![]() ![]() This could refer to the traffic information, the instruction, or both. However, "Roger G-ABCD" (or just "G-ABCD") simply mean the transmission has been received. In this scenario, again a clipped read-back could cause confusion (". G-ABCD, number 2 in circuit, report final Acknowledging with "Wilco G-ABCD", "Roger G-ABCD" or even just "G-ABCD" reduce the risk of confusion if the response is clipped, as well as providing brevity. Abeam Farmoor reservoir G-ABCD", which could cause confusion. If a read-back is given in the response and it is clipped, the controller could hear ". However, if the instruction is short, clear and unambiguous, acknowledgment of the instruction using standard phraseology such as ‘Roger’ (I have received all your last transmission) or Wilco’ (I understand your message and will comply with it) is preferred for the sake of brevity in the use of radiotelephony transmission time."īased on the rather strong opinions of a CAA examiner, the following scenarios illustrate an example of acknowledging instructions to report position: Chapter 2 specifies those instructions that are to be read back in full. ‘G-ABCD, taxi to the apron via taxiway Charlie’. "Instructions transmitted are to be complied with and, in most cases, should be read back to reduce the chance of any ambiguity or misunderstanding, e.g. The CAA Radiotelephony Manual CAP 413 states (my emphasis): To provide a UK perspective, there are a number of ATC instructions that must be read back, however in other cases "Wilco" is preferred. Speaker will follow the instructions to which they are replyingĪs other answers have already mentioned, WILCO is a concatenation of Will Comply. "Wilco" is short for the phrase "will comply," meaning that the But obviously as far as US aviation goes, both are completely acceptable.Īnd as for the etymology, that's already been covered in another answer: Outside the US, I was originally taught never to use roger or wilco for that reason: it leaves the controller wondering what you really heard and what you're going to do next. But if you repeat it, then wilco is unnecessary. You might have misheard or misunderstood it, so you should repeat it. The problem I see with using wilco is that you're confirming that you'll comply with an instruction, but if you don't also read back the instruction then the controller has no way to know what you're complying with. “Wilco,” “Roger,” “Affirmative,” “Negative,” or other appropriate The AIM 4-2-3 mentions using it to acknowledge instructions:Īcknowledge with your aircraft identification, either at theīeginning or at the end of your transmission, and one of the words ![]() (Note that this is slightly different from roger, which is just an acknowledgement and doesn't mean that you will comply with anything.) WILCO − I have received your message, understand it, and will comply with it In the US, the "official" meaning is in the Pilot/Controller Glossary: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |