"Wilco"

Wm226

New Member
\"Wilco\"

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

Partner, Ally, Friend
Re: \"Wilco\"

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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

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
 

aloft

New Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Administrator
Staff member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

New Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Piece of Trash
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

New Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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

Really?
Staff member
Re: \"Wilco\"

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

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Wilco\"

[ 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"?
 
Top