Any traffic please advise

[Kris Kortokrax]

Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.

Kris

--------------------------------------------------------


The inane practice of using the phrase “any traffic please advise” has
become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a “do not do
this” in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:

Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
under any condition.

If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
online at:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/

Bob Linenweber, ASI
314-890-4864


OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Peter R.]

Kris Kortokrax > wrote:

> Pilots
> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
> under any condition.

Hallelujah!

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Kris Kortokrax" wrote:

> The inane practice of using the phrase “any traffic please advise” has
> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a “do not do this”
> in the latest version of the AIM.

That's great, but the ones clueless enough to say it are that way because of
chronic inability to ever FIND a clue. They are unlikely to go looking for
one in the AIM. Maybe it will settle some hangar flying arguments.

Many people parrot what they hear without a thought about its usefulness or
suitability, "with you," "checking in," "looking," etc, for example. Once
stuff like this gets loose in the pilot community, it's harder to get rid of
than cockroaches.

--
Dan

"It's not smart or correct, it's just one of the things that make us what we
are."
--Red Green

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

One of my all time pet peeves.
I've even heard it transformed into "Any other traffic, please watch out"
Jim

"Kris Kortokrax" > wrote in message
et...
> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
>
> Kris
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The inane practice of using the phrase “any traffic please advise” has
> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a “do not do
> this” in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
> quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
>
> Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
> intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
> This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
> the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
> is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
> under any condition.
>
> If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
> online at:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
>
> Bob Linenweber, ASI
> 314-890-4864
>
>
> OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[[email protected]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> That's great, but the ones clueless enough to say it are that way because of
> chronic inability to ever FIND a clue. They are unlikely to go looking for
> one in the AIM. Maybe it will settle some hangar flying arguments.
>
> Many people parrot what they hear without a thought about its usefulness or
> suitability, "with you," "checking in," "looking," etc, for example. Once
> stuff like this gets loose in the pilot community, it's harder to get rid of
> than cockroaches.

You're right about the parroting. I've read many of the example radio
calls in the FAR/AIM but don't remember reading that "traffic in the
area please advise" is frowned upon. My first CFI always did that so I
thought it was accepted (just call me "Polly"!). People around here use
it a lot, and good thing as there are some at uncontrolled airports who
think it isn't necessary to self-announce. The "please advise" request
has prompted a position report in some instances where none was being
given until then. Granted, you shouldn't have to ask, but if that's what
it takes ... ?

At a safety seminar, a controller explained that "with you" indicates
that you're being handed off. He said never use "with you" on a first
call, as that makes the controller look for your information, which he
doesn't have.

"Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
airport. Why is that wrong? It indicates that the person heard the
advisory and is looking but doesn't yet see the traffic, it's clear,
concise, and brief. ?

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT, Kris Kortokrax >
wrote:

>Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
>Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
>
>Kris
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>The inane practice of using the phrase ?any traffic please advise? has
>become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a ?do not do
>this? in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
>quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
>
>Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
>intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
>This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
>the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
>is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
>stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
>Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
>under any condition.
>
>If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
>online at:
>
>http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
>
>Bob Linenweber, ASI
>314-890-4864
>
>
>OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

Let me get my calendar out and mark this date (the Feds did something
that makes sense!).

One of my pet peeves is folks blabbing on CTAF while they're miles
away asking what's going on at "their" destination airport.

I try to come prepared arriving @ my destination airport and I'll
tend to know in advance (with reasonable accuracy) which way the
traffic pattern will be. I like to *listen* (miles away) on CTAF to
monitor activities at my destination airport before I get there. If
there is no activity, I'll try to dial up an AWOS or ATIS at a nearby
airport and see what the winds are there (chances are if it's
reasonably close by, the winds will be the same).

It would seem some folks cruise along towards their destination
airport, switch frequencies to CTAF and (without listening first),
start asking questions about which way folks are landing there,
thereby tying up the frequency (it gets worse when several relatively
local airports share the same CTAF frequency).

Using the phrase "Please advise" doesn't address NORDO aircraft
operating in the area, and attempts to move the responsibility
from the approaching pilot over to those who are already in the
traffic pattern to inform the former what's going on....

The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Robert M. Gary]

It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.

-robert


Kris Kortokrax wrote:
> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
>
> Kris
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has
> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do
> this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
> quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
>
> Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
> intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
> This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
> the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
> is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
> under any condition.
>
> If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
> online at:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
>
> Bob Linenweber, ASI
> 314-890-4864
>
>
> OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Jose[_1_]]

> It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
> that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
> student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
> him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.

You should be listening on the frequency for long enough that such
students have made several such turns before you are close enough for
that to matter. Make your own position report. That should be enough
of a prompt for pilots in the area to respond if warranted.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

It alerts incoming aircraft of a likely departure. For a number of
reasons they may miss the actual departure announcement, and can use
this taxi information to position themselves, or to ask whether they can
land prior, or should wait until after their departure.

I find it useful. It also doens't clog the freq much, since the
tranmission originates on the ground.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:
> It alerts incoming aircraft of a likely departure. For a number of
> reasons they may miss the actual departure announcement, and can use
> this taxi information to position themselves, or to ask whether they can
> land prior, or should wait until after their departure.
>
> I find it useful. It also doens't clog the freq much, since the
> tranmission originates on the ground.

That's a pretty weak argument. When I'm in the air approaching an
airport, I'm not listening for folks on the ground (if I can even hear
them), I'm listening for folks in the pattern. When I'm on final, I'm
looking for folks on the runway or runway intersections, and listening
for any departure calls.

I usually don't make taxi calls unless the taxiways are busy. The
exception to this rule is for crossing runways--I always announce my
intention to taxi across a runway, followed by a visual inspection in
both directions, before I cross.

Unfortunately, taxi calls do clog the frequency both on the ground an in
the air, and are usually unnecessary in my opinion.



JKG

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is reasonable.
Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the traffic
in sight.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Many people parrot what they hear without a thought about its usefulness or
> suitability, "with you," "checking in," "looking," etc, for example. Once
> stuff like this gets loose in the pilot community, it's harder to get rid of
> than cockroaches.

I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
"contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive. No
response while I look is also counterproductive, because the controller
has no idea whether I heard the traffic call or not. Responding with
"looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells the controller than I
don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off. After I've had a
chance to actually scan for the traffic, I will respond with either
"negative contact" or "traffic in sight."



JKG

[Robert M. Gary]

Jose wrote:
> > It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
> > that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
> > student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
> > him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.
>
> You should be listening on the frequency for long enough that such
> students have made several such turns before you are close enough for
> that to matter. Make your own position report. That should be enough
> of a prompt for pilots in the area to respond if warranted.

That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
as 10 miles out. In my plane I'm usually approaching at 170 knots
ground speed. Not much time to wait for the next transmission. If the
freq is busy I agree with you, however, if the freq is dead it can be
helpful.

-Robert

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:07:57 -0700, wrote:
> "Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
> airport. Why is that wrong? It indicates that the person heard the
> advisory and is looking but doesn't yet see the traffic, it's clear,
> concise, and brief. ?

I tend to hear more of "Looking, [but] no joy" in the Houston Class B
airspace...

[Robert M. Gary]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT, Kris Kortokrax >
> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

At some airports failing to call up before taxiing out of parking
results in two airplane facing nose to nose with engines running and
one having to shut down and push back. Not all airports have good
visibility and wide taxiways. Its happened at my home field quiet
often. Pilots have to coordinate the use of the taxiway before pulling
out around a blind hill.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> Unfortunately, taxi calls do clog the frequency both on the ground an in
> the air, and are usually unnecessary in my opinion.

i think that's the answer in all of this. Pilots need to be smart
enough and adjust their level of verbosity based on the amount of
traffic on the frequency. Sometimes when the freq is really dead its
good to hear someone say something just to know you have the radio
dialed in and receiving correctly.

