Roger, Wilco

ebykowsky

ebykowsky

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,405
Display Name
Display name:
goalstop
So since the beginning of my training, I think I've used "Wilco" a total of twice and heard it over the radio just as many times. Should I be using Wilco more, or does reading back the clearance count as wilco? Finally, is there any real difference between roger and copy? It appears in aviation that Roger means "I have understood", as does Copy. Ultimately, it doesn't really affect much, but I'm just curious.
 
Roger = copy
Wilco = copy, and I will comply

No need to ever use both. No need to increase usage. Its not that cool :)
 
I can't ever recall using either one, and never plan to. It conveys nothing back to the controller other than you actually heard them say something. Not that you correctly heard what they said. At least when you read back the clearance/instructions, they can catch (or should catch) anything you may have misheard.
 
SkyHog said:
Roger = copy
Wilco = copy, and I will comply

No need to ever use both. No need to increase usage. Its not that cool :)
Click to expand...

No, I understand no need to use both at once, and never have, but I always use Roger, even when responding to instructions. So "technically" shouldn't Wilco be used when reading back instructions? And if copy and Roger are the same thing, why not just use one or the other?
 
Wilco is a useful shorthand for those times when you need to tell the controller that you're going to do what he says, but there is no need to read back the instruction.

"Cardinal 8JT, Ray Community is at your 12 o'clock, 12 miles, report the field in sight."

"Wilco, 8JT."

If all I need to convey is that I received the message, I usually just reply with my call sign.
 
ebykowsky said:
No, I understand no need to use both at once, and never have, but I always use Roger, even when responding to instructions. So "technically" shouldn't Wilco be used when reading back instructions? And if copy and Roger are the same thing, why not just use one or the other?
Click to expand...

Why not read back the instructions.

"Bugsmasher 345, immediate left turn two four zero, vectors for traffic."

You think you hear three four zero and just say "Roger" or Wilco." Doesn't really help that much.

If you reply with, "left turn 340," the controller has a chance to say
"TWO four zero."
 
azure said:
Wilco is a useful shorthand for those times when you need to tell the controller that you're going to do what he says, but there is no need to read back the instruction.

"Cardinal 8JT, Ray Community is at your 12 o'clock, 12 miles, report the field in sight."

"Wilco, 8JT."

If all I need to convey is that I received the message, I usually just reply with my call sign.
Click to expand...

I still say "will report, [tail number]."
 
Last edited:
ebykowsky said:
No, I understand no need to use both at once, and never have, but I always use Roger, even when responding to instructions. So "technically" shouldn't Wilco be used when reading back instructions? And if copy and Roger are the same thing, why not just use one or the other?
Click to expand...

I've also heard some pilots use their call sign only as a way of saying Wilco, which I thought was kinda odd. Personally, I always do my best to repeat back everything to the controller, if they're so busy that they don't have time for my long winded reply or they know I'm in the middle of multiple actions at once (like setting up a x-wind landing approach.) they'll simply say "No need to respond" at the end of the transmission, I'm sure we've all heard this.

As we all know, the whole point of reading back is so that the controller can confirm that we understand EACH part of the instructions accurately. IMO, there are few cases where simply "Roger" or "Wilco" is anything but a bit lazy.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Brevity is important. Mandatory readbacks aside, a long readback of an instruction that you fully understand just wastes time and blocks communications when there is a lot of radio traffic. I was taught to acknowledge with callsign only unless something was unclear.
 
Skyscraper said:
I've also heard some pilots use their call sign only as a way of saying Wilco, which I thought was kinda odd. Personally, I always do my best to repeat back everything to the controller, if they're so busy that they don't have time for my long winded reply or they know I'm in the middle of multiple actions at once (like setting up a x-wind landing approach.) they'll simply say "No need to respond" at the end of the transmission, I'm sure we've all heard this.

As we all know, the whole point of reading back is so that the controller can confirm that we understand EACH part of the instructions accurately. IMO, there are few cases where simply "Roger" or "Wilco" is anything but a bit lazy.
Click to expand...

IDK. If the controller says "8 Juliet Tango, traffic is a twin Cessna at your 10:00, 2 miles and 1500 feet, northbound", is there any reason to read that back? I usually say "8 Juliet Tango, looking" but do we really need to say even that much? Maybe just key the mike (OK, that was a joke.)
 
The one instance where I will use Roger (and it is the only instance) is when a controller, after clearing me to land, later says (while I am on short final) "winds now 230 at 5" or something useful but with no need for compliance.

I have probably only used Wilco a handful of times, when I was feeling silly or in response to ATITAPA.
 
Oh, and if I am going to land on the beach by the Hudson river, I might say Rogaaaaaah.
 
alfadog said:
IDK. If the controller says "8 Juliet Tango, traffic is a twin Cessna at your 10:00, 2 miles and 1500 feet, northbound", is there any reason to read that back? I usually say "8 Juliet Tango, looking" but do we really need to say even that much? Maybe just key the mike (OK, that was a joke.)
Click to expand...

