If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ... 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? Chip, ZTL It reminds me of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where Jack Ryan has to choose between steering the sub into the torpedo or away from the torpedo. As such, I think the pilot feared a head on; a 70 degree turn is about a mile in a cruising Baron. The Baron also guessed that he could descend away from the climbing aircraft as reported - guessing (correctly fortunately) that the interloper would not descend back out of the weather. (a 400 ft altitude change following a 6 second turn should be considered deliberate, imho.) Based solely upon the vectors you listed, I also think the course he chose (~20 left) put the aircraft closer to the destination instead of further away, which may have also been a factor in his decision-making process. Maybe a left 360 would have done the trick more comfortably for everyone? I was recently "spun" in VMC about 3 miles from a VOR at 7000 in an SR22 with no traffic reported -although I presumed that was the problem- which is what made me think of it. It's puts the plane right back where it started, just two minutes later. While we hope never to be faced with an unverified target in IMC, please make the suggestion that best resolves the conflict from your viewpoint. -- Bob PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ... The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of the group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here in Atlanta. Here's the deal. I was working a Center departure sector mixing Atlanta terminal departures of every ilk and kin with enroute overflight traffic north of metro Atlanta. The sector weather was typical summer MVFR down here- lots of convection, hazy, hot, humid etc with building thunderstorms here and there impacting the sector. I had received my briefing from the previous controller and had just assumed responsibility for the airspace. Part of my technique is to do one more quick traffic scan *after* I take over (while the previous controller is still at hand) to ensure we didn't fumble a situation while we changed the guard. I am working a Baron IFR at 7000 flying from Chattanooga TN to Charleston SC, on course heading of about 110 or so. Doing my scan, I see he has an IFR off the nose about 15 miles at 6000 and another IFR guy crossing from the NE at 8000 and 20 miles, so he is separated. I notice additional traffic for this guy, a VFR indicating 6600 about six miles south, heading about 055 or so, converging with him. I ask the previous controller if she had issued traffic, she said she hadn't. I made the traffic call.. "Baron 123, VFR traffic one to two o'clock, six miles, northeast bound converging, altitude indicates six thousand six hundred." The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact." I make a few unrelated routine calls to other traffic, keeping an eye on this VFR target. His Mode C indicates that he is in a climb, and the conflict alert activates (both data blocks begin to flash). I make another call at four miles. "Baron 123, your traffic now two o'clock, four miles, northeast bound, altitude indicating six thousand niner hundred VFR, converging right to left." The Baron responds "123 is IMC, no contact." The situation now has my undivided attention. At three miles converging (next update), the traffic is indicating 7000. The next update, the traffic is still at 7000. This guy is flying VFR where one of my IFR's is IMC. I swing into alert mode. The target slashes are a mile long each and the radar display is delayed a bit from actual position so these guys are getting close and closing fast. The Baron needs to yank it right most ricky tic and get behind this guy. 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." The Baron pilot says "We're turning left to 090, no contact." I then watch as the Baron swings into a left turn, prolonging the collision vector another minute. His left turn away from the traffic puts him wing high with closing traffic off the right side. The Baron also descends four hundred feet during the maneuver as the targets merge. To me, this looks remarkably like a TCAS maneuver because of the altitude change. I key up and say "N123, are you TCAD equipped, do you have traffic avoidance avionics?" He gives me a curt "Negative, we do not have the traffic." The targets have merged thanks to the left turn, and I cannot distinguish the one from the other. Anything I say now about the traffic would be a dangerous guess because I have lost the flick between these two aircraft. Instead of responding to the Baron, I issue a vector to the IFR traffic at 6000 to get him away from Baron 123 (who is now well below assigned IFR altitude). At the next position update, I have tail to tail between the baron and the VFR. I tell the Baron, "Traffic no factor, maintain 7000." He responds "We never saw him..." [The unknown SOB in the VFR remains at 7000 for the next fifty miles- his profile never changed and I have every reason to believe that he never saw the IFR, IMC Baron]. My question for the