Why do we say certain things *three times*, e.g., “Mayday. Mayday. Mayday”?
$begingroup$
Repetition is a key characteristic of communication in the control tower, cockpit, and control room. Some phrases, like "Mayday" get repeated. The speaker says the same thing three times. We know this is for redundancy.
Why exactly three times?
Why not twice or four times? Is there research suggesting three is the most effective number, or is there a historical reason for the convention?
safety radio-communications
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
$endgroup$
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Repetition is a key characteristic of communication in the control tower, cockpit, and control room. Some phrases, like "Mayday" get repeated. The speaker says the same thing three times. We know this is for redundancy.
Why exactly three times?
Why not twice or four times? Is there research suggesting three is the most effective number, or is there a historical reason for the convention?
safety radio-communications
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
25
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
56
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Repetition is a key characteristic of communication in the control tower, cockpit, and control room. Some phrases, like "Mayday" get repeated. The speaker says the same thing three times. We know this is for redundancy.
Why exactly three times?
Why not twice or four times? Is there research suggesting three is the most effective number, or is there a historical reason for the convention?
safety radio-communications
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
$endgroup$
Repetition is a key characteristic of communication in the control tower, cockpit, and control room. Some phrases, like "Mayday" get repeated. The speaker says the same thing three times. We know this is for redundancy.
Why exactly three times?
Why not twice or four times? Is there research suggesting three is the most effective number, or is there a historical reason for the convention?
safety radio-communications
safety radio-communications
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
edited 2 days ago
Mark Jones Jr.
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
asked Jan 13 at 0:09
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
8371519
8371519
7
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
25
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
56
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
7
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
25
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
56
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago
7
7
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
25
25
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
27
27
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
56
56
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
5
5
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago
|
show 11 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions. The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me." In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.
The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist. Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables. He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.
Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation. It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures. "Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan." I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years. I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency. A little history: back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively. In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.
Going to the moon? “Launch! Launch! Launch!”
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I assume it's for redundancy. Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time. The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.
Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems. In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?
The first time you heard it - you started listening.
The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important
The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?
This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the reason for the repetition of mayday mayday mayday is for receiver of the messages can hear the callings, if the first mayday calling is breaking, the second mayday calling maybe be heard, and totally sure the third mayday the messages needs to be convey along with the mayday
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions. The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me." In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.
The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist. Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables. He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.
Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions. The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me." In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.
The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist. Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables. He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.
Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions. The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me." In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.
The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist. Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables. He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.
Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Procedure calls for the mayday distress signal to be said three times in a row so that it won't be mistaken for another word or phrase that sounds similar under noisy conditions. The use of Mayday dates back to 1923 when it was first used because it sounded like the French word m'aider, which means “Help me." In those early days of radio it was necessary to repeat things sometimes because of interference on the frequency from various potential sources.
The "rule of three" is rooted in research conducted in 1890 by Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist. Ebbinghuas studied how many rehearsals were necessary for his test subjects to memorize a list of nonsense syllables. He came up with three as the optimal number, and that became a rule of thumb in many other things, such as advertising.
Here's a cool video that adds information on Mayday and Pan Pan.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
edited yesterday
Alexander Kosubek
1053
1053
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
answered yesterday
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
40613
40613
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Clint Kearns is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
Just a small correction, it is "m'aidez"
$endgroup$
– infinitezero
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@infinitezero Oui ! "M'aidez!" is an imperative meaning "(You) help me!" However, "m'aider" means "to help me", e.g. in a full sentence "I would like someone to help me" (Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider).
$endgroup$
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CJDennis Note that "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aider" is incorrect, it would more likely by "Je voudrais que quelqu'un m'aide". On the other hand, "I would like someone to come help me" would be "Je voudrais que quelqu'un vienne m'aider". (Also "M'aidez!" feels very strange to me. "Help me!" would be "Aidez-moi !")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rafalon I don't think I (or anyone else I know) would say those things. As you say Aidez / aide moi would suffice rather than such a long sentence :)
$endgroup$
– Cloud
16 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Cloud Sure thing. I should have made clear that my point is: "m'aidez" is incorrect unless maybe in very old French (I'm French and I've never seen a sentence including it), and "m'aider" must follow a verb ("Venez m'aider")
$endgroup$
– Rafalon
15 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation. It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures. "Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan." I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years. I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency. A little history: back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation. It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures. "Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan." I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years. I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency. A little history: back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation. It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures. "Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan." I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years. I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency. A little history: back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This ensures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) of what needs to be done in a critical situation. It also standardizes these criticalities across different aircraft and aircrew cultures. "Bail out, bail out, bail out" "Eject, eject, eject" "Abort abort abort" "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan." I was 27 years a USAF pilot, and this is how the training has worked for over 50 years. I only saw these terms used 2-3 times, but it certainly gets your attention and amps up the sense of urgency. A little history: back in the day of very poor radio communications, it was necessary to repeat to "get someone's attention" or in the event a single "mayday" didn't come across when the transmit button was pressed.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
1
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
answered Jan 13 at 1:37
ScottyScotty
47113
47113
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Scotty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Need clarification. Does emergency "pan" only mentioned 3 times? I heard a senior commercial pilot said that it must be mentioned six times as it only 1 syllable: "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan".
