"Contact one", any one else say that?

[Airbusboy]

I was turning base and an inbound aircraft was descending on the dead side and then joined for the downwind. He said "G-XXXX downwind 29, contact one". i.e. he was visual with me. Im assuming its the equivalent to traffic in sight or visual with traffic. Normal to use that phrase?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Never heard it. Neither do I remember it from any training or syllabus. One more UK particularity, at best.

[The Dead Side]

Not entirely sure how 'standard' it is, however I've heard it used many times when flying into rural (especially) strips, and use it myself on occasion.

I've usually heard it as 'contact one, ahead'.

Dead Side

[Morris542]

Never used it myself but have heard it frequently at an airfield with A/G. I normally say "visual one ahead". I must admit I've never heard it at an airfield with full ATC, just smaller airfields.

[patowalker]

He was just abbreviating "visual contact with one aircraft ahead".

[jxk]

I think it would be usual to say 'contact NUMBER one' etc. However, not all RT is that precise and a lot of us learnt their RT many years ago. It's a bit like the Highway Code; does everbody keep up to date with that? As long as you get the message across clearly then it doesn't always have to be by the book, although desirable. JMO

[Torque Tonight]

Presumably he is trying to pre-empt ATC warning him of traffic in the circuit, but the phrase 'Visual one ahead' would probably be more correct.

The word 'contact' has caused some problems in the past due to ambiguous meaning. For example, does 'contact ground' mean communicate with the ground frequency, that you are in visual contact, ie you can SEE the ground, or are in physical contact, ie are ON the ground. Of course there is also a further aviation meaning relating to magnetos. This ambiguity has been implicated in accidents in the past. In particular, I can think of a Bulldog crash involving a foreign exchange pilot, for whom English was not his first language. He was already in some difficulty, and was asked something like ' Do you have contact with ground?' It didn't end well.

As a result, in UK civil R/T contact is only used in the communicate sense. To say it in the sense above may be understood but is technically incorrect. CAP413 refers:


In the UK
CONTACT shall have the

meaning


“Establish communications

with...(your details have been

passed)”.

Furthermore, 'contact' is never used by military pilots on R/T except under a very specific circumstance that does not relate to any of the examples above. Its incorrect use, particularly by light a/c pilots who are trying to sound punchy, grates badly!

[Conventional Gear]

Perfectly normal at our A/G field to call G-XX, Downwind, Contact 1 Ahead, contact 2 ahead etc. Just lets the other pilots know you have seen them.

You can go even further, G-XX, Downwind for runway 07, Contact 1 ahead.

It's just common sense really if it helps other people, if I'm turning base and someone calls just 'Downwind' it's OK, if they call Downwind Contact 1 ahead and I can't see anyone else I can be reassured they have probably seen me.

PS I don't see this has any bearing on an ATC unit which would be number 1 to land number 2 land, and ATC would be informing the pilot of that situation not the other way around, at an A/G field a lot of the time your information is direct to other pilots in the circuit, not a 'controller'.

[IO540]

I thought you were supposed to say "Tally Ho". In deep Kent, anyway :)

[DX Wombat]

I was taught to use "Looking" when warned of the presence of another aircraft which I could not yet see, and "Visual" if I could. For me, using "Contact" smacks of boys' comics and Gold-bar-wearing PPl holders - all for show. :rolleyes:

[Torque Tonight]

DX. Correct. And in military parlance, 'visual' or 'blind' for friendlies, 'tally' or 'no joy' for enemies.

[Conventional Gear]

I use 'looking' when looking for traffic passed to me by ATC, but also saw one shouldn't really say that according to the GA Supplement CAP413, one should just say 'Roger G-XX' or just 'G-XX' to acknowledge a traffic call. It's a habit though.

Though this isn't where I would use contact 1 ahead, it's just in the circuit at an A/G field where the operator may well be in an office with no traffic information or situational awareness - here pilots are simply helping each other out by letting each other know they have seen each other in the circuit. Seems like a habit at our field, some use it some don't, probably depends which instructor they had or if people just pick it up by hearing it. I certainly like the benefit of it myself.

It's also better to hear than 'Rolling' which really does annoy me :}

[AdamFrisch]

I use it all the time, but reading about it here I admit it could be slightly ambiguous and confusing. I'll try to use the full Visual Contact in the future. Even Visual would be better since it can't be confused with much anything else.

Looking is much better than Roger, IMHO. Don't care what the rules say - clarity is paramount. Looking is a direct acknowledgement of traffic, whereas Roger could be agreeing to anything said up that point.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Round here, the usual phrase is "have the number one in sight" which is also a nice way to acknowledge one is not number one. It is longer to pronounce, though.

And yes indeed, this kind of information is mostly meant for fellow pilots, rather than for any radio operator on the ground. If any is available, at all.

[Final 3 Greens]

Furthermore, 'contact' is never used by military pilots on R/T except under a very specific circumstance that does not relate to any of the examples above. Its incorrect use, particularly by light a/c pilots who are trying to sound punchy, grates badly!

As military traffic is on 243, why should they give a f**K?

Also, they are probably more concerned with trying to see through their dirty windscreen, than playing the radio police.

Round here, the usual phrase is "have the number one in sight"

But how do you know you have the #1 in sight? A dangerous assumption to make.

[Danscowpie]

Contact one ahead
is perfectly acceptable R/T and means what it says.

I thought you were supposed to say "Tally Ho". In deep Kent, anyway
Is complete and utter bollocks, if you must use military R/T the correct phrase is Tally that, but it means absolutely nothing in the civilian world.

Any airfield, instructor that teaches or encourages non standard R/T or any pilot who uses non standard R/T (i.e anything which doesn't conform to CAP 413) is demonstrating their complete lack of professional standards.

As a very experienced ATCO, Examiner and pilot, the moment I hear that sort of crap it makes me question everything else the pilot does and I treat them with extra care, strictly by the book and often resulting in their embarresment.

Have no doubt about it chaps and chappesses, if you sound as though you know what you are doing, people the other side of the headset will generally believe you.
Don't and you'll generally get treated as the situation warrants.

[patowalker]

Round here, the usual phrase is "have the number one in sight"

How do you know it's "number one"? You will only know how many you have in sight.

[jxk]

While we're on the subject of RT I have to say I like the American way of communicating in the circuit by prefacing their calls with the aircraft type and then call-sign e.g. 'Cessna 172 G-ABCD (N123) left base 21'. This gives you a clue as to what to look for and some idea of the likely speed. I know this probably takes a millisecond more of air time and also requires some knowledge of aircraft types; but I like it!

