Do you readback VFR clearances?

[rookiepilot]

I'll say this again: please don't use poor controllers as an excuse. Controllers are almost as guilty as pilots when it comes to non standard phraseology, and NavCanada is cracking down with good reason. Also if you are planning on flying anywhere else in the world on a regular basis, please take the NavCanada VFR Phraseology document with a grain of salt, it has a few examples of specifically ignoring ICAO standard phraseology to no purpose.

A, I think some of us (GA pilots) aren't willfully ignoring the standard to be "cool". Personally, I think its a genuine effort to fit into the normal language TML here uses every day, and their clear expectations in a response, and it's clear what they want to hear, in certain situations from VFR's. IE, along the lakeshore, where it is very busy and opposing traffic will be 500 below, they prefer to hear the altitude repeated. I know this -- it's not standard or required, but why omit it (information) unless the radio is nuts? They will call again -- for sure. It's almost never too nuts. New York approach is nuts, by comparison.

Fly enough around here, it's not hard to tell what the normal flow sounds like. Maybe that's the wrong approach, I admit. ie, I don't think I use "check remarks", but every terminal controller uses it.

If you are flying out west, ask for lower, and they aren't ready to say yes -- very common in the US too -- how do they answer you? "I have your request" is another way, that's even longer. "Stand by" ? That can be ambiguous too.

[ahramin]

Standby would be the correct phraseology. I can't see why you wouldn't use it in that case.

[dpm]

Back to the original question: I read them back only when I need to be 100% sure we've understood each-other: eg a taxi clearance that includes crossing an active runway at a busy airport, or a land and hold short clearance. Otherwise, no—it just adds to the radio congestion.

[AirFrame]

Exactly CpnCrunch. Unfortunately in North America we are still firmly in the realm of claiming that proper phraseology is whatever our 200 hour instructor taught us or what we heard from some controller somewhere. Neither is an appropriate reference.

Well, people are also asking for advice from an internet forum full of armchair experts, rather than going and reading the standards, regulations, etc. themselves. So what they're asking is "what do people actually do?" not "what do the rules say?"

Do you have a reference for that (other than your instructor)?

Not a 200 hr flight instructor... The ground school course taught to a room full of us by the school owner who had 1000's of hours (i'd assume). Deprecated was the wrong word to use, I should have said discouraged. Discouraged because Roger and Wilco are ambiguous, and convey less information than just acknowledging with your call sign.

[CpnCrunch]

Not a 200 hr flight instructor... The ground school course taught to a room full of us by the school owner who had 1000's of hours (i'd assume).

CFIs don't always have all the correct info either. I've discovered this on a number of occasions, when getting both my instrument rating and my CPL signed off.

I should have said discouraged. Discouraged because Roger and Wilco are ambiguous, and convey less information than just acknowledging with your call sign.

Wilco conveys more info than your callsign, as it tells the other party that you're going to comply with their request. Your callsign is the same as Roger, it just means you heard the message. Sometimes I use roger instead of my callsign when replying to info, as it's a bit quicker. ATC/FSS does that too.

[photofly]

How is ROGER or WILCO ambiguous in meaning? They are both clearly and precisely defined.

Now, if some pilots don’t know those meanings, there’s an opportunity for those pilots to learn them...

[dpm]

How is ROGER or WILCO ambiguous in meaning? They are both clearly and precisely defined.

"Roger" or "Wilco" confirm that you heard or will comply with something, but not exactly what.

For VFR, it's usually no big deal, but as I mentioned earlier, I will read back VFR instructions when there's a chance of doubt or confusion that could lead to an elevated risk, and sometimes that's paid off: either I had heard ATC wrong, or they had given me a bad instruction and correct it after my readback.

[C.W.E.]

How is ROGER or WILCO ambiguous in meaning? They are both clearly and precisely defined.

They were clearly defined when I learned to fly sixty five years ago.

[rookiepilot]

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publi ... eology.pdf

Page 24

Hearback/Readback
CARs 602.31
"The communications between ATS and pilots are intended to ensure the safe passage of all aircraft travelling through designated airspace. An important aspect of this communication is hearback/readback. While operating in VFR flight, the pilot is not required to read back each transmission, unless requested by ATS."


"Some of the most safety-critical clearances and instructions that MAY be read back are:
• clearance or instruction to enter, land on, take off from, hold short, cross or backtrack on any runway
• route clearances
• the runway in use, altimeter settings, level/heading/speed instructions
• transponder codes"

[photofly]

How is ROGER or WILCO ambiguous in meaning? They are both clearly and precisely defined.