"Negative traffic, [tail number].
 
Wilco (will comply) means what it says. I use it frequently unless I have reason to be sure my response is on the tape. Otherwise, Wilco works great for the canned stuff. At KADS, approach will always give the same pattern entry and altitudes for the downwind to the favored Rwy 15. No reason to re-blab it.
 
SkyHog said:
The one instance where I will use Roger (and it is the only instance) is when a controller, after clearing me to land, later says (while I am on short final) "winds now 230 at 5" or something useful but with no need for compliance.
Click to expand...
And that's a perfect example of a case where I just reply with my call sign.
 
alfadog said:
I guess you say that if you don't already have the traffic is sight without taking a moment to look?
Click to expand...

I once had a controller at AZO get snippy with me because I didn't report back quick enough that I did or didn't have the traffic in sight. So, now I will usually give a 2-3 second glance, and reply accordingly - which is almost always "negative traffic." When/if I do see it, I will report traffic in sight.
 
wabower said:
Wilco (will comply) means what it says. I use it frequently unless I have reason to be sure my response is on the tape. Otherwise, Wilco works great for the canned stuff. At KADS, approach will always give the same pattern entry and altitudes for the downwind to the favored Rwy 15. No reason to re-blab it.
Click to expand...

If I am flying into ADS for the first time, how am I to know this is the same entry and altitudes as they always hand out?
 
While we're at it, "Over and Out".

Never heard it flying, but you do hear it while boating. I was taught that "Over" means "I'm done talking and await your reply." "Out" means "I'm done talking and this conversation is finished." So, "Over and out" is redundant.
 
EdFred to the contrary, Wilco has a specific meaning and should be used far more often than it is. "Replying" to an instruction with a tail number is not a reply at all. Wilco provides the control with assurance that a pilot has not only heard the instruction but will carry out its intent. That's important, folks.

Bob Gardner
 
Dunno. I've heard it a jillion times and he's said it a jillion times, so we both know the drill. If you don't, just re-blab whatever blows your skirt.

EdFred said:
If I am flying into ADS for the first time, how am I to know this is the same entry and altitudes as they always hand out?
Click to expand...
 
bobmrg said:
EdFred to the contrary, Wilco has a specific meaning and should be used far more often than it is. "Replying" to an instruction with a tail number is not a reply at all. Wilco provides the control with assurance that a pilot has not only heard the instruction but will carry out its intent. That's important, folks.
Click to expand...

Aren't we required, by regulation, to comply with ATC instructions? Replying with your call sign would seem sufficient to acknowledge receipt of the instruction by you, the intended recipient, which should be sufficient. I'd only modify it by saying "unable" if I couldn't comply.
 
google aim wilco for an interesting discussion
 
bobmrg said:
EdFred to the contrary, Wilco has a specific meaning and should be used far more often than it is. "Replying" to an instruction with a tail number is not a reply at all. Wilco provides the control with assurance that a pilot has not only heard the instruction but will carry out its intent. That's important, folks.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

I don't reply with just a tail number, and I don't think I advocated doing that, did I?

*goes back to look*
 
To be clear, I don't think anyone here advocated replying to an instruction with a tail number. But to let the controller know that you received a certain piece of information, I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
alfadog said:
IDK. If the controller says "8 Juliet Tango, traffic is a twin Cessna at your 10:00, 2 miles and 1500 feet, northbound", is there any reason to read that back? I usually say "8 Juliet Tango, looking" but do we really need to say even that much? Maybe just key the mike (OK, that was a joke.)
Click to expand...

I don't repeat every word, just every part of the instruction. For that example I would repeat exactly as you did.
 
I wonder if there are any regulations that might tell us what we should be doing...

:confused:

:rolleyes:

:rofl:
 
timwinters said:
I wonder if there are any regulations that might tell us what we should be doing...

:confused:

:rolleyes:

:rofl:
Click to expand...

Maybe not regulation but wouldn't it be nice if the regulatory agency put out some guidance in the form of books and pamphlets?
 
Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Victor Basta: Request vector, over.
Captain Oveur: What?
Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324.
Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.
Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!
Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over.
Tower voice: Over.
Captain Oveur: Roger.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: Roger, over!
Roger Murdock: What?
Captain Oveur: Huh?
Victor Basta: Who?

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=2OBZf0QdKdE&desktop_uri=/watch?v=2OBZf0QdKdE

Cracks me up everytime. Over.
 
Last edited:
I say it all the time, every tour flight in fact, the customers love it.

"Base, Six Sierra Tango is departing North pad for South Departure, number one"

"Have a good flight"

"Roger, wilco, Six Sierra Tango on the go... over and out ! "

For me though, its just a show for the customers.
 