[Torque Tonight]

As military traffic is on 243, why should they give a f**K?Err, no. Military aircraft will use whatever frequency is appropriate, VHF or UHF. But as 'contact' in this sense is incorrect for both civvies or mil, that's irrelevant.

Also, they are probably more concerned with trying to see through their dirty windscreen, than playing the radio police.
Very witty.:rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

Very witty

Really?

Tornado pilot blames dirty windscreen for near-miss - The Scotsman (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Tornado-pilot-blames-dirty-windscreen.6748674.jp)

[Torque Tonight]

I was already aware of the incident. Still can't see what relevance or value it has to this thread.

Presumably you just raise it to have a pop at those with a military flying background. Never mind. Disregard any military angle on this discussion at all, and simply check the reference I provided from CAP413 which provides an official civil answer to the original question.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF
Page 249 of the PDF if that helps.

[Final 3 Greens]

I don't take a pop at those with a military background, only pompous gits from ny background.

Now find me "fly radar heading" in CAP413, please.

[ChampChump]

I thought you were supposed to say "Tally Ho". In deep Kent, anyway

Well, I smiled, anyway, IO540.


CC

In deepest Kent.

[Torque Tonight]

F3G, You must've got up on the wrong side of bed. The gentleman asks if a phrase is normal R/T. I give him a straight answer with a reference: 'may be understood but is technically incorrect'. Thanks for your input by the way.

Now find me "fly radar heading" in CAP413, please.
Read it yourself.

[AdamFrisch]

While we're on the subject of RT I have to say I like the American way of communicating in the circuit by prefacing their calls with the aircraft type and then call-sign e.g. 'Cessna 172 G-ABCD (N123) left base 21'. This gives you a clue as to what to look for and some idea of the likely speed. I know this probably takes a millisecond more of air time and also requires some knowledge of aircraft types; but I like it!

I agree.

Prefacing with type of aircraft is great, because not only does it inform your fellow pilots what aircraft to look for and what performance your likely to have, but it adds two more benefits: ATC can now separate visually by saying "you're number 2 after a Seneca on short final", rather than having to look that info up. Also, you can now (although not strictly correct), abbreviate by saying "Seneca turning base" etc in high workload airspace. It saves time. N- or G-numbers have very little use in spotting traffic.

[reportyourlevel]

Now find me "fly radar heading" in CAP413, please.

It isn't there, but you knew that. What is there, though, is "report radar heading to..." which leads to this sort of confusion.

...only pompous gits from ny background. (sic)

It's best not throw to stones if you live in a glass house.

[reportyourlevel]

Prefacing with type of aircraft is great, because not only does it inform your fellow pilots what aircraft to look for and what performance your likely to have, but it adds two more benefits: ATC can now separate visually by saying "you're number 2 after a Seneca on short final", rather than having to look that info up.

As long as it is the type and not just the manufacturer - saying "Cessna" doesn't help me, unless your 152 has the same performance as the XLS that's up your hoop. The aircraft type doesn't really need to be looked up, it's right there on my strip just above your callsign.

[DX Wombat]

is perfectly acceptable R/T and means what it says.

No it isn't. Contact means precisely that - contact the one ahead ie: call the one ahead. Aircraft changing frequency to another ATZ/FIR are usually told "Contact (eg)Scottish on ..." Use of the word "contact" to convey anything else is grossly misleading.

[flybymike]

I admit to using "Contact one on the runway" (in the hope of getting a land after clearance at an ATC field) and also (horror of horrors) using "rolling" when commencing the take off run at some yokel strip where I may consider that the locals don't have a clue what is happening and might just decide to blunder on to the runway just as I reach 60 knots. I very much agree with using aircraft type identification whilst in the air, and at busy fly-ins I also often use aircraft colour to help A/G, FIS or ATC with visual identification when taxying.

[BEagle]

Contact has (or at least, use to have) at least 3 different meanings in the military flying world:

1. "Contact left 5 deg, 20 miles, 1000ft above" = I have traffic on radar (as stated).

2. "Contact Neatishead on TAD 123" = Call that GCI controller on (whatever UHF frequency Tactical Air Designator 123 decodes as). Although I thiink that was eventually changed from "contact" to "call".

3. "Contact, grid 123456" = there's a firefight at (wherever 123456 is).

And as for 'secure'..... "Secure the building" to a pongo means smash the door down, check the rooms are clear of hostiles. To a fishead it means lock the building up and b*gger off for the weekend. To the RAF it probably means make sure that we have the use of the building.

[WelshHopper]

And as for 'secure'..... "Secure the building" to a pongo means smash the door down, check the rooms are clear of hostiles. To a fishead it means lock the building up and b*gger off for the weekend. To the RAF it probably means make sure that we have the use of the building.


I belive the RN term 'Secure' now relates to future employment for Aircraft Carrier staff. ;)

[patowalker]

Annex 10
See UK AIP GEN 1.7
In the UK, the name of either the aircraft manufacturer, or name of the aircraft model, or name of the aircraft category (e.g. helicopter or gyrocopter) may be used as a prefix to the callsign.

[Conventional Gear]

Quote:
is perfectly acceptable R/T and means what it says.
No it isn't. Contact means precisely that - contact the one ahead ie: call the one ahead. Aircraft changing frequency to another ATZ/FIR are usually told "Contact (eg)Scottish on ..." Use of the word "contact" to convey anything else is grossly misleading.


Have to say I was so use to hearing and being taught to say 'contact 1 ahead' in the circuit that the scenario of a solo student pilot, in front getting very confused by 'contact 1 ahead' had not occurred to me.

Having said that is it really confusing? The call does not originate from a ground operator, G-XX contact 1 ahead' originates from another aircraft so, surely cannot be misconstrued as meaning 'aircraft ahead of me contact (call) the 1 ahead of you' which is an instruction and could only originate from an ATC unit. In fact someone who didn't understand it wouldn't even know they are the 'contact' being referred to. (Unless the receiving station misheard the G-XX as their own callsign - which is a another argument for another day!)

Perhaps a strong case for the CAA to clarify 'contact 1 ahead' in CAP 413, either that it is an alternative meaning for 'contact' as no ambiguity exists, or a statement that the wording should not be used in this context. It's clearly a topic that is causing some polarisation here on PPruNe and clearly the term is in common use in the context of 'visual contact with another aircraft in the circuit'.

[Fuji Abound]

I always love these threads about "correct" RT

- it is usually a good time to get the pop corn out as the fun and games commence. ;)

[S-Works]

F3G, You must've got up on the wrong side of bed. The gentleman asks if a phrase is normal R/T. I give him a straight answer with a reference: 'may be understood but is technically incorrect'. Thanks for your input by the way.


Quote:
Now find me "fly radar heading" in CAP413, please.

