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

N918KT

N918KT

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
720
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Display Name
Display name:
KT
Just another day working at the airport, I was transporting one of the pilots in the airport ops van to the tiedown area in the middle of the airfield requiring crossing the main runway. When ATC instructed me to cross the runway I responded with "Roger that" and read back the entire transmission. The pilot pointed out that I cannot use the word "Roger", even if I read back the entire transmission to ATC, since it does not have any meaning. I can only read back the transmission without using that term. Funny thing is I think I notice other pilots and possibly even ATC using the term "Roger" a few times.

But let me ask you guys. It is okay to use "Roger" as long as you read back the entire transmission to ATC?
 
Roger is an acknowledgement that you heard the call, nothing more. It doesn't say that you will comply. Required read backs such as hold short and cross instructions must be read back. Adding "roger" to those would be superfluous. But yes, it is ok, but kinda pointless.
 
Roger means "I received and understood your last transmission". If you read back the entire transmission than "Roger" is redundant.
 
Here is what the pilot/controller glossary says:

ROGER- I have received all of your last transmission. It should not be used to answer a question requiring a yes or a no answer.
(See AFFIRMATIVE.)
(See NEGATIVE.)
Click to expand...

I think the term is generally meant to stand alone. Since runway crossing clearances are required to be read back in full, prefacing the read-back with "roger" is not useful.

I think it'd be most useful when the controller has given you information for which a read-back is not required but you wish to acknowledge his/her transmission. An altimeter reading, perhaps. I have a tendency to want to use it to mean "yes", which is probably a remnant from my non-flying days, so I generally avoid it.
 
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.
 
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...

Probably normal. I think it stems from our exposure to vernacular use of the term, and probably for some of us, our youthful walkie talkie days. The latter is part of the reason I have trouble understanding apprehension on the radio. I have a hell of a good time re-living my youth and pretending I'm talking to my buddies on the walkie talkie.
 
I use Roger all the time to acknowledge an ATC call that does not necessarily require a full read back:

ATC "Sklyane XYX, caution wake turbulence"..."Roger, XYZ"

As mentioned..."Roger" should not be used in conjunction with a read back.

As well I use "Wilco" for "will comply" with an instruction that also does not necessitate a full read back:

ATC "Slylane XYX, report field in sight"..."Wilco, XYZ"
 
Last edited:
On those few occassions when a simple "Roger" would suffice just a quick 2 clicks of the PTT will do as well :D
 
N918KT said:
even though a pilot should read back all ATC instructions.
Click to expand...

A pilot should *not* read back all ATC instructions. That's a waste of airwaves. Only read back those that are required to be read back, or where there is ambiguity.
 
There are other operational radio conventions than aviation. Roger is used when passing information, such as a target location, for instance. A read back is usually better, but not always required. Trying to manage a dozen teams over one frequency doesn't allow for much reading back.
 
asechrest said:
Probably normal. I think it stems from our exposure to vernacular use of the term, and probably for some of us, our youthful walkie talkie days. The latter is part of the reason I have trouble understanding apprehension on the radio. I have a hell of a good time re-living my youth and pretending I'm talking to my buddies on the walkie talkie.
Click to expand...

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"
 
N918KT said:
....... The pilot pointed out that I cannot use the word "Roger", even if I read back the entire transmission to ATC, since it does not have any meaning.
Click to expand...

We as pilots do not have to go by a script like ATC does. There are no real regulations telling us what we can and cannot say, so technically the pilot was wrong, you CAN use the word roger whenever you like. He was also wrong in that it does have a meaning.

That said, in the situation described the word has no purpose and simply adds more time on the mic. I know for a fact that using it in place of "yes" or "affirmative" drives a lot of controllers crazy though, as that is not what roger means. You CAN use the word, but that doesn't always mean you should.
 
I can't think of a single use case for "Roger", other than identifying clowns on the air or those amusing Snidelies that want to sound like they are in the royal air force. (really, is there anything stupider than "Tally Ho" in response to a traffic call?)


