Any traffic please advise

"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

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?)

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?"

"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

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?

"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