Roger, Wilco Over and Out...

paflyer said:
69312492.jpg
Click to expand...
Does anybody know? Was he color blind?
 
Briar Rabbit said:
Prior to radios having discrete receive frequencies they had tunable reception by turning a crank on the front of the radios, these were called Coffey grinders. The last ones built had an internal whistle generated to match the transmit frequency the radio was set on and you would pull a knob to start the internal whistle and then turn the crank to find and maximize the tone. These were called "whistle stop" models such as Narco vht 3's. Prior to the 3's you had to ask the tower for a radio count and tower operator would count up to 10 so that the pilot could tune in his radio to his frequency. My first radio was a Narco vht 2 and had 11 or 12 transmit frequencies, one step better than a megaphone - maybe? Kudos to Timbeck2 for knowing the answer!
Click to expand...
Did Orville Wright sign your certificate?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes and no. Over is still very much in use in maritime and other military radio communications, partly for that reason, but also to let the person on the receiving end know that you are done with your transmission and are now essentially passing the mic to them to respond. But we tend to be a lot more verbose in the maritime world.
Click to expand...

Yep... I don't think I've heard "over" or "out" since leaving the active duty Navy. I learned early on in my shipboard life that when communicating with aviators (in the act of flying), don't expect them to respond with the communications formalities we learned in school. "Over"... or "out" were typically replaced with two mic clicks. It was explained to us wet-noses in terms something like: Uh... kid... he's kinda busy up there.
 
CAP still uses over and out on internal comms. Over means I'm done talking and waiting for you, out means I'm not responding again unless you require me to. But neither one is relevant to aviation band frequencies.

Roger, Roger.
 
bflynn said:
CAP still uses over and out on internal comms. Over means I'm done talking and waiting for you, out means I'm not responding again unless you require me to. But neither one is relevant to aviation band frequencies.

Roger, Roger.
Click to expand...

Probably better use both on aviation HF... just sayin'. :)
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Roger can also mean "affirmative". "34865, are you going to the FBO?" "Roger, 34865 going to the FBO."
Click to expand...
Nope. Think about plain English.

Roger = ok
Affirmative = yes

No substitue ok and yes for roger and affirmative in your example and see if it still makes sense.
 
I rather like "Wilco", but I rarely hear anyone else use it.
 
A lot of the military guys I fly with seem to like "copy".
 
Cessna 12345, how do you copy..??

I copy with a Xerox machine, and you..??

(sorry, had to say it...)
 
I think one time Roger is appropriate is acknowledging an altimeter setting after a handoff. "N12345, Poburg Approach, Poburg altimeter 2999" "N12345 Roger". There's no requirement to readback the setting, you're not complying with a direction, but the controller wants to know you heard her.


starglider said:
I always thought roger was pointless but that wilco serves a purpose. "N12345 advise tower you're IFR" / "Wilco, N12345". It's pretty pointless to read that kind of instruction back, but it's worth letting ATC know that I'll do what they want me to.

I don't get why a pilot would reply with Roger, though---just say your tail. "N1235 moderate precipitation observed over your route of flight for next 30 miles" / "N12345". ATC says roger a lot, of course. Pretty much every check in above 17,500 is met just with "roger."
Click to expand...
 
FlatPiglet said:
I think one time Roger is appropriate is acknowledging an altimeter setting after a handoff. "N12345, Poburg Approach, Poburg altimeter 2999" "N12345 Roger".
Click to expand...
How is that any better than a simple, "N12345"? Either is compliant phraseology. I just don't see that adding "Roger" adds anything to the exchange.

ATC needs it because they can't just say their call-sign to acknowledge as that wouldn't make it clear as to whom they are acknowledging. They have to include the aircraft's callsign for that so it becomes, "N12345 Roger".
 
jordane93 said:
Nope. Think about plain English.

Roger = ok
Affirmative = yes

No substitue ok and yes for roger and affirmative in your example and see if it still makes sense.
Click to expand...

This just doesn't seem that important to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Can you think of a dangerous miscommunication that flows from the listener understanding that Roger mean "ok" even if the speaker is using Roger to mean "yes"?

If not, what's wrong with Roger meaning "ok" or "yes," depending on context?
 
register@teamandras.com said:
This just doesn't seem that important to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Can you think of a dangerous miscommunication that flows from the listener understanding that Roger mean "ok" even if the speaker is using Roger to mean "yes"?

If not, what's wrong with Roger meaning "ok" or "yes," depending on context?
Click to expand...


I have to assume a lot of the standard phraseology we use was borne from military aviation comms practices where that particular distinction does have relevance.

For instance:

"Request clearance to engage"
"Roger"

Is that, roger engage, or roger I have your request?

