Any traffic please advise

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

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

"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

"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. ?

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.

"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

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

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?

"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

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:07:57 -0700, unicate 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...