Read it yourself.

To be fair you did rather more than that. You want off one actually....

PS Ex Mil myself so save that pompous response as well please.
:p

[S-Works]

Contact has (or at least, use to have) at least 3 different meanings in the military flying world:

1. "Contact left 5 deg, 20 miles, 1000ft above" = I have traffic on radar (as stated).

2. "Contact Neatishead on TAD 123" = Call that GCI controller on (whatever UHF frequency Tactical Air Designator 123 decodes as). Although I thiink that was eventually changed from "contact" to "call".

3. "Contact, grid 123456" = there's a firefight at (wherever 123456 is).

And as for 'secure'..... "Secure the building" to a pongo means smash the door down, check the rooms are clear of hostiles. To a fishead it means lock the building up and b*gger off for the weekend. To the RAF it probably means make sure that we have the use of the building.

Ha! Now that made me laugh! Although for the RAF we viewed secure as leaving some rock ape in DPM with SLR/SA80 making it look occupied while we bogged off to the mess for a dining in/out....

[CruiseAttitude]

It's also better to hear than 'Rolling' which really does annoy me :}


Why does this annoy you?

'Rolling' is not actually in CAP413. According to CAP413 you should say 'taking off, G-CD' if at an A/G or FIS field. The only other time you should say the words 'take off' is when reading back a take off clearance from ATC. Before then we only say 'ready for departure'.

However, I was told off once by an instructor for saying 'Taking Off' at an A/G field, he told me to just say 'Rolling'. Saying 'Taking Off' seems clearer to me because it is informing everyone what you are doing without any ambiguity.

Although, I must admit that since I was told off...I actually just say 'rolling' now :cool:.

[BackPacker]

I occasionally use "rolling" too. In the situation where I've been cleared for take-off, and having read back that clearance, but not able to go just yet for wake turbulence separation. (Intersection departures behind 737s are very common where I fly.) So I'm all lined up and cleared for take-off and when the wake turbulence wait periode is over, I call "rolling". I don't know what else to say, and a call like this seems to be appreciated by ATC anyway.

Technically I think I don't have to say anything though in that situation.

[Fuji Abound]

We did the debate on rolling only very recently but by all means do it again.

In fact I will even contribute because I didnt understand then and dont understand now why rolling could possibly annoy anyone - you know exactly what it means so why the problem - and please take that as a genuine interested question.

[reportyourlevel]

but not able to go just yet for wake turbulence separation. (Intersection departures behind 737s are very common where I fly.

You shouldn't be given the clearance until it's safe, or at least will be safe when you get airborne. For example if I need two minutes for wake turbulence (or separation for that matter) I would normally give you the clearance at about 1:40 after the previous airborne time, knowing that by the time you have read it back, powered up, rolled and rotated you'll have the required spacing/separation.

[flybymike]

I think that a reminder to all on the frequency (except perhaps at an ATC field) that you are commencing the take off run, can only be a good thing, Nothing naff about it at all.

[Jan Olieslagers]

and clearly the term is in common use
Only in one country, as far as this discussion shows, and even there not at all aerodromes.

[VMC-on-top]

Having said that is it really confusing? The call does not originate from a ground operator, G-XX contact 1 ahead' originates from another aircraft so, surely cannot be misconstrued as meaning 'aircraft ahead of me contact (call) the 1 ahead of you'

But it could also mean (to the unfamiliar, or student / inexperienced)

"I want to contact the one ahead"
"I want the one ahead to contact me"

Sounds ambiguous to me not to use at all! I also say "visual with number 1 / number 2" but only when I can see the other aircraft in the circuit ahead of me ; or "visual with traffic on short / "X" mile final"

[BackPacker]

You shouldn't be given the clearance until it's safe, or at least will be safe when you get airborne.

That's what they've always told me. ATC will apply the necessary wait time and will give you your take-off clearance only when it's safe to go.

However, in practice, that's not how it works at my home base. As soon as the 737 is no longer in contact with the runway, we get our take-off clearance, with the addition 'regarding the wake turbulence of the 737 that just departed'. So wake turbulence separation is left to our own discretion.

And to be honest, I like that. There are regular occasions where I'm able to lift off sooner, and establish an initial angle of climb that keeps me well above the 737s take-off path. And if I make an early turn, there's no chance for me to get caught in his wake turbulence. So in those situations it wouldn't make sense to wait, say, three minutes.

[patowalker]

A bit like "don't mention the war".

When referring to visual contact, don't mention contact.

CAP 413: If no visual contact is gained, a missed approach ...


Yes, I do know about that "take-off" in Tenerife.

[Conventional Gear]

'ROLLING'


I was never taught at an A/G field one should do anything other than check all is clear then call 'Ready for Departure' and then take-off. You should not need to say 'taking-off' or 'rolling' because you checked the final approach path right?

Reference to CAP 413 says for A/G one may call 'Airborne' Which to be frank if I'm coming down final is far more useful than 'rolling' which just tells me what I already know, someone is on the runway ahead and therefore it is a wasted call, it doesn't matter to me if they are rolling or not, what matters is they are not still on the runway when I get there, confirmed by 'airborne'.

[Flyingmac]

I went to a busy fly-in at the weekend. As I turned base, an aircraft on final called G-.... Final, contact one on. As I turned final behind him I called G-...., Final, contact one on, one ahead. Letting the guy in front of me know that I was aware of him as well as the aircraft that had touched down. There's nothing ambiguous about it. It's good airmanship, has worked well for many years and is certainly standard procedure when A/g or safetycom is in use. I don't think it matters much whether you say Contact or Visual. You'll still be understood.

Very often an air/ground operator will only give you airfield information and it's up to the pilots to sort themselves out. That's where the value of such calls lies. Anyone who's confused by them needs help.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I went to a busy fly-in at the weekend. As I turned base, an aircraft on final called G-.... Final, contact one on. As I turned final behind him I called G-...., Final, contact one on, one ahead. Letting the guy in front of me know that I was aware of him as well as the aircraft that had touched down. There's nothing ambiguous about it. It's good airmanship, has worked well for many years and is certainly standard procedure when A/g or safetycom is in use. I don't think it matters much whether you say Contact or Visual. You'll still be understood.

Very often an air/ground operator will only give you airfield information and it's up to the pilots to sort themselves out. That's where the value of such calls lies. Anyone who's confused by them needs help.

Pretty much what I'd do, and have done for years, also.

There may be mileage in using "visual" instead of "contact", to reduce confusion - but since many people have been using "contact" for decades, I don't honestly think the confusion issue is real.

