Where Term "5x5" came from

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by john9001
"repeat please"

What would you like me to shoot again???

[Mister Fork]

Originally posted by Zanth
I was curious, so looked it up.  I guess we haven't been using the term really right.

"The term five by five refers to the two measures of signal strength and readability; it is derived from older HAM radio instruments that were scaled from zero to 10 with 10 being the strongest. A five by five would be interpreted as 50 percent signal strength and easily readable, perhaps with some static or band clutter. A 10 by two would have a strong signal, but be broken and hard to understand, while a two by 10 would contain a weak signal, but be perfectly clear. A 10 by 10 would be very strong and crystal clear."

[cough]
Zanth, as a former army signaler and communications instructor, the term 5x5 refers to the two elements of communication.

The first measure is the strength, the second is signal clarity.  This means that you can be VERY LOUD, but distorted, muffled, etc. It also means your voice signal can be clear as a bell, but very weak.  Hence the term 5x5.  

So, 1x5 is weak but clear, 5x1 is loud but distorted.  We tend to be more exact over the net, but not all communications in the past was based on voice (ie teletypes)

The chart is from 1 to 5, but we sometimes often would say "Loud and Clear, or Loud but distorted" using voice, and if we had a tele, we would reply back 5x5 or 5x1.   The military comms guys got used to using the 5x5 as a short cut for loud and clear, including responding to voice comms over teletype machines.

[/cough]

Does that answer your question?

Forkster

[-Concho-]

We used to say Lickin Chickin or Lima Charlie.....

[DAVENRINO]

Originally posted by Mace2004
How about 25 or 6 to 4?


Actually, "5 by 5" is never used in military tactical aviation (at least in the modern US military) and I've only heard it occasionally in civilian aviation.  It's possible that it was used in WWII but now "5 by 5" is thought of as slang from the "CB era" and anything related to that is considered gauche.  It's sort of like saying "10-4 good buddy" and almost as embarassing as saying "loud and clear, over and out", something that came from schmaltzy 1950's war movies.  

The correct terminology is simply "loud and clear."

Actually, this system is still used  very frequently in military and civil aviation using HF comm with ARINC for oceanic clearances, position reports, etc. Except HF radios are so bad that it is usually more like 3x4 if you are lucky.

[StewyS]

No 7, come 11....CRAPS

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by DAVENRINO
Actually, this system is still used  very frequently in military and civil aviation using HF comm with ARINC for oceanic clearances, position reports, etc. Except HF radios are so bad that it is usually more like 3x4 if you are lucky.

That's true but then that's why I said it's not used in military tactical aviation.  

[68ROX]

YIKES...if MISinformation was a dollar a word...

The "RST" Signal reporting system came about through amateur radio operators in the 1910's to early 1920's and published regularly in the American Radio Relay League monthly magazine "QST"...first to classify and accurately report transmitted Morse Code (CW) transmissions, and eventually voice, and today...digital comms.

"R", the first number, is "Readability" on a scale of 1 through 5.

"S", the second number, is "Signal Strength", on a scale of 1 through 9.

"T", the third numbers, is "Tone", on a scale of 1 through 9, and referred only to the signal tone quality of Morse Code signals.  Early on in "spark-gap" CW transmissions, the signal was often raspy and made it more difficult to copy.  Today, if a ham gets anything other than a 9 on their CW signal report, it's time to check the transmitter finals, power supply, etc. because something is wrong.

The BEST, clearest, cleanest, strongest signal report a Morse Code station could receive was "599".  The BEST, clearest, cleanest, strongest audio report a "voice" station could receive was " 5 by 9".

If someone's voice signal was say...kind of low, affected by some propagational signal fading, but you could continue your conversation ok...that report might be a " 4 x 4" or at best, "4 x 6", depending on atmospheric conditions.

"Q-Signals" alre also used in conjunction with the signal report to not only be brief, but add additional details...a Morse Code transmission of:

"...RST 359, RST 359, SW QRM ES S9 QRN, OM..."

simply meant..." Your Signal is pretty strong, but an Short Wave station just fired up on this frequency, and by the way--noise from static crashes is almost pegging my meter my friend..."

"Q" signals are meant to only be used on CW and digital modes and not on voice transmissions.

Sunspots, Aurora Borealis, Tropo-scatter, ionispheric ducting and even meteor showers can effect radio propagation, so the "RST" reporting system still exists, although different radio services (military, aeronotical, land-mobile, amateur, etc.) have often morphed it to suit their own needs.

