapable of recognizing and adapting to a preferred communication technique not being available, that's a theory of mind failing on their end, not an intellectual short-coming on yours.

I'd get moderately excited when a customer defaulted to it. It didn't confirm all communication would be clear, but at least it confirmed one important aspect would be greatly simplified.