group is about the Baron pilot's decision to disregard my suggestion to yank it towards the traffic and instead to turn away from him. From a controller's perspective, the quickest way to achieve "Oh Sh*t" lateral separation with crossing traffic is to aim one airplane right at the other. The idea is that as both aircraft are moving through space, the maneuvering aircraft is steering for a point where the traffic *used* to be but no longer is. Once the nose of the turning aircraft swings through his traffic's vector, every additional second buys additional separation. When we do this with IFR traffic, we call this a "Wimpy Crossover" or a "Bubba Turn". If an aircraft turns away from conflicting crossing traffic, every additional second of turn sees the targets get closer until either they merge or else they *finally* get to the point of course divergence. The closer the targets are when an away turn is initiated, the less effective an "away" turn is. 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? I'd have probably requested a vector for traffic avoidance before the traffic alert became necessary. It's possible that the VFR target was indicating bad Mode C, he may have been at a proper VFR cruising altitude and no factor for the IFR traffic at 7,000. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry Bibb" wrote in message ... I'd have *asked* for the vector by about the second call, if I couldn't see him. I do that even in VFR with flight following. Good point. It would have been easier to get the ball rolling in the right direction if we had started earlier instead of waiting until an actual alert phase. 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 =--- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote in message The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no
contact." Howdy! While your scenario may be right on the money, let me point out that some pilots will claim to be IMC even when there isn't a cloud in the sky. Their reasoning is that by doing this, it keep the onus of seperation on the controller. We both know this isn't quite how it works, but then again, a chimpanzee flew Mercury 7. D. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
.... and the N number of that rogue traffic - it wasn't N2504R perchance, was
it? Jose (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:MCe0b.184104$o%2.89767@sccrnsc02... This was drilled into us for shiphandling at sea...turn into the conflicting traffic. We drill this concept into ATC developmentals too. Same principle. Sad thing is that if you had yelled at the Baron "Negative, turn right immediately," the situation would have gotten worse, not better. I thought so too I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination. No I didn't. My supervisor and I has 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. 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 =--- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in : long story snipped... 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? I think I would have turned in the direction you gave, since I couldn't see the traffic & presumably you could, at least on radar. You have a much bigger picture than I do. Either he misunderstood you or he's a lot more arrogant than I like to think I am. If he knows he's faster than the converging traffic, a turn away could work, but how could he know that? OTOH, if you really, really want him to turn to a heading, give it as an instruction, not a suggestion. The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction instead of a suggestion is that I do not have separation responsibility between an IFR and a VFR in this class of airspace. Because of that, I have to follow the 7110.65's provisions regarding safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the 7110.65 requires me to make a suggestion instead of taking control with an instruction in this case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the phraseolgy "immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if your best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I suggested this to you, I would actually have to key up and say something as ridiculous as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate information here], suggest you fly your present heading immediately for traffic!" Silly, ain't it? The logic is that during an alert, the FAA doesn't want ATC issuing *instructions* to a controlled aircraft that might cause it to collide with an uncontrolled aircraft. Say I instructed a 180 turn just as the unknown VFR made a radical turn to the west to avoid ( know it's very very unlikely). In such a collision, the ATC instruction would likely be identified as the *cause* of the collision and as the controller I'd be hung for not following the book. This was drilled into me a long long time ago when as a young pup I assigned ATC vectors to a VFR aircraft in distress (IFR pilot in VFR-only airplane stuck on top in winter clag looking for a friendly airport). Eventually I vectored the pilot down into an airport safely and then got reamed by facility management for not *suggesting* the vectors instead of assigning them. My chewing for that event went something like this- "Good job Chip. The pilot called to say thanks- he wants to buy you a beer. HOWEVER, assign ATC headings contrary to the 7110 again, you moron, and you will be decertified...you could have killed that guy." 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 =--- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I've read all the other comments posted so far.. pretty much a 50/50 split
