Riddle me this, pilots

i'd make both file a report with the ATC manager - I think FAR's say
something about how even though a rule had not been broken (or maybe it had)
if you have both N#'s you can just request them to file a report (or next
time)

Matthew


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

My question for the group is.....

I was taught long ago that when a controller uses the word "immediate",
compliance should be thus. I still believe that to be good policy. Too
bad
you couldn't nick the guy for disregarding.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:

In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far? If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?" If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

Plus if two aircraft are 2 miles apart and you turn one 90 degrees,
by the time the turn is completed they will have both covered a mile.
My mental image of this is that you're turning a situation where the
two course lines would converge to a sharp point into a situation
where they would converge in a nice rounded corner.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:EQf0b.149627$Oz4.41062@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:

In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say
"Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the
right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far?

First of all, I had about fifteen airplanes on frequency. Mentally I was
gearing up for the wad of Atlanta departures that were getting ready to
launch (indeed were beginning to check on freq) and how the weather was
going to impact the departure push. I also had other IFR irons in the fire.
For example, I had two IFR's inbound to JZP and I was blocking for an
approach at 47A (which conflicts with JZP). I was mentally trying to get a
plan working for sequence into JZP while I was making that final
position-relief traffic scan. To me, the VFR target represented a very low
priority traffic call at six miles and 400 feet, especially since I don't
have separation responsibility between IFR and VFR traffic in thsi airspace.
I *do* have an air safety obligation that trumps all of my separation
responsibilities, but at six miles, and even at four miles, I did not
recognize that this situation was going to deteriorate from a routine
traffic situation into an alert situation with co-altitude traffic.

If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?"

I suppose he could have requested a vector at the first or second call. I
was waitng for him to spot the traffic because that's what happens between
VFR and IFR traffic in this airspace. See and avoid.

If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

I didn't believe that the VFR was in the soup until he got co-altitude with
the IFR guy who had reported twice that he was IMC at 7000. I see an
unknown VFR target, I assume the pilot is complying with FAR's. In this
case, I can't prove that he wasn't.


Plus if two aircraft are 2 miles apart and you turn one 90 degrees,
by the time the turn is completed they will have both covered a mile.
My mental image of this is that you're turning a situation where the
two course lines would converge to a sharp point into a situation
where they would converge in a nice rounded corner.


I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless
I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used
"immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to
slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to
turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a
suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a
successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30
degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep
his target from merging with the intruder.

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 =---

Chip Jones wrote:



I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless
I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used
"immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to
slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to
turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a
suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a
successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30
degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep
his target from merging with the intruder.

Chip, ZTL

I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of
the 7110.65?

wrote in message ...

I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of the 7110.65?


How so?

Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft.

wrote in message ...


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of
the 7110.65?


I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar
identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still
put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still
would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and
all that. :-)

To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue
traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event)
*unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical
minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E),
there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or
does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000.

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 =---

Chip Jones wrote:
Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert.

That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations
like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR
guy will get vectored. It also saves time.

Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as
when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on
top?

Mitch Gossman

"Chip Jones" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ...


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of
the 7110.65?


I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar
identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still
put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still
would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and
all that. :-)

To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue
traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event)
*unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical
minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E),
there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft.
Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or
does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000.

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 =---

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:EQf0b.149627$Oz4.41062@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:
In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far? If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?"

Ben, you raise a good point, but if I'm the Baron, I would have been
re-stating "Baron 1234 is IMC" and at the second call "negative contact,
we're IMC, *request vector for traffic*.

IMO the PIC has a responsibility to be pro-active here.

If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

Just to point out here, Chip isn't working the "VFR" target, he
has no idea what this guy's intentions really are. Coulda been
an instrument training flight climbing up to get cool and about
to start practicing steep turns or the like. Kinda complicates
getting other people out of the way, I would think.

Cheers,
Sydney

In article ,
Snowbird wrote:
If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

Just to point out here, Chip isn't working the "VFR" target, he

I know, but it worries me that just because the VFR-in-IMC guy is
breaking the rules, the controller is left in a position where due
to regulations and habit/mindset he is unable to resolve[*] a traffic
situation that would otherwise be routine. In software this is one
of those "can't happen" cases. You "can't" have a guy in IMC that's
not on an IFR flightplan converging with an IFR plane. So the regs
don't allow for it and anyone evaluating the situation tries to make
it fit into one of the other categories instead.
[*] obviously no metal was bent here, but the Baron used his emergency
authority to deviate from his clearance trying to get out of the way.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/