Collision alert!

Hey Emily... I'm based at UMP and think I remember the incident.... ;-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Emily wrote:

Greg Copeland wrote:
snip


I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot
down
and hold him accountable.


You never know. I knew a guy in college who blundered right through
Indy's airspace, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was even IN an
airplane. Approach watched him land at UMP then called the FBO on the
field and told them to tell the next guy to walk in to call them. So
yeah, sometimes they do.

What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Greg Copeland:

I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of
170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact"
or "no
joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
my passengers.


The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT"
"Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive
to effective communcations.



This time, I did not bother with the radio.


Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's
Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual
conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services
you are receiving from ATC.

Correction... Negative Contact is only 5 syllables.... Should have had
my coffee first before replying.. ;-)

Jon Kraus wrote:

What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Greg Copeland:

I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of
170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual
"contact" or "no
joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
my passengers.



The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT"
"Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive
to effective communcations.



This time, I did not bother with the radio.



Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's
Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual
conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services
you are receiving from ATC.

Jon,

What's incorrect about No Joy?


It's not standard phraseology. There are pilots out there who have not
served in the Royal Airforce in WW2 (with apologies to Bob Gardner).
They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.
Which lowers the overall safety of flight operations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg, ya did good... Yup, the descending turn is the best way, so you
can keep the other plane in sight... Other than that the only
suggestion I can make is to stop worrying about the self loading cargo
(passengers) and if (when) you get another converging situation
maneuver decisively to get him off your nose... Don't waste time
talking to ATC until you have it under control... Don't worry about
the controller... Your PIC responsibility is take the evasive maneuvers
needed, NOW... You can listen to the guy drinking coffee in an
air-conditioned cab, whine about all his problems later...

cheers ... denny

Jon Kraus wrote:
What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Because it's not in the standard phraseology that is designated by the
AIM and the ATC Handbook as conveying the information. "I have
Contact" is more of an issue because it almost sounds like the
proper phraseology for the OPPOSITE meaning.

No Joy tends to get heavily used for many negative responses and
doesn't specifically mean that I have not located the conflicting
traffic.

NEGATIVE CONTACT specifically means that. It doesn't mean anything
else.

Negative Contact is only 5 syllables...

Syllable count is not the definition of communications clarity.
If it were all ATC communications would be abbreviated to single
words and mike clicks (don't get me started).

Jon Kraus wrote:
What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Thank you to whoever pointed out that not all of us are well-versed in
military radio terminology! That's not part of private pilot training,
and while you and the controllers may understand what you're doing, that
excludes non-military pilots sharing the airspace.

I heard someone use the term "Tally Ho" not long ago ... are we all
supposed to know that means he has the traffic? are we supposed to be
impressed? "Traffic in sight" is one extra syllable (so what?), but
military and non-military understand that he sees it and no further
dialogue is required. Seems like a no-brainer.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.

"no clue"?
I couldn't name one, or even imagine one.

Not that I am endorsing the phrase.

If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking."

John

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, tjd wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
right of way rules. Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
~20min, assuming ~40nm south of KDTO looks like you could be clear or
under the 4000MSL shelf at that point?

I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."

I was not able to proceed directly into class B after take off as I had
to wait for clearance; despite initiating the request while still in my
initial climb on departure from KDTO. We were on the south side of
Dallas, well within class B. I was flying at the **assigned** altitude,
as indicated by the story. We were not under the 40000 shelf....I had
checked the GPS only moments before. We were in the 3000' shelf; squarely
placing both of us *within* class B's 3000' shelf. I just went back and
verified on my GPS we were *in* the 3000' shelf.

Based on the voice's tone on the radio, I did get the impression he was
not supposed to be there but that's hardly authorative. He did say he was
not squawking ("with no squawk"), which also makes me think he was not
suppose to be there. I couldn't remember exactly where in the dialog that
tidbit was offered, so I left it out. My wife and son both clearly heard,
"with no squawk" too.

Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
flight. I had throttled back waiting for clearance. Shesh. I think some
may be over analyzing...a lot!

I also read several posts which seem to assert I yielded PIC authority. I
dumbfounded as to how anyone could come to that conclussion. The initial
sighting was by no means sure death in the next second. I did the
responsible thing by keeping the controller in the loop by ensuring I
didn't compound the problem with other traffic in the area. When time did
not allow for it, I didn't do it. I fail to understand how improving
situational awareness is a bad thing; contrary to the opinion asserted by
others here.


Greg

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:17:01 -0400, The Visitor wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.

"no clue"?
I couldn't name one, or even imagine one.

Not that I am endorsing the phrase.

If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking."

John

Interesting. I hear it used just about every time I fly. I had no idea
people would hear common radio terminology and blissfully ignore it.

Just the same, point well taken.


Greg