"Wilco"

[Wm226]

I know "Wilco" means that "I have acknowledged and will comply"... however, I am still confused regarding whether it can be used; and if so, when it should/could be used.

Thank You!

[Alchemy]

Both roger and wilco are listed in the AIM, so their usage should be viewed as acceptable.

I use wilco in situations where ATC issues me a non-clearnace type instruction that doesn't require a verbatim readback. For instance I might use "wilco" when given instructions to follow traffic that I'd already reported in sight, when told to "continue", make left or right traffic for a runway, maintain max forward speed, or to maintain visual seperation from traffic that I've already spotted. It's sometimes ambiguous to read these types of instructions back verbatim; a simple wilco should suffice from ATC's perspective. In fact, I've heard controllers complain about pilots that feel the need to read back EVERYTHING. Using wilco can cut down on frequency congestion.

Things I wouldn't use it for are headings, altitudes, speed limits, maintain VFR, hold short, taxi instructions, clearances (of course). I also would not use it in any situation where I felt I might've misunderstood the controller's instructions. I'm probably forgetting some situations where it shouldn't be used, but I think I made my point.

[Mr_Creepy]

Old definition is:
Roger: Understood
Wilco: Will comply

They used to mean separate things. I understand that ATC takes Roger as a Wilco now. I use wilco when I am saying I understand and will comply. I hardly ever use Roger.

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
They used to mean separate things. I understand that ATC takes Roger as a Wilco now.

[/ QUOTE ]They shouldn't. The Pilot/Controller Glossary uses the separate definitions,and, in the case of "Roger" goes on tot say that it should not be used when a yes or no is required.

ATC is usually better than pilots with standard phraseology. (So far I've never heard ATC say "with you" or "6.5" for an altitude). If ATC is taking it that way it probably because (1) pilots are using it that way and (2) it may not matter since if a pilot doesn't specifically reject an instruction, she's better be following it.

[Ophir]

Tally-ho!

[Tim06]

[ QUOTE ]


Tally-ho!

[/ QUOTE ]

A LOT of pilots use this!!

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]


Tally-ho!

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got a whole different terminology in addition to the FAA standard.

No Joy
Visual
Blind
Padlocked
Popeye
Angels
BRAA
Bullseye
Contact
Base (altitudes)
Chicks
Break
Bingo
Bogey/Bogey Dope
Feet Wet/Dry
Homeplate
Parrot/India


among many others. With the exception of BRAA/Bullseye, most of the rest you could hear on civilian ATC.

[sorrygottarunway]

I'm glad you mentioned this: Tally Ho...

this was used by the english in WWII meaning "I have the enemy in sight!" It stems probably from the french word "taïnaut" and was also used as a cry to the hounds at a hunt when a fox has been sighted

[SteveC]

And this makes you glad.......why?

[aloft]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Tally-ho!

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got a whole different terminology in addition to the FAA standard.

No Joy
Visual
Blind
Padlocked
Popeye
Angels
BRAA
Bullseye
Contact
Base (altitudes)
Chicks
Break
Bingo
Bogey/Bogey Dope
Feet Wet/Dry
Homeplate
Parrot/India


among many others. With the exception of BRAA/Bullseye, most of the rest you could hear on civilian ATC.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the F-15 community takes this to another level entirely, it's like they speak in tongues, according to a viper driver friend of mine.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Tally-ho!

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got a whole different terminology in addition to the FAA standard.

No Joy
Visual
Blind
Padlocked
Popeye
Angels
BRAA
Bullseye
Contact
Base (altitudes)
Chicks
Break
Bingo
Bogey/Bogey Dope
Feet Wet/Dry
Homeplate
Parrot/India


among many others. With the exception of BRAA/Bullseye, most of the rest you could hear on civilian ATC.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the F-15 community takes this to another level entirely, it's like they speak in tongues, according to a viper driver friend of mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Air-air has it's own set of brevity terms, too many to list here.

The F-15 community takes to their own way of talking to one another, in the sense that the words box/head, for whaterver nitwit reason, must be referred to container/cranium. Members of the 16 community, many seemingly 15 wannabe's , do the same thing. In all fairness, there's many A-10 guys I work with (F-16 wannabe's? ) that do the same thing.