-Robert

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> That's great, but the ones clueless enough to say it are that way because of
> chronic inability to ever FIND a clue.

Or change what they're currently doing...

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
> that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
> student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
> him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.

Did you make a position report entering the airport environment, for
instance as you entered the 45?

[Peter Duniho]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
> choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
> "contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
> contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive.

I disagree with that analysis. "Negative contact" tells ATC that a) you
heard their radio transmission, and b) that you don't have the traffic in
sight. The exact same thing that "looking" tells them, except that it's the
official phrase. There's nothing about "negative contact" that implies
"I've been looking for awhile and haven't seen anything". It just means you
don't see the traffic at this point in time. Furthermore, there IS the
possibility that you already have the traffic in sight. If you're doing
your job as a pilot, there's a GOOD possibility you already have the traffic
in sight. So it's not a given that you're going to respond with either
"looking" or "negative contact". You may well tell them "traffic in sight".

Now, all that said, I use "looking" all the time. It's briefer than
"negative contact", and ATC knows what I mean. They aren't going to confuse
that with something else. So I'm not saying that one shouldn't use
"looking". I'm just saying that the justification you gave doesn't actually
provide a logical conclusion in favor of it.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
> as 10 miles out.

Just announce your position. "Please advise" aftwerwards (or instead)
is useless.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[TxSrv]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:

> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).
>

Except it's in Advisory Circular 90-42F (re nontowered field
communications) as a suggested announcement.

Fred F.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.
Jim

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised
> by
> a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if
> I
> saw the aircraft.
>

It's redundant. You wouldn't say "looking" if you'd spotted the traffic,
would you?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> "Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
> a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
> saw the aircraft.
> Jim
>
>


I say "5-8-Sierra looking" (simply to ack the controller's message), if
I don't already have the traffic. Once I have the traffic, or if I
already had it, I'll announce something like "5-8-Sierra has the Cessna
in sight" If I don't see it in a decent amount of time (relative to the
distance and vector specifics contained in the alert), I'll follow up
with "5-8-Sierra, negative contact".

The FAA controllers I most often fly with (NY & BOS Centers, BDL, PVD, &
Cape app/dep) seem to be fine with it all. They don't seem to like an
instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
response. The contract towers in delta space compare to the FAA folks.

[Jose[_1_]]

> When I'm in the air approaching an
> airport, I'm not listening for folks on the ground

Maybe you should be. They could be in the air by the time you arrive.
It's also a hint as to the runway in use.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote:
> A long time ago I was chastised by a controller for just
> saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
> saw the aircraft.

If you saw the traffic you would have said "traffic in sight", not
"looking", and if you didn't reply at all, he wouldn't have known if you
even heard his traffic alert. So far, I haven't read any sensible
argument here for discontinuing the use of "looking" -- it's still the
shortest, most concise way to say "I heard you but I don't see it yet".
The controllers here seem to appreciate it and haveno problem with it.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:31:31 -0400, TxSrv > wrote:

>Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>
>> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
>> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
>> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
>> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).
>>
>
>Except it's in Advisory Circular 90-42F (re nontowered field
>communications) as a suggested announcement.
>
>Fred F.

Well, then the Feds neet to fix that!

Bela P. Havasreti

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On 25 Aug 2006 10:05:30 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT, Kris Kortokrax >
>> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
>> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
>> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
>> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).
>
>At some airports failing to call up before taxiing out of parking
>results in two airplane facing nose to nose with engines running and
>one having to shut down and push back. Not all airports have good
>visibility and wide taxiways. Its happened at my home field quiet
>often. Pilots have to coordinate the use of the taxiway before pulling
>out around a blind hill.
>
>-Robert

Granted (makes sense). FWIW, the only places I've heard it done are
huge, ex-WW2 air bases.....

Bela P. Havasreti

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

That's what I thought until I got spanked.
Jim

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was
chastised
> > by
> > a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know
if
> > I
> > saw the aircraft.
> >
>
> It's redundant. You wouldn't say "looking" if you'd spotted the traffic,
> would you?
>
>

[Newps]

They don't seem to like an
> instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
> response.



That's a pretty fine line, don'tcha think?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> They don't seem to like an
>> instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
>> response.
>
>
>
> That's a pretty fine line, don'tcha think?

Possibly.

As for no and very slow response, if you're on the frequency, it means
you asked for advisories, flight following, or are on an IFR plan. I
don't see the problem with ATC expecting you to be listening to them and
prepared to respond promptly to a call. If you aren't going to pay
attention, perhaps you don't really want or need the services and should
simply squawk 1200.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's what I thought until I got spanked.
>

You were right. The controller was out of line.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:02:08 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>:

>Responding with "looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells
>the controller than I don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off.

I agree with your reasoning, but regulations only instruct the
controller to provide the VFR traffic advisory; they don't require the
controller to be concerned if you see the traffic or not. That said,
it has been my experience, that a controller will make an effort to
continue advising the traffic's position (if it is a factor) until the
pilot reports "in sight."

[Larry Dighera]

On 25 Aug 2006 10:02:17 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in om>:

>
>Jose wrote:
>>
>> You should be listening on the frequency for long enough that such
>> students have made several such turns before you are close enough for
>> that to matter. Make your own position report. That should be enough
>> of a prompt for pilots in the area to respond if warranted.
>
>That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
>as 10 miles out. In my plane I'm usually approaching at 170 knots
>ground speed. Not much time to wait for the next transmission. If the
>freq is busy I agree with you, however, if the freq is dead it can be
>helpful.
>

Yet, ten miles is what the AIM recommends:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-9
4-1-9(c) Recommended Traffic Advisory Practices

1. Pilots of inbound traffic should monitor and communicate as
appropriate on the designated CTAF from 10 miles to landing.
Pilots of departing aircraft should monitor/communicate on the
appropriate frequency from start-up, during taxi, and until 10
miles from the airport unless the CFRs or local procedures require
otherwise.

2. Pilots of aircraft conducting other than arriving or departing
operations at altitudes normally used by arriving and departing
aircraft should monitor/communicate on the appropriate frequency
while within 10 miles of the airport unless required to do
otherwise by the CFRs or local procedures. Such operations include
parachute jumping/dropping, en route, practicing maneuvers, etc.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:31:31 -0400, TxSrv > wrote in
>:

>> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
>> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
>> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
>> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).
>>
>
>Except it's in Advisory Circular 90-42F (re nontowered field
>communications) as a suggested announcement.

I knew I'd seen Self Announce taxi intentions someplace before:

http://www.avweb.com/other/ac90-42f.html
6. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC ADVISORY PRACTICES.

All inbound traffic should continuously monitor and communicate,
as appropriate, on the designated CTAF from a point 10 miles from
the airport until clear of the movement area. Departing aircraft
should continuously monitor/communicate on the appropriate
frequency from startup, during taxi, and until 10 miles from the
airport unless the Federal Aviation Regulations or local
procedures require otherwise.

11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES.

2) Outbound:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.


12. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES.

e. Facility at Airport: Tower or FSS not in Operation
Frequency Use: Self-announced on CTAF
Communication/Broadcast Procedures: See Below.

Communication/Broadcast Procedures:

Outbound: Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for
departure.

Inbound: 10 miles out, and entering downwind, base, and final, and
leaving the runway.

Practice Instrument Approach: Departing final approach fix (name)
inbound, and approach completed/terminated.

[Robert M. Gary]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Did you make a position report entering the airport environment, for
> instance as you entered the 45?