If my choices are:

"Roger, 8DJ"

or simply

"8DJ"

...don't they both convey that I heard something? If I didn't understand it, I'd have prefaced with "Say Again".

Two wasted syllables IMO.
 
I hate tallyho with a passion. I dont know why, but it grates at me whenever I hear it.
 
Can't help it but this whole thread reminds me of the crazy dude that landed a piper on the beach near a huge airport in NYC.
 
N918KT said:
Just another day working at the airport, I was transporting one of the pilots in the airport ops van to the tiedown area in the middle of the airfield requiring crossing the main runway. When ATC instructed me to cross the runway I responded with "Roger that" and read back the entire transmission. The pilot pointed out that I cannot use the word "Roger", even if I read back the entire transmission to ATC, since it does not have any meaning. I can only read back the transmission without using that term. Funny thing is I think I notice other pilots and possibly even ATC using the term "Roger" a few times.

But let me ask you guys. It is okay to use "Roger" as long as you read back the entire transmission to ATC?
Click to expand...

Use of "roger" in that manner is not prohibited, it just serves no purpose.

IME, "roger" is most often used incorrectly. Used properly, it means only that the last message has been received. Many use it where "affirmative" or "wilco" would be the proper response. Use of "affirmative" is common, use of "wilco" is very rare.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:


AFFIRMATIVE− Yes.

ROGER− I have received all of your last transmission. It should not be used to answer a question requiring a yes or a no answer.
(See AFFIRMATIVE.)
(See NEGATIVE.)

WILCO− I have received your message, understand it, and will comply with it.
 
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...

No. Not even close. I have never used the term "roger" or "roger that." I let the wannabes use those terms. Unless of course I have a work order to "roger her roundly" until 8am.
 
Last edited:
MassPilot said:
Roger means "I received and understood your last transmission". If you read back the entire transmission than "Roger" is redundant.
Click to expand...
:yes:

I suspect for some pilots who say Roger and do a readback, it's just another "with you" type phrase. I think it's called a "filler" in linguistics. A little better than "uhh," "umm," "you know" or "okay," and with pretty much the same meaning.
 
I don't see why not.

Our controller lady sez.....Roger, Ragaaaah...Rrragaaaah. :rolleyes2: :rolleyes: :rolleyes2:

:heli::wonderwoman::heli::heli:
 
Last edited:
Aviation communication is an abbreviated form of military radio communication, and Roger is a carryover from that. Note that "Over" and "Out" are not used in aviation but are protocol for military ground communication.
 
I say "Roger" when he is working in the tower.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
On those few occassions when a simple "Roger" would suffice just a quick 2 clicks of the PTT will do as well :D
Click to expand...

Thumbs down on that one, John. Violates FCC regulation that all transmissions include station identification (I know that it is a common practice, but that does not make it legitimate.)

Bob Gardner
 
pericynthion said:
A pilot should *not* read back all ATC instructions. That's a waste of airwaves. Only read back those that are required to be read back, or where there is ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Another example of CFI overkill. Many instructors tell their students that readbacks are required.

Bob Gardner
 
Sac Arrow said:
Aviation communication is an abbreviated form of military radio communication, and Roger is a carryover from that. Note that "Over" and "Out" are not used in aviation but are protocol for military ground communication.
Click to expand...

From the current Pilot/Controller Glossary:

OVER− My transmission is ended; I expect a response.

OUT− The conversation is ended and no response is expected.
 
roncachamp said:
From the current Pilot/Controller Glossary:

OVER− My transmission is ended; I expect a response.

OUT− The conversation is ended and no response is expected.
Click to expand...

Ah. Nobody uses it though.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Ah. Nobody uses it though.
Click to expand...
"Over" is used in situations where communication is not clear such as when using HF in oceanic operations. With HF it is not always obvious when transmission has ended as you can't hear the end of the carrier as you can with VHF and automatic squelch.
 
schmookeeg said:
I can't think of a single use case for "Roger", other than identifying clowns on the air or those amusing Snidelies that want to sound like they are in the royal air force. (really, is there anything stupider than "Tally Ho" in response to a traffic call?)


