square wrote:We're arguing the definition of roger? There is seriously no word used more than it, and we don't know what it means. I don't actually care about that part though, but come on, there is no gd difference between "message copied" and "message copied and understood." If it didn't mean understood, you'd only be able to use it to tell people that you heard all the words they said but you don't know what they mean because you're either 5 years old, don't speak english, are drunk or .. let us say, simple.
Well, I sympathize with this point of view.... but there is a historical context here.
"Roger" is a radio operations term, and not really "controller" syntax.
Radio operators transmit messages that they "do not understand" all the time. For example, messages for third parties, or messages that are encrypted.
For that reason "Roger" is used to indicate only that "I have received every single character and word of the message" and that's all. Then it was up to the operator (implied as part of his job) only to forward it to the next relay point or to deliver it to the ultimate recipient. He never did care about the content (as long as he was sure that he got all of it correct).
In that context, the controller is actually wearing two hats. One is "Radio operator", and the other is the Controller. The pilot is forwarding a message to the controller. But it is the radio operator, who receives it and says "roger".... to inform us "I got the message".
Then the "Radio operator" delivers the message to the "controller" (himself). The "controller" does have to understand the message, because he is the designated recipient, and he may have to react because of it.
But that part is not really our business.... we have done our part by forward the message to the designated relay point.... If the controller wants to (or needs to) react further... perhaps by returning a reply or a request.... then that is up to him.
...
....
He used to be in YYZ years ago...