Did the student already in the pattern understand that my transmission
meant he should say something back to me? Again, it comes down to freq
congestion. If the freq is dead then its good to be verbose and
communicate in long form. Most of us do the same with ATC. Its the
difference between, "Good morning Oakland Center Mooney 1234A with you
passing through 10 thousand for 15 thousand....." vs. "1234A through 10
thousand".

-Robert

[Brad[_1_]]

Seems like just about everyone hates ATPA trasmissions...but how did
they get their start? I've heard it was around the PATCO strike, but I
wasn't flying back then. Anyone know?

[Jose[_1_]]

> If the freq is dead then its good to be verbose and
> communicate in long form.

The freq may be dead near you, but not dead elsewhere, and your verbose
transmission may impact others you can't hear.

True, if you can talk to them, you probably can hear them, but that's
not always the case.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> One of my all time pet peeves.
> I've even heard it transformed into "Any other traffic, please watch out"
> Jim

My best one I have heard was some knucklehead who asked "any traffic in the
area say intentions." I did exactly what he asked.

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

> At a safety seminar, a controller explained that "with you" indicates
> that you're being handed off. He said never use "with you" on a first
> call, as that makes the controller look for your information, which he
> doesn't have.

Was he really a controller, or just did he just sleep at a Holiday Inn?

Why use "with you" at all? It's a useless waste of air.

> "Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
> airport. Why is that wrong?

It is not proper phraseology and is nearly as useless as "with you."

The correct responses are "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."

> It indicates that the person heard the
> advisory and is looking but doesn't yet see the traffic, it's clear,
> concise, and brief. ?

And wrong.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Viperdoc" wrote:

> Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is reasonable.
> Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the
> traffic in sight.

Both responses are incorrect.

"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
the traffic in sight.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
> choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
> "contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
> contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive.

Counterproductive to what?

> No response while I look is also counterproductive, because the
> controller
> has no idea whether I heard the traffic call or not. Responding with
> "looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells the controller than I
> don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off.

Why would the controller presume you are "blowing it off?"

> After I've had a
> chance to actually scan for the traffic, I will respond with either
> "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."

Then "looking" was an extra, unnecessary transmission.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[soxinbox[_1_]]

I usually get dumped off at 5 miles. This happens when I am flying IFR or
VFR and receiving flight following. I fly between two class Cs into a small
uncontrolled field, so I get flight following.

I can make a position announcement, but it is also recommended that I say my
intentions. I don't know my intensions until I know what runway is active.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jose wrote:
>> > It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
>> > that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
>> > student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
>> > him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.
>>
>> You should be listening on the frequency for long enough that such
>> students have made several such turns before you are close enough for
>> that to matter. Make your own position report. That should be enough
>> of a prompt for pilots in the area to respond if warranted.
>
> That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
> as 10 miles out. In my plane I'm usually approaching at 170 knots
> ground speed. Not much time to wait for the next transmission. If the
> freq is busy I agree with you, however, if the freq is dead it can be
> helpful.
>
> -Robert
>

[soxinbox[_1_]]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT, Kris Kortokrax >
> wrote:
>
>
> I try to come prepared arriving @ my destination airport and I'll
> tend to know in advance (with reasonable accuracy) which way the
> traffic pattern will be. I like to *listen* (miles away) on CTAF to
> monitor activities at my destination airport before I get there. If
> there is no activity, I'll try to dial up an AWOS or ATIS at a nearby
> airport and see what the winds are there (chances are if it's
> reasonably close by, the winds will be the same).

What if your destination has no AWOS or ATIS, and the winds are light and
variable?
I fly into a small airport that has wind shifts on a regular basis, and does
not correlate well with the winds from the class C 30 miles away.
It is better to ask when the winds are not obvious. It is a lot safer than
flying over the active runway and looking at the wind sock.

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> > "Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
> > airport. Why is that wrong?

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> It is not proper phraseology and is nearly as useless as "with you."

"With you", if the person doesn't have any info on you or know your
intentions, is useless. "Looking," on the other hand, is not useless ...
it conveys EXACTLY what you are doing.

> The correct responses are "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."
>
> > It indicates that the person heard the
> > advisory and is looking but doesn't yet
> > see the traffic, it's clear, concise, and brief. ?
>
> And wrong.

Pilots flying in and out of 3 busy Class D airports here use it
frequently, and the ATCs are appreciative and don't spank people for
using it. I'm not going to argue right or wrong over a single, specific
word like "looking". It only has one meaning.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
airplanes in the traffic pattern. Someone could have announced a
base-to-final turn couple of seconds before you tuned in. If you
simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final" the guy in front of you
will assume that you heard his call and may not bother to repeat his
call. If you say "traffic in the pattern please advice", that is a
clear indication that you just tuned in and you did not hear his
previous call. On the other hand, if you did hear his call, you would
say "5 mile final, number two". So, there is a time and place where
"traffic in the area please advice" has some use.



Kris Kortokrax wrote:
> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
>
> Kris
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has
> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do
> this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
> quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
>
> Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
> intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
> This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
> the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
> is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
> under any condition.
>
> If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
> online at:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
>
> Bob Linenweber, ASI
> 314-890-4864
>
>
> OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Bill Zaleski]

You wait till 5 miles to start listening to unicom in a Citation that
is going fast, by your admission? Does it have 2 coms? Does it have a
two man crew? I am listening to Unicom way before ATC lets me go, and
that is in a 100 KT spamcan and single pilot. It's not too hard to
monitor a second freq. No, that innane traffic call is not justified.



On 25 Aug 2006 19:09:14 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

>I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
>However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
>off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
>airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
>airplanes in the traffic pattern. Someone could have announced a
>base-to-final turn couple of seconds before you tuned in. If you
>simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final" the guy in front of you
>will assume that you heard his call and may not bother to repeat his
>call. If you say "traffic in the pattern please advice", that is a
>clear indication that you just tuned in and you did not hear his
>previous call. On the other hand, if you did hear his call, you would
>say "5 mile final, number two". So, there is a time and place where
>"traffic in the area please advice" has some use.
>
>
>
>Kris Kortokrax wrote:
>> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
>> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
>>
>> Kris
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has
>> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do
>> this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
>> quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
>>
>> Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
>> intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
>> This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
>> the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
>> is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
>> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
>> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
>> under any condition.
>>
>> If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
>> online at:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
>>
>> Bob Linenweber, ASI
>> 314-890-4864
>>
>>
>> OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
> However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
> off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
> airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
> airplanes in the traffic pattern.
>

Why not? What prevented you from monitoring CTAF prior to being "dropped"
by ATC?

[nrp]

I want to complain about those that key the mike and start blabbing
before my squelch opens. Many times they don't announce the airport at
the end of their transmissions either so I can only speculate where
they are.

I used "anybody on the frequency?" for a quiet radio, but maybe I'll
quit after this.

A good topic to air out.

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I agree with your reasoning, but regulations only instruct the
> controller to provide the VFR traffic advisory; they don't require the
> controller to be concerned if you see the traffic or not. That said,
> it has been my experience, that a controller will make an effort to
> continue advising the traffic's position (if it is a factor) until the
> pilot reports "in sight."

Everything discussed up to your post applies to IFR traffic advisories as
well. However, in the case of IFR traffic advisories, additional
instructions are most likely forthcoming the moment the pilot advises
traffic in sight, such as "cleared for the visual approach," "maintain
visual separation with the traffic, climb and maintain xxx," etc.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

B A R R Y > wrote:

> They don't seem to like an instant "negative contact",

How did you deduce this?

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> So far, I haven't read any sensible
> argument here for discontinuing the use of "looking"
<snip>

Other than it is not the AIM-recommended response?