Working off the assumption that the military phraseology formed the foundation of civilian protocol, it would make sense that we're left with little idiosyncrasies like that as a lot of the "tactical" distinctions outgrew their relevance.
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
This just doesn't seem that important to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Can you think of a dangerous miscommunication that flows from the listener understanding that Roger mean "ok" even if the speaker is using Roger to mean "yes"?

If not, what's wrong with Roger meaning "ok" or "yes," depending on context?
Click to expand...
If it meant the same thing I'm sure the FAA wouldn't have two words for it. I agree it's not really dangerous if you mix up the words and I'm sure the controller will know what you mean.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
This just doesn't seem that important to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Can you think of a dangerous miscommunication that flows from the listener understanding that Roger mean "ok" even if the speaker is using Roger to mean "yes"?

If not, what's wrong with Roger meaning "ok" or "yes," depending on context?
Click to expand...
Can't think of a dangerous communication, but it makes you look like the people who use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively ". ;)

Words mean something, and I've seen enough misuses of words that ARE dangerous that I don't think changing a word's meaning arbitrarily is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
SWOdaile said:
Yep... I don't think I've heard "over" or "out" since leaving the active duty Navy. I learned early on in my shipboard life that when communicating with aviators (in the act of flying), don't expect them to respond with the communications formalities we learned in school. "Over"... or "out" were typically replaced with two mic clicks. It was explained to us wet-noses in terms something like: Uh... kid... he's kinda busy up there.
Click to expand...
You were a SWO? When were you active?
 
Roger and Wilco are not "CB slang" but standard radio phraseology from the early radiotelephone days (military).

Roger is largely superfluous because acknowledging the communication (with your (possibly abbreviated) callsign) indicates you received it.
Wilco also is, because ATC assumes you will comply with the instructions unless you say otherwise. I use wilco occasionally when ATC asks me to do something in the future:

GSO: Navion 27K advise any altitude changes.
27K: 27K Wilco.

The etymology of ROGER is interesting. The telegraphy sign for having received something is just "R" in morse (di-dah-dit). In phone, this morphed into the phonetic alphabet for R which is ROGER. I always wanted to respond to ATC on "talk like a pirate day' when you can legitimately just say "R" (or Arrrrh!).

ZDC: Navion 27K Ident.
27K: Arrrrh! There be yer button matey.
 
I think most here are way too paranoid.
I have done a bit of self research on these things, and well, I made most booboos listed here, and I'm an experienced airline guy... as did everyone else on the frequency.

Lighten up on this stuff. ATC has formal required verbiage, but pilots do use a bit of slang. Im not a fan of "fish finder", or "flash", but some of the others.... you would be more professional just to let it go.

Quite frankly the inexperienced are not identified by their exact lingo, but rather their flow and cadence on the radio.
 
asicer said:
Wait no less than 3/4 second before keying the mic and read back 5% faster than was given? :)
Click to expand...
I'm may be slow here, but not certain I understand your point.
 
"Gotem' on the fishfinder"
"Turning base to final"
"roger, altimeter 31 double nothin"
"with you"
"Tally-ho!"
"atitppa"
"can you repeat that"
etcetcetc

None of it bothers me anymore; I mostly know what they mean and if I don't; I'm ok with it - I doubt it will kill me.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"Gotem' on the fishfinder"
"Turning base to final"
"roger, altimeter 31 double nothin"
"with you"
"Tally-ho!"
"atitppa"
"can you repeat that"
etcetcetc

None of it bothers me anymore; I mostly know what they mean and if I don't; I'm ok with it - I doubt it will kill me.
Click to expand...

Right.... most of those are fine, But in reality if you don't like some of the... so what?? None will hurt you. There are truly bigger problems in aviation.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think most here are way too paranoid.
I have done a bit of self research on these things, and well, I made most booboos listed here, and I'm an experienced airline guy... as did everyone else on the frequency.

Lighten up on this stuff. ATC has formal required verbiage, but pilots do use a bit of slang. Im not a fan of "fish finder", or "flash", but some of the others.... you would be more professional just to let it go.

Quite frankly the inexperienced are not identified by their exact lingo, but rather their flow and cadence on the radio.
Click to expand...

Heard today up at PAE: "no joy" then "tally ho" and finally "target acquired." This all from a C172 or 182 referencing other 172s doing T&Gs. It's like, dude, WWII ended 75 years ago, and your aircraft has neither guns nor missles.
 
asicer said:
How is the cadence and flow of a pro pilot different than an inexperienced one?
Click to expand...
I can tell a pro on the radio instantly. That's nothing against the GA pilot. It's just the way it is. ATC can tell as well.

If you need specific examples, you won't understand it anyway.
 
starglider said:
Heard today up at PAE: "no joy" then "tally ho" and finally "target acquired." This all from a C172 or 182 referencing other 172s doing T&Gs. It's like, dude, WWII ended 75 years ago, and your aircraft has neither guns nor missles.
Click to expand...
Okay.... and??
 
starglider said:
Typically, the complete absence of a cadence and/or a flow is the giveaway. :)
Click to expand...

