Janice Wood, the editor of General Aviation News, writes: We’ve gotten a lot of traffic on the June 7 Aviation Safety Reporting System post, “Cessna 172 pilot confused by ATC request.” You want to tackle this one in an upcoming column?
Roger, Wilco, boss!
No, that’s not Hollywood talk. And, no, Roger and Wilco do NOT mean the same thing, despite what you might have read on the Internet. Roger means “Yeah, I heard you.” Wilco means “No problem, I’ll do what you ask.”
OK… I confess… I was a little loose with the language there, but I did it to make a point: Everyone in aviation has a responsibility to be precise in their use of language when communicating — which is the issue at the heart of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) dissemination that stirred so many comments from readers.
But before we dig into the details, I want to remind folks that these reports — often called NASA reports because they are collected by NASA to ensure the reporter’s anonymity — are written by the people involved, not by the authorities, and not by professional writers. Not everyone is an organized story teller, and the command of written English varies from person to person.
In addition, the events are reported as perceived by a single person, and sometimes the authors deploy defense mechanisms to transfer blame, justify their actions, or compensate for lack of knowledge.
We don’t edit these reports, but print them as they were filed. But all of that is what makes the reports not only educational, but fun to read as well.
Anyway, in this case, due to some of the issues noted above, the sequence of the events is a hair murky, but here’s my takeaway: A student pilot was practicing night landings in a Cessna 172 at a towered field. The sky got a little busy, and after being cleared to land, the controller first advised the pilot to make “little delay” on his touch-and-go. A few minutes later, the controller revised the clearance to a low approach.
That’s when the trouble started. The student didn’t know what “low approach” meant. He attempted to get clarification, but remained confused, so he “interpreted” the instruction as meaning a steep approach to a landing.
Unfortunately, that’s not what it means. A low approach, in common English, is a low pass. A fly-by. It’s formally defined as a “go-around maneuver where the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway.”
Defined? Defined where? In the Pilot/Controller Glossary, which is nearly the last part of the Aeronautical Information Manual before you get to the index.
I say nearly, because — ironically — the only thing between the glossary and the index is the NASA report form.
Here’s the thing: While English is the official language of aviation, like all languages, it’s squishy like Jello. Words have subtleties. A word can mean different things to different people, because many words have both a denotation (the dictionary meaning) and connotation (the emotional or cultural meaning) — and that can be a problem for effective communication.
The solution is to be sure we all understand, and use, the denotation of key words.
As denotation is the “dictionary” definition, we therefore need a dictionary. And that’s what the glossary is. It’s an alphabetical list of a bit over 1,000 English words clearly defined for aviation operations, so pilots and controllers will be — literally — on the same page.
If that sounds like a lot of words to learn, consider that the English language has somewhere around half a million words, so our aviation speak only represents 0.2% of the total.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s take a look at the reaction of the pilot community in response to this report — bearing in mind that there was no bent metal, no injuries, and the pilot had the courage to report honestly on his own ignorance in the interest of increasing safety for everyone else.
In addition, after the event, according to his report, he made an effort to learn more by doing research, talking to his flight school, and dedicating himself to increasing his knowledge of “ATC phraseology.”
What Is Wrong With You?
Can I just say that I’m appalled?
No, no, not by the student pilot — he was great — but by my peers.
Right away, in the early replies, it got pointlessly political and, frankly, nasty. Seriously? We can’t have a discussion about aviation safety without political jabs?
What is wrong with (some) of you people? How someone voted has nothing to do with how they fly, and besides, you have no idea how someone you never met voted.
The truth is that we are a politically divided society, which means that half of the folks you meet — and share the sky with — have different views than you do.
But who cares? As my dad used to say: What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? Unless we are debating some sort of legislation that affects aviation, I don’t see how political views contribute to the discussion. In fact, I’d argue that they detract.
If all you are capable of is mindlessly trashing other people based on your perception of their political views, I’m worried about your decision-making process. In fact, I’m way way more worried about sharing the sky with someone who is so politically obsessed that they can think of nothing else beyond politics and bullying, than I am about sharing the sky with someone who chose to vote for the other guy.
The saving grace here is that others stood up and dressed down the trolls.
Doug (bless you) said it best: “Please explain exactly why you enter a political discussion into an aviation forum geared towards learning. How is that additive to the discussion?”
