Riddle me this, pilots

Nice thread.

Turning towards the tail of the traffic is natural for me, and has always
worked so far, especially when VMC. I share the sailing experience of the
the earlier posters.

I mostly fly IFR. While IMC, I have experienced several ATC-supplied traffic
alerts for VFR traffic, but no visual contact.

I also recall traveling IMC (in and out of CU) and briefly observing
crossing traffic slightly above my altitude, with NO traffic call out. When
I queried ATC, they didn't have him, so the traffic may have not been using
a transponder. I was lucky to miss.

A small nit: I fly a low-wing, and any ATC traffic alert inside of 4-5 miles
and below my altitude will be hard to see without some maneuvering to remove
my airplane's nose or wing from line-of sight. I expect even a high-wing
will also have at least the problem of traffic under the nose. I get a lot
of these alerts, where the traffic is a thousand or more below me, often
unverified, and I find them useless.

But if the traffic is approaching my altitude and is under my nose or wing,
I need to maneuver anyway to see it, so will appreciate a vector from ATC to
both see and avoid.

"pilotjww" wrote in message
...
Nice thread.

A small nit: I fly a low-wing, and any ATC traffic alert inside of 4-5
miles
and below my altitude will be hard to see without some maneuvering to
remove
my airplane's nose or wing from line-of sight. I expect even a high-wing
will also have at least the problem of traffic under the nose. I get a lot
of these alerts, where the traffic is a thousand or more below me, often
unverified, and I find them useless.

You might want to think carefully about the potential impact of erroneous
mode C information. It happens. It has happened to me more than once (see
earlier posts). It has caused me to pay attention to those "low and close"
alerts by at least for a moment, pretending that it is at my altitude. At
least it gives you something to scan for. Maybe you'll see that glider
loitering at cloud base.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...

"pilotjww" wrote in message
...
Nice thread.

A small nit: I fly a low-wing, and any ATC traffic alert inside of 4-5
miles
and below my altitude will be hard to see without some maneuvering to
remove
my airplane's nose or wing from line-of sight. I expect even a high-wing
will also have at least the problem of traffic under the nose. I get a
lot
of these alerts, where the traffic is a thousand or more below me, often
unverified, and I find them useless.

You might want to think carefully about the potential impact of erroneous
mode C information. It happens. It has happened to me more than once
(see
earlier posts). It has caused me to pay attention to those "low and
close"
alerts by at least for a moment, pretending that it is at my altitude. At
least it gives you something to scan for. Maybe you'll see that glider
loitering at cloud base.


If ATC has you verified and another target unverified indicating a safely
separated altitude, is it SOP to call traffic just in case? Will the
controller make use of a previous report ("he's wa-a-ay below me") in
deciding whether to do so?

-- David Brooks

"Martin" wrote in message
om...
Chip youre a good man, many controllers (well the ones I know here in
the northeast at least) tend to just say "f**king pilot" and move on

While we are (at least tangentially) on the subject of good controllers...

I was picking my way through a line of thunderstorms west of Huntsville a
few weeks ago. I have stormscope, but no radar. In and out of IMC, and the
stormscope is starting to look like a video game screen. The controller
(Memphis Center, I believe) was unbelievably helpful. He was working a dozen
or so planes, offering quick deviations left and right, while at the same
time responding to calls for info from pilots like me. I ended up (with his
blessing, of course) descending 10,000 feet in steep turns to avoid a storm
ahead of me, turning 50 degrees north to go under the clouds in a gap he and
I agreed was there, and was past the weather in ten minutes.

If I wanted to commend his work to his supervisor, how would I do so? He did
a great job - every handoff was accompanied by "123.45, Great job today!
Thanks"


Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:ATr0b.152537$Oz4.42083@rwcrnsc54...

[snipped]

If I wanted to commend his work to his supervisor, how would I do so? He
did
a great job - every handoff was accompanied by "123.45, Great job today!
Thanks"


If you wanted to coomend his work, you'd have to dial the main commercial
line into the facility with your kudos. Even then it is unlikely the actual
controller would hear of it (unless it was BAD service, and then they'd
track it down). I'd say the best way to commend his work would be this: On
one of those days when you are dealing with an ATC Jackass somewhere in the
system, just remember that good controllers like the ZME guy exist too.

Chip, ZTL

In article ,
says...
Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?

IFR, IMC and no contact, i'd put my trust in you. I'd be a
*bit* concerned about you letting me get to within two miles of
the traffic though.

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...

PS: did you catch up with the "VFR" - traffic.

--
Duncan

"T-Boy" wrote in message
. nz...
In article ,
says...

PS: did you catch up with the "VFR" - traffic.


Nope, we watched him tool along towards North Carolina and lost him in the
Blue Ridge near Macon County 1A5 (where he appeared to land).

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
The other day, I had an air traffic situation ...

Sorry to sound like a cheerleader, but this has been a great thread.
Always interesting to hear things from the ATC point of view.

BTW, Chip, do you know Don Brown? I believe he also works ZTL. As a
rookie pilot just venturing into the wide world of ATC, I've learned a
lot from his "Say Again?" columns at AvWeb.

-Scott

(Scott Lowrey) wrote in message . com...

BTW, Chip, do you know Don Brown?

Not asking in the biblical sense I hope?

Sydney