'Roger' does not mean 'Yes'

[Wotname]

Here is a very minor data point and one not all maritime but still pertaining to radio comms.

I spent about 90 minutes today monitoring an Aussie capital city air traffic control. While not frantically busy, there were transmissions every minute or less.

I heard plenty of "affirmatives" and about half that again of "affirms". "Wilco" got a fair number of transmissions but there was only one "roger" (by ATC by the way) and only one "yes" (by a foreign pilot). "Copy" was occasionally used by ATC. There were nil "overs" and nil "outs". "Break" was used occasionally by ATC to distinguish between transmissions to different recipients without dekeying the mic.

To my mind, fairly standard comms.

For the heck of it, I then tuned into the local maritime coast radio centre. "Rogers" were much more frequent as was "copy" and there were the occasional "overs" (but mainly on HF comms rather than VHF).

I did note that the channel identification was provided by maybe 30 percent of the calling station on VHF and almost always on HF. This makes sense to me as the coast station would have very little idea of which HF frequency was being used as they would be monitoring at least three and possibly more and well as several VHF channels.

Again, to my mind, at the very least it is a matter of courtesy to provide the channel identification (VHF number or HF freq) when first making contact with a new station. Why go out of your way to make things possibly difficult for the person you are trying to converse with; it does not really add anything meaningful to the your Tx time and could well make things quicker for the Rx party to reply. At the end of the day, one is trying to communicate effectively with another party so why not just do your bit to make it easier.

YMMV.

[MarinerJo]

I roger your vector, Victor. Over.

[Bobcat]

You are not comparing like with like - as you pointed out, ATC is very busy, especially at a large airfield. It is also very time sensitive - they generally fly faster than we sail, broadcast mainly on VHF or UHF rather than HF and have very strict procedures. As you noted 'overs' and 'outs' are generally reserved for HF and in cases of poor VHF reception so that the receiver realises they haven't just faded away!

There have also been changes to earlier clipped ex military radio jargon to avoid possible confusion at critical times eg 'affirmative' instead of 'roger', 'ready for departure' not ready for 'take off'. All critical broadcasts from ATC to aircraft have to be repeated by the aircraft to ensure that they have been copied.

Generally, aircraft are handed over from one controller to another so that the subsequent controller knows who they are talking to (their callsign), knows a lot about them from their flight plan, knows what information they already have eg local weather etc from the latest general ATIS broadcast and is expecting their call.

Even many light aircraft carry a transponder these days so that they can fly in controlled airspace or use large airfields. Most small boat sailors are happy to just take advantage of someone else's transponder via an AIS receiver.

Marine HF or in difficult VHF conditions (eg due to power of transmission, height of aerial (mast) and earth curvature (distance between stations) etc are not so clear cut. Messages often have to be repeated (especially if the receiving station is not expecting a transmission) etc.

With Air HF (long distance transmissions) similar procedures are necessary for the same reason but I suspect that Air HF is not used so much these days except for continuous loop weather forecasts and the like due to satellite comms. No doubt you radio hams out there will put me right on that one!

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Bobcat

......
With Air HF (long distance transmissions) similar procedures are necessary for the same reason but I suspect that Air HF is not used so much these days except for continuous loop weather forecasts and the like due to satellite comms. No doubt you radio hams out there will put me right on that one!

Still in constant use with transpacific flights ( and I assume over the Atlantic).
Three well used frequencies.... 5.6430 USB, 8.8670 USB, 13.2610 USB.
Used by Brisbane, Nandi, Auckland and San Francisco and maybe others as well.

They are voice... in addition to the Volmet wx frequencies.

[casablanca]

In aviation R/T affirm replaced affirmative many years ago. But old habits die hard and (old) pilots sometimes revert to the old affirmative.


Bob
CASABLANCA L420 #86

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by MarinerJo

I roger your vector, Victor. Over.

Roger, Roger. Do we have clearance, Clarence?

[Rustic Charm]

A couple of years ago sitting in an areo club having a cuppa and a Virgin jet was landing and I heard an acknowledgement of 'rodger dodger'.

Sometime before that another occasion when I was up flying waiting for clearance of another large passenger jet landing and as he landed, come across on the radio, 'whoa big mamma, whoa' as he went down the runaway to a stop.

[Bill Seal]

Back in WWII, my dad was in the USCG Volunteer Port Security Force, making sure no Japanese subs made it past the L A harbor nets and generally screwing around one night a week, (and getting the rare Hershey bars from the PX) the directive came down; You will no longer respond with "roger dodger you old codger".

[alctel]

ATC in Canada, at least in the controlled airspace I flew around in, were very very strict about correct comm protocol.