> The controllers here seem to appreciate it and haveno problem with it.

Controllers are not necessarily going to correct improper phraseology over
the air so the mere fact that you don't hear a correction doesn't mean they
have no problem with it. There are many, many examples of improper
phraseology that are accepted by ATC.

--
Peter

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > No response while I look is also counterproductive, because the
> > controller
> > has no idea whether I heard the traffic call or not. Responding with
> > "looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells the controller than I
> > don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off.
>
> Why would the controller presume you are "blowing it off?"

What do you propose as a response to a traffic advisory? Nothing?
Stating "negative contact" immediately?

When the controller advises of traffic, he expects you to look for it.
Under VFR he probably doesn't care if you acknowledge his advisory, or
whether you look or if you see it, but under IFR he does.

No response (or a delayed response) is not a good option because the
controller has no idea whether you heard the advisory or not.
Immediately stating "negative contact" before you have an opportunity to
look accomplishes nothing, and may very well cause the controller to
issue you a turn you don't need or waste even more radio time trying to
draw your attention to the target (been there, done that in both cases.)


> > After I've had a
> > chance to actually scan for the traffic, I will respond with either
> > "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."
>
> Then "looking" was an extra, unnecessary transmission.

Where did I lose you? "Looking" was used to acknowledge the advisory
and inform the controller that I am looking for the traffic.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> > I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
> > choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
> > "contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
> > contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive.
>
> I disagree with that analysis. "Negative contact" tells ATC that a) you
> heard their radio transmission, and b) that you don't have the traffic in
> sight. The exact same thing that "looking" tells them, except that it's the
> official phrase. There's nothing about "negative contact" that implies

Negative contact means that you don't have the traffic. "Looking" means
that you don't have the traffic, but that you are actively looking for
it.

Since I fly IFR most of the time, and traffic advisories are most common
in busy terminal areas when I'm trying to find the airport and preparing
for an approach, I probably am not looking for traffic as a priority
UNTIL I receive the traffic advisory. All "negative contact" tells the
controller is that I don't have the traffic in sight; it doesn't tell
him that I'm looking for it because, if I'm busy with a more critical
issue, I might not be.

I must admit that your message sounded borderline troll to me. You call
my (quite logical) arguments illogical, disagree with them, and then
proceed to state the same arguments in a different way and say that you
agree with your position, but not mine. Perhaps you better read more
carefully before you go throwing darts in the future.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "Viperdoc" wrote:
>
> > Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is reasonable.
> > Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the
> > traffic in sight.
>
> Both responses are incorrect.
>
> "Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
> the traffic in sight.

And if you don't have the traffic in sight... ? You say nothing?



JKG

[Alan Gerber]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I agree with your reasoning, but regulations only instruct the
> controller to provide the VFR traffic advisory; they don't require the
> controller to be concerned if you see the traffic or not.

It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight. When I
report "negative contact", they'll give me periodic updates until I spot
the traffic; once I do, I get cleared to land.

Not that they mind "looking" instead of "negative contact". But the
latter is still the *correct* call.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > When I'm in the air approaching an
> > airport, I'm not listening for folks on the ground
>
> Maybe you should be. They could be in the air by the time you arrive.
> It's also a hint as to the runway in use.

Let's see. You claim transmissions on the ground don't contribute to
frequency clutter because those approaching the airport can't hear them,
and now you expect me to be listening for transmissions that I can't
hear?

When I'm approaching to enter the pattern, my primary concern is traffic
in the pattern or likewise approaching the pattern. Traffic on the
ground is irrelevant. If a guy in the pattern is using a different
runway than the guy on the ground, I follow the guy in the pattern. I
worry about the aircraft holding short of the runway when I'm on final.


JKG

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else?
>

Because it wastes time and is less safe.


>
> This is a genuine
> question. I've always disliked jets coming into uncontrolled fields
> on a really long final. I have no way to know how long it will take
> them to actually get to the airport from 5, 8, 10 miles out. If
> everyone flew a pattern I'd think sequencing and cooperative flow
> would be easier.
>

It wouldn't.

[Peter R.]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> What do you propose as a response to a traffic advisory? Nothing?
> Stating "negative contact" immediately?

Since when did "negative contact" mean "I looked once when you first told
me but didn't see the traffic so now I am going back to reading the
newspaper?"

--
Peter

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >Responding with "looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells
> >the controller than I don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off.
>
> I agree with your reasoning, but regulations only instruct the
> controller to provide the VFR traffic advisory; they don't require the
> controller to be concerned if you see the traffic or not. That said,
> it has been my experience, that a controller will make an effort to
> continue advising the traffic's position (if it is a factor) until the
> pilot reports "in sight."

Actually, I mostly fly IFR, so my comments were from that perspective.
It's still "see & avoid" under IFR in VMC, but the controller is off the
hook if you spot the traffic and are told to maintain visual separation.
It's a benefit to the controller and usually, to you as well.


JKG

[zatatime]

On 25 Aug 2006 19:09:14 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan"
> wrote:

> If you
>simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final"


Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else? This is a genuine
question. I've always disliked jets coming into uncontrolled fields
on a really long final. I have no way to know how long it will take
them to actually get to the airport from 5, 8, 10 miles out. If
everyone flew a pattern I'd think sequencing and cooperative flow
would be easier.

I understand larger planes would fly a wider and higher pattern, but
this is what happens at certain airports anyway and I don't see how
this could be an issue.

z

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
> However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
> off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
> airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
> airplanes in the traffic pattern. Someone could have announced a
> base-to-final turn couple of seconds before you tuned in. If you
> simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final" the guy in front of you
> will assume that you heard his call and may not bother to repeat his
> call. If you say "traffic in the pattern please advice", that is a
> clear indication that you just tuned in and you did not hear his
> previous call. On the other hand, if you did hear his call, you would
> say "5 mile final, number two". So, there is a time and place where
> "traffic in the area please advice" has some use.

You mean to tell me somebody that can afford a Citation can't afford two
coms. Give me a break.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You claim transmissions on the ground don't contribute to
> frequency clutter because those approaching the airport can't hear them,
> and now you expect me to be listening for transmissions that I can't
> hear?

Transmissions from the air can be heard for a longer distance than
transmissions from the ground. However, they can be heard far enough
away to be useful.

> When I'm approaching to enter the pattern, [... t]raffic on the
> ground is irrelevant.

I disagree. Traffic on the ground could become traffic in the air by
the time you get there. A ground transmission is a heads-up, which is
better than a surprise.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Alan Gerber wrote:

>
> It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
> clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight.


Wow, talk about making an easy job hard.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

If you have half a dozen airports in the area that use the same CTAF
frequency, and you have a busy ATC frequency, it is not that easy to
handle both frequencies. Toss in weather and AWOS, it gets busy fast.
What is so offensive about "I am on a 5 mile final, anyone else in the
pattern please let me know"? Does it pose some kind of danger, or cause
confusion? If there are safety reasons, I am willing to listen.



Bill Zaleski wrote:
> You wait till 5 miles to start listening to unicom in a Citation that
> is going fast, by your admission? Does it have 2 coms? Does it have a
> two man crew? I am listening to Unicom way before ATC lets me go, and
> that is in a 100 KT spamcan and single pilot. It's not too hard to
> monitor a second freq. No, that innane traffic call is not justified.
>
>
>
> On 25 Aug 2006 19:09:14 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
> wrote:
>
> >I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
> >However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
> >off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
> >airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
> >airplanes in the traffic pattern. Someone could have announced a
> >base-to-final turn couple of seconds before you tuned in. If you
> >simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final" the guy in front of you
> >will assume that you heard his call and may not bother to repeat his
> >call. If you say "traffic in the pattern please advice", that is a
> >clear indication that you just tuned in and you did not hear his
> >previous call. On the other hand, if you did hear his call, you would
> >say "5 mile final, number two". So, there is a time and place where
> >"traffic in the area please advice" has some use.
> >
> >
> >
> >Kris Kortokrax wrote:
> >> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
> >> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.
> >>
> >> Kris
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> The inane practice of using the phrase "any traffic please advise" has
> >> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a "do not do
> >> this" in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
> >> quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:
> >>
> >> Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or
> >> intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF.
> >> This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS on
> >> the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
> >> is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
> >> stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
> >> Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used
> >> under any condition.
> >>
> >> If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
> >> online at:
> >>
> >> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/
> >>
> >> Bob Linenweber, ASI
> >> 314-890-4864
> >>
> >>
> >> OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> You claim transmissions on the ground don't contribute to frequency
>> clutter because those approaching the airport can't hear them, and now
>> you expect me to be listening for transmissions that I can't hear?
>
>
> Transmissions from the air can be heard for a longer distance than
> transmissions from the ground. However, they can be heard far enough
> away to be useful.


That's funny how you think radio works. If I'm on the ground and make a
transmission that you cannot hear then by definition I will not hear
what you say.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Jonathan Goodish > writes:

> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> "Viperdoc" wrote:
>>
>> > Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is reasonable.
>> > Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the
>> > traffic in sight.
>>
>> Both responses are incorrect.
>>
>> "Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
>> the traffic in sight.
>
> And if you don't have the traffic in sight... ? You say nothing?

You say "Negative Contact".
(Isn't this stuff still in the AIM?)

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Jonathan Goodish > writes:
> Since I fly IFR most of the time, and traffic advisories are most common
> in busy terminal areas when I'm trying to find the airport and preparing
> for an approach, I probably am not looking for traffic as a priority
> UNTIL I receive the traffic advisory. All "negative contact" tells the
> controller is that I don't have the traffic in sight; it doesn't tell
> him that I'm looking for it because, if I'm busy with a more critical
> issue, I might not be.

If you're in VMC, then you are persumed to be looking for traffic.
If you're in IMC, you're not going to be "looking".
What the controller wants to know is if you see it right now.
"Negative Contact".

[Jose[_1_]]

> That's funny how you think radio works. If I'm on the ground and make a transmission that you cannot hear then by definition I will not hear what you say.

Actually, radio doesn't work that way. Transmitters may have different
power, different sensitivity, and different antennas. Although symmetry
is a good first approximation, it is not guaranteed.

But aside from that, if I transmit from the air, I interfere with a much
broader area than if I transmit from the ground (with the same radio).
Therefore, if one is in the air, and the other is on the ground (and
symmetry prevails), it is quite likely that there will be many who can
receive only one side of the conversation.

If Elaine is flying seventy miles away, she may hear the airplane in the
air (and a bunch of others) but is not likely to hear the airplane on
the ground. Seventy miles away she doesn't need to hear either of them.
But she'll need to be closer to hear the one on the ground.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:11:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote:
> And if you don't have the traffic in sight... ? You say nothing?

Nawh, try this, "You mean there's somebody *else* up here?"

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:12:20 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
> wrote:
> It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
> clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight. When I
> report "negative contact", they'll give me periodic updates until I spot
> the traffic; once I do, I get cleared to land.

In the Class-B airspace in which I often fly, a "negative contact",
"looking, no joy", etc will often result in one of you being directed
to change course... Since the other aircraft is quite often on
approach and a commercial airliner, it's *me* that gets to change
course... It also usually gets me routed to BFE (no, I'm not talking
about Terry County Airport (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBFE), but
it's close)... If I'm outside the inner cones of the Class-B airports
here in Houston, I'll probably drop down below 2000 ft and squawk 1200
just so that I can get a more direct routing...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:27:21 -0400, zatatime > wrote:
> Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else? This is a genuine
> question. I've always disliked jets coming into uncontrolled fields
> on a really long final. I have no way to know how long it will take
> them to actually get to the airport from 5, 8, 10 miles out. If
> everyone flew a pattern I'd think sequencing and cooperative flow
> would be easier.

Unfortunately, not all aircraft can fly their patterns at the same
speed... On top of this, you have the student pilots in their Cessnas
flying an extremely wide pattern at 60 kts... In my plane, at 60 kts,
I'm about ready to fall out of the sky... I was in the pattern awhile
back with a student doing those extremely long finals at 60 kts in
addition to him doing the airliner type approaches that would have him
in the trees if he loses an engine... I was doing about 2 touch-n-goes
for every one that he did... As soon as he became airborne, I would
land... While he was still climbing out, I would turn crosswind and
downwind and be back landing before he even got adjacent to the runway
threshold on his downwind leg... After a touch-n-go, I would be back
on final by the time he was about ready to flare... It worked out
pretty good -- he had an excessively long period of time to sort out
his flying and I was still able to fly a more normal pattern that
would allow me to more likely end up on the runway in an engine out
situation... Luckily, there was just the two of us up there... A few
more aircraft and it wouldn't have worked out that way -- we would
have all been at the mercy of the slowest and longest pattern jockey
around there...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:36:25 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:
> You mean to tell me somebody that can afford a Citation can't afford two
> coms. Give me a break.

Sometimes the frequency that you are *supposed* to be listening to is
busy enough that attempting to listen to another frequency might end
up with you missing a transmission that was for you... If it's a
fairly busy time at some of the Class-Bs, I can definitely see this
happening... In fact, I've even experienced it in the Houston
Class-B... Flying around Memphis at night is that way too... What with
all the FedEx planes leaving at that time, it's often difficult to
find a break in communications to report to ATC that you have been
switched to their frequency...

[Peter Duniho]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> Negative contact means that you don't have the traffic. "Looking" means
> that you don't have the traffic, but that you are actively looking for
> it.

As Christopher says, the "looking" is implied. If you can look, you had
better be looking, whether or not ATC has reported traffic or not.

> [...] All "negative contact" tells the
> controller is that I don't have the traffic in sight; it doesn't tell
> him that I'm looking for it because, if I'm busy with a more critical
> issue, I might not be.

Unless you are in clouds or in Class A airspace, looking outside for traffic
is one of the most critical issues you have in the plane. You do everything
else as time permits.

> I must admit that your message sounded borderline troll to me. You call
> my (quite logical) arguments illogical, disagree with them, and then
> proceed to state the same arguments in a different way and say that you
> agree with your position, but not mine. Perhaps you better read more
> carefully before you go throwing darts in the future.

I read just fine. But coming to the correct conclusion as a result of
faulty logic is still an exercise is faulty logic. Just because you and I
came to the same conclusion, that doesn't mean we both have a logical
progression to that conclusion.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-25, Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> "Kris Kortokrax" wrote:
>
>> The inane practice of using the phrase “any traffic please advise” has
>> become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a “do not do this”
>> in the latest version of the AIM.
>
> That's great, but the ones clueless enough to say it are that way because of
> chronic inability to ever FIND a clue.

The only time I've heard this annoying and idiotic phrase in use is by
AIRLINE PILOTS. I've never heard a GA pilot utter it. Is this something
they teach in ground school at the airlines?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-25, > wrote:
> At a safety seminar, a controller explained that "with you" indicates
> that you're being handed off.

Another terrible and useless phrase. After a hand off:

Foo approach, bar 123 with you

doesn't really tell the controller you've been handed off to anything
useful, indeed it just wastes air time. The correct phrase to use when
going onto a new frequency after a hand off is (for example)

Foo approach, bar 123 level five thousand

or

Foo approach, bar 123 two thousand climbing six thousand

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-25, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
> as 10 miles out.

