From CAP413, chapter 2, page 6

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
Please list these many reasons. I have forgotten them.

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.

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.

Another vote in favour of sanity. Keep them coming.

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.

Make that "outside the UK"

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.

Excellent point :D:D

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

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.

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


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. ;)

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

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.

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.

Crash one

I am pretty speechless at that rant.

This

Is quite remarkable.

Nothing like keeping your currency, eh?

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

For which country?

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??

Speechless code is a military procedure.

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

Yes it does.

But it is specified as a military procedure in there.

The answer is 4, as you probably know.

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?

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

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.

'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 )

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.

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.