A bit like saying you'll be arriving somewhere at "minute 45" which is how I learned it - reading CAP 413 the other day, I saw that it is now "time 45", meaning the same thing? Not sure when that changed, but I've still been using (and hearing others using) "minute 45" and never had a complaint or signs of confusion.

G

[Flyingmac]

I was never taught at an A/G field one should do anything other than check all is clear then call 'Ready for Departure' and then take-off. You should not need to say 'taking-off' or 'rolling' because you checked the final approach path right?
Reference to CAP 413 says for A/G one may call 'Airborne' Which to be frank if I'm coming down final is far more useful than 'rolling' which just tells me what I already know, someone is on the runway ahead and therefore it is a wasted call, it doesn't matter to me if they are rolling or not, what matters is they are not still on the runway when I get there, confirmed by 'airborne'.


If you happen to visit Bagby we'd appreciate a 'Lining up 24 for immediate' call, as you can't be seen by anyone leaving the parking area to cross the runway to the taxyway. Then there's the small matter of aircraft using 24 for take-off and 06 for landing due to the slope.

I might just add that your 'Ready for departure' call is meaningless to an A/G operator. That's assuming the radio is manned. So 'lining up' and 'rolling' calls would be nice. Better than bent metal.

[FantomZorbin]

How about "Eyeballs Rolling" ...... "Eyeballs Locked-on" which was the response to traffic information given to one aircraft!

[CruiseAttitude]

You should not need to say 'taking-off' or 'rolling' because you checked the final approach path right?

I think a 'Rolling' or 'Taking Off' call is useful. If I am making a crosswind join at the time that another aircraft is taking off there could be a potential conflict as I would be passing directly overhead the inactive threshold at circuit height. I would want to know if the aircraft on the runway is about to start its takeoff roll or whether it will hold its position until I am clear and have turned downwind.

Lining up and starting the take off roll are two separate things. I know that ideally at an A/G field you will only line up when you are ready for take off and it is clear to do so i.e. nothing on final, however ive had a couple of occasions when I have already lined up and then I hear over the radio that an a/c is joining crosswind, in which case I would hold until it has passed. In this case, I advise over the radio that I will hold until the other aircraft has passed, then radio 'rolling/taking off' when I start the run.

At the end of the day at an A/G field, we the pilots are responsible for separation, so surely the more precise the information about our intentions the better. The 'Taking Off' phrase is specified in CAP413 after all.

Calling airbourne is useful too I agree e.g. G-CD airborne runway 21, climbing through xxxx for xxxx on xxxx, heading xxx.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Sounds like it was a Space cadet... something like the person who wrote:

"As military traffic is on 243, why should they give a f**K?"

[hatzflyer]

This thread seems fixated on "contact one".
I think thats missing the point.
When joining a busy airfield at say mid day for a fly in it is not unusual to have 10 or more aircraft in the circuit.
At that point you don't want ums and arrhs in the transmitions or "hello fred how are you today".
So it was common practice to say " I am in visual contact with 1 (or 2/3 ) ahead when joining.This told the ATC that you had seen the other aircraft and you will take your place in the que and not cut anyone up. The reply was "you are number 2 (or 3/4)" and confirm your place in the que.

The point was if the controller realised you hadn't seen ALL the aircraft in front he would automatically reply with " you are no. 6" .

The whole thing was quite condensed, "contact one (or 2,3,4,5,6,) ahead"became the shorthand version.
It was implicit in this message that you had seen the aircraft ahead and fit in without cutting anyone up.

I still use it, as a strip flyer that frequents fly ins that are often A/G only it lets people know you have seen them and they can consentrate on landing without having to wonder if the bloke behind is going up their chuff.
I think its a great shame its now a wonder to so many people and am somewhat supprised by this thread.:ugh:

[flybymike]

I was never taught at an A/G field one should do anything other than check all is clear then call 'Ready for Departure' and then take-off. You should not need to say 'taking-off' or 'rolling' because you checked the final approach path right?
Reference to CAP 413 says for A/G one may call 'Airborne' Which to be frank if I'm coming down final is far more useful than 'rolling' which just tells me what I already know, someone is on the runway ahead and therefore it is a wasted call, it doesn't matter to me if they are rolling or not, what matters is they are not still on the runway when I get there, confirmed by 'airborne'.


If you happen to visit Bagby we'd appreciate a 'Lining up 24 for immediate' call, as you can't be seen by anyone leaving the parking area to cross the runway to the taxyway. Then there's the small matter of aircraft using 24 for take-off and 06 for landing due to the slope.

I might just add that your 'Ready for departure' call is meaningless to an A/G operator. That's assuming the radio is manned. So 'lining up' and 'rolling' calls would be nice. Better than bent metal.



Absolutely spot on FM

[Conventional Gear]

I might just add that your 'Ready for departure' call is meaningless to an A/G operator.

Refer CAP 413, section 5.4.3 for use of 'Ready for departure' at an A/G field.

It's not meaningless at all even if it is not manned, if I'm on final at an A/G field and someone else calls 'ready for departure' that indicates clearly to me they have finished their take-off/power checks and intend to line up if the approach is clear. I'll be watching them and hopefully they will have seen me. It's a bit late when they say 'lining up', but if in doubt after a 'ready for departure' one can repeat 'G-XX Final' to remind them you are there. (Surely these things happen to others don't they?)


It's interesting discussing the topic, certainly seems that either, one can be use to operations at a particular field and assume the RT is the 'norm' without that being the case.

Or perhaps reading a lot of the replies it is the case at a lot of A/G fields and it is only those that rarely visit them that don't get 'contact 1 ahead' and then say 'rolling' when they take-off as they haven't really understood the environment much and perhaps feel they should warn everyone. (Just a little humor) :p

[Danscowpie]

We did the debate on rolling only very recently but by all means do it again.

I seem to recall that it was the venerable Mr Heathrow Director, or possibly one of his equally venerable colleagues, who, in response to the call by a pilot "rolling" retorted with the phrase "Roger, report inverted".

Always a good one, but ultimately, standard phraseology is paramount, Stand up - Speak Up - Shut up.
Stick to that and you won't go far wrong wherever you go.

[BackPacker]

I seem to recall that it was the venerable Mr Heathrow Director, or possibly one of his equally venerable colleagues, who, in response to the call by a pilot "rolling" retorted with the phrase "Roger, report inverted".

This can happen the other way around too. On downwind, for instance:

"G-ABCD make one 360 over left for separation, report back on downwind"
"One 360 over left, G-CD"
...half a second later...
"Back on downwind, G-CD"

How fast does your aircraft snaproll?

[Final 3 Greens]

Torque Tonight

Read it yourself

If you knew CAP413, you would know that phrase is not in there.

So why do you think it is in regular use in the airways?