In a similar vein, another commenter — possibly the victim of a bad school district, but more likely the victim of the stupid autospell correct on an iPhone — was attacked after writing that our article was “dentally a waist of time.”
Presumably, he intended to say the article was “definitely a waste of time.”
Several readers attacked his grammar and spelling rather than commenting on his opinion, which actually was shared by several other readers, who also felt that the article was a waste of time.
I’m not going to address the grammar Nazis, but I will address the waste-of-time issue.
I have to ask: If reading the article seemed like a waste of your time, why did you keep reading it? You are free to exit any article, including mine, at any point that you don’t feel you are getting value out of it. And if your time is so valuable, why did you waste yet more of it telling us we wasted your time?
I don’t think any discussion of training and safety issues is a waste of my time. Hey, we all come into this business knowing nothing. Our (eventual) knowledge is the sum of our training — which can vary quite a bit — and our experiences, which can also vary quite a bit.
I love the NASA reports because they expand my knowledge without my having to directly experience anything, you know, exciting.
Expand Your Knowledge
Consider this: I, like many of you, know perfectly well what a low approach is.
What I didn’t know is that there are apparently quite a few people who don’t know what a low approach is.
Just look at the large number of commenters freely admitting that they’d never heard the term.
That affects my safety. Before this lovely little “waist” of my time, if I were cleared for a landing and someone on an intersecting runway was instructed to make a low approach, I wouldn’t have given things a second thought. Now, I’m going to have a heightened awareness to the possibility that the pilot of the other airplane may not understand the tower’s instructions. Good thing to know.
And I’m not alone in this. Many other readers appreciated the knowledge.
One CFI, for instance, appreciated being alerted to the oversight in training that this particular student suffered, saying he’d be sure to add training on low approach phraseology to his trainee checklist.
And a pilot named Joe C. wrote, “I definitely learned something from this report, appreciate the writer of the ASRS report for filing it,” but then he wondered “why some commenters are responding so caustically to this very helpful item.”
You and me both, Joe.
When In Doubt
Next, and fairly enough, a large number of the comments could be grouped into: When in doubt, ask.
I agree, and we really need to work hard to empower all pilots to do this. Always.
Many pilots — students and certificated folks alike — are afraid to speak up, speak out, or admit to ignorance. Don’t be. Except for the trolls, none of us know everything.
And the trolls, of course, are mistaken that they do.
Lastly, many of our readers felt that the controller should have used a more common term, like ordering a go-around, rather than a low approach. I agree that might have been a clearer instruction, but both go-around and low approach are in the glossary, both are legitimate instructions, and both are terms we are expected to know.
That’s the lesson at the heart of this report in my mind. It’s the perfect reminder that there’s a 1,000-word language that we all have a responsibility to be fluent in.
As a side note: About 10% of the glossary is made up of bold-italic terms that signify that they are the most frequently used — go-around is one of them, low approach is not — but this does not make go-around a preferred term, only a more common one.
But speaking of the glossary, circling to land back where we started, it defines “Roger” as meaning “I have received all of your last transmission,” and Wilco as “I have received your message, understand it, and will comply with it.”
Lots of armchair pundits (and a few flying pilots) argue that you should never say Roger, Wilco because saying “Wilco” already implies that you received the whole message, making “Roger” superfluous. The AIM never says anything about not using both.
But here’s the funny thing: While you could make an argument that if we want to be proper, Wilco is almost always a better response than Roger, I hear Roger a lot more when I’m flying than I hear Wilco.
Me? I use Roger, Wilco a lot. But not in flight. Instead, I use it in email and text messages…
Wife: Bring a bag of ice from town on your way home, babe.
Me: Roger, Wilco.
Wow!! What a RANT! That was over the top, bother. Let’s cut to the quick A “student” is just that, a student. Students are taught how to “go-around”, not to fly a low approach. The only time in my 50 years flying GA when I have been “cleared” for a low approach is when practicing an instrument approach. I know and the tower knows we do not intend to land. The tower also knows we will terminate the low approach at the MAP (missed approach fix/point) and begin the missed approach procedure. Yes, the student was confused. And the AIM is of no specific help. Aside from the instrument approach, there is no defined point where the student begins the go-around. For all practical purposes, he can fly down the runway ten feet above the runway but not land. If the tower had simply told the student to “go-around” the student would have clearly understood what he needed to do. A good student learning to fly would ask his instructor what the tower meant. My answer would be to abort the landing and go-around. It’s safer!! Nothing more need be said.
