Aviathor wrote:
We were discussing compliance with phraseology. Bap bap is not compliant
krrk, krrk, then 
The “Guide to Phraseology for GA Pilots in Europe” published by EGAST indeed says to use (“should”) the callsign instead of wilco and it is demonstrated in some examples. Nevertheless I did not find this written specifically in ICAO’s Annex 10, Doc 4444, Doc 9432 (which looks like an older (?) CAP 413 copy), or in the SERAs (as a difference).
I just looked up the latest German publication on radio procedures, the NfL 1-1127-17 published 12 OCT 2017. The main part is German only, but the phrases are given and explained in German and English from p. 21 onwards.
It clearly states WILCO as acceptable phraseology. It has an amendment mark next to it, but unfortunately I do not have the previous version on hand. Maybe someone has, and can tell us what the change was?
One note regarding the two mic clicks as acknowledgement:
These two clicks are in fact part of a defined procedure for speechless aircraft able to transmit the carrier wave only- but there, they mean the opposite: Two clicks for NO.
I don’t know how widespread the definition of this procedure is, but I think using the “NO” signal colloquially as it’s exact reversal has potential for confusion.
I agree; the two click method is best left for very specific situations e.g. a deserted frequency 
Same with casual use of language (non aviation phrases)…
CharlieRomeo wrote:
These two clicks are in fact part of a defined procedure for speechless aircraft able to transmit the carrier wave onlyWhere is this procedure described?
As a British, public source I found this publication. Although it is described under “military procedures” in chapter 10 here, I have seen it elsewhere.
I don’t have an open/free source for the rest of Europe and/or the civilians yet, but will keep looking.
CharlieRomeo wrote:
As a British, public source I found this publication. Although it is described under “military procedures” in chapter 10 here, I have seen it elsewhere.I can believe it is defined as a UK military procedure. But there is no mention of it in ICAO Annex 10 (Telecommunications) nor is it in ATPL textbooks…
It is at least a NATO procedure- we have it in Germany as well.
Peter wrote:
but (a) ‘Acknowledgement by Callsign’ seems very wrong
Radio is still a one-way channel and the shorter the transmission the more communications can take place. EuroFlyer wrote:
If a message doesn’t legally require a readback, you can just press the transmit button quickly two times. Bap, bap
I think THAT seems wrong in an ATC environment and taking the brevity a step too far. An anonymous reply.
In pilot-to-pilot communications that would be perfectly ok though as there is less need to be formal.
Why?? That is just your interpretation of something that maybe is foreign to you.
It’s based on 2300hrs of flying a little bit around Europe and trying to do it diligently; that’s all. Dammit, that link reminds me… four more trips to write up. Need some really crap wx
taking the brevity a step too far
Usually I would agree but this is scenario dependent. Let’s say I have landed and filled up at the pumps and ask for a taxi clearance to the hangar. It is OVC005 so nobody on the radio because nobody is flying. Acking the taxi clearance with 2 clicks is fine.
