Airplane talk: Who was Roger? When is it mandatory?

Factual Questions
1

  1. First part of query is what is the etymology of the iconic “Roger,” without hearing which no-one would know a pilot is in communication with air traffic control (ATC).

  2. Except for Roger Murdock and Clarence Oveur, or Anglo speakers discussing sexual activity, do flight crew within the cockpit use the word with each other?

  3. I found a collection of verbal foul-ups between pilot and ATC and lessons learnedabout correct, carefully defined phraseology designed to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. (From the excerpt I presume there is a document or standard abbreviated “AIM” for that, but do not know what it is.)

Forgive me for the length of the excerpt. But I’m still not clear, or else the except is not even addressing this:

a) as the default mode of communication,when ATC says “Do x” pilot says “Roger” and doesn’t have to say anything to the effect of “yes/doing it?”
b) When does the pilot have to say “Roger,” as defined in that AIM document, or some other rules about communicating? Or, as opposed to a) above, just does it and says “doing it?”
c) When’d does the pilot have to do the “I’ll now repeat what you just said…” A particular class of actions or critical information?

Excerpt:
Cruise

Cruise flight is often the time when flight crews can relax, since there is usually little cockpit activity compared to other phases of flight. This lack of activity can inspire flight crews to let down their guard and disregard things they might notice if they were more focused on specific tasks. Non-standard phraseology contributed to this incident in which a Controller attempted to verify a flight’s altitude after a hand-off.

Roger what?

“Cruise altitude was 7,000 feet assigned by New York Center. Hand-off was about 11 miles northwest of HAR VOR. The Captain checked in with MDT Approach and reported level at 7,000 feet. The Controller replied, ‘Verify level at 8,000 feet.’ The Captain replied, ‘Roger’…The Controller presumed we were at 8,000 feet at check-in and tried to clarify our altitude, but was misled by our Captain’s response to the inquiry (‘Roger’ was incomplete phraseology).”(# 229932)

AIM defines the term “Roger” as, “I have received all of your last transmission,” and states that it “should not be used to answer a question requiring a yes or no answer.” However, the term is constantly misused in communications, often resulting in misunderstanding, annoyance, or more serious consequences for both pilots and controllers.

Descent

Roger this…

“Center issued a clearance to descend to 5,000 feet MSL as the flight neared the entry point [of special use airspace]. This clearance was read back and the Controller was advised that the flight was, ‘Canceling IFR at this time.’ The Center responded with, ‘Roger.’ This response did not seem appropriate and the Controller was extremely busy…As we descended through 3,000 feet MSL, Center advised us that we were only cleared to 5,000 feet MSL and then asked us if we had canceled. We repeated that we had, and that we had heard his acknowledgment of our cancellation…‘Roger’ is probably the most misused term in flying today.”(# 140258)

*Roger that…
*
“Planned descent for normal crossing restriction of 11,000 feet and 250 knots at FLATO. Issued 250 knots now, during descent. 250 knots now made the crossing restriction almost impossible. Busy frequency to get in a word that we wouldn’t make the altitude. Finally got in a word, and ATC responded, ‘Roger.’ Did ‘roger’ mean it was OK or what?” (# 89792)

When pilots realize that an ATC clearance cannot be complied with, they are required to advise ATC as soon as possible. Timely notification is critical to prevent problems which could compromise separation from other traffic. Once pilots have advised ATC that a restriction cannot be made, they are often very anxious for a Controller’s response either to relieve them of responsibility or to assign a new restriction. Roger is not the only response that offers little in the way of an answer, as the next report illustrates.

2

“Roger” was the “R” in the military alphabet at the time (1930s) and was short for “Received.”

“Roger” means “I heard you.” “Wilco,” which may be obsolete or at least rare now, meant “I will comply.” Big difference between the two, when you think about it.

3

I was an air traffic controller in the early 90’s. Roger was not required but why wouldn’t you use it? The most important thing in that case is communication and Roger does that clearly and concisely. You are talking about communication between people who are multitasking and don’t really have the time to try to decypher what you said. They don’t have to do that with Roger.

The most common alternative was the double mike click which was SOP for those with radio issues but on quiet days if they were responding to non urgent communication some pilots or even us would do that.

Also, when pointing out traffic you’d get an I’ve got him or some such rather than a Roger. This is more complete information. It tells the controller that you heard him and that you have the situation under control.

Also, I jump seated several flights both commercial and civilian and I do not recall hearing anyone Roger the co pilot. I can’t think of a reason to. There is not a communication issue between two people sitting next to each other and if there is they can clear it up verbally which would not work over the air as it would be super confusing.