'Any traffic please advise' is still redundant.
A position report is sufficient.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:10:23 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>Both responses are incorrect.
>
>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
>the traffic in sight.

"Looking for the aircraft" makes it very clear that you are looking
for the aircraft but haven't yet seen it. You would prefer silence?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you're in VMC, then you are persumed to be looking for traffic.
> If you're in IMC, you're not going to be "looking".
> What the controller wants to know is if you see it right now.
> "Negative Contact".
>

Why aren't you going to be "looking" if you're in IMC?

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

>> "Viperdoc" wrote:
>>
>> > Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>> > reasonable.
>> > Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the
>> > traffic in sight.
>>
>> Both responses are incorrect.
>>
>> "Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
>> have
>> the traffic in sight.
>
> And if you don't have the traffic in sight... ? You say nothing?

Of course not.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Cubdriver" wrote:

>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>
>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
>>the traffic in sight.
>
> "Looking for the aircraft" makes it very clear that you are looking
> for the aircraft but haven't yet seen it. You would prefer silence?

I would prefer to say the correct response without making up phraseology.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> Negative contact means that you don't have the traffic. "Looking" means
> that you don't have the traffic, but that you are actively looking for
> it.

The idea that "negative contact" implies that you have stopped looking is
the flaw in your reasoning, Jonathan. It implies no such thing.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

>
> What do you propose as a response to a traffic advisory? Nothing?
> Stating "negative contact" immediately?

The latter, of course, unless I see the traffic.

> When the controller advises of traffic, he expects you to look for it.

Bingo! Hold that thought!

[snip]

> Where did I lose you?

You lose me when you use made-up phraseology where standard phrases already
exist.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Alan Gerber" wrote:

> It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
> clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight.

Really??

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

> What is so offensive about "I am on a 5 mile final, anyone else in the
> pattern please let me know"? Does it pose some kind of danger, or cause
> confusion? If there are safety reasons, I am willing to listen.

It is redundant, like "with you" and it is a waste of air time that can be
in short supply on CTAF.

When you report your position, I know you are there. I do not need you to
remind me of my position reporting responsibilities.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"zatatime" wrote:

>
>> If you
>>simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final"
>
>
> Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else?

Because unnecessary doodling around the pattern increases exposure to
collision.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stefan]

Bela P. Havasreti schrieb:

> The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
> fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
> from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
> purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

We do it on our airfield. It's pretty narrow here, and it informs other
pilots who want to taxi. And as the frequency is usually not very busy,
it isn't a problem.

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:32:19 GMT, Bill Zaleski
> wrote in
>:

>You wait till 5 miles to start listening to unicom in a Citation that
>is going fast, by your admission? Does it have 2 coms? Does it have a
>two man crew? I am listening to Unicom way before ATC lets me go, and
>that is in a 100 KT spamcan and single pilot.

Right. Just as one monitors ATIS when approaching a controlled field.
Or when approaching a Class C field, a pilot wants to tell ATC he has
information Gulf before he enters its airspace, so s/he monitors the
ATIS more than 20 miles out.

[Tony Cox]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
> > fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
> > from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
> > purpose could that information / transmission serve?).
>
> It alerts incoming aircraft of a likely departure. For a number of
> reasons they may miss the actual departure announcement, and can use
> this taxi information to position themselves, or to ask whether they can
> land prior, or should wait until after their departure.

At my airport - where there are taxiways between
hangar rows and you can't see one end from the
other - it helps prevent taxiing planes from meeting
head-on so that one or the other has to be turned
around.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:12:20 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
> wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> I agree with your reasoning, but regulations only instruct the
>> controller to provide the VFR traffic advisory; they don't require the
>> controller to be concerned if you see the traffic or not.
>
>It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
>clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight. When I
>report "negative contact", they'll give me periodic updates until I spot
>the traffic; once I do, I get cleared to land.
>
>Not that they mind "looking" instead of "negative contact". But the
>latter is still the *correct* call.

What you say is true, however I was referring to en route VFR radar
traffic advisory service.

The situation you describe on approach is a result of the controller's
necessity to separate IFR traffic which can be either radar separation
or visual separation.

[Denny]

My standard answer to those poor fellas is, "OK Nxxxx, my advice is
that you are ugly!"... I have yet to receive anything but silence after
that...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:40:20 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:17:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>wrote:
>>
>>My best one I have heard was some knucklehead who asked "any traffic in the
>>area say intentions." I did exactly what he asked.
>>
>
>Did you include what you planned on having on the pizza later, and if
>you decided to wash the car after you landed? <G>


He probably uttered "intentions" into the microphone, thus
substituting a lame attempt at humor for professionalism in a critical
phase of flight.

[Ron Lee]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
>"Cubdriver" wrote:
>
>>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>>
>>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you have
>>>the traffic in sight.
>>
>> "Looking for the aircraft" makes it very clear that you are looking
>> for the aircraft but haven't yet seen it. You would prefer silence?
>
>I would prefer to say the correct response without making up phraseology.
>
>--
>Dan

Dan, what is your response when you have only had one-three seconds to
look and have not yet found the traffic? This happens often.

Ron Lee

[ET]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Viperdoc" wrote:
>
>> Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>> reasonable. Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you
>> actually have the traffic in sight.
>
> Both responses are incorrect.
>
> "Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
> have the traffic in sight.
>

OK, then what do YOU say to ack. the call, but you have not yet seen the
traffic????

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
>> However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you
>> off 5 miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast
>> airplane, you don't have a lot of time to figure out the other
>> airplanes in the traffic pattern.
>>
>
>Why not? What prevented you from monitoring CTAF prior to being "dropped"
>by ATC?

I only have one radio.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else?
>>
>
>Because it wastes time and is less safe.

So does the Champ about to turn short final have to go around for the
Citation that is on five mile final?

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> I only have one radio.
>

What fast airplane do you fly?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> So does the Champ about to turn short final have to go around for the
> Citation that is on five mile final?
>

No.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So does the Champ about to turn short final have to go around for the
> Citation that is on five mile final?

Nah. The Citation will be down and parked by the time the Champ reaches
the threshhold. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Viperdoc" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>>>reasonable. Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you
>>>actually have the traffic in sight.
>>
>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>
>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
>>have the traffic in sight.
>>
>
>
> OK, then what do YOU say to ack. the call, but you have not yet seen the
> traffic????

If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
N12345, negative contact on the traffic."

Matt

[ET]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> ET wrote:
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>"Viperdoc" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>>>>reasonable. Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you
>>>>actually have the traffic in sight.
>>>
>>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>>
>>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
>>>have the traffic in sight.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, then what do YOU say to ack. the call, but you have not yet seen
>> the traffic????
>
> If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
> seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
> N12345, negative contact on the traffic."
>
> Matt
>

Hrrm, well, I'm still a student pilot (2-2000 mile+ cross countries as a
pax handling the radio though with FF) but to me that just sounds like
"I looked for 3-5 seconds and gave up..."

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jose[_1_]]

> If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5 seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC, N12345, negative contact on the traffic."

You must not fly in busy airspace. In the Northeast, in 3-5 seconds the
traffic controller has vectored ten airliners, cleared two IFR
departures, and had lunch. Either you respond right away or you can't
get a word in edgewise.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>ET wrote:
>>
>>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Viperdoc" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>>>>>reasonable. Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you
>>>>>actually have the traffic in sight.
>>>>
>>>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
>>>>have the traffic in sight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, then what do YOU say to ack. the call, but you have not yet seen
>>>the traffic????
>>
>>If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
>>seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
>>N12345, negative contact on the traffic."
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> Hrrm, well, I'm still a student pilot (2-2000 mile+ cross countries as a
> pax handling the radio though with FF) but to me that just sounds like
> "I looked for 3-5 seconds and gave up..."

