Any traffic please advise

B A R R Y wrote:

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

How did you deduce this?

--
Peter

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

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