Heathrow Director

Sense of humour failure, or Victor Meldrew tendencies developing with the hair growing out of the nose and ears? :}

Danscowpie

But whose standard phraseology?

[Mark1234]

ultimately, standard phraseology is paramount, Stand up - Speak Up - Shut up.

Couldn't agree less. The old saw is "aviate, navigate, communicate". When (if) you must communicate, stick to standard phraseology, but, if there is a *need* to communicate, and you either don't know, or there isn't standard phraseology to do so, just get the message out in the most concise way you can think of.

There's more to flying than being word perfect on your R/T. Not to suggest one should be lax, but it is a long way down the scale from paramount. I'm currently minded of taxiing in from a flight listening to a guy at the pumps deliver a perfectly phrased spiel - then taxi forward into an iron re-bar which was holding up the red and white striped "don't go here" tape..

[Flyingmac]

I might just add that your 'Ready for departure' call is meaningless to an A/G operator.

Refer CAP 413, section 5.4.3 for use of 'Ready for departure' at an A/G field.

It's not meaningless at all even if it is not manned, if I'm on final at an A/G field and someone else calls 'ready for departure' that indicates clearly to me they have finished their take-off/power checks and intend to line up if the approach is clear. I'll be watching them and hopefully they will have seen me. It's a bit late when they say 'lining up', but if in doubt after a 'ready for departure' one can repeat 'G-XX Final' to remind them you are there. (Surely these things happen to others don't they
?)

I occasionally get 'Ready for departure' calls. My reply is usually 'Roger'.
I might pass them the wind speed and direction. I might pass them traffic information if I think it affects them. I'll often see them sit for several minutes waiting for an instruction that they're never going to get.

[BackPacker]

I occasionally get 'Ready for departure' calls. My reply is usually 'Roger'.

And that's exactly what I don't like about A/G or AFIS setups.

As a pilot, I want to use the radio to convey safety information to other pilots. Where I am in the circuit for instance, or what my intentions are.

I know the A/G or AFIS operator couldn't care less, but because he/she is the "owner" of the frequency, it seems as if all my calls have to be directed at him and he's got to respond somehow. And indeed, to 9 out of 10 calls, the proper response from this operator is "roger".

I have flown in the US where fields have a CTAF frequency. There is nobody on the ground monitoring this, so it's clear that any transmission on this frequency is directed at other traffic near the field. In fact, you address the recipients as "XXX traffic" and if necessary you engage in air-to-air communications with another aircraft directly. It's much clearer that way.

As said earlier, my "ready for departure" call at an A/G or AFIS field is not intended for the operator. It's a chance for an aircraft on final to call "final" once again, just in case I haven't seen him. And if I have seen him, I'll add a "traffic on final in sight" or "behind the traffic short final".

I wish at an A/G or AFIS field we could make two different types of calls. The first type would be "XXX radio, bla bla bla" or "XXX information, bla bla bla" which makes clear that I need information from the operator. Runway in use, QNH, QFE, circuit direction, wind, taxi instructions, whatever. And the second type would be "XXX traffic, bla bla bla" which makes clear that I want to convey information to others near the field. My position in the circuit and my intentions for instance. That last type of call would be a "blind" call, with no response expected from anyone, unless my intentions interfere with the intentions of another aircraft. In which case I expect him to tell me his position and intentions, so that we can work out a plan.

I'll often see them sit for several minutes waiting for an instruction that they're never going to get.

That's just stupidity on their part. Not your fault. And something that's not going to change even if I got my wish. You'll never going to get a take-off clearance at an uncontrolled field no matter how the radio procedures are changed.

[Final 3 Greens]

Backpacker

As an A/G licence holder, it is not so much that I do not care, as I am not allowed to do anything other than pass on certain information. As Flyingmac says 'ready for departure' has no meaning, as I cannot clear them to enter the runway or to take off - I guess I could respond 'I have a spaniel dog', but the authorities would not like that ;)

IIRC an AFISO may give limited clearances, e.g. taxiing and depart at own discretion, so they need to know intentions.

[Conventional Gear]

I'm 100% with Backpacker on the reason for calls at an A/G field.

If I call Downwind, I'm not expecting the A/G operator to pass the information to others as known traffic - 'traffic is a PA-28 Downwind' I'm telling other pilots in the circuit that I'm Downwind.

I don't expect a reply from the A/G operator if calling 'ready for departure' - I'm telling those on base, final, behind me doing power checks, that I'm about to line up and take-off. It's well understood that is what it means at our field. One is ready for departure and intends after checking the approach path to do so.

If one hears 'G-YY' Ready for Departure' and is well down the final approach, a repeat call of 'G-XX Final' has on several occasions been met by 'G-YY Holding' which saves me a go around.


The problems come from visiting aircraft who are not use to operating in the A/G environment, if they are waiting for instructions from an A/G operator they really need to go back to the basics for a bit of revision.

A/G fields are about pilots communicating with each other, that is my experience, our operators can't even see the circuit or most of the runway, so I'm not expecting them to inform me of traffic or much else other than the runway in use, circuit direction, QFE/QNH and perhaps the surface wind if required.

[Kolossi]

Surely the point of the "Roger" from the A/G operator is to confirm that everyone on the frequency did actually here your "blind" transmission of ready for departure/downwind/finals - ie that you did press PTT, that the mic, radio, aerial did work?

Is it really a big deal if the A/G operator replies "Roger"? - it takes less than a half second and can be ignored if it bothers you, but why should it?

[Conventional Gear]

Roger from A/G doesn't bother me, sometimes they reply with two 'clicks' the issue is that 'ready for departure' might not mean anything to the A/G operators contributing to this thread, it sure means something to me as a pilot on final.

The point being other than an initial call to A/G for radio check and airfield information all subsequent calls of, taxi, ready for departure, downwind, final are for the benefit of other pilots at an A/G field, not the A/G operator.

If A/G say 'roger' yes it is reassuring that one is actually transmitting. If they reply 'I have a spaniel dog' though it might be somewhat amusing it really misses the point that the objective of the calls is to other pilots. At an A/G field we as pilots have the responsibility of not bumping into each other and the radio calls are generally for that purpose not the benefit of the A/G operator. (Who may well be in the loo, on the phone, dealing with a customer etc etc)

[patowalker]

At a place I visit, the reply from A/G to "Ready for departure" is usually "At your discretion".

[Conventional Gear]

At a place I visit, the reply from A/G to "Ready for departure" is usually "At your discretion".

tut tut, that should be reserved for AFIS and a FISO not an A/G operator.

Refer CAP 413 5.4.2

NOTE: Air ground operators must not use the expression ‘at your discretion’ as this is associated with the service provided by FISOs and is likely to cause
confusion to pilots.

