Any traffic please advise

"Cubdriver" 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?

I would prefer to say the correct response without making up phraseology.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:


What do you propose as a response to a traffic advisory? Nothing?
Stating "negative contact" immediately?

The latter, of course, unless I see the traffic.

When the controller advises of traffic, he expects you to look for it.

Bingo! Hold that thought!

[snip]

Where did I lose you?

You lose me when you use made-up phraseology where standard phrases already
exist.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

What is so offensive about "I am on a 5 mile final, anyone else in the
pattern please let me know"? Does it pose some kind of danger, or cause
confusion? If there are safety reasons, I am willing to listen.

It is redundant, like "with you" and it is a waste of air time that can be
in short supply on CTAF.

When you report your position, I know you are there. I do not need you to
remind me of my position reporting responsibilities.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"zatatime" wrote:


If you
simply announce "citation xxx 5 mile final"


Why wouldn't you fly a pattern like everybody else?

Because unnecessary doodling around the pattern increases exposure to
collision.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Bela P. Havasreti schrieb:

The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

We do it on our airfield. It's pretty narrow here, and it informs other
pilots who want to taxi. And as the frequency is usually not very busy,
it isn't a problem.

Stefan

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:32:19 GMT, Bill Zaleski
wrote in
:

You wait till 5 miles to start listening to unicom in a Citation that
is going fast, by your admission? Does it have 2 coms? Does it have a
two man crew? I am listening to Unicom way before ATC lets me go, and
that is in a 100 KT spamcan and single pilot.

Right. Just as one monitors ATIS when approaching a controlled field.
Or when approaching a Class C field, a pilot wants to tell ATC he has
information Gulf before he enters its airspace, so s/he monitors the
ATIS more than 20 miles out.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

It alerts incoming aircraft of a likely departure. For a number of
reasons they may miss the actual departure announcement, and can use
this taxi information to position themselves, or to ask whether they can
land prior, or should wait until after their departure.

At my airport - where there are taxiways between
hangar rows and you can't see one end from the
other - it helps prevent taxiing planes from meeting
head-on so that one or the other has to be turned
around.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:12:20 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
wrote in :

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.

What you say is true, however I was referring to en route VFR radar
traffic advisory service.

The situation you describe on approach is a result of the controller's
necessity to separate IFR traffic which can be either radar separation
or visual separation.