Can you use "Roger" in addition to reading back ATC transmission?

MAKG1 said:
Not quite enough.

"Hold short at 31" requires you to NOT do something, and you really do need to read that back.
Click to expand...

Holding is doing something by my way of thinking.

I was thinking that it didn't apply to altimeter readbacks, but even then you're adjusting the altimeter.

I wouldn't put too fine a point on it - it's a pretty solid rule of thumb.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not quite enough.

"Hold short at 31" requires you to NOT do something, and you really do need to read that back.
Click to expand...

petrolero said:
Holding is doing something by my way of thinking.

I was thinking that it didn't apply to altimeter readbacks, but even then you're adjusting the altimeter.

I wouldn't put too fine a point on it - it's a pretty solid rule of thumb.
Click to expand...

Holding and altimeter setting are covered since you need to DO something. Stopping before a runway is doing something.

It's probably not a perfect rule, I'm sure, but it works pretty damn well for getting people to understand what they should and shouldn't read back.
 
Seems like a completely normal and commonplace word to me. It's not necessary, but it's fine to use, and does have a meaning that's been well established.

"With you" is silly as heck to me, but it's acceptable also. News flash! We don't all talk the same, but as long as we get the point across without taking too much time to do it, it's all good in the hood.
 
I think it's taken on a non-technical meaning as well.

On a slow night, I've had a controller just chat to pass the time, saying something like, "I've got family near Copperhill. That's beautiful country!"

To which I might reply, "Roger that!"

Appropriate usage? Who cares - it gets a message of confirmation across.

BTW, before I was a pilot I was interested in aviation, and in a movie when they said, "Roger. Wilco. Over and Out", I understood that to mean...

I understand.

I will comply.

End of transmission.

End of exchange.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think it's taken on a non-technical meaning as well.



On a slow night, I've had a controller just chat to pass the time, saying something like, "I've got family near Copperhill. That's beautiful country!"



To which I might reply, "Roger that!"



Appropriate usage? Who cares - it gets a message of confirmation across.



BTW, before I was a pilot I was interested in aviation, and in a movie when they said, "Roger. Wilco. Over and Out", I understood that to mean...



I understand.



I will comply.



End of transmission.



End of exchange.
Click to expand...


I remember that too. What movie was that from?
 
FastEddieB said:
BTW, before I was a pilot I was interested in aviation, and in a movie when they said, "Roger. Wilco. Over and Out", I understood that to mean...

I understand. I will comply. End of transmission. End of exchange.
Click to expand...
Yet, what it really means is,

"I have received all of your last transmission. I have received your message, understand it, and will comply with it. My transmission is ended; I expect a response. The conversation is ended and no response is expected."

But, I guess the director thought it sounded good in the movie...

If you really wanted to say all those things you'd need only, "Wilco. Out."
 
jesse said:
There is probably more. To keep things simple I tell students to read back any instruction a controller gives you that results in you having to do something to comply with the instruction.
Click to expand...
How about results in you having to make the aircraft do something different than it is doing now to comply with the instruction?

That excludes the need to read back an altimeter setting (you doing somehting but not the aircraft) but definitely includes heading, altitude, takeoff and landing and hold-short clearances.

I tend to follow a "read back what is important" philosophy but I can definitely see the value of a more objective standard.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That excludes the need to read back an altimeter setting (you doing somehting but not the aircraft) but definitely includes heading, altitude, takeoff and landing and hold-short clearances.
Click to expand...
Well, what you set the altimeter to has a possible effect on aircraft separation so I read those back too, personally, and it seems most pilots do as well. Basically, anything "important" where getting it wrong might result in a "deal", I read back. Everything that you mentioned I read back, as well as the next frequency when being handed off, and of course all IFR clearances. I don't read back "frequency change approved", "cancel IFR with me or on the ground ASAP", "expect lower in 10 miles", wind checks, traffic positions, etc.
I tend to follow a "read back what is important" philosophy but I can definitely see the value of a more objective standard.
Click to expand...
That about sums it up for me too.
 
N918KT said:
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I think it is natural for a pilot or an aviation guy to use "roger" or "roger that" in ATC transmission, even though a pilot should read back all ATC instructions.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever used 'roger' while flying, lo these 15 years. Why? Because I wasn't in the military when it was SOP. Altho I enjoy aviation movies of all kinds, (and quality) the phrases have never entered my day to day vocabulary. So for this pilot, it aint natural. Come to think of it, I rarely hear it at Centennial KAPA. When I do, it's obvious it's not a new student or one of the jets.
 
Without use of "Over" or "Out", how can you use "Roger?" "Roger" means you've heard and understood all of the previous transmission, but if nothing indicates the transmission is ended except silence, how do you know you heard all of what was transmitted? You can assume so because what you heard seems complete, but we all know what can sometimes happen if we assume.
 