Also, Roger does not mean anything is ok or that you will comply with what you were asked to do. It simply means that you acknowledge you have received the transmission. If there was any chance that there might be confusion they would also repeat the command.

Roger that, cleared for takeoff on runway one niner. That’s a much more useful reply than simply Roger that and the main reason people care is because their lives depend on solid communication.

4

I never heard Wilco so it may be obsolete but it is definitely unnecessary. A PIC is expected to comply with any instructions given so acknowledging that they received the transmission covers this and they are expected to specifically state when they cannot or would rather not ( weather issues for example ) comply so new instructions can be given. Wilco would just add clutter to the airway.

5

It seems to be more for military/WWII/inter-squadron use than civilian ATC, but I honestly don’t know how much it might be either obsolete or Hollywood. :slight_smile:

A couple of savvy writers have had plot twists based on getting a Roger but not a Wilco. Again - fiction only? Dunno.

6

Note that “niner” is a non-standard word. Mandatory?

I read that telephone operators were trained to say “nine” “nye-un”, presumably for the same reasons pilots do: avoiding mis-hearing (either that or pilots and operators just want to be affected). But I can’t think of now what the word could be confused with aurally in contexts where other digits go over just fine.

7

“Five.”

8

Yes, Niner was mandatory. Nine sounds like the german word nein which could be very confusing when things get hairy for a native German speaker.

9

I just skimmed your examples and may have missed some things.

Roger *ought *to be used to acknowledge information, but not instruction. Strictly speaking it’s not a valid acknowledgement to any imperitive. That’s what wilco’s for. Dangerous confusion can occur if one side or the other assumes “roger” includes “wilco” while the other does not.

Both terms are obsolescent if not yet obsolete at least in US practice. Fully technically valid, but largely superceded in actual use. ICAO practice internationally sticks much closer to the letter of the rules to keep communications as clear as possible across language barriers and across less-than-ideal radios.

Proper AIM radio usage for pilots is to read back the essential elements of imperitive instructions transmitted by ATC. It’s mandatory for certain extra-critical tidbits of info, and highly recommended for most everything else.

As Penguin said, there are not that many information-only ATC transmissions, but “roger” is a perfectly cromulent response to them. Having said that, at least in the US for many of them the common response has evolved to be something brief and relevant which tells ATC that A) you got the info, and B) something else useful to him/her about what you’re doing with the info. If there is no B that could be relevant, “Roger” is the common response.
One thing that’s not been addressed so far is that although lots of ATC/pilot interaction is second-by-second real time, there’s still a big chunk which are not. Wherein ATC will give us a bunch of info, we’ll need anything from 30 seconds to 5 minutes to digest it, then we’ll finally respond with either acceptance or a counterproposal. “Roger” or better yet “Roger, stand by for response.” is made to order for that purpose.
Folks need to bear in mind that most of this standardized radio terminology and radio protocol dates from about WWII. When radios sucked donkey balls and transmissions routinely weren’t heard at all or faded in and out every few seconds. In Olden Dayes, or even now with bad HF propagation on the high seas it may take 5 or 10 tries to get a single complete sentence heard and acknowledged correctly.

Niner, Fife, Fower and such date from that era.

10

In full disclosure I worked at a level 2 general aviation airport. We mostly served flight schools and let me tell you, there was a lot of information only chatter over the air but don’t let that scare you. At any commercial airport you won’t see anywhere near as much chatter.

11

That’s my experience, on the military side only, and it’s only a couple years old at this point. I was still regularly using WILCO including via Blackberry in response to orders till I hung up my spurs. I had a tactics instructor at my Officer Basic Course that was a stickler about hearing WILCO when he issued an order. It stuck with me. Incidentally he was a Marine but I don’t think that was the reason. The Marines in my class (all prior enlisted OCS commissionees) had as much of a learning curve with it IIRC from the early 90s. It was one of his pet peeves, he was technically right, and he could win rock-scissors-rank with all of us. We all used WILCO.

Disgruntled Penguin - It doesn’t add clutter to the airwaves if used properly. WILCO’s formal definition includes everything in Roger and then adds “and I will comply” to the end. It should always be one or the other, not both. Other wise you are effectively saying roger twice before the will comply portion. The Hollywood misuse is where the problem comes in.

I didn’t really care what my troops said to me as long they only used one and only one at a time. Using both drew attention. "Over and Out also always got my attention. It wasn’t just extra long it was conflicting. Which is it? It can’t be both. As long as I was the senior member of that conversation it was most definitely Over if I heard that. Well I always had the option of hearing Over if I was senior even if it was pronounced Out. I wasn’t like some who prohibited subordinates saying out to me. I certainly didn’t stop talking just because my subordinate thought I was done and used out. :smiley:

When Hollywood goes full ignorant - “ROGER, WILCO, Over and Out” - I have to fight off a wave of throat punchiness. :smack:

12

It adds clutter because in civilian air traffic it is expected that you will comply with any instruction that you acknowledged. If you will not or cannot you are expected to address this with the controller. There is no practical reason to acknowledge that you will comply as this is the expected behavior. It’s not needed. The WILCO is included in the Roger in this case.

