I've heard some people lauding the NATO phonetic alphabet, and am just sort of scratching my head about that.
Like, here were the criteria for words in the alphabet:
Be a live word in each of the three working languages.
Be easily pronounced and recognized by airmen of all languages.
Have good radio transmission and readability characteristics.
Have a similar spelling in at least English, French, and Spanish, and the initial letter must be the letter the word identifies.
Be free from any association with objectionable meanings.
But then you look at what they actually picked and it's like ... okay, you picked a bunch of names? You picked "Whiskey"? On the assumption that what, this is a drink that's common everywhere in the world? That everyone is fine having an alcoholic drink as one of the words? Nowadays I can pull up a global map of whiskey consumption, but that's not something they could do in the 50s, and I would guess that they were not considering e.g. Muslim pilots. (Some places do actually change out "Whiskey" for this reason, along with other regional variants, which are exactly the sort of thing you want in a standard everyone is supposed to be on the same page about.)
And alright, whatever, I think the list is kind of confusingly culturally bound given what the criteria were, but it served its purpose well enough ...
Except that as standards do, it began to be used in other places, including by civilians, and including by civilians when both parties have not agreed on the NATO phonetic alphabet. It would be great if we all had an agreed upon phonetic alphabet that everyone knew, but the fact that some people don't know it makes it a lot worse, particularly if you're on a customer service call, and particularly if you're on a customer service call with someone who is not a native English speaker and who was not raised in the same cultural context that the NATO phonetic alphabet assumes.
If you, like me, love terrible quality PDFs, then some helpful soul made a FOIA request for "The Evolution and Rationale of ICAO Spelling Alphabet", and you can read it. This is a fun read for me, because it's not just concerned with the phonetic alphabet, but the history of it, and in one case they're just like "welp, we have been completely unsuccessful in locating this file". And I'm sitting here in 2024 reading a ratty PDF of a file from 1959, thinking "yup, that's how it is sometimes, they do all that work making a report and then no one fucking preserves it".
(Most of the document is about whether they would use the US-UK version or the ICAO version, and then some modifications and why they were made, and this is all interesting, but I'm kind of still scratching my head about some of these, especially given what they say the criteria were. "An international alphabet designed to fit the multilingual requirements of all nations"? Maybe they really thought that's what they were doing in the 1950s.)
Anyway, this isn't to say that I think we need a new, better phonetic alphabet, just that I think the current one is not actually the pinnacle of standards that some people seem to think it is, and in fact, it contains a lot of baggage from the time and place it was made. Further, it's being used in places well outside the environment it was made for, and unless everyone is trained in it (and maybe even if they are) some of the deficiencies get magnified.