"Roger" or "Wilco" confirm that you heard or will comply with something, but not exactly what.

ROGER means you received the entire transmission. If you know you didn't receive part of a transmission, don't say ROGER - because that would be the wrong thing to say. Instead, ask for the transmission to be repeated. In part, if you wish. ("SAY AGAIN ALL AFTER ..." and if you want, "WORDS TWICE".)

WILCO means you will comply with all the instructions. When would you ever comply with only part of an ATCO's instructions, without explicitly making clear which instructions you're unable to follow? And if for some reason you're not going to comply with all the instructions you received, don't say "WILCO". That would be wrong. Because WILCO doesn't mean "I will comply with part of your instructions." This is not difficult stuff.

I'm still not seeing any ambiguity.

[rookiepilot]

Instead of ""roger" doesn't just a callsign response say the same information? I suppose I assume it does.

On wilco, I might occasionally use it, but am more likely to repeat the parameter, briefly in busy conditions:

"XYZ, follow the lakeshore, maintain 2500" (assuming I'm already near the lakeshore)

"Two point five, XYZ"

[photofly]

Instead of ""roger" doesn't just a callsign response say the same information? I suppose I assume it does.

On wilco, I might occasionally use it, but am more likely to repeat the parameter, briefly in busy conditions:

"XYZ, follow the lakeshore, maintain 2500" (assuming I'm already near the lakeshore)

"Two point five, XYZ"

You're correct. ROGER and WILCO are both semantically redundant, in the sense that merely acknowledging the transmission (which you can do with your callsign) means both "I have received your transmission" and (if it contained instructions) "I will comply with your instructions". That doesn't mean those words are useless though. It's just that ROGER is the "approved" way to say what most people mean when they say "CHECK REMARKS", which is also semantically redundant.

While I'm on my pedestal, "Two point five" isn't approved radio communication. It should be "MAINTAIN TWO TOU-SAND FIFE HUNDRED - (CALLSIGN)".
Wider point: there's no need or benefit to repeating an instruction in your own words: if you're going to read back an instruction do it in the same words as the controller used.

Maybe we should all have a chat about using DAY-CIMAL, too?

One benefit to repeating an instruction that nobody has mentioned so far. Don't know about you, but if I say something, I'm more likely to remember it myself. Something about the muscle memory of forming the words TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED makes it easier to remember later that it wasn't three thousand five hundred. Don't you think?

[AirFrame]

Roger and Wilco are both ambiguous as the controlling authority in a busy environment has no idea who said either of them. As someone who regularly hears another aircraft on frequency with registration one letter off from mine, or with the same letters as mine but with two swapped, Roger or Wilco wouldn't convey enough info for the tower to be sure the right person understood the right instructions. So at a minimum you would need "Roger ABC" or "Roger FABC" to ensure a complete communication. Why not save the two syllables when it's busy, and drop the "Roger"?

[AirFrame]

ROGER means you received the entire transmission. If you know you didn't receive part of a transmission, don't say ROGER - because that would be the wrong thing to say. Instead, ask for the transmission to be repeated. In part, if you wish. ("SAY AGAIN ALL AFTER ..." and if you want, "WORDS TWICE".)

WILCO means you will comply with all the instructions. When would you ever comply with only part of an ATCO's instructions, without explicitly making clear which instructions you're unable to follow? And if for some reason you're not going to comply with all the instructions you received, don't say "WILCO". That would be wrong. Because WILCO doesn't mean "I will comply with part of your instructions." This is not difficult stuff.

Those are technically accurate descriptions of what Roger and Wilco mean. However, they're still ambiguous. Tower doesn't know who said them without hearing your registration along with them ("Roger FABC" or some such). Acknowledging with your registration still conveys more information.

The first default assumption is that the transmission is received... If you haven't received the entire transmission, ask for them to repeat it. If you missed all of it, you won't say anything and they will repeat it because it wasn't acknowledged. If you got it, acknowledge it.

The second assumption is that you'll do what you're asked to... If you can't comply with an instruction received, I assume you'd tell them what you can't do. If you can, acknowledge. Again, acknowledging with "Wilco" is ambiguous because they can't be sure who it is.

Serious question: When would someone reply just "Roger" to an ATC instruction, specfically not saying "Wilco" because they have no intention of following the instruction ("WilNotCo")?

