Roger is nobodies buddy PJ. He is the guy who drinks your beer and throws up in your car.

Sorry Praise Jebus, ROGER is still in the AIP in Australia as a useable term.

ROGER: I have received all of your last transmission (under NO circumstances to be used in reply to a question requiring READBACK or a direct answer in the affirmative or negative).

Source: Australian AIP GEN 3.4 - 20

It was also part of UK R/T exam IIRC...

Roger Wilco!

However - where has the very annoying 'charlie charlie' come from?

No need to be sorry Icarus, Roger may well be in the AIPs but it is so misused I stick by my comment, it has no place in RT.

Not sure whitey but I believe he can't surf.

Charlie x 2 is from maritime signals, the flags used to communicate stand for individual letters. In addition some flags have a single word meaning as well, it happens that the flag that means YES is the "C" flag or of course Charlie. (I'll mention TCAS, and SA to add relevance to this thread)

Can any of the Bus guys shed light on what these 380 headset/noise canceling ASR's are all about.

Specifically what is the issue?

Some aircraft have the noise cancelling headsets, and some don't. Personally I find that the readability of the non-noise cancelling to be way down on the proper noise cancelling models! Many ASRs have been filed but still the company can't find a few dirhams to get the decent headsets:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of course PJ; I didn't think of maritime flags. And I still use 'roger' to indicate that I've understood a message that doesn't pertain to a clearance or similar:ok:

There's much rogering going on at EK

Not just in AIPs, but it's ICAO standard phraseology.

"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. ‘G-ABCD, taxi to the apron via taxiway Charlie’. Chapter 2 specifies those instructions that are to be read back in full. 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." - UK Radiotelephony Manual CAP 413

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413v21_6.pdf
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/115.pdf
https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/...y/Default.aspx

So yes, "Roger" has a place in RT. As long as mandatory items are read back, it is not misused. ("Charlie, Charlie" however,... that's just nonsense, unless you sail a ship.)

Don't tell me that when ATC tells you: "Traffic, 10 o'clock, passing left to right, climbing to FL360, 1000 feet below you, Airbus 320", you read back the entire message?

I assume that's for me Bus man so no, I don't read back the entire message. I respond with my call sign to indicate I have heard and understood the message. Roger is a redundant statement . Sorry for the drift

Some pilots who have no idea about radio telephony procedures or understanding of the ICAO accepted terms sadly.

Charlie Charlie is not such a term.

But No Noise Cancelling on the Noisy Tractor?
 

At the risk of thread drift, I'm curious why the A380 whose flight deck is known to be very quiet, require noise cancelling headsets and it seems to be an "Air Safety" event when one is not found,

Yet, on the famously noisy Tractor flight deck, there are rarely noice cancelling headsets, and yet there are never any ASR from the Boeing side for this matter.

Not trying to start a flame-war of A vs. B, I'm just honestly curious about this seemingly ironic matter, the quiet airplane gets the noise cancelling?

The majority of 777s have no interphone system fitted(somebody thought it was cool to fly around like John Wayne did with just one headset used to listen to ATC).
The Company should first find a few bucks to retrofit the whole fleet with hot mic feature.

The problem is one pilot will have noise cancelling and the other won't. 380 ops are done on intercom. It isn't undoable but it isn't the way it was designed to be done. If the issue isn't raised it won't be fixed.

There is much more to this story and we've all been in this situation before. Let's not judge based on conjecture and some u tube video produced by someone with obvious ties to the Seychelles.

Thanks for the clarification Bus driver man. Good intel

Another threat drift: Can some of you guys, more specifically on the 777 move the mic a little further away from your mouth? Thanks - the rest of us trying to understand you.

Noise level
 

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/a380-is-so-quie/

"Emirates 703". Nothing more needed or required.



On climb-out with gear up and maximum climb power (no de-rate) the cockpit is about 80-82db. Noise cancelling headsets are not needed, especially when most wear it over one ear.

The germophobes always pull those foam things off the mics. They seem to get full of particles etc.. you know, food, garlic, grease, snot, you name it and guys eventually peel them off, then the transmissions are distorted. Listen to the airwaves, EK R/T is renowned for it. Worst part is some of the guys actually make their PAs with the boom mike, don't seem to have heard of the handset.

Then how will all the yanks answer yes/no questions?