EdFred said:
Why not read back the instructions.

"Bugsmasher 345, immediate left turn two four zero, vectors for traffic."

You think you hear three four zero and just say "Roger" or Wilco." Doesn't really help that much.

If you reply with, "left turn 340," the controller has a chance to say
"TWO four zero."
Click to expand...

Yeah that's an obvious readback IAW 4-4-7 of the AIM. Altitude, radar vectors and runway assignments/hold short instructions are no brainers. I heard a student pilot today who was given from ATC " NXXXXX report established in the eastern training area." She replied with "Roger NXXXX will report established." It's a simple instruction that just requires a wilco.

It's not a big deal but they should know what should be readback for mutual verification and what isn't necessary. Saves them time and reduces freq congestion. Keep it simple.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah that's an obvious readback IAW 4-4-7 of the AIM. Altitude, radar vectors and runway assignments/hold short instructions are no brainers. I heard a student pilot today who was given from ATC " NXXXXX report established in the eastern training area." She replied with "Roger NXXXX will report established." It's a simple instruction that just requires a wilco.

It's not a big deal but they should know what should be readback for mutual verification and what isn't necessary. Saves them time and reduces freq congestion. Keep it simple.
Click to expand...

In that case, or in the "report field in sight", or non-RADAR tower "report when on downwind" I would have used an extra syllable "will report" vs "wilco". Wiclo always sounds hokey to me even though I know it's valid.
 
alfadog said:
IDK. If the controller says "8 Juliet Tango, traffic is a twin Cessna at your 10:00, 2 miles and 1500 feet, northbound", is there any reason to read that back? I usually say "8 Juliet Tango, looking" but do we really need to say even that much? Maybe just key the mike (OK, that was a joke.)
Click to expand...

No joke: All times I've flown through BC airspace, the Canucks just key their mics in response to many ATC instructions.
 
History snippet:

In the days of telegraphy, "R" was used to indicate receipt of a message. IIRC from ham radio days, it was also used during long transmissions when the sender would pause and the recipient would send ._. to indicate that the message was still being received.

So, now phonetically as "Roger" it means the same thing. It does not mean "wilco."

... wouldn't it be nice if the regulatory agency put out some guidance in the form of books and pamphlets?
Click to expand...
Pilot/Controller Glossary:

"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."

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

AIM 4-2-1b:

"The single, most important thought in pilot‐controller communications is understanding. It is essential, therefore, that pilots acknowledge each radio communication with ATC by using the appropriate aircraft call sign."

So ... "Roger, Wilco" is redundant. "Roger, Standby" has a clear and sometimes useful meaning.
 
EdFred said:
I once had a controller at AZO get snippy with me because I didn't report back quick enough that I did or didn't have the traffic in sight. So, now I will usually give a 2-3 second glance, and reply accordingly - which is almost always "negative traffic." When/if I do see it, I will report traffic in sight.
Click to expand...

Concur. If one of the planes is IFR, this is a separation issue to the controller. He doesn't really care whether you see the other plane, he wants to know if he continues to have the responsibility to provide separation as if you didn't. Don't get confused with the idea that the controller might actually care very much that you see anything, except as it allows him to turn over separation responsibility to you.

I do the same - about 2-3 seconds looks and then "negative contact".
 
I've never personally used wilco in military radio communications, which has the same phraseology as (and is more verbose than) aviation communications.

Roger - "I understood that transmission."

Roger that - "I understood the transmission and will comply, and realize I totally blew it and I'll try to do better next time, please don't get on my case about it when we get back to base camp."

Say again please? - "I did not understand the transmission and I need you to repeat it."

Say again please. - "Screw you, I'm not going on another one of these stupid, useless side missions, I'm getting a few more minutes of sleep."

Wilco - "I think I know what you're asking but I'm new at this so please speak slowly, and I hope to god my platoon leader doesn't make me do commo duty again."
 
SkyHog said:
The one instance where I will use Roger (and it is the only instance) is when a controller, after clearing me to land, later says (while I am on short final) "winds now 230 at 5" or something useful but with no need for compliance.
Click to expand...
If you are concerned with brevity, why on earth would you say roger in a case where no reply is needed at all???
 
alfadog said:
Maybe not regulation but wouldn't it be nice if the regulatory agency put out some guidance in the form of books and pamphlets?
Click to expand...

AIM Chapter 4, Section 2.
Advisory Circular 90-42F

Bob Gardner
SAY AGAIN, PLEASE
 
timwinters said:
I wonder if there are any regulations that might tell us what we should be doing...

:confused:

:rolleyes:

:rofl:
Click to expand...

alfadog said:
Maybe not regulation but wouldn't it be nice if the regulatory agency put out some guidance in the form of books and pamphlets?
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't adequately slather my post with sarcasm. I'll try to do better next time.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top