For us, it's not really well understood.  I've heard folks ask for an audio report who's audio was very low and was so scratchy is sounded like Vulcan, and were replied with "5 by 5, guy".

Maybe, with input from others in our community, we might want to go to a more well understood format, or at the very least, just use plain language that doesn't confuse the noobs.

"Yeah ROX, your readability is pretty good, but your audio is low" would do it for me.

But...what do I know.


68ROX
K5TEN, ex-KA9SOX, ex-KA9SOX/VE1, ex-KA0NIU

[DAVENRINO]

Originally posted by 68ROX
YIKES...if MISinformation was a dollar a word...

The "RST" Signal reporting system came about through amateur radio operators in the 1910's to early 1920's and published regularly in the American Radio Relay League monthly magazine "QST"...first to classify and accurately report transmitted Morse Code (CW) transmissions, and eventually voice, and today...digital comms.

"R", the first number, is "Readability" on a scale of 1 through 5.

"S", the second number, is "Signal Strength", on a scale of 1 through 9.

"T", the third numbers, is "Tone", on a scale of 1 through 9, and referred only to the signal tone quality of Morse Code signals.  Early on in "spark-gap" CW transmissions, the signal was often raspy and made it more difficult to copy.  Today, if a ham gets anything other than a 9 on their CW signal report, it's time to check the transmitter finals, power supply, etc. because something is wrong.

The BEST, clearest, cleanest, strongest signal report a Morse Code station could receive was "599".  The BEST, clearest, cleanest, strongest audio report a "voice" station could receive was " 5 by 9".

If someone's voice signal was say...kind of low, affected by some propagational signal fading, but you could continue your conversation ok...that report might be a " 4 x 4" or at best, "4 x 6", depending on atmospheric conditions.

"Q-Signals" alre also used in conjunction with the signal report to not only be brief, but add additional details...a Morse Code transmission of:

"...RST 359, RST 359, SW QRM ES S9 QRN, OM..."

simply meant..." Your Signal is pretty strong, but an Short Wave station just fired up on this frequency, and by the way--noise from static crashes is almost pegging my meter my friend..."

"Q" signals are meant to only be used on CW and digital modes and not on voice transmissions.

Sunspots, Aurora Borealis, Tropo-scatter, ionispheric ducting and even meteor showers can effect radio propagation, so the "RST" reporting system still exists, although different radio services (military, aeronotical, land-mobile, amateur, etc.) have often morphed it to suit their own needs.

For us, it's not really well understood.  I've heard folks ask for an audio report who's audio was very low and was so scratchy is sounded like Vulcan, and were replied with "5 by 5, guy".

Maybe, with input from others in our community, we might want to go to a more well understood format, or at the very least, just use plain language that doesn't confuse the noobs.

"Yeah ROX, your readability is pretty good, but your audio is low" would do it for me.

But...what do I know.


68ROX
K5TEN, ex-KA9SOX, ex-KA9SOX/VE1, ex-KA0NIU

LOL,
As you said RST is used by amateur radio operators not pilots.   This is a flying game, afterall.  After twenty years of flying across the ocean, 5x5, or 4x3, etc still works for me.  It conveys the necessary information with minimum wordage.  All ATC and AIRINC folks that I have talked to understand this system in every country I have flown in.

DJ229 Air Mafia

[-SR-]

Hmm:huh


-SR-

[NCLawman]

Originally posted by Zanth
I was curious, so looked it up.  I guess we haven't been using the term really right.

"The term five by five refers to the two measures of signal strength and readability; it is derived from older HAM radio instruments that were scaled from zero to 10 with 10 being the strongest. A five by five would be interpreted as 50 percent signal strength and easily readable, perhaps with some static or band clutter. A 10 by two would have a strong signal, but be broken and hard to understand, while a two by 10 would contain a weak signal, but be perfectly clear. A 10 by 10 would be very strong and crystal clear."

Thank you for that clarification there, Cliff  (reference to Cheers).

At least we are not using the old trucker CB lingo that you are "knee deep in the strawberry patch."

[MOIL]

Nope, don't wanna be in here......................... ......................

[68ROX]

LOLOL

The QUESTION was where did it originate.....

I answered his question...

68ROX

[mussie]

And here I thought it was from Aliens....