CFII
Now that the term “Low Approach” has been defined and clarified, what exactly was the pilot to do next? I would like to have heard the tape. Given the multitude of possibilities it seems that the controller should have include at least a direction and altitude. This alone may have helped the novice pilot to understand what was expected.
Thank you for this article! I agree that so many students are afraid to ask questions, especially in this day of hyper judgement and criticism online. I did not (thankfully) grow up with computers, but those who did are accustomed to potentially nasty comments about any opinion or question they pose. It is beyond ridiculous to bring politics into a discussion about aviation safety, but sadly, that is the state of our country these days. We would all do ourselves and others a great service by simply keeping an open mind and attempting to learn something from the mistakes of others, instead of throwing insults and generally showing our backsides. That is, after all, the purpose of these articles.
Keep them coming!
Might I say that you fit right in and your grammar is indicative of your message. You are more than “a hair murky” whatever the hell that is. Is that what you would call IFR conditions?
For what it’s worth, the military absolutely requires you NOT use “Roger Wilco” as a response.
Seriously, how many pilots are told they’re expected to memorize the entire glossary of the AIM? I’m not asking if they should, which is definitely arguable. I’m asking how many are actually told to. I’m betting there are quite a few that aren’t. In this instance, I would prefer they mention low passes, at least passingly (pun intended), in the text dealing with missed approaches. And yes, I already knew what a low pass was.
By the way, if you really want to get a controller’s attention, answer with 10-4 next time they give you an instruction. Roger dodger is also one of their personal favorites, slightly more popular than okey dokey.
As an educator, both in and out of the cockpit, I always tell my students … usually on the first day of class or the first time I fly with them … that if you have a question … please ask. There are no dumb questions if you don’t know something and want to know. Also … while not strictly true … nobody ever learned anything by doing it right the first time. We all make mistakes and they are a very important part of the learning process.
Fun part about being an AGI is realizing that for every brave student who asks a question, there are probably 50 more who would like to ask that exact same question, but don’t want to be thought poorly of by the other students, so they stay quiet.
When I get a question, I realize that *I* didn’t make something clear, and try to improve by revising my lesson plan and notes for the next time.
Make no mistake, there’s a LOT to learn, and often ground school is regarded as just a “necessary evil” to deal with the other “necessary evil”, which is the written test. As such, there is a strong temptation to “get it out of the way”, when in fact, a good ground school is the foundation of a long and safe aeronautical career or hobby, or both.
I remember like it was yesterday, flying a fast-mover Air Force jet, feeling very much like Mr. Top Gun. Until the air traffic controller gave me an instruction, and I replied “Roger that!” He said, very clearly, “Roger that?” ‘Twas then I realized our pilot slang, when talking on the ground, didn’t fly on the radio.
Umpteen years later, at Frederick airport, home of AOPA and a lot of training flights, I later heard (and some scolding, schoolmarm-like tower pukes) the tower asked me if I had traffic on final in sight. I said “Cessna 231R, tally.”
The tower guy said, very slowly and clearly, with biting sarcasm “Tally? Do you mean you have traffic in sight?”
I felt like saying “Roger that.” But didn’t.
At Hartford-Brainard late 80’s several times the pilot with whom I was flying would use talley-ho or no joy. Never got a complaint from ATC. I didn’t dare use those terms but always liked them.
I think the FAA made a poor choice of wording here. Elsewhere in official phraseology the word “approach” is used to reference the path followed to get to the end of the runway. Examples are approach plate and instrument approach. The implication being the approach and landing are two separate things. So the term “low approach” would imply taking a lower than normal path to the end of the runway. It does not necessarily imply that there will be no landing. On the other hand, “low pass” would be a much less ambiguous description of the act of passing over the runway at a low altitude. No one who received the instruction to conduct a low pass would infer that they should land.
That’s a good one. Some others – non-movement area is where there is a lot of movement, high density altitude is where there is low density air, roger is often used when affirmative would be the proper response, and many have never heard of the departure leg. Don’t expect any changes to the Glossary. But be aware of any pilot who is asking for clarification, whether it’s pilot to ATC or pilot-to-pilot. He may need the term or message rephrased, not repeated.
Roger – Acknowledgment of a communication.
Wilco – Is short for “Will Comply”
So together: I heard you and will comply with your direction.