13

Right time, conditions, aircraft & controller when it is so busy we were told by the control to respond with "ident’ on the transponder. ( OK, everybody just shut up and do what I say, it is too busy for any transmissions from you all unless you can’t do what I tell you. ) Is what they want.

Best, clearest, easiest to hear/understand was a condition as described above one night late in Indianapolis airspace when the ATC controller was speaking in a chanting style of the Gregorian Chant I heard all my life in church. Wonderful transition through the area on a bad stormy night. Very very easy to understand.

14

Maybe this part has changed too? It used to be standard procedure, at least in terms of general perception, to use “over” to let the other party know that it was their turn to talk. Whereas “over and out” meant that the conversation was done.

15

I’m still not seeing clutter. On the military side the expectation with a roger is the same. You are only using one two syllable proword either way.

How is “Wilco over” any more cluttered than “Roger over?” :confused:

16

That part was official part of NATO prowords (again I don’t do civilian pilot speak) at least since I started ROTC in the late 80s. It continued that way without change until I hung my spurs up last year. Although the “over and out” would crop up occasionally it was widely corrected. Out means the conversation is done all by itself …with three less syllables filling the net.

17

On the civilian side both terms mean the same thing so why have two terms that have no difference? If there was a difference in the military then of course it’s not clutter to them but to me I would have treated either utterance the same exact way. Any difference the terms may have meant to another profession it had no relevance to me or my traffic.

Now, I’ll agree that saying Wilco by itself would not be clutter but my response was regarding using Roger and Wilco together. I can see that this was confusing in the post but that’s what I have meant by clutter. I’m saying now that there was no reason for both words to be in use in civilian ATC when I worked it.

18

It would seem that at least some of those mandates are probably post-1977.

Case in point: Co-pilot radios tower that they are “ready for takeoff” and “waiting for clearance”. Crew receives post-takeoff procedures, replies with non-standard phrase “we are now at takeoff”. Controller replies with non-standard phrase “OK”, leading to the impression that clearance had been given. Controller cannot see runway due to fog, but clarifies with “stand by for takeoff, I will call you”. That last message is not heard due to interference from a call from another aircraft.

So on March 27, 1977, on the island of Tenerife, KLM Flight 4805 started its takeoff roll down a foggy runway without clearance, colliding with a Pan Am 747 in the worst crash in aviation history.
As a consequence of the accident, sweeping changes were made to international airline regulations and to aircraft. Aviation authorities around the world introduced requirements for standard phrases and a greater emphasis on English as a common working language.

Several national air safety boards began penalizing pilots for disobeying air traffic controllers’ orders. Air traffic instruction should not be acknowledged solely with a colloquial phrase such as “OK” or even “Roger” (which simply means the last transmission was received), but with a readback of the key parts of the instruction, to show mutual understanding. The phrase “take off” is now spoken only when the actual takeoff clearance is given or when cancelling that same clearance (i.e. “cleared for take-off” or “cancel take-off clearance”). Up until that point, aircrew and controllers should use the phrase “departure” in its place, e.g. “ready for departure”. Additionally, an ATC clearance given to an aircraft already lined-up on the runway must be prefixed with the instruction “hold position”.

19

Tenerife served to emphasize the importance of strict adherence to the official terms and procedures. IIRC, not much (any?) procedural change really followed from that.

Had everyone involved used exact ICAO phraseology it’s significantly more likely the mishap would have been averted.

What is frustrating to me about that accident is that one of the recommendations to come from it was to implement non-blocking radios. So two aircraft could not transmit simultaneously and as between an aircraft and ATC, the ATC transmission would override and prevent the aircraft’s.

It was vetoed (mostly by the airlines) as too costly. Had they simply been mandated by the mid '80s as forward fit in new aircraft, substantially 100% of the fleet would have them today.

Instead of that happy situation today, instead here we are 30 years later still routinely suffering from confusion and missed calls caused by too many people talking at once on a party line. Radio congestion has increased massively since then. Non-blocking features are now a few lines of code in modern all-software radios. But noooo, we can’t have that. Idjits.

20

That’s common in the military, also. “Roger, doing such-and-such” covers the asses of both the sender and receiver, which is especially critical when delivering a payload. The receiver of the order may even repeat it back to the sender as “Roger, understand you want me to launch xxx”, to which the sender will likely respond “That’s affirmative.”