Any traffic please advise

Jonathan Goodish writes:
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.

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".

"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

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

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.

The idea that "negative contact" implies that you have stopped looking is
the flaw in your reasoning, Jonathan. It implies no such thing.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:02:08 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

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."

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. 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."

Everything discussed up to your post applies to IFR traffic advisories as
well. However, in the case of IFR traffic advisories, additional
instructions are most likely forthcoming the moment the pilot advises
traffic in sight, such as "cleared for the visual approach," "maintain
visual separation with the traffic, climb and maintain xxx," etc.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
Everything discussed up to your post applies to IFR traffic advisories as
well. However, in the case of IFR traffic advisories, additional
instructions are most likely forthcoming the moment the pilot advises
traffic in sight, such as "cleared for the visual approach," "maintain
visual separation with the traffic, climb and maintain xxx," etc.

This can happen in VFR, too. As I mentioned in another post, after
reporting traffic in sight in the pattern, I'll get "cleared to land,
number three" or whatever.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

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

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.


Wow, talk about making an easy job hard.

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...

"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.

Really??

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM