Riddle me this, pilots

Snowbird wrote in message There's also the vis. factor. If it's hazy and
you're flying towards the sun, you can't see a durn thing even if there
isn't a cloud out
there. OTOH, a plane flying perp. or away from the sun can legitimately
see 3+ miles

Last weekend, I flew up to North Carolina at 16,500'. I try to put one of
the local flight instructors in the seat when I can. It was a hazy summer
day, but the co-pilot of the day had no problem maintaining straight and
level, staying out of the clouds, and spotting landmarks. However, the TCAD
(traffic collision avoidance thing) would show an occassional target being
within 3 miles of us and we couldn't see them for nothing.

D.

Yes, my old TCADs used to do that for me in eastern Kansas, too.
(Or maybe it was in western Missouri, I'm not too sure.)
I've not noticed it since I upgraded to a 9900BX last year, though.
---JRC---

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message =
...
=20
However, the TCAD
(traffic collision avoidance thing) would show an occassional target =
being
within 3 miles of us and we couldn't see them for nothing.
=20
D.
=20

wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft.

"5-1-8 Merging Target Procedures
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging
target procedures to all radar identified:

What McNicoll is trying to say in his oh-so-charming way is that "radar
identified" has a very specific meaning, and the VFR traffic wasn't radar
identified. Being visible on the radar scope is not in and of itself
sufficient for being "radar identified".

Pete

I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination.

No I didn't. My supervisor and I had a very short discussion about
doing so and then decided we could prove nothing. Could have
been bad mode C, no way to prove he was not VMC, the Baron
never saw him etc etc.

In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila. wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?

Barry

"Barry" wrote in message
...
I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination.

No I didn't. My supervisor and I had a very short discussion about
doing so and then decided we could prove nothing. Could have
been bad mode C, no way to prove he was not VMC, the Baron
never saw him etc etc.

In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila.
wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me
below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue
a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?


These days I have to be careful about what I say on the net. Like you point
out, we have the ability to track you. We do track suspected airspace
violators, especially Class B. We don't do the enforcement end so I don't
know what the burden of proof is other than an actual visual sighting etc
but I'd say yes, we are far more likely to pursue a probable Class B
violator than a probable rogue IMC. After all, the Class B (or A or C or D)
is actually there all of the time and always monitored, whereas something
like weather conditions at a given point in time and space is rather
fleeting and subjective.


That "bad Mode C" angle is a factor too. We get guys from time to time
showing up in Class A airspace indicating FL255 or so, VFR. We are usually
pretty sure they are actually down in the weeds with bad Mode C, but we have
no safe way to tell and so treat them as intruders while they display they
are in the flight levels. However, we don't track them unless they appear
to fly hundreds of miles at the same displayed altitude. There is an old
war story that goes around ZTL (and probably other Centers) about a Sun and
Fun weekend where ZTL tracked a VFR aircraft that flew from somewhere north
of the Ohio River all the way down to Florida, indicating FL275. An air
carrier over Alma Georgia got a visual on it and reported it as a P-51, so
ZJX tagged up the target and ATC followed it all the way into Lakeland.
However, allegedly FSDO couldn't ever prove an enforcement because the pilot
claimed that he had been VFR at 17,500 the whole time. Dunno if this story
is fact or fiction. Several ZTL old timers swore they were involved when I
heard it here, but I have since heard a similar story (same theme) about an
Oshkosh-bound P-47 as I was enjoying a cold malted beverage with some Kansas
City Center guys. You know war stories.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...
Chip Jones wrote in message Good point, D. I've actually seen a
talking
Jackass work an ATC sector down here, now that you mention it. :-)

Seems to happen everytime I request direct to OKK from JOHNN. :-)

LOL! IIU is about it for directs to Chicagoland from Florida way...


D. (pilots vs. controllers- what a softball game that would be!)


Well, at least your monkies could swing a bat. Our Jackasses probably would
have a little trouble with the pitching, too... and it would always be the
pilots's fault. :-)

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
(Scott Lowrey) wrote in message
. com...

BTW, Chip, do you know Don Brown?

Not asking in the biblical sense I hope?


Well, this is The South... :-)

Chip, ZTL

[Key "Dueling Banjos"] "Aintree? Haw haw haw! These boys is tryin' to
git to Aintree, Elmer! Y'all done taken a wrong turn, you see. You cain't
git thar frum here... 'lessen you git in that thar River...and it's only the
biggest River in the whole State..."





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Barry wrote:

In what situations would you decide to track the traffic? I'm curious
because one very clear night I didn't feel like bothering with Phila.
Approach and just overflew the Philadelphia Class B VFR at 7500 enroute to
Atlantic City. When I called ACY Approach, they told me that Phila. wanted
to talk to me. I called after landing, and Phila. said they showed me below
7000 for part of the time, thus in their Class B without a clearance. I
assured them I was at 7500 the whole time, and agreed to get the Mode C
checked (it was due the next month anyway). Is ATC more likely to pursue a
possible Class B violation than a rogue IMC?

Yes. In most cases ATC does not know an aircraft is illegally IFR
because we don't know what the weather is. I have seen ZLC call a
couple times because they watched traffic for over a thousand miles.
One was a Malibu that busted LAX's class B and landed here at BIL.
Another aircraft busted Denver's class B and came here. Both times we
gave them a phone number supplied by ZLC. Don't know what happened
after that.

Works quite well on a 90 degree convergence.


\. Then it was like a light bulb went on and
I realized that the best course of action was to head straight for the
point in the sky where he is.

This is the NASCAR version of crash avoidance. Head for where the spinning
car is now because he probably will have moved by the time you get there.

I guess this will work OK for aircraft provided you are not converging close
to head-on.

Peter Duniho wrote:


What McNicoll is trying to say in his oh-so-charming way is that "radar
identified" has a very specific meaning, and the VFR traffic wasn't radar
identified. Being visible on the radar scope is not in and of itself
sufficient for being "radar identified".


Good points (both about McNicoll and radar identified ;-) Having said that it
seems that the air traffic procedures folks are primarily fooling themselves
(so, what's new? ;-) when they don't consider an unknown secondary target
returning Mode C data to be sufficiently radar identified for merging target
safety action. Good thing TCAS isn't so strict about what it tags.