I said "roger" yesterday after the controller told us, "Expect light to moderate turbulence in the descent." As soon as it was out of my mouth I remembered this thread. :goofy:
 
jesse said:
Only time I ever say "Roger" is if I'm doing it to acknowledge I received and understood their transmission. Has no use if you received a transmission that requires you read it back.

"Experimental 8ML, be advised, your left wing just departed the airplane."
"Roger, 8ML"
Click to expand...


Best post of the thread....:yes:...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
MtPJimB said:
Without use of "Over" or "Out", how can you use "Roger?" "Roger" means you've heard and understood all of the previous transmission, but if nothing indicates the transmission is ended except silence, how do you know you heard all of what was transmitted? You can assume so because what you heard seems complete, but we all know what can sometimes happen if we assume.
Click to expand...

On a required readback, the completion of your readback is an implied roger/over/out. If a readback isn't required, over/out is a moot point but a roger still might be appropriate depending on the situation, as it may be informative to the controller (or pilot) that a transmission has been acknowledged.
 
Sac Arrow said:
On a required readback, the completion of your readback is an implied roger/over/out. If a readback isn't required, over/out is a moot point but a roger still might be appropriate depending on the situation, as it may be informative to the controller (or pilot) that a transmission has been acknowledged.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is conventional in aviation to replace "roger" with at least an abbreviated form of your tail number. That way, ATC (or your lead or whatever) knows not only that a message was received, but that it was received by the correct person. Having another aircraft execute your instruction is not a happy place. Ever had the airplane behind you on downwind turn base when you were told to? BTDT.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, but it is conventional in aviation to replace "roger" with at least an abbreviated form of your tail number. That way, ATC (or your lead or whatever) knows not only that a message was received, but that it was received by the correct person. Having another aircraft execute your instruction is not a happy place. Ever had the airplane behind you on downwind turn base when you were told to? BTDT.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, my only point was that in a non-required readback, you could use "Roger" without ambiguity. I would personally use my abbreviated call sign, but I have been guilty of throwing in an "3SA Roger" before out of habit.
 
At my home field (Palo Alto, CA), people have gotten into the habit of reading back every single word that the controller says. It's very different from what I was taught, and seems like it could distract the pilot from more important duties, as well as contributing to frequency congestion. I try to confine my readbacks to those recommended in the sources that Jesse quoted, plus any items where I'm not 100% certain I heard the controller correctly.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, but it is conventional in aviation to replace "roger" with at least an abbreviated form of your tail number. That way, ATC (or your lead or whatever) knows not only that a message was received, but that it was received by the correct person. Having another aircraft execute your instruction is not a happy place. Ever had the airplane behind you on downwind turn base when you were told to? BTDT.
Click to expand...

FCC requirement.

Bob Gardner
 
Reference for the "two clicks" and "tail number" questions:

"87.107 Station identification.
(a) Aircraft station. Identify by one of the following means:
(1) Aircraft radio station call sign.
(2) The type of aircraft followed by the characters of the registration marking ("N" number) of the aircraft, omitting the prefix letter "N." When communication is initiated by a ground station, an aircraft station may use the type of aircraft followed by the last three characters of the registration marking. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an aircraft being moved by maintenance personnel from one location in an airport to another location in that airport may be identified by a station identification consisting of the name of the company owning or operating the aircraft, followed by the word "Maintenance" and additional alphanumeric characters of the licensee's choosing.
(3) The FAA assigned radiotelephony designator of the aircraft operating organization followed by the flight identification number."

Bob Gardner
 
Years ago flying around the Montgomery AL area, I heard a student pilot on the freq who kept acknowledging ATC with tallyho instead of roger. Finally approach corrected the kid. I thought, how in the heck can you get the meaning of tallyho confused with roger?
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, but it is conventional in aviation to replace "roger" with at least an abbreviated form of your tail number. That way, ATC (or your lead or whatever) knows not only that a message was received, but that it was received by the correct person. Having another aircraft execute your instruction is not a happy place. Ever had the airplane behind you on downwind turn base when you were told to? BTDT.
Click to expand...

If you say your tail number only, without the roger, ATC can't be sure they received your entire transmission. It is almost never a problem but it can be ambiguous. For all they know you said "unable" with your tail number but it got clipped, as commonly happens at the front of a transmission. That's why I think it's not a bad practice to include the word "roger" with your tail number.

That may not be the best example as "unable" is used to reply to an instruction - and if it's an instruction you shouldn't be using "roger" anyway. But to my thinking, the "roger" signifies that my transmission is complete and the info was understood.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
If you say your tail number only, without the roger, ATC can't be sure they received your entire transmission. It is almost never a problem but it can be ambiguous. For all they know you said "unable" with your tail number but it got clipped, as commonly happens at the front of a transmission. That's why I think it's not a bad practice to include the word "roger" with your tail number.

