Any traffic please advise

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...

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...

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...

"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

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

On 2006-08-25, unicate 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

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

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?

"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?

"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