[Final 3 Greens]

Conventional Gear

I think you might have slightly missed my point.

The word 'roger' only means I heard something on the r/t, not that I understood it.

One should not rely on it as confirming that your transmission was understood.

e.g. if you transmit 'G-ABCD radio check' and I reply 'roger', what does that mean?

If I reply 'G-ABCD, receiving you five', then it is rather more meaningful.

Saying I have a spaniel means as little as saying 'roger.' In the case of ready for departure, I cannot do any more than use words that acknowledge your transmission, I'm not allowed to.

I do understand your point about using the A/G service to alert other aircraft to your intentions and it is well made.

[Conventional Gear]

I don't think I'm missing the point. I just take 'roger' from A/G as reassurance that my call was transmitted on frequency. It is a reply I might expect (if any) to 'ready for departure'

For Example:

Example Radio, 123.450, G-XXXX, radio check and airfield information for departure

G-XX reading you five, runway in use 07, right hand circuit, QNH 1001

reading you five also, 07 right hand circuit, QNH 1001

The above is a direct communication to the A/G operator, I expect certain information as the reply.

Next call:

G-XX taxi to hold 07

Here I might expect no reply from A/G, it's information to other pilots that I'm going to taxi to hold for runway 07. The A/G may reply 'Roger' I simply take that as meaning 'we heard and understood your last transmission'. Hopefully then so did everyone else on frequency.

I arrive at the holding area, carry out my power checks and pre-take off checks. At this time pilots on final can see me, they might be wondering is that aircraft about to line up?

At the end of the checks I scan the approach path and call:

G-XX Ready for Departure

The pilot on final who I didn't see now knows I'm ready to depart and is warned.

A/G may or may not respond 'roger' which means nothing more to me than the A/G Operator heard and understood my transmission. It was not actually for their benefit in any case, but hey I like our A/G operators so they can say 'roger' if they like. If they don't it doesn't matter much.

If they reply 'I have a spaniel dog' it conveys exactly the same information, but 'roger' is shorter and better R/T ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have known airfields use "Roger, take-off at your discretion" - making it clear that it's okay with the A/G operator, but ultimately entirely up to the pilot.

I've also known airfields where seeing what's on final approach from any sensible position to line up from, is very hard.

So, for example:

"Popham radio, G-ABCD, ready for departure on 26"
"G-ABCD, take off at your discretion, but recommend you wait for the Cessna on finals"

Is pro-safety, surely?

G

[Final 3 Greens]

Conventional Gear

A/G may or may not respond 'roger' which means nothing more to me than the A/G Operator heard and understood my transmission

I'm not being pedantic (well I guess I am, but only because it is important information) but 'roger' does not mean understood, only heard.

Anyway, not trying to start an argument :O

Ghengis

I've heard A/G operators use the 'D' word, too, but they shouldn't, as it is a type of clearance to be given by AFISO's.

[Conventional Gear]

You win, you are correct in being pedantic, I should not have said 'understood'

ROGER I have received all your last transmission.
Note: Under no circumstances to be used in reply to a question
requiring a direct answer in the affirmative (AFFIRM) or
negative (NEGATIVE).

But it doesn't change the general drift of the topic in terms of the role of an A/G operator and the purpose of calls such as 'ready for departure' at an A/G field, which are certainly not meaningless to pilots.

[Conventional Gear]

And while being pedantic

I've heard A/G operators use the 'D' word, too, but they shouldn't, as it is a type of clearance to be given by AFISO's.


Are you really sure the 'D' word is a 'clearance' :p

Or for that matter that a AFIS can issue a clearance other than one passed to them by an ATU which must be clearly stated as such. :E

[Final 3 Greens]

Or for that matter that a AFIS can issue a clearance other than one passed to them by an ATU which much be clearly stated as such.

As I understand it (and I am a layman) an AFISO shall not inform an aircraft that the runway is clear, until after ATC has cleared it for take off, assuming a clearance is required.

If a clearance is not required, then the AFISO may inform the aircraft that the runway is clear, by issuing the 'take off at your discretion' phrase.

I also believe that AFISOs control aircraft on the ground, so as I understand it, 'take off at your discretion' is a clearance to enter the runway, but I am happy to be corrected, as I am not an AFISO, only licensed to do A/G.

[Conventional Gear]

It's in the definition of 'clearance' a clearance must always be read back btw.

Take off at your discretion

Is not a 'clearance'


It is distinct from an ATCO saying 'Cleared to take-off 07' which is a 'clearance'


CLEARED ‡ Authorised to proceed under the conditions specified



A FISO cannot do that, they can only say 'Take off at your discretion'

Take off at your discretion certainly doesn't say you are 'cleared to take off', it says take off WHEN YOU have confirmed it is clear and safe to do so. Remember a FISO cannot issue instructions only information most of the time:

CAP 413 2.2.2

Whilst the RTF procedures used by air traffic controllers form the main content of this
publication it should be noted that the phraseology used by FISOs at aerodromes is
different from that used by controllers. A FISO at an aerodrome provides a service to
give information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights in the Aerodrome
Traffic Zone. From the information received pilots will be able to decide the
appropriate course of action to be taken to ensure the safety of flight. Generally, the
FISO is not permitted to issue instructions or advice to pilots of his own volition.
However, in granting or refusing permission under Rule 40 and 41 of the Rules of the
Air, FISOs at aerodromes are permitted to pass instructions to vehicles and personnel
operating on the manoeuvring area and information and instructions to aircraft moving
on the apron and specific parts of the manoeuvring area. Elsewhere on the
manoeuvring area and at all times in the air, information only shall be passed to pilots.
Further details on the passing of instructions by FISOs at aerodromes are contained
in CAP 410 Manual of Flight Information Services - Part B Aerodrome.


I cannot find any reference to a FISO being able to use the term 'cleared' i.e. to issue a 'clearance' in CAP 413 - but I'm more than happy to be corrected too, the point of the exercise is to learn after all, not prove one is always right. :ok:

[Flyingmac]

Conventional Gear.

When you've worn out your copy of CAP 413, (shouldn't be long now), I've got an unopened one you can have. Unless we run out of loo roll.

[Conventional Gear]

No need, I have the PDF and can print off lots of copies for myself :)

[Crash one]

"Visual one ahead/on." Is, IMHO, unambiguos. It means "I can see the guy ahead". "Contact" means two things, "Call xxx they have your details" or "I am about to make physical contact with the propellor with the intention of hand starting the engine, I understand the magnetos are live".
I am & always will be under the impression that "Roger" means "Your message received & understood". If it wern't understood it should be "station calling xxx say again" or perhaps "G-XX say again, over". At least it was in the Mil 40 yrs ago!
And "Secure" in the Navy meant, End of working time (1600 I seem to remember).

