2

Where can I find the definition of the Q Codes for amateur radio?

So far I could only find

ITU-R M.1172
ANNEX 1
Miscellaneous abbreviations and signals to be used for radiocommunications in the maritime mobile service
Section I. Q Code

But this is about Q codes for maritime telegraphy and most of these make no sense for amateur radio. I have also found definitions of Q/Z Codes for aviation and military usage.

Has there ever been an official definition of Q Codes for amateur radio and if so, where can I find it?

Kevin Reid AG6YO
  • 24,195
  • 7
  • 48
  • 101
Jonas Stein
  • 135
  • 6
  • Why do you believe that most of the Q-code listed in that recommendation makes no sense for amateur radio? The way I looked at Q-code was that it's a general purpose code with subsets that are of particular interest to various radio services. From what I can see, the part of Q-code listed that that is used by the amateur radio service pretty much matches the actual usage. By the way, I too spend quite a bit of time looking for a definition and couldn't go past IRU-R M1172. – AndrejaKo Jan 08 '16 at 02:01
  • @AndrejaKo, thank you for your comment. By reading the list `A. List of Abbreviations in Alphabetical Order` in the `ITU Radio Regulations` one gets the impression that about half of the abbreviations are not useful for amateur radio. Take the first three for example: `QOA`, `QOB`, `QOC` are about telegraphy on frequencies outside the frequencies for amateur radio. – Jonas Stein Jan 08 '16 at 19:25
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_code#Amateur_radio – Optionparty Jan 08 '16 at 19:38
  • @Jonas Stein I don't have the Radio Regulations at the moment (freshly formatted hard drive), but I'll take a look as soon as I get it again. In any case, my opinion is that there's really no need for a separate amateur Q-code. Instead we could just use the useful ones and not use the ones that simply do not apply. – AndrejaKo Jan 08 '16 at 22:40
  • @Optionparty wikipedia is no primary source. – Jonas Stein Jan 09 '16 at 21:26

1 Answers1

2

There is basically three (somewhat overlapping) lists of Q-codes used in Ham Radio. The three lists are those used by voice operators (SSB), those used by CW operators, and those used in CW traffic handling nets (QN codes).

A full single "official" list of Q-codes is not useful to the ham radio operator. What is useful is to know those that are commonly used. The use of Q-codes is most dominant among CW operators because CW begs the use of abbreviations to limit keying. Use of Q-codes among voice operators, mostly SSB is also common but the usage is typically more limited to just a handful such as: QSL, QSO, QSB, QRM, QRN, QTH, QSY, QRZ, QRL, QRU, and maybe a few others I am missing. But, many times a voice operator will merely say something equivalent to the Q-code meaning. For example, he/she might say "I am being interfered with" instead of "there is QRM" or "there seems to be a slow fade on your signal" rather than saying "some QSB on your signal". Note that I am listing these as I think of them and obviously the same set is not the common usage of all operators. But, you can expect to hear these at times among SSB operators. [By the way, many SSB voice operators would say "QR-Mary instead of QRM or QR-Nancy instead of QRN (atmospherics noise or other non-operator RFI)].

With CW operators, you can add to the list signals (above) such as QRT, QRV, QSP, QRS (and, less frequently QRQ), QST (by scheduled nets usually).

And, within a CW traffic net, the QN signals are common such as: QNI, QNX, QNZ, QNA, QNZ, QND, and a few others.

When asking a question via a Q-code in CW it is common practice to include a ?-mark following the Q-code. For example, a CW operator will check to see if his frequency is clear by sending QRL? meaning "is the frequency busy?". An answer of the letter C from someone if the answer is yes, it is busy. The letter C is a common CW abbreviation meaning Yes.

Now, in the above lists I did not define these Q-codes because they are very easy to look up. The ARRL has lists published on their web site plus these Q codes and many more are published on many web sites. Just Google "Q signals ham radio" or some variation of that and you will find them.

Also above, I did not list every Q-code known to amateur radio. Some are never heard. I am almost 100 percent CW activity and I spend a lot of time on CW traffic nets and I use maybe a dozen total Q codes from the regular Q code lists and the QN codes.

K7PEH
  • 2,948
  • 10
  • 14
  • 1
    It's worth noting that the QN net codes are defined by the ARRL. I don't think they are used outside of the USA. – user Jan 08 '16 at 12:17
  • 2
    This doesn't address the question, which is about what _official_ definitions exist. (The answer might well be “There aren't really official definitions, except for specific situations like [ARRL defines QN codes, ...]”, but if so you should say that.) – Kevin Reid AG6YO Jan 08 '16 at 15:52
  • 1
    In my opinion, for an active ham radio operator (and, this is what this forum is about), the full list is of no practical use. The list I gave are those that are commonly used. I have been operating and using Q codes longer than many of the readers here have been alive and I have a pretty good handle on what is commonly used. As far as official lists, yes there is no official list. I think every list you google is different from each other (unless someone copied some other list). The closest to official for ham radio is the ARRL lists. – K7PEH Jan 08 '16 at 16:36
  • I did not include links to the lists for the single reason that they are so easy to find I could probably ask my 8 year old grandson to find them on the Internet and he easily could! – K7PEH Jan 08 '16 at 16:37
  • @MichaelKjörling -- Your comment about QN net codes defined by the ARRL and USA specific is true. This is because all the traffic nets in the USA are part of NTS which is organized by ARRL. However, in our CW traffic nets, we have QNIs (check-ins) from stations in Canada regularly (every single day in fact) and they too use and abide by the QN codes used by the net. I am reminded that Canada is a foreign country frequently since the border is only two hours from my QTH and driving across the border does require a passport (it didn't used to though a number of years ago). – K7PEH Jan 08 '16 at 17:10
  • 1
    -1 for not answering the question. While I do certainly agree that an amateur radio operator can work using only the "commonly used" codes that go down from one generation to another, not actually knowing the real source of information can lead to dangerous spreading of myths and legends. – AndrejaKo Jan 08 '16 at 23:15
  • OK on the -1 but I think you have a very poor understanding of ham radio. "Myths and legends" -- LOL and rolling on the floor best describes my response. If someone can find and join this SE forum, they are certainly capable of research this VERY EASY question about Q-codes before ever asking anything here. – K7PEH Jan 09 '16 at 00:48
  • @K7PEH Well then, why don't you provide results instead of using personal attacks? I too did search for reference document about amateur Q-codes and was unable to find it. I'm glad you had fun with the "myths and legends" part! :) On a serious note, did you research how the ARRL's "468" formula for antenna length came to be? Next, what about the obsession with perfect SWR? – AndrejaKo Jan 09 '16 at 18:26
  • Next, from procedural point of view, I remember a great example during the last year's Nepal earthquake. I remember I was listening to European and Middle East stations that were trying to relay information towards west. Someone from Europe (Italy, I think) was continuously interfering with the frequency used by the Nepal station. One of the OMs working for the relief effort wanted to send a CW message to the interferer to stop transmitting. He didn't know the prosign, so he kept sending SOS instead, to much embarrassment. Even if he did know of `QRT SOS` would the other station recognize it? – AndrejaKo Jan 09 '16 at 18:31
  • 1
    Therefore, I believe that it is fully justified to search for actual documentation instead of just "going with the flow". – AndrejaKo Jan 09 '16 at 18:33