[AirFrame]

One benefit to repeating an instruction that nobody has mentioned so far. Don't know about you, but if I say something, I'm more likely to remember it myself. Something about the muscle memory of forming the words TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED makes it easier to remember later that it wasn't three thousand five hundred. Don't you think?

Absolutely. I read back altitudes, taxi routing, etc. just as much for myself as for the tower.

[digits_]

Those are technically accurate descriptions of what Roger and Wilco mean. However, they're still ambiguous. Tower doesn't know who said them without hearing your registration along with them ("Roger FABC" or some such). Acknowledging with your registration still conveys more information.

The first default assumption is that the transmission is received... If you haven't received the entire transmission, ask for them to repeat it. If you missed all of it, you won't say anything and they will repeat it because it wasn't acknowledged. If you got it, acknowledge it.

The second assumption is that you'll do what you're asked to... If you can't comply with an instruction received, I assume you'd tell them what you can't do. If you can, acknowledge. Again, acknowledging with "Wilco" is ambiguous because they can't be sure who it is.

Serious question: When would someone reply just "Roger" to an ATC instruction, specfically not saying "Wilco" because they have no intention of following the instruction ("WilNotCo")?

You're not supposed to use Roger or Wilco without your callsign, so it's a "moooo" point (friends reference here)

You would probably not say roger when you are unable or unwilling to follow an instruction ("unable" can be used, if you are unwilling you can request someting else), but that doesn't mean it is the same as wilco. It would make no sense to reply wilco to a traffic report or information about a runway closure or new notam or stuff like that.

Wilco implies roger, but you can't use wilco in every situation where roger would work. Roger is the fall back if you don't have anything else to say. Life is good and we'll see what happens.

[ScottS]

I read back VFR although I know I don't need to. It is force of habit due to my side hustle in marine rescue where closed loop communication is mandatory, so it is a habit I want to keep. However, if it is really busy, or I am feeling a bit behind but I know I understood the clearance/direction, I'll just use my call sign to avoid frequency congestion. That's not very often though. I also plan to shift to IFR at some point, so the more second nature my readbacks, that is one less thing to learn to do in a new environment.

I did catch myself reading back an altimeter setting the other day and kind of kicked myself thought "well now sir, that was a little overboard and unnecessary"

[CpnCrunch]

I did catch myself reading back an altimeter setting the other day and kind of kicked myself thought "well now sir, that was a little overboard and unnecessary"

It's good practice to read them back when you start flying IFR.

[photofly]

Roger and Wilco are both ambiguous as the controlling authority in a busy environment has no idea who said either of them. As someone who regularly hears another aircraft on frequency with registration one letter off from mine, or with the same letters as mine but with two swapped, Roger or Wilco wouldn't convey enough info for the tower to be sure the right person understood the right instructions. So at a minimum you would need "Roger ABC" or "Roger FABC" to ensure a complete communication. Why not save the two syllables when it's busy, and drop the "Roger"?

So we seem to be at cross purposes. ROGER alone is ambiguous, but so is any transmission without your call sign. ROGER <call Sign> is correct and unambiguous.

If the only goal is to minimize redundancy, it’s unneeded. But then so is “CHECK REMARKS”, which is, in addition, incorrect.

[rookiepilot]

Roger and Wilco are both ambiguous as the controlling authority in a busy environment has no idea who said either of them. As someone who regularly hears another aircraft on frequency with registration one letter off from mine, or with the same letters as mine but with two swapped, Roger or Wilco wouldn't convey enough info for the tower to be sure the right person understood the right instructions. So at a minimum you would need "Roger ABC" or "Roger FABC" to ensure a complete communication. Why not save the two syllables when it's busy, and drop the "Roger"?

So we seem to be at cross purposes. ROGER alone is ambiguous, but so is any transmission without your call sign. ROGER <call Sign> is correct and unambiguous.

If the only goal is to minimize redundancy, it’s unneeded. But then so is “CHECK REMARKS”, which is, in addition, incorrect.

2 scenarios PF (On check remarks):

You're an airline pilot, CTR gives you a descent clearance (IFR) AND a whole whack of info in the same call on the arrival runway, Alt setting....how do you respond, (This is where I hear check remarks a lot). Suppose "roger" communicates understanding -- but is it "roger" descent clearance -- or roger -- all of it?

Your CTR, and an inbound IFR requests lower, but you can't accommodate yet. ("stand by for lower"?) (I've heard --- a clearance + "I check your request" -- -- when I've asked for lower, sometimes) Very common in US, they won't descend you unless prompted --