Omitting wilco

I would reply “Will report bravo”
Wilco does not tell the controller that you have understood the instruction. I have not checked but I do not think that “wilco” is the expected reply according to ICAO

I was told that repeating suck things as “report airfield in sight” might create confusion (that you are actually in sight or not).
To these I report only Wilco. I only report the mandatory stuff (headings / altitudes / clearances)

After checking, 0fficer is right that the two examples provided do not require read-backs. In that case acknowledging with call sign, is OK

Read back all clearances. Use Wilco on other instructions if the action is in the future e.g. “report on changing frequency”, “report at 4 miles”, “report localiser established” etc.

That’s my understanding.

I would never ack with just the callsign; that seems definitely wrong.

“Wilco” and “Roger” are superfluous but are understood. The Eurocontrol phraseology guide says:

Acknowledgement by Callsign
If a transmission contains information that does not need to be read back, you should acknowledge by transmitting your callsign. You may also transmit your callsign together with the word ‘roger’, which means ‘I have received all your last transmission’

Edit: I missed this
Use of ‘Wilco’
‘Wilco’ means ‘I understand your message and will comply’. It should not be used in place of a full read back of the items on page 10. It may be used for brevity, or where readback of an instruction or part of an instruction might be confused with a transmission advising completion of the action instructed.

IMHO, WAY too much stuff is being read back word by word, clutterring up the airwaves. I use roger and wilco A LOT and only read back any clearances, squawks, QNHs, runways, altitudes and headings. No complaints, ever.

So in controlled airspace, joining instructions like “EI-XYZ route via VRP ‘a’ not above altitude 1234ft, and join overhead for a right downwind for runway XX, next report downwind” should be met with “runway XX not above 1234 and wilco EI-XYZ” correct?

Nothing surprises me in that Eurocontrol have a document saying a callsign-only readback is OK but (a) it seems very wrong and (b) I almost never hear it used.

So in controlled airspace, joining instructions like “EI-XYZ route via VRP ‘a’ not above altitude 1234ft, and join overhead for a right downwind for runway XX, next report downwind” should be met with “not above 1234 and wilco EI-XYZ” correct?

I would say the first three are clearances and only the “report” one should be wilco’d.

Also most PPLs would choke on such a call My ageing memory would pick up only the first two…

Nothing surprises me in that Eurocontrol have a document saying a callsign-only readback is OK but (a) it seems very wrong and (b) I almost never hear it used.

It is compliant with my recollection of what I learned in RTF back in 1995.

I almost never hear “wilco” used. “roger” is more common.

IMHO, WAY too much stuff is being read back word by word, clutterring up the airwaves. I use roger and wilco A LOT and only read back any clearances, squawks, QNHs, runways, altitudes and headings. No complaints, ever.

You are right. I am a sinner. This thread prompted me to look up correct phraseology and refresh my knowledge about what requires a read-back. I do have a tendency to read back “report 3 miles final” for example, which I should not. On the other hand reading it back helps memorizing but it does hog bandwidth.