$endgroup$
– AirCraft Lover
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AirCraftLover I believe this is is correct. I read a pronunciation manual that described it as "Pahn-pahn", so that would be one iteration, not two, so you're right. 3 pairs of two "pan"s.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
10
10
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AirCraft Lover If you take a look at historical editions of ITU's Radio Regulations, and compare it with current, you'll be able to see that there's been a change. The urgency signal was changed from "pan" to "pan-pan". Therefore, it is repeated 3 times, and not 6, but the signal itself has word pan two times in it now.
$endgroup$
– AndrejaKo
2 days ago
6
6
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The question does ask about research and historical convention on the number of repetitions. No answer has addressed this part of the question. Whether there is research, there is definitely historical convention about saying things three times for emphasis, that goes back thousands of years.
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
2 days ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
$endgroup$
– Mark Jones Jr.
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively. In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.
Going to the moon? “Launch! Launch! Launch!”
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively. In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.
Going to the moon? “Launch! Launch! Launch!”
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively. In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.
Going to the moon? “Launch! Launch! Launch!”
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
There are no instances in normal conversation where the same word is repeated three times consecutively. In order to prevent a critical command or order from being issued or heard accidentally, a command is given three times in order to verify that it is being given intentionally.
Going to the moon? “Launch! Launch! Launch!”
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
answered Jan 13 at 0:46
Paul WillettPaul Willett
771
771
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul Willett is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
This doesn't seem at all sensible, since any given phrase could be only heard once by the receiver if e.g. the first copy was snapped by a button delay and the second lost in static. The answer by Scotty provides the much more sensible historic basis: three times for redundancy.
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
do you have sources for your statements?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" apparently supports this claim.
$endgroup$
– Agent_L
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I assume it's for redundancy. Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time. The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.
Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems. In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I assume it's for redundancy. Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time. The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.
Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems. In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I assume it's for redundancy. Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time. The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.
Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems. In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I assume it's for redundancy. Assuming the voice signal is very noisy, the listener might hear two different things, the first and second time. The third repetition can then be used to decide which of the two versions heard is more likely to be the correct one.
Majority voting with three signals is very common in redundant systems. In computing it is called TMR (triple modular redundancy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
answered 2 days ago
user1323995user1323995
1571
1571
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user1323995 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
"I assume". you got any source?
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?
The first time you heard it - you started listening.
The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important
The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?
This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?
The first time you heard it - you started listening.
The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important
The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?
This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?
The first time you heard it - you started listening.
The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important
The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?
This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Because human brains are slow and easily distracted?
The first time you heard it - you started listening.
The second time you heard it - you started listening properly, because you know it's important
The third time confirmed you heard what you thought you heard?
This is just my unresearched perception of what's going on, and why we naturally settled on saying thing 3 times when it's imperative that it's heard properly.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
answered yesterday
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1374
1374
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
djsmiley2k is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
Wouldn't this imply also that a large number of initial calls to various air traffic controllers would need to be repeated? The fact that that's generally not necessary would seem to suggest that your perception is, if not wrong, then at least not entirely correct.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
$begingroup$
I don't know exactly how a call coming into a air traffic controller sounds - i.e. if there's a bleep or something first. I'm thinking about situations where you're concentrating on multiple things already, and something needs to desperately grab your attention.
$endgroup$
– djsmiley2k
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure there is no beep or anything; there would be little value, and any such thing could risk masking the first portion of a transmission. That said, even when flying, with engine and propeller noise in the cockpit, I've never had any trouble telling when a transmission began or ended; it's pretty distinctive. I have had trouble hearing what people said on the radio once or twice when they wouldn't speak up, but in that case, repeating a single word a few times likely won't help much.
$endgroup$
– a CVn
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
if this is just your unresearched perception it is not an answer. please provide sources for your statements.
$endgroup$
– Federico♦
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the reason for the repetition of mayday mayday mayday is for receiver of the messages can hear the callings, if the first mayday calling is breaking, the second mayday calling maybe be heard, and totally sure the third mayday the messages needs to be convey along with the mayday
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the reason for the repetition of mayday mayday mayday is for receiver of the messages can hear the callings, if the first mayday calling is breaking, the second mayday calling maybe be heard, and totally sure the third mayday the messages needs to be convey along with the mayday
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the reason for the repetition of mayday mayday mayday is for receiver of the messages can hear the callings, if the first mayday calling is breaking, the second mayday calling maybe be heard, and totally sure the third mayday the messages needs to be convey along with the mayday
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
the reason for the repetition of mayday mayday mayday is for receiver of the messages can hear the callings, if the first mayday calling is breaking, the second mayday calling maybe be heard, and totally sure the third mayday the messages needs to be convey along with the mayday
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
answered 2 days ago
ian daniellsian daniells
12
12
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
ian daniells is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
$begingroup$
This answer could be greatly improved by beginning each sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a period. I can't tell where the sentences here begin and end.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
3
3
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer why they say it ** 3 (three)** times and not four, tow, five, or seven times.
$endgroup$
– Alexandre Aubrey
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
7
$begingroup$
It sounds like you're asking why three, rather than two or four. In other words, you're not just asking "why do we say it three times"; you're asking "why is three the number of times that we say it". Is that right?
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Jan 13 at 1:53
25
$begingroup$
That literally means the exact same thing.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Mortensen
2 days ago
27
$begingroup$
@RyanMortensen No, there's a difference in emphasis. The questions "Why do we say it three times?" and "Why do we say it exactly three times, rather than two or four?" are different questions that invite different answers. If you said "It's for redundancy", that would answer the first question, but not the second.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
2 days ago
56
$begingroup$
Five is right out.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm - I joined this community just so I could up-vote your comment :)
$endgroup$
– Tony
2 days ago