It doesn't suggest I've stopped looking, it suggests I've been
unsuccessful thus far. It also allows the controller to have
confirmation that I received the traffic report.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
>> seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
>> N12345, negative contact on the traffic."
>
>
> You must not fly in busy airspace. In the Northeast, in 3-5 seconds the
> traffic controller has vectored ten airliners, cleared two IFR
> departures, and had lunch. Either you respond right away or you can't
> get a word in edgewise.

I live and fly in the northeast and always have. The frequency isn't
any less busy 500 ms after the call than 5000 ms after the call.

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Lee" wrote:

>
> Dan, what is your response when you have only had one-three seconds to
> look and have not yet found the traffic? This happens often.
>

"Negative contact."

That is the proper response, straight out of the AIM.

I have been advised of the traffic and responded with a phrase that tells
the controller all he needs to know for the moment. When things change, the
controller can give me an update or I can report "traffic in sight."

Why people think they need to give controllers warm fuzzies about this is
beyond me. Whether you are looking or not is irrelevant to the controllers.
The only information that is useful to them is whether you see the traffic
or not.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Alan Gerber]

Peter R. > wrote:
> Everything discussed up to your post applies to IFR traffic advisories as
> well. However, in the case of IFR traffic advisories, additional
> instructions are most likely forthcoming the moment the pilot advises
> traffic in sight, such as "cleared for the visual approach," "maintain
> visual separation with the traffic, climb and maintain xxx," etc.

This can happen in VFR, too. As I mentioned in another post, after
reporting traffic in sight in the pattern, I'll get "cleared to land,
number three" or whatever.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Christopher C. Stacy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If you're in VMC, then you are persumed to be looking for traffic.
>> If you're in IMC, you're not going to be "looking".
>> What the controller wants to know is if you see it right now.
>> "Negative Contact".
>>
>
> Why aren't you going to be "looking" if you're in IMC?

Because you are "looking" at the panel and there is nothing to see outside but clouds?

[Alan Gerber]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> "Alan Gerber" wrote:

> > It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
> > clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight.

> Really??

Sure. "Cherokee NNN, number two to land, behind the Cessna on base",
followed by "Cherokee NNN, traffic in sight", gets me "Cherokee NNN,
cleared to land, number two". (With runway number added, of course.)

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> What you say is true, however I was referring to en route VFR radar
> traffic advisory service.

Sure. But the conversation in general is about reporting traffic in
sight -- let's try to keep the big picture here.

> The situation you describe on approach is a result of the controller's
> necessity to separate IFR traffic which can be either radar separation
> or visual separation.

Not in this case. This was VFR, in the pattern. No IFR traffic in the
mix. It's being driven by the controller's necessity to sequence the
traffic to the runway. (Let's not get into the other issue of separation
at Class D airports, OK?)

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Jose[_1_]]

> The frequency isn't any less busy 500 ms after the call than 5000 ms after the call.

That's not my experience. When a controller is being rapid-fire, there
is a slight pause after his transmission wherein he expects a response.
That 500 ms is quieter.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan Luke]

"ET" wrote:

>> If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
>> seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
>> N12345, negative contact on the traffic."
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Hrrm, well, I'm still a student pilot (2-2000 mile+ cross countries as a
> pax handling the radio though with FF) but to me that just sounds like
> "I looked for 3-5 seconds and gave up..."

That isn't what it means to controllers. And I wouldn't use "...on the
traffic" as part of the phrase. It's redundant.

You must understand the reason for the two standard responses. The
controller is not interested in how you are spending your time in the
airplane. He needs to know DO YOU SEE THE TRAFFIC OR NOT? The answer to
that question will affect how he works your target and other nearby traffic.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Alan Gerber" wrote:
>> > It depends. At the Class D airport where I fly, the controller won't
>> > clear you to land behind somebody until you report them in sight.
>
>> Really??
>
> Sure. "Cherokee NNN, number two to land, behind the Cessna on base",
> followed by "Cherokee NNN, traffic in sight", gets me "Cherokee NNN,
> cleared to land, number two". (With runway number added, of course.)

Yes, I've had that happen, but I also frequently get cleared to land behind
other traffic in the pattern without reporting it in sight. Don't you?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Christopher C. Stacy]

ET > writes:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> ET wrote:
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Viperdoc" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is
>>>>>reasonable. Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you
>>>>>actually have the traffic in sight.
>>>>
>>>>Both responses are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>"Traffic in sight (the correct response) makes it very clear that you
>>>>have the traffic in sight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, then what do YOU say to ack. the call, but you have not yet seen
>>> the traffic????
>>
>> If I haven't seen the traffic before the ATC call, I scan for 3-5
>> seconds. If I can't find the traffic after this time, I reply "ATC,
>> N12345, negative contact on the traffic."
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Hrrm, well, I'm still a student pilot (2-2000 mile+ cross countries as a
> pax handling the radio though with FF) but to me that just sounds like
> "I looked for 3-5 seconds and gave up..."

Never Give Up.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never Give Up.
>

Never surrender.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> The frequency isn't any less busy 500 ms after the call than 5000 ms
>> after the call.
>
>
> That's not my experience. When a controller is being rapid-fire, there
> is a slight pause after his transmission wherein he expects a response.
> That 500 ms is quieter.

Well, if you can do a reasonable search for traffic that you haven't
previously spotted and reply back within half a second, you're a better
man than me. And a better liar as well. :-)

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why aren't you going to be "looking" if you're in IMC?
>>
>
> Because you are "looking" at the panel and there is nothing to see outside
> but clouds?
>

You're in IMC whenever local conditions are less than what is required for
VFR flight. There can be plenty to see outside under those conditions.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:27:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
> "Christopher C. Stacy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Never Give Up.
> >
>
> Never surrender.

Try to avoid being French...

[Jose[_1_]]

> Try to avoid being French...

Look up, you missed it. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:40:20 GMT, B A R R Y
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:17:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>My best one I have heard was some knucklehead who asked "any traffic in
>>>the
>>>area say intentions." I did exactly what he asked.
>>>
>>
>>Did you include what you planned on having on the pizza later, and if
>>you decided to wash the car after you landed? <G>
>
>
> He probably uttered "intentions" into the microphone, thus
> substituting a lame attempt at humor for professionalism in a critical
> phase of flight.

Yes, yes, yes it was the deadly 80 mph downwind leg with no one in the
patttern complicated by pushing a button and saying one word. I understand
billions are killed every year in this very situation. Oh, the horror of it
all!

[Alan Gerber]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> > Sure. "Cherokee NNN, number two to land, behind the Cessna on base",
> > followed by "Cherokee NNN, traffic in sight", gets me "Cherokee NNN,
> > cleared to land, number two". (With runway number added, of course.)

> Yes, I've had that happen, but I also frequently get cleared to land behind
> other traffic in the pattern without reporting it in sight. Don't you?

Nope. They always wait for you to have the traffic in sight before
issuing the clearance. I thought that was standard.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope. They always wait for you to have the traffic in sight before
> issuing the clearance. I thought that was standard.
>

It's not.

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I only have one radio.
>>
>
>What fast airplane do you fly?

If I recall correctly, the previous point was that you should be able
to monitor a Unicom frequency while still in contact with ATC.
Aircraft speed is irrelevant.

Ron Lee

[Peter R.]

B A R R Y > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:53:11 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
>
>>B A R R Y > wrote:
>>
>>> They don't seem to like an instant "negative contact",
>>
>>How did you deduce this?
>
> Overhearing a controller asking aircraft if they can look for the
> target.

Hmmm, a pretty silly deduction on that controller's part, then.