If my choices are:

"Roger, 8DJ"

or simply

"8DJ"

...don't they both convey that I heard something? If I didn't understand it, I'd have prefaced with "Say Again".

Two wasted syllables IMO.
Click to expand...

Using just your call sign to acknowledge a radio call can be ambiguous. You might have been trying to say something that was cut out and all that's heard is your call sign. Roger, 8DJ is more precise. Now having said that, I sometimes acknowledge with just my call sign also.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Ah. Nobody uses it though.
Click to expand...

Sort of. I've never heard it used in aviation. It's used extensively in ground/sea comms, as was mentioned earlier.

This thread brings up an interesting question that I've had trouble finding a good answer to: Could anyone point me to the source document that describes specifically which ATC calls require full read back?
 
Armo325 said:
Sort of. I've never heard it used in aviation. It's used extensively in ground/sea comms, as was mentioned earlier.

This thread brings up an interesting question that I've had trouble finding a good answer to: Could anyone point me to the source document that describes specifically which ATC calls require full read back?
Click to expand...

I've never heard it used with ATC, but it is used all the time in other air/ground and air/air comms. CAP often uses the same channels for ground and air communications. The biggest problem we have is pilots treating Base like ATC on the radio (and I've been real guilty of that myself).
 
N918KT said:
Just another day working at the airport, I was transporting one of the pilots in the airport ops van to the tiedown area in the middle of the airfield requiring crossing the main runway. When ATC instructed me to cross the runway I responded with "Roger that" and read back the entire transmission. The pilot pointed out that I cannot use the word "Roger", even if I read back the entire transmission to ATC, since it does not have any meaning. I can only read back the transmission without using that term. Funny thing is I think I notice other pilots and possibly even ATC using the term "Roger" a few times.



But let me ask you guys. It is okay to use "Roger" as long as you read back the entire transmission to ATC?
Click to expand...


Was the pilot wearing dork bars by chance?
 
Armo325 said:
Sort of. I've never heard it used in aviation. It's used extensively in ground/sea comms, as was mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
Railroads use it.

Armo325 said:
This thread brings up an interesting question that I've had trouble finding a good answer to: Could anyone point me to the source document that describes specifically which ATC calls require full read back?
Click to expand...

AIM 4-3-18 9
9. When taxi instructions are received from the controller, pilots should always read back:

(a) The runway assignment.

(b) Any clearance to enter a specific runway.

(c) Any instruction to hold short of a specific runway or line up and wait.
Click to expand...

AIM 4-4-7 (b)
b. ATC Clearance/Instruction Readback.
Pilots of airborne aircraft should read back those parts of ATC clearances and instructions containing altitude assignments, vectors, or runway assignments as a means of mutual verification. The read back of the “numbers" serves as a double check between pilots and controllers and reduces the kinds of communications errors that occur when a number is either “misheard" or is incorrect.

1. Include the aircraft identification in all readbacks and acknowledgments. This aids controllers in determining that the correct aircraft received the clearance or instruction. The requirement to include aircraft identification in all readbacks and acknowledgements becomes more important as frequency congestion increases and when aircraft with similar call signs are on the same frequency.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
The OP states that you "cannot" use roger with a readback. I would say that roger is redundant in that situation but to say you "cannot" use roger carries too many legal implications. While it may be considered a misuse of the term, you certainly "can" misuse it. Pilots misuse roger probably more than any other term.

Saying "roger" along with a readback is super minor and I hear that all the time. That one ranks right up there with pilots' starting every transmission with "and".

But the converse - using "roger" instead of a required readback - is a bigger sin because it forces the controller to xmit again in order to prompt the pilot to read back an instruction. That will annoy many controllers.

The one that I almost never hear anymore is the old "roger wilco". Pilots like to laugh about that one but it's pretty uncommon these days. Heck even "wilco" alone is finding less usage because so many things require readback anymore. But properly used, "wilco" comes in handy.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
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...

I like that rule.
 
Two clicks is a thousand million times worse than 'roger', 'with you', 'any traffic', or any other word contained the Oxford English Dictionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top