[flybymike]

I agree that it would be completely perverse to say "Roger" in response to a message which one had not understood.

[Conventional Gear]

Well I must admit I did think 'roger' meant received and understood too.

I thought the distinction was that it doesn't imply the pilot will actually conform with an instruction, hence why a simple 'roger' isn't always an appropriate response.

[Final 3 Greens]

From CAP413, chapter 2, page 6

I have received all your last transmission.
Note: Under no circumstances to be used in reply to a question
requiring a direct answer in the affirmative (AFFIRM) or
negative (NEGATIVE).

No mention of the last transmission being understood, only received in whole. (Although I agree with Flybymike's view.)

If you look at most of the examples in CAP413, 'Roger' is used to acknowledge receipt, before a further message is passed, with the further information or question then setting the context for the reply.

I would opine that 'Roger' alone can be ambiguous.

[flybymike]

Well I must admit I did think 'roger' meant received and understood too.

I thought the distinction was that it doesn't imply the pilot will actually conform with an instruction, hence why a simple 'roger' isn't always an appropriate response.

The response which I would use to indicate my intention to comply with a request or instruction would be "Wilco."

[Crash one]

No mention of the last transmission being understood, only received in whole. (Although I agree with Flybymike's view.)



I think this idea that "Roger" meaning "received but not necessarily understood" is utter bolloks. How on earth can you acknowledge receipt of something if you didn't understand it? This argument is pandering to the modern pedantic culture of "Ah but you didn't exactly explain that to the exact nano letter".
Early during my training I acknowleged a transmission from A/G with "Roger". My instructor asked "What did he say?"--"Um, I'm not sure" "Then why did you say roger if you don't know?" Lesson learned.

edit:- By the way, I have a spaniel dog, it's a Cavalier King Charles 3 months old tricolour called Bruno. Just thought I'd mention that piece of trivia.

[Final 3 Greens]

Crash One

Please show me where CAP413 states 'Roger' = understood.

Your instructor was showing good airmanship, in my opinion, in challenging you.

There are many reasons one may get a 'roger' from someone who received the whole transmission, but did not understand, including the humn factor you mention :}

Before this gets out of hand and into a DFC type argument, my point is simply that one should know the meanings of standard phraseology, if you are going to use it.

And that meaning should be unambiguous. Roger means you received the whole message, nothing more.

[flybymike]

And that meaning should be unambiguous. Roger means you received the whole message, nothing more.
Ah, so the next time I receive some incomprehensible jibberish from a Geordie/Scottish mate of Mad Jock, and I say "Roger" he may rest assured I have understood every word. Same goes for Serbo Croat and Esperanto transmissions as well I suppose.

If I were a controller and seriously believed "Roger" to mean simply that the transmission had been received but not necessarily understood, then I would feel duty bound to ask the recipient to explain to me in further detail exactly what it was he understood by my transmission. This requirement would make a complete mockery of the use of the word under any useful circumstances whatsoever.
There are many reasons one may get a 'roger' from someone who received the whole transmission, but did not understand
Please list these many reasons. I have forgotten them.

[Crash one]

Final three greens
It may not be written in CAP 413 but the point I am trying in vain to make is that it is a senseless thing to do to reply that you have received a message but not actually understood it.
My good lady was in the Mil air traffic business many moons ago & when asked what roger meant her immediate reply 45yrs on was "message received & UNDERSTOOD".
Just because CAP 413 doesn't actually state in words of one sylable UN DER STOOD, does not mean that we should reply "Roger" to a burst of carrier wave static. And if that is what we are supposed to do then CAP 413 needs to be clarified.
I am talking about the SPIRIT of the "law" here, not the picky nano missing but obvious "real" meaning.
If you received a transmission "Gxx fast jet traffic on your 12oclock same height, break! break! break!" You didn't understand it but replied (with butterflies fluttering round your head) "Roger" & continued on your way.
What is the controller going to think when he sees three blips on his screen disappear?
It doesnt particularly state in my POH that this a/c should (must) not be fitted with guns. Does this mean that I can fit them?

Edit:- FlybyMike beat me to it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The pursuit of regulatory pedantry over common sense in this thread is absolutely mind boggling.

My 2 cents

1) If you plan to fly in North America don't use "Contact One" as they will have no idea what you mean

2) The practical universally understood meaning of "roger" in the aeronautical universe is " I have heard your transmission and understand it's contents". It does not mean " I agree with what you said" or "I am giving you permission to do what you said". It is simply acknowledging receipt of your transmission and anybody who thinks that one should acknowledge an unintelligible transmission with "roger" is so out of touch with the reality of how aircraft are operated they have no business being around aircraft.

[Crash one]

Another vote in favour of sanity. Keep them coming.

[mm_flynn]

Out of curiosity, what is the practical difference from the perspective of the message transmitter between "Roger" being interpreted as

"I have received but may not have understood your transmission"

And

"I have received but may not agree with nor do I necessarily intend to implement your transmission"

-------------
One example of using Roger in the first sense is when ATC gives you a 'Free Call xyz on 12£.&^%'

you may not have understood the frequency, but had no intention of calling them anyhow so it doesn't make sense to ask for the frequency again.

[Jan Olieslagers]

If you plan to fly in North America don't use "Contact One" as they will have no idea what you mean

Make that "outside the UK"

[jxk]

After landing on one of my first flights in the US the controller said, 'go to point 6'. I looked everywhere for this place, didn't realise he wanted me to change frequency to 121 decimal 6. Just another quirk between different countries.

[Final 3 Greens]

Out of curiosity, what is the practical difference from the perspective of the message transmitter between "Roger" being interpreted as

"I have received but may not have understood your transmission"

And

"I have received but may not agree with nor do I necessarily intend to implement your transmission"

Excellent point :D:D

I love the venom and outrage on here when one simply points out a clear definition from an official publication.

anybody who thinks that one should acknowledge an unintelligible transmission with "roger" is so out of touch with the reality of how aircraft are operated they have no business being around aircraft.

That is not what I am saying, in that instance there is specific phraseology to use.

Crash One/Flybymike - do you hold any form of ground station licence? The way you write makes me think not, for all the huffing and puffing.

If you read CAP413 and look at the use of Roger, you will find very few occasions when it is not used as a precursor to another phrase, e.g. "G-XXXX Roger. Wind 230/10 knots, cleared for take off runway 23."

CAP413 says specifically that 'Roger' should not be used as a response to calls requiring an affirmative or negative response and that is for the very good reason that the call only confirms the station received the whole message.