Heheh. I was going to say it but you got it. That's more accurate than K's statement.

It becomes second nature. It just flows.

Although once in a while when it all falls apart (and nobody's endangered by it), listening to a pro screw up radio comms royally, is well worth the time to listen to the recording. Often good for a laugh.

When I've taught radio procedure in the past for public safety and dispatch, we teach the ideal, then we point out that in low stress and low workload times the ideal will slip away and people will just talk normally, but they'll know it when they need the ideal procedures and communication isn't happening or is hampered in some way. It's at those times that everyone needs a base set of rules and behaviors to fall back on.

Thus, how we have a specific ICAO alphabet (or the police/fire version in public safety) but rarely need it for much, but when we do, we all understand what someone is saying if they tell us to Foxtrot Uniform. :)

My favorite Pro screwup AND a funny way to get it across is Kennedy Steve's standard response to any pilot who says "Ground?" without a callsign...

"Yes, Plane?"

He gets the point across that they forgot something rather important that he needs to know, but he can still work with it and add a little humor so they don't realize he just told them Foxtrot Uniform, subtly. With a smile. LOL.

I've heard public safety dispatchers do the same...

"Dispatch I need an ambulance for a pedestrian hit by a car..."

"Be happy to roll EMS to you if you'll either tell me where you are, or what car is calling, either will work, both would be better!"

There's also a few rules in public safety dispatch most places can't break anymore. Stuff like patient names on air are a no-no, as are a number of "descriptive" words like "drunk" or "high", those must get replaced with codes. Often because saying them around a drunk or high person will make them defensive and combative... "I am NOT!" as they punch a window... or other stupidity.

:)
 
starglider said:
Heard today up at PAE: "no joy" then "tally ho" and finally "target acquired." This all from a C172 or 182 referencing other 172s doing T&Gs. It's like, dude, WWII ended 75 years ago, and your aircraft has neither guns nor missles.
Click to expand...


All of those are actually still standard phraseology for military aircraft, and I had one heck of a time shaking those (and a few others) when I started flying recreationally. It wasn't a matter of trying to sound clever, it was more a function of it being the only way I had been training to communicate over the radio. Tallyho and no joy are used both for target identification and airspace deconfliction for military aircraft. Surprisingly, "traffic in sight" is not a doctrinal phrase for them.

A lot of the phraseology that doesn't translate to flying as a civilian stems from the need to maintain effective Air-Ground-Integration. Many military aviators (I guess im really only speaking for many Army aviators with this post) spend less time negotiating the national airspace, and more time flying in MOAs, designated training areas, or in combat environments under military ATC procedures which can be surprisingly different than what we are used to as civilians (things like killboxes, keyholes, ROZs).

I was surprised how bad our proficiency was at operating in the national airspace when we needed to do it, and it took a deliberate effort when training to modify how I communicate on the radio when I got my PPL.

Edit to reiterate, this is from my perspective as an Army helicopter pilot. I can't speak for the other services or aircraft/mission types.
 
denverpilot said:
Although once in a while when it all falls apart (and nobody's endangered by it), listening to a pro screw up radio comms royally, is well worth the time to listen to the recording. Often good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

So I just recently went back to the right seat after a few year stint in the left, and one of the things I've had to get used to is once again being the guy on the radio while on the ground. One of my gems from the other day happened at ORD: " 'Morning ramp, airliner xxx is....uhhhhh.....heh...I have absolutely no idea what gate we're at. Hold on a minute..." Ramp came back with a chuckle: "Tell you what xxx, all the alleys are clear - go ahead and push and we'll figure it out together!"

I've been doing this a long time, but in that moment I made the classic radio mistake of keying up the mic before being sure I had *all* the pertinent information for the guy on the other end. :p
 
kayoh190 said:
So I just recently went back to the right seat after a few year stint in the left, and one of the things I've had to get used to is once again being the guy on the radio while on the ground. One of my gems from the other day happened at ORD: " 'Morning ramp, airliner xxx is....uhhhhh.....heh...I have absolutely no idea what gate we're at. Hold on a minute..." Ramp came back with a chuckle: "Tell you what xxx, all the alleys are clear - go ahead and push and we'll figure it out together!"

I've been doing this a long time, but in that moment I made the classic radio mistake of keying up the mic before being sure I had *all* the pertinent information for the guy on the other end. :p
Click to expand...
There wasn't a gate number visible from the cockpit?
 
Fearless Tower said:
There wasn't a gate number visible from the cockpit?
Click to expand...

Couldn't see it at this gate - believe me, I was furiously looking while the PTT was pressed. :)

We had just switched airplanes, and apparently I didn't imprint our new gate into my brain. It's one of those things you pause and make sure you have ready to go before keying up, but I obviously forgot to do that here. ::duh::
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top