contact terminology?

ATC: airplane 67Z, "traffic westbound at your 2 o'clock, 5000 feet"

Now, if I see the traffic, it's "airplane 67Z has the traffic"

What if I don't have it visually, but it shows up on my traffic
display? I've heard stuff like "yep, got 'im on the fishfinder" but
I'm wondering if there is a standard "official" response?

there's also the thought that if you don't have it visually, you don't
really "have it" - i.e. the electronic display does not provide as
good separation info as actually seeing the traffic with your Mark 1
eyeball.

paul kgyy writes:

What if I don't have it visually, but it shows up on my traffic
display?

"Negative contact."

It's good if you have it on your traffic display, but you technically need
visual contact in order to assume responsibility for separation.

there's also the thought that if you don't have it visually, you don't
really "have it" - i.e. the electronic display does not provide as
good separation info as actually seeing the traffic with your Mark 1
eyeball.

Yes, especially since TCAS displays are not very accurate in azimuth.

Anthony, can you cite a source that supports your answer? Of course not, you
never do, and your responses really don't matter since you don't fly and
never have.

You know nothing about traffic displays or how they work, and have certainly
never seen or used one. You have never seen converging traffic from an
aircraft except in your imagination or in MSFS, and neither of these means
anything to those of us who actually fly.

On Sep 8, 6:27 pm, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Anthony, can you cite a source that supports your answer? Of course not, you
never do, and your responses really don't matter since you don't fly and
never have.
According to this passage:
When reporting other aircraft to ATC, the following terminology
shall be utilized: "Traffic in sight" or "negative contact." "Tally
ho" and other such phrases not found in the pilot/controller
glossary shall not be utilized. "Roger" shall only be utilized to
indicate reception of a transmission, not an "affirmative" or
"negative" response. "Wilco" shall be utilized to indicate reception
and compliance.
cited from http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation.../P-5100014.htm
the military apparently does use the term.

Or how about this? http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...pubs/PCG/N.HTM
states:
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.

b. They were unable to contact ATC on a particular frequency.
so anthony did not give erroneous information even though he did not
cite sources.

shywon ( Another flight sim pilot who does have a few hrs in real life
who is tired of the bashing every comment this guy makes)







You know nothing about traffic displays or how they work, and have certainly
never seen or used one. You have never seen converging traffic from an
aircraft except in your imagination or in MSFS, and neither of these means
anything to those of us who actually fly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes, especially since TCAS displays are not very accurate in azimuth.

You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one. TCAS is not the only traffic
display device out there.

Please restrict your answers to material you know about... maybe
microsoft flight-sim?

Dave S writes:

You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one.

I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in
this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local
aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine
azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the
remote transponder.

TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there.

What other ones are there, and how do they work?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave S writes:

You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one.

I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy
in
this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local
aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine
azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of
the
remote transponder.

TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there.

What other ones are there, and how do they work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave S writes:


You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one.


I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in
this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local
aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine
azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the
remote transponder.


TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there.


What other ones are there, and how do they work?

PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A
GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave S writes:


You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one.


I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their
accuracy in
this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local
aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine
azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy
of the
remote transponder.


TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there.


What other ones are there, and how do they work?

PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A
GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION.

I can just see planes falling out of the sky right after reading one of MX's
posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a thing is
possible.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave S writes:

You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the
operational requirements of using one.

I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in
this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local
aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine
azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the
remote transponder.

TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there.

What other ones are there, and how do they work?

Andrew.. I'm not doing your homework for you, so that you can then
pretend to know what you are talking about. And true TCAS does not need
any radar sweeps from ATC to do its job (thats the last freebee to a sim
pilot). If you KNEW what the hell you were talking about you would
understand why.

Again. You dont know. You are guessing. You are giving erroneous advice
that potentially can get someone killed if they follow what you are
saying as accurate.

Does that bother you in the least?