Mind you Australian aviation has a bit of a reputation in the community (unfairly or not) for being a bit more relaxed and having more of a 'she'll be 'right mate' attitude.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by alctel

ATC in Canada, at least in the controlled airspace I flew around in, were very very strict about correct comm protocol.

Mind you Australian aviation has a bit of a reputation in the community (unfairly or not) for being a bit more relaxed and having more of a 'she'll be 'right mate' attitude.

That's the first time I've ever heard that.

[casablanca]

I beg to differ on Australian aviation R/T. As a former pilot and ATC I'd say that radio discipline is very high. Not to say that an occasional bit of humor might be indulged on occasion.

What amused me was that despite 40+ years as a pilot and instructor, including a delegation to test and issue flight radio telephone licenses, I had to do a course to be able to operate a VHF marine radio in Australia. Apparently VHF radio works differently when you are on the water.


Bob
CASABLANCA L420 #86

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by casablanca

I beg to differ on Australian aviation R/T. As a former pilot and ATC I'd say that radio discipline is very high. Not to say that an occasional bit of humor might be indulged on occasion.

What amused me was that despite 40+ years as a pilot and instructor, including a delegation to test and issue flight radio telephone licenses, I had to do a course to be able to operate a VHF marine radio in Australia. Apparently VHF radio works differently when you are on the water.


Bob
CASABLANCA L420 #86

I would have thought so too. Very high standard.

Oddly, to operate VHF marine, I was required to do the Radio Certificate Course but for my pilot's license I didn't do much at all. In fact nothing specific and when I got my license it came with the endorsement, seeing I fly in and out of controlled air space.

[Bobcat]

Originally Posted by casablanca

I beg to differ on Australian aviation R/T. As a former pilot and ATC I'd say that radio discipline is very high. Not to say that an occasional bit of humor might be indulged on occasion.

What amused me was that despite 40+ years as a pilot and instructor, including a delegation to test and issue flight radio telephone licenses, I had to do a course to be able to operate a VHF marine radio in Australia. Apparently VHF radio works differently when you are on the water.


Bob
CASABLANCA L420 #86

Snap ... same in the UK!

[Ozwizz54]

Testing over and again? That, gentlemen, is what comes from living in two of the world's worst Nanny States: Australia and the UK. There are plenty of others chasing us for the title though. It's bureaucracy gone mad. Ask truck drivers who are tested regularly (not to mention harassed) yet have the safest driving records of any group of drivers.

It's no different from yachts. I was stopped a few years ago on the way back from an overnight, off-shore race - not once but three times in less than ten nautical miles - for alcohol testing. (Who drinks during a serious race?) The first time we were stopped was less than 200 metres from the finish line which we'd just crossed under a very large, distinctive green and gold spinaker. Made us heave-to so they could board us. Hell of a mess getting that spinaker doused before they trampled all over it. Believe it or not, the third time we were boarded by the water police that day, it was the same lot who stopped us initially. Even thoughh we had the kite up again, we couldn't convince them that they'd not long ago tested us. So, down came the kite again and we all blew into their little white straws before they were satisfied. Roger, Sergeant, anything you want.

Felt like calling the PC Plod-in-Charge something far worse than Roger.

Back at the yacht club it only got worse. We lost the race by about 15 seconds on corrected time. Definitely had a drink or two after that!

Is it any wonder that we all want to get onto our boats and sail off over the horizon?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ozwizz54

Testing over and again? That, gentlemen, is what comes from living in two of the world's worst Nanny States: Australia and the UK. There are plenty of others chasing us for the title though. It's bureaucracy gone mad. Ask truck drivers who are tested regularly (not to mention harassed) yet have the safest driving records of any group of drivers.

It's no different from yachts. I was stopped a few years ago on the way back from an overnight, off-shore race - not once but three times in less than ten nautical miles - for alcohol testing. (Who drinks during a serious race?) The first time we were stopped was less than 200 metres from the finish line which we'd just crossed under a very large, distinctive green and gold spinaker. Made us heave-to so they could board us. Hell of a mess getting that spinaker doused before they trampled all over it. Believe it or not, the third time we were boarded by the water police that day, it was the same lot who stopped us initially. Even thoughh we had the kite up again,hh we couldn't convince them that they'd not long ago tested us. So, down came the kite again and we all blew into their little white straws before they were satisfied. Roger, Sergeant, anything you want.

Felt like calling the PC Plod-in-Charge something far worse than Roger.

Back at the yacht club it only got worse. We lost the race by about 15 seconds on corrected time. Definitely had a drink or two after that!

Is it any wonder that we all want to get onto our boats and sail off over the horizon?

that would be annoying. I was one of those cops pulling over innocent boaters, though I don't ever think I pulled over any sail boats. Never heard of doing it either.

But tell me, in which state of Australia can they breath test the crew?

That must be something very new as I've never heard of any state having that sort of power.