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…
That’s similar to the standard call at my home field (not at 1234ft though!). I always read back the QNH first because I know I’ll have forgotten it by the end of the spiel!
Peter wrote:
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.
If you have such disdain for Eurocontrol 
, you may prefer the CAA way (why am I not surprised that the CAA has such a document?)
2.56 Acknowledgement of Receipt
Acknowledgements of information should be signified by the use of the receiving stations’ callsign or Roger callsign, and not by messages such as: ‘callsign-copy the weather’ or ‘callsign-copy the traffic’
BTW I updated my previous post with the link to the Eurocontrol guide which I actually found on the site of Canadian Air Transport Association So apparently the Canadians must think that Eurocontrol does something right
I learned that Roger means “message received” but not necessarily that you will comply.
Wilco means “message received and will comply”
Since learning that I use Roger a lot at home :-)
In aviation I use Roger for example as a response to “traffic 3 o´clock”
The one that always confuses me is that in response to traffic you are meant to say roger. To me it conveys nothing helpful. Traffic in sight or looking seems far more logical.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
The one that always confuses me is that in response to traffic you are meant to say roger. To me it conveys nothing helpful. Traffic in sight or looking seems far more logical.
Agree. Don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone here (US) say ‘roger’ after receiving a traffic call. Usually it’s ‘looking’ or ‘in sight’ or ‘negative traffic’ if you can’t see the traffic. The latter typically after the traffic has been already called two or three times.
Aviathor wrote:
If you have such disdain for Eurocontrol , you may prefer the CAA way (why am I not surprised that the CAA has such a document?)
That is now the recommended international way because an earlier version of CAP413 was adopted as the ICAO Manual on Radiotelephony.
So apparently the Canadians must think that Eurocontrol does something right
If the Canadians shortened their RTF any further there’d be no need for language.
I always use my callsign instead of Wilco. One FI, a former ATCO, complimented me on that. Nobody ever complained.
Thanks for all the references, helps a lot.
Although it’s not mentioned specifically in this reference omitting wilco is shown on page 38 and 39: http://www.atac.ca/web/images/Documents/Phraseology%20Guide%20for%20GA%20Pilot%20in%20Europe.pdf
Official ICAO Radio Telephony guide:
https://www.cantorair.it/en/download-2/free-download/586-doc-9432-icao-radiotelephony-manual/file.html
CAP 413 version 22:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413%20MAY16.2.pdf
boscomantico wrote:
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.
Agree, especially in busy ATC environments where you are familiar, using short replies makes communications actually more clear.
0fficer wrote:
Although it’s not mentioned specifically in this reference omitting wilco
It IS mentioned specifically on page 11. Ref “Acknowledgement by Callsign”
It is also mentioned specifically in CAP413 paragraph 2.56.
The advantage that “wilco” has is reassurance to the controller that there was an instruction, usually a reporting instruction, in the last transmission. It takes negligible extra airtime so I tend to use it.