[CAVOK]

One of my pet peeves is when people use "roger" when asked a question from ATC. My students probably think I am anal about that stuff....but I grill into their heads that "roger" means...I heard you, "wilco"....I heard and will comply. To anwswer yes or no, say affirmative or negative!

grrrrrrrr.... one of those things I guess .

[sorrygottarunway]

[ QUOTE ]
And this makes you glad.......why?


[/ QUOTE ]

its always a fight to the bitter end to see who makes it from base to final first. Thats your ENEMY out on the opposite downwind!

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
its always a fight to the bitter end to see who makes it from base to final first. Thats your ENEMY out on the opposite downwind!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I mount a .50 cal on my 172 and swap the Lycoming for a Merlin?

[flyguy]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my pet peeves is when people use "roger" when asked a question from ATC. My students probably think I am anal about that stuff....but I grill into their heads that "roger" means...I heard you, "wilco"....I heard and will comply. To anwswer yes or no, say affirmative or negative!

grrrrrrrr.... one of those things I guess .

[/ QUOTE ]

I catch myself doing that occasionally and always think to myself "What?? Why did I say that?" I guess you could say its a pet peeve of mine too, but it only bothers me when I catch myself doing it, although that's really the only time I notice it.

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my pet peeves is when people use "roger" when asked a question from ATC. My students probably think I am anal about that stuff....but I grill into their heads that "roger" means...I heard you, "wilco"....I heard and will comply. To anwswer yes or no, say affirmative or negative!

grrrrrrrr.... one of those things I guess .

[/ QUOTE ]I may be as bad or worse than you when it comes to being "correct" on the radio. My students will often buy radios so they can hear transmissions, so they pick up some of the more widely-used non-standard jargon, like "eight point five" for "eight thousand five hundred" and "with you" for... well, whatever "with you" is supposed to be for.

I insist on AIM/PCG standard. I figure they will pick up enough bad habits anyway. At least start with doing it right.

[Eagle]

[ QUOTE ]
"with you" for... well, whatever "with you" is supposed to be for.

[/ QUOTE ]

"With you" is acceptable when making contact with atc ONLY after you are handed off from another controller. NOT as an initial call up in the blind.

I use
"TN505JC checking in 410"
vs
"TN505JC With you 410"

but both work. also if the last controller gives you a change like a Alt or speed restriction, that should be thrown in as well. Just in case the new controller did not get the word. (and hopefully will remove the restriction.)

for example "TN505JC checking in 410 - speed .71 until ACKMEE"

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"with you" for... well, whatever "with you" is supposed to be for.

[/ QUOTE ]"With you" is acceptable when making contact with atc ONLY after you are handed off from another controller. NOT as an initial call up in the blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]I was being facetious.

But perhaps you can direct me to the portion of the AIM or another FAA publication that talks about the "proper use" of "with you". I don't think you'll find "with you" (or "checking in" for that matter) anywhere in the AIM or PCG. Or maybe it's in an OpSpec?

I'm not complaining about it being used. I've been known to say "hello" and "good-bye" and "Merry Christmas" to controllers. I only complain about it being taught as though it were standard.

You use

"TN505JC checking in 410"
vs
"TN505JC With you 410"

Someone else might use
"TN505JC level flight level 410"
(AIM 5-3-1)

[SteveC]

Personally, I try to avoid using "checking in" or "with you" to keep the transmissions short and sweet. But then I almost always turn around and add in a "good morning" or "good evening", so go figure, eh?

Like this: "Chicago center, good morning, twin cessna 12345, 7 thousand 5 hundred climbing 8 thousand."

[rant]
My pet peeve, though, is "any traffic in the area please advise" at uncontrolled fields. Waste of breath and bandwidth. If someone is in the area and on the freq, don't you think they'll give their position when they hear you report? Especially if there is a potential conflict coming up?

And if they're the type to *not* give a report (say, for example, that they've been announcing their position in the pattern every time around for the last 1/2 hour, and they decided that they'll be danged if they're going to answer you just because you haven't been listening to Unicom - even though you've been busy talking to ATC until 30 seconds ago.....), do you think that adding "any traffic please advise" will cause them to change their mind?

