Any traffic please advise

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.
Jim

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised
by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if
I
saw the aircraft.


It's redundant. You wouldn't say "looking" if you'd spotted the traffic,
would you?

Jim Burns wrote:
"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.
Jim




I say "5-8-Sierra looking" (simply to ack the controller's message), if
I don't already have the traffic. Once I have the traffic, or if I
already had it, I'll announce something like "5-8-Sierra has the Cessna
in sight" If I don't see it in a decent amount of time (relative to the
distance and vector specifics contained in the alert), I'll follow up
with "5-8-Sierra, negative contact".

The FAA controllers I most often fly with (NY & BOS Centers, BDL, PVD, &
Cape app/dep) seem to be fine with it all. They don't seem to like an
instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
response. The contract towers in delta space compare to the FAA folks.

"Jim Burns" wrote:
A long time ago I was chastised by a controller for just
saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.

If you saw the traffic you would have said "traffic in sight", not
"looking", and if you didn't reply at all, he wouldn't have known if you
even heard his traffic alert. So far, I haven't read any sensible
argument here for discontinuing the use of "looking" -- it's still the
shortest, most concise way to say "I heard you but I don't see it yet".
The controllers here seem to appreciate it and haveno problem with it.

wrote:

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.

Was he really a controller, or just did he just sleep at a Holiday Inn?

Why use "with you" at all? It's a useless waste of air.

"Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
airport. Why is that wrong?

It is not proper phraseology and is nearly as useless as "with you."

The correct responses are "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."

It indicates that the person heard the
advisory and is looking but doesn't yet see the traffic, it's clear,
concise, and brief. ?

And wrong.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

unicate wrote:
"Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
airport. Why is that wrong?

"Dan Luke" wrote:
It is not proper phraseology and is nearly as useless as "with you."

"With you", if the person doesn't have any info on you or know your
intentions, is useless. "Looking," on the other hand, is not useless ...
it conveys EXACTLY what you are doing.

The correct responses are "negative contact" or "traffic in sight."

It indicates that the person heard the
advisory and is looking but doesn't yet
see the traffic, it's clear, concise, and brief. ?

And wrong.

Pilots flying in and out of 3 busy Class D airports here use it
frequently, and the ATCs are appreciative and don't spank people for
using it. I'm not going to argue right or wrong over a single, specific
word like "looking". It only has one meaning.

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

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:
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.

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. 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. After I've had a
chance to actually scan for the traffic, I will respond with either
"negative contact" or "traffic in sight."



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
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
"I've been looking for awhile and haven't seen anything". It just means you
don't see the traffic at this point in time. Furthermore, there IS the
possibility that you already have the traffic in sight. If you're doing
your job as a pilot, there's a GOOD possibility you already have the traffic
in sight. So it's not a given that you're going to respond with either
"looking" or "negative contact". You may well tell them "traffic in sight".

Now, all that said, I use "looking" all the time. It's briefer than
"negative contact", and ATC knows what I mean. They aren't going to confuse
that with something else. So I'm not saying that one shouldn't use
"looking". I'm just saying that the justification you gave doesn't actually
provide a logical conclusion in favor of it.

Pete

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