Often in my case I will hear a traffic call to the "other" aircraft first
and begin looking myself, providing me anywhere from a few seconds to 15 or
so seconds to attempt to locate the aircraft before receiving my end of the
traffic call.

My guess and experience to date suggests that a controller being annoyed at
an immediate "negative contact" is a rarity, not the norm.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> If I recall correctly, the previous point was that you should be able
> to monitor a Unicom frequency while still in contact with ATC.
> Aircraft speed is irrelevant.
>

Here is the previous point:

"I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you off 5
miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast airplane, you
don't have a lot of time to figure out the other airplanes in the traffic
pattern."

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

>
> My guess and experience to date suggests that a controller being annoyed
> at
> an immediate "negative contact" is a rarity, not the norm.

OTOH, sarcastic controller responses to silly phraseology are not such
rarities.

My favorite, in response to "with you":

"N12345, roger; could you go to the break room and get me a coffee?"

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If I recall correctly, the previous point was that you should be able
> > to monitor a Unicom frequency while still in contact with ATC.
> > Aircraft speed is irrelevant.
> >
>
> Here is the previous point:
>
> "I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".
> However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you off 5
> miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast airplane, you
> don't have a lot of time to figure out the other airplanes in the traffic
> pattern."


Following your advice, today I tried monitoring CTAF 20 miles out while
being vectored for the approach. It was only a Piper Archer, so it was
not fast by any means. 15 miles out ATC clears us for the approach
"Archer XYZ, 10 miles from ABC, maintain... " right then someone makes
a downwind call at some airport. Although the volume was turned down
pretty low, it still distracted us enough to miss the rest of the
clearance. We ended up having to "say again". On the way back we
monitored CTAF again. While ATC was giving us some instruction, some
guy 25 miles away announces that he is taxiing to some runway. We end
up asking for "say again". Before someone says, I am not the type who
is afraid of the radio. I can handle ATC, ATIS and identify navaids
while reading a chart and fly a partial panel NDB approach, really. But
listening to CTAF while talking to ATC has got be stumped.

I would like to add that listening to ATIS or AWOS while talking to
ATC is not the same as listening to CTAF. These are recorded messages
that play at a known speed and rhythm. It is almost like background
noise that you can simply tune out when ATC calls your tailnumber. But
CTAF can be dead quite, but burst into activity right in the middle of
an ATC instruction.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 27 Aug 2006 20:33:47 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

>
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > If I recall correctly, the previous point was that you should be able
>> > to monitor a Unicom frequency while still in contact with ATC.
>> > Aircraft speed is irrelevant.

It only works IF you are monitorning, but if you are talking to ATC
it's interferrence. If in contact with ATC I do not switch to either
the CTAF or UNICOM frequency until I no longer expect to hear from ATC
unless I'm only expecting to hear, "leaving our area". Here,
typically ATC will advise me if they see any traffic in the
neighborhood. IF ATC is busy listening to another frequency can be
hazardous.

>> >
>>
>> Here is the previous point:
>>
>> "I will admit of having used the "traffic in the area please advice".

As soon as turned loose by ATC I change frequency and anounce my
intentions.

>> However, I think I have a reasonable justification. When ATC drops you off 5
>> miles from an uncontrolled airport, you are flying a fast airplane, you
>> don't have a lot of time to figure out the other airplanes in the traffic
>> pattern."
>
>
>Following your advice, today I tried monitoring CTAF 20 miles out while
>being vectored for the approach. It was only a Piper Archer, so it was
>not fast by any means. 15 miles out ATC clears us for the approach
>"Archer XYZ, 10 miles from ABC, maintain... " right then someone makes
>a downwind call at some airport. Although the volume was turned down
>pretty low, it still distracted us enough to miss the rest of the
>clearance. We ended up having to "say again". On the way back we
>monitored CTAF again. While ATC was giving us some instruction, some
>guy 25 miles away announces that he is taxiing to some runway. We end
>up asking for "say again". Before someone says, I am not the type who
>is afraid of the radio. I can handle ATC, ATIS and identify navaids
>while reading a chart and fly a partial panel NDB approach, really. But
>listening to CTAF while talking to ATC has got be stumped.

With a good many hours I still do not want CTAF interferring with what
ATC is saying.

>
>I would like to add that listening to ATIS or AWOS while talking to
>ATC is not the same as listening to CTAF. These are recorded messages
>that play at a known speed and rhythm. It is almost like background
>noise that you can simply tune out when ATC calls your tailnumber. But
>CTAF can be dead quite, but burst into activity right in the middle of
>an ATC instruction.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Chilcoat]

"Any NORDO traffic please advise."

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

[Jose[_1_]]

> With a good many hours I still do not want CTAF interferring with what
> ATC is saying.

Agreed. Tried it both ways. Sometimes I'll make a quick CTAF call many
miles out stating intentions, and then go back to ATC, hoping that when
I'm turned loose on top of the airport, whoever is out there will
remember. I don't know how much good that does though (and just adds to
the CTAF chatter).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:07:00 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> wrote:

>"Any NORDO traffic please advise."

Believe it or not, I've actually heard someone say
that on a local CTAF freq.

Heard another guy @ the same airport (maybe it was the same guy?)
issue "extreme warnings to all pilots in the vicinity of KXYZ airport
that there was a yellow airplane (Cub) not making any
radio transmission while flying around and around in
the pattern".

Bela P. Havasreti

[[email protected]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> One of my all time pet peeves.
> I've even heard it transformed into "Any other traffic, please watch out"
> Jim
>

Around they they say "Any conflicts please advise." Or even,
"Any conflictions, please advise." It's not even a word.

Dan

[Dave[_5_]]

> listening to CTAF while talking to ATC has got be stumped.
>
> I would like to add that listening to ATIS or AWOS while talking to
> ATC is not the same as listening to CTAF. These are recorded messages
> that play at a known speed and rhythm. It is almost like background
> noise that you can simply tune out when ATC calls your tailnumber. But
> CTAF can be dead quite, but burst into activity right in the middle of
> an ATC instruction.

Listening to CTAF while trying to concentrate on anything (even
pre-takeoff checks) can be a real nuisance. Used properly CTAF
contributes significantly to the safety of flight. Used improperly it
is a decided hazard. Some airports seem to be pretty orderly, while
others are a real pain. The worst offenders use it as a personal
intercom "Hey Joe! wanna join us for lunch" - and the like.
Unfortunately, bad radio behavior seems to be a contagious disease.

David Johnson

[Sharon Simpson]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Ron Lee" wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan, what is your response when you have only had one-three seconds to
> > look and have not yet found the traffic? This happens often.
> >
>
> "Negative contact."
>
> That is the proper response, straight out of the AIM.

According to the AIM Glossary, Negative contact is used to say that *Previously
issued traffic is not in sight,* not that you are looking for the traffic she is
telling you about now.

From the Pilot / Controller Glossary:

NEGATIVE CONTACT- Used by pilots to inform ATC that:

a. Previously issued traffic is not in sight. It may be followed by the pilot's
request for the controller to provide assistance in avoiding the traffic.

[Dan Luke]

"Sharon Simpson" wrote:

>
> According to the AIM Glossary, Negative contact is used to say that
> *Previously
> issued traffic is not in sight,* not that you are looking for the traffic
> she is
> telling you about now.
>
> From the Pilot / Controller Glossary:
>
> NEGATIVE CONTACT- Used by pilots to inform ATC that:
>
> a. Previously issued traffic is not in sight. It may be followed by the
> pilot's
> request for the controller to provide assistance in avoiding the traffic.


Traffic the controller just told you about is previously issued traffic.

You still don't need to tell the controller you are looking.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM