Why do we say certain things *three times*, e.g., “Mayday. Mayday. Mayday”?
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
|
show 9 more comments
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
12
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
3
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
13
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
2
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
11
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
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
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
edited 7 hours ago
Mark Jones Jr.
asked yesterday
Mark Jones Jr.Mark Jones Jr.
785419
785419
12
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
3
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
13
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
2
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
11
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
12
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
3
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
13
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
2
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
11
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago
12
12
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
3
3
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
13
13
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
2
2
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
11
11
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This insures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) 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.
New contributor
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
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!”
New contributor
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
add a comment |
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
New contributor
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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 Herman 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 addition info on Mayday and Pan Pan.
New contributor
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
SOS - Although not repeated three times, it is written in three words.
New contributor
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's...---...
, not... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example,VGI
) could be used instead.
– a CVn
30 mins ago
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ 47 mins ago
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 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This insures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) 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.
New contributor
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This insures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) 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.
New contributor
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This insures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) 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.
New contributor
Yep, the critical commands are repeated 3 times. This insures there is ABSOLUTELY zero doubt in anyone's mind (especially on a big crew airplane) 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.
New contributor
edited 7 hours ago
Mark Jones Jr.
785419
785419
New contributor
answered yesterday
ScottyScotty
24113
24113
New contributor
New contributor
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
2
2
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
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".
– AirCraft Lover
yesterday
2
2
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
@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.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
7
7
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
@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.
– AndrejaKo
yesterday
3
3
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
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.
– JdeBP
20 hours ago
2
2
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
I agree with @JdeBP -- since the dawn of radio telephony (or telegraph), is there historical evidence for why it is repeated exactly three times.
– Mark Jones Jr.
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
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!”
New contributor
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
add a comment |
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!”
New contributor
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
add a comment |
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!”
New contributor
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!”
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Paul WillettPaul Willett
491
491
New contributor
New contributor
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
add a comment |
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
2
2
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.
– Nij
yesterday
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.
– Nij
yesterday
add a comment |
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
New contributor
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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
New contributor
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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
New contributor
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
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
ian daniellsian daniells
112
112
New contributor
New contributor
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
3
3
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
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.
– Tanner Swett
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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 Herman 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 addition info on Mayday and Pan Pan.
New contributor
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
add a comment |
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 Herman 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 addition info on Mayday and Pan Pan.
New contributor
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
add a comment |
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 Herman 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 addition info on Mayday and Pan Pan.
New contributor
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 Herman 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 addition info on Mayday and Pan Pan.
New contributor
edited 41 mins ago
Juan Jimenez
2,817423
2,817423
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
Clint KearnsClint Kearns
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
add a comment |
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
– bogl
1 hour ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
I have edited Clint's answer to provide the other information that makes it a more complete answer.
– Juan Jimenez
40 mins ago
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 57 mins ago
djsmiley2kdjsmiley2k
1013
1013
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
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
New contributor
New contributor
answered 14 hours ago
user1323995user1323995
99
99
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
SOS - Although not repeated three times, it is written in three words.
New contributor
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's...---...
, not... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example,VGI
) could be used instead.
– a CVn
30 mins ago
add a comment |
SOS - Although not repeated three times, it is written in three words.
New contributor
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's...---...
, not... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example,VGI
) could be used instead.
– a CVn
30 mins ago
add a comment |
SOS - Although not repeated three times, it is written in three words.
New contributor
SOS - Although not repeated three times, it is written in three words.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 47 mins ago
mehmeh
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's...---...
, not... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example,VGI
) could be used instead.
– a CVn
30 mins ago
add a comment |
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's...---...
, not... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example,VGI
) could be used instead.
– a CVn
30 mins ago
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's
...---...
, not ... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example, VGI
) could be used instead.– a CVn
30 mins ago
SOS isn't used on radiotelephony. Should “mayday” be preferred over “SOS” in an emergency? Also, even on telegraphy, SOS is sent as a prosign, not as three distinct letters. It's
...---...
, not ... --- ...
. Writing it as SOS is simply a mnenomic; any other set of letters that comes out to the same sound (for example, VGI
) could be used instead.– a CVn
30 mins ago
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ 47 mins ago
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?
12
That literally means the exact same thing.
– Ryan Mortensen
yesterday
3
For the same reason as Beetlejuice.
– Harper
yesterday
13
@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.
– Tanner Swett
21 hours ago
2
Somewhat related
– Mast
20 hours ago
11
Five is right out.
– Henning Makholm
13 hours ago