That may not be the best example as "unable" is used to reply to an instruction - and if it's an instruction you shouldn't be using "roger" anyway. But to my thinking, the "roger" signifies that my transmission is complete and the info was understood.
Click to expand...

I think I understand your argument but I would say "Unable, 3SA" vs. "3SA is unable to comply." I use my tail number at the end of my transmission for a few reasons.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I think I understand your argument but I would say "Unable, 3SA" vs. "3SA is unable to comply." I use my tail number at the end of my transmission for a few reasons.
Click to expand...

Agree - the tail number should always be in there.
 
I generally read things back rather than not even when not required, but it depends on the level of radio traffic. If things are busy I try not to take more time on the air than necessary and will sometimes use "roger" in that situation, when I want to convey "got it" concisely. I'll also sometimes use "wilco," for "got it, and will do."
 
schmookeeg said:
...really, is there anything stupider than "Tally Ho" in response to a traffic call?
Click to expand...
Yes.
"I've got them on the fish finder..."

"Tally-Ho" is just a bleed over from military brevity words. "Tally" (the correct usage) is the military brevity word for "I have the target/bandit/traffic." I think lots of former military who were taught to use brevity words in their communications had that carry over with them, and think it's widely understood. They use it in the MOA, when talking to military controlling agencies, and back at their base... they think it's common aviation language.

There's a lot of them out there... "No Joy," "Popeye," etc.
 
Really OLD pilots use Roger or Tallyho, no Joy and other crap.

Just avoid that stuff and you sound much smarter and younger :D
 
We young-ish fellas can use it too, and I don't give a hoot if any of you turds think it sounds dumb ;)
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
If you say your tail number only, without the roger, ATC can't be sure they received your entire transmission.
Click to expand...

Second time I've seen this theory advanced. Is any radio call immune from the "cutoff" problem?

"Approach, I'm on fire and will need an undertaker sent to my crater at heading 210, 2nm... please advise next of kin that my leprechaun gold is buried under LIMBO intersection... 8DJ"

no different than "Roger... 8DJ"

which is no different than "8DJ"

Controller has no guarantee, ever, that he/she received the whole message. Any one of those could have been clipped until the very end.
 
schmookeeg said:
Second time I've seen this theory advanced. Is any radio call immune from the "cutoff" problem?

"Approach, I'm on fire and will need an undertaker sent to my crater at heading 210, 2nm... please advise next of kin that my leprechaun gold is buried under LIMBO intersection... 8DJ"

no different than "Roger... 8DJ"

which is no different than "8DJ"

Controller has no guarantee, ever, that he/she received the whole message. Any one of those could have been clipped until the very end.
Click to expand...


:rofl::rofl::lol::lol::lol:
 
I'm absolutely blown away by this. Such a simple radio technique is thoroughly analyzed and taken to the mill. Not sure if I should be impressed or befuddled.
 
Kritchlow said:
I'm absolutely blown away by this. Such a simple radio technique is thoroughly analyzed and taken to the mill. Not sure if I should be impressed or befuddled.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Internet! :rofl:
 
Everskyward said:
I said "roger" yesterday after the controller told us, "Expect light to moderate turbulence in the descent." As soon as it was out of my mouth I remembered this thread. :goofy:
Click to expand...


I prefer to keep my acknowledgement simple and just say "Veni, Vidi, Vici."
 
schmookeeg said:
Second time I've seen this theory advanced. Is any radio call immune from the "cutoff" problem?

"Approach, I'm on fire and will need an undertaker sent to my crater at heading 210, 2nm... please advise next of kin that my leprechaun gold is buried under LIMBO intersection... 8DJ"

no different than "Roger... 8DJ"

which is no different than "8DJ"

Controller has no guarantee, ever, that he/she received the whole message. Any one of those could have been clipped until the very end.
Click to expand...

This is true, of course, but the example doesn't really demonstrate the rationale for "roger".

In your first example it would take a pretty massive 'cutoff' to truncate that entire transmission to the point where the controller wouldn't know it existed. Highly unlikely. And if only part of it were cutoff, the controller would know whether s/he had received enough to understand or if s/he needs to xmit "say again"

The shorter the transmission, the more likely something could be truncated and missed - or buried in noise. The controller hears "noise... 8DJ... noise". Was there more to that transmission? Dunno. Gotta ask.

Again, it isn't a big deal and isn't common, but that is the rationale for saying "roger" in addition to the tail number.

In my airplane I have a dodgy left-side PTT. If I press it too hard it begins to cut out and things can get clipped. I have hardly ever experienced poor comms as described above when IFR, seldom when VFR except when very low, and frequently on the Civil Air Patrol's VHF-FM system.

One isn't required to use roger but neither is it superfluous verbiage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top