If I was working A/G and an aircraft called 'ready for departure', rather than say 'roger', I would say either "G-XX 2 aircraft reporting in the circuit'' or ''G-XX, no known traffic' and leave it at that. I wouldn't use 'roger' as it is just wasting time saying another word on what may be a busy frequency.

[Conventional Gear]

If I was working A/G and an aircraft called 'ready for departure', rather than say 'roger', I would say either "G-XX 2 aircraft reporting in the circuit'' or ''G-XX, no known traffic' and leave it at that. I wouldn't use 'roger' as it is just wasting time saying another word on what may be a busy frequency.


Well that is an interesting turn around Final 3 Greens from:


As an A/G licence holder, it is not so much that I do not care, as I am not allowed to do anything other than pass on certain information. As Flyingmac says 'ready for departure' has no meaning, as I cannot clear them to enter the runway or to take off - I guess I could respond 'I have a spaniel dog', but the authorities would not like that

It still rather misses the point that 'ready for departure' at an A/G field is not for the benefit of the A/G operator. ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Well that is an interesting turn around Final 3 Greens from:

No, if you read it again, it is totally consistent.

As an A/G licence holder, it is not so much that I do not care, as I am not allowed to do anything other than pass on certain information.

I can pass them traffic information, which renders the ambiguous 'roger' redundant, woudln't you agree?

While we're at this, I have looked up on 'take off at your discretion' in CAP413.

It seems to me that this is a clearance to enter the runway (not take off, I never suggested that), since an AFISO appears to give taxi instruction to a holding point and then once this phrase has been used, the pilot must then judge whether a departure can be made in compliance with the rules of the air.

Maybe an AFISO will correct me if I have misunderstood this point, as I say I hold only an AGCS r/t licence.

[Crash one]

Crash One/Flybymike - do you hold any form of ground station licence? The way you write makes me think not, for all the huffing and puffing.



Final three greens
For what it's worth &, to make your day no doubt. I have a FRTOL, no A/G licence, & to top it all off I have never read or seen a copy of CAP 413.
I was taught by an ATCO of some repute, & examined by him. (He is an examiner). I was taught not to be afraid of the bloody radio, Iwas taught to use it sensibly, I use my common sense & enough of recognised terminology to do the job safely, concisely & well enough to satisfy him, who I talk to frequently on radio & any other ATCO that I need to contact. I was also used to military terminology which is why I occasionally use "over".
I have very little time for pontificating pendantics who do nothing but quote chapter & verse to the letter of the law. I have little time for authority especially when it is "preaching to the converted" on utterly irrelevant details concerning any subject. And I am too old to change my views. Crash one was the call sign of the big red Thornycroft 6x6 that I used to drive.
My Spaniel dog requires to be let out.

[Final 3 Greens]

Crash one

I am pretty speechless at that rant.

This

& to top it all off I have never read or seen a copy of CAP 413.

Is quite remarkable.

Nothing like keeping your currency, eh?

[dont overfil]

Final 3 Greens,
When did you last read the highway code?
D.O.

[Final 3 Greens]

For which country?

[Crash one]

I am pretty speechless at that rant.

I Knew you would like it.
Shouldn't you have replied using the Speechless code for a/c with faulty RT?
I can't remember how many clicks on the PTT button indicated an aircraft is speechless, possibly four.
But you are bound to know??

[Final 3 Greens]

Speechless code is a military procedure.

[flybymike]

Yet still available for use in Civvy street and still appears in the Holy Bible known as Civil Air Publication 413.

[Frognal]

Yes it does.

But it is specified as a military procedure in there.

The answer is 4, as you probably know.

[Fuji Abound]

Final 3 Greens,
When did you last read the highway code?
D.O.


Just a thought .. .. .. When more haven't read it than have be it the highway code or cap413?

[Crash one]

Perhaps a better plan than sqawking 7600 in a war zone. :ugh:

[Final 3 Greens]

Perhaps a better plan than sqawking 7600 in a war zone.

Yes, lots of those in the UK, so clearly core information for you Crash1, whilst the standard guide that the authority has published has not proven worth half an hour to review.

[coldair]

'CRASH ONE' said ;

"I am talking about the SPIRIT of the "law" here, not the picky nano missing but obvious "real" meaning.
If you received a transmission "Gxx fast jet traffic on your 12oclock same height, break! break! break!" You didn't understand it but replied (with butterflies fluttering round your head) "Roger" & continued on your way.
What is the controller going to think when he sees three blips on his screen disappear? "

I need educating here, if ATC sent me that message I would assume that when he said 'break' he was stopping transmitting to me to send a more important message to another aircraft. I would indeed keep a sharp look out but not reply. Have I mis understood something ?

Somewhat off topic, the only time I have braked in midair, was as a low hour student and a seagull crossed right in front of me on the downwind. I hit the brakes ! and then thought to myself 'that was a rather daft thing to do !' ( I never did that again )

[Crash one]

need educating here, if ATC sent me that message I would assume that when he said 'break' he was stopping transmitting to me to send a more important message to another aircraft. I would indeed keep a sharp look out but not reply. Have I mis understood something ?



I must admit I was being a little flippant, How would a mil controller tell a pilot in such a position to take evasive action as rapidly as possible??

[mm_flynn]

I must admit I was being a little flippant, How would a mil controller tell a pilot in such a position to take evasive action as rapidly as possible??I think the point you are missing is that if the mil controller wanted to confirm you had received, understood and were going to take evasive action, then 'Roger' will not be an acceptable answer as it conveys no real information about your understanding, agreement or intentions.

If the Mil Controller just wanted to Cover His A$$, then the fact he said 'lookout' and you said 'Roger' is good enough. It doesn't really matter if your Roger meant 'Didn't understand that but don't care', 'Understood but not bothered', or 'Understood and I am now going to do something, but not bother to tell you or the other guy'

There was an interesting debate a month or so ago about the 'proper' response to a traffic advisory, and the general view of the UK Controllers seemed to be, they don't really care if you have seen the traffic or not, so Roger is perfectly acceptable. You have heard them say something, they don't care if you understood or what you do with the information if you did understand.

In the US and most of the rest of the places I have flown (including the UK if there is a real collision risk) the controller will badger you until you confirm you have the traffic visually or you are going to do something to address the risk.

[Crash one]

I don't think I'm missing the point. There are obviously occasions when "Roger" alone is not enough.
Under the described circumstances I would reply "G-xx roger, traffic in sight", whilst pulling some g. If I had time to reply at all. If the danger had passed before I could speak, I would the be able to reply "G-xx roger, traffic clear" or some such. I certainly would not be concerned with formulating the absolutely correct response.