Of course Unicom frequencies have plenty of extra bandwidth, so long, verbose transmissions are no problemo, right? [/sarcasm]
[/rant]

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[rant]
My pet peeve, though, is "any traffic in the area please advise" at uncontrolled fields. [/rant]

[/ QUOTE ]How about "any NORDO traffic in the area please advise"?

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[rant]
My pet peeve, though, is "any traffic in the area please advise" at uncontrolled fields. [/rant]

[/ QUOTE ]How about "any NORDO traffic in the area please advise"?

[/ QUOTE ]"Any NORDO traffic in the area please flash your lights"

[jtrain609]

When I've got an assigned heading or something of the like, I'll say just that. Like I've departed Ann Arbor and been assigned some heading, usually to the south to clear Metro if I'm going west. I'll call up approach with something like

"Approach Archer 5171 X-Ray with you out of 2,500 for 5,000 180 assigned"

Now they know I'm on the frequency after the handoff, and they should have an idea of where I am if they're expecting the handoff. They know how high I've gotten and where the last guy was taking me. I usually like to let them know my assigned heading so they don't think I'm just heading off into the middle of nowhere without a clearence.

CHeers


John Herreshoff

[E_Dawg]

My private CFI beat the 'with you' out of me and now I plan to beat it out of my students too

I just don't see the point - it's obvious you're 'with them' by the fact you're talking to them. Should you also tell them you're a pilot flying an airplane?

[Jeff_S_KDTW]

[ QUOTE ]
"Approach Archer 5171 X-Ray with you out of 2,500 for 5,000 180 assigned"

[/ QUOTE ]How about this instead:

--Detroit Departure, Archer 5171X, LEAVING two thousand fife hundred CLIMBING TO fife thousand--

During initial contact, the fact you are using a full callsign is indicative that this is your first callup and you are establishing contact with the designated facility. Therefore, if you are using "with you" to let the controller know this is the first time you are calling her...well, they know.

Also, initially, the controller does not need to know your assigned heading.

Doug Brown, the Atlanta Center controller who writes for Avweb, once stated the following[ QUOTE ]

"Asheville Approach, Cessna 12345 level 6,000 direct PDK."

It always tickles me when pilots do that. Tell me they're direct somewhere or on a heading. I know where the habit of telling controllers your heading came from but I can't explain the "direct XXX." Let's check the book.


AIM 5-3-1.b

2. The following phraseology should be utilized by pilots for establishing contact with the designated facility:

(a) When operating in a radar environment: On initial contact, the pilot should inform the controller of the aircraft's assigned altitude preceded by the words "level," or "climbing to," or "descending to," as appropriate; and the aircraft's present vacating altitude, if applicable.


I don't see anything there about "direct PDK." Anything about a heading? How about you?

[/ QUOTE ]Whether you like Brown or not, I think he has a point. The article can be read here: http://avweb.com/news/columns/186645-1.html

He goes on in another article about the likely origin of the "include heading on initial contact" routine:[ QUOTE ]
From my conversations with pilots here on AVweb, I've run into several professional pilots that believe telling a controller their assigned heading is required and/or a good practice when they check in. Again, refer to the book. Do you see it anywhere?

Of course, it could be our own fault. Controllers, that is. Does this sound familiar? "Contact Atlanta Center 132.97 and tell 'em your heading."

There are two reasons for that. Both of them are wrong. First, it's been common practice for years on the midnight shifts to put the box haulers on a vector for several hundred miles direct to their destinations. Oh yeah, we can do that when we're working a tenth of the airplanes that we work during the day. Anytime a controller puts an aircraft on a vector, the controller is required to coordinate that heading with the next controller (assuming the aircraft is to stay on that heading until entering the next sector). To avoid coordinating (lots of phone calls), controllers began telling the pilot to tell the next controller their heading when they check in on the next frequency.

What's that old saying? What were once vices are now habits? After being "trained" to do this for years, there are pilots who do it that way on every frequency change. Now that the box haulers are flying during the daytime, even more pilots are copying it.



[/ QUOTE ] Available here: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182633-1.html

[MikeD]

"With you" belongs in the school of redundancy.