in options.. As an IFR pilot, my first reaction would be to take the ATC suggested turn I'm IFR so the bozo must be too, but "Monday morning" says to initially turn away from the traffic.. not towards, at the 2 O'clock and 2 mile call, based on the turning radius of the Baron at 180knts TAS plus, the turn away would give him a little more free distance before possible collision and more time to loose a little altitude. And based on the Baron's speed being a tad faster than the Cessna Spam Can variety aircraft, the extra speed may pull you out in front. Turning into the traffic (point your nose at his tail, you'll miss 'em theory), based on the turning radius, may put the two together sooner, allowing less time to apply an altitude change to the solution. If you delay the turn to late, the turning radius will kill the plan. BT (former ZBOS) "Chip Jones" wrote in message ... The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of the group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here in Atlanta. Here's the deal. I was working a Center departure sector mixing Atlanta terminal departures of every ilk and kin with enroute overflight traffic north of metro Atlanta. The sector weather was typical summer MVFR down here- lots of convection, hazy, hot, humid etc with building thunderstorms here and there impacting the sector. I had received my briefing from the previous controller and had just assumed responsibility for the airspace. Part of my technique is to do one more quick traffic scan *after* I take over (while the previous controller is still at hand) to ensure we didn't fumble a situation while we changed the guard. I am working a Baron IFR at 7000 flying from Chattanooga TN to Charleston SC, on course heading of about 110 or so. Doing my scan, I see he has an IFR off the nose about 15 miles at 6000 and another IFR guy crossing from the NE at 8000 and 20 miles, so he is separated. I notice additional traffic for this guy, a VFR indicating 6600 about six miles south, heading about 055 or so, converging with him. I ask the previous controller if she had issued traffic, she said she hadn't. I made the traffic call.. "Baron 123, VFR traffic one to two o'clock, six miles, northeast bound converging, altitude indicates six thousand six hundred." The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact." I make a few unrelated routine calls to other traffic, keeping an eye on this VFR target. His Mode C indicates that he is in a climb, and the conflict alert activates (both data blocks begin to flash). I make another call at four miles. "Baron 123, your traffic now two o'clock, four miles, northeast bound, altitude indicating six thousand niner hundred VFR, converging right to left." The Baron responds "123 is IMC, no contact." The situation now has my undivided attention. At three miles converging (next update), the traffic is indicating 7000. The next update, the traffic is still at 7000. This guy is flying VFR where one of my IFR's is IMC. I swing into alert mode. The target slashes are a mile long each and the radar display is delayed a bit from actual position so these guys are getting close and closing fast. The Baron needs to yank it right most ricky tic and get behind this guy. 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." The Baron pilot says "We're turning left to 090, no contact." I then watch as the Baron swings into a left turn, prolonging the collision vector another minute. His left turn away from the traffic puts him wing high with closing traffic off the right side. The Baron also descends four hundred feet during the maneuver as the targets merge. To me, this looks remarkably like a TCAS maneuver because of the altitude change. I key up and say "N123, are you TCAD equipped, do you have traffic avoidance avionics?" He gives me a curt "Negative, we do not have the traffic." The targets have merged thanks to the left turn, and I cannot distinguish the one from the other. Anything I say now about the traffic would be a dangerous guess because I have lost the flick between these two aircraft. Instead of responding to the Baron, I issue a vector to the IFR traffic at 6000 to get him away from Baron 123 (who is now well below assigned IFR altitude). At the next position update, I have tail to tail between the baron and the VFR. I tell the Baron, "Traffic no factor, maintain 7000." He responds "We never saw him..." [The unknown SOB in the VFR remains at 7000 for the next fifty miles- his profile never changed and I have every reason to believe that he never saw the IFR, IMC Baron]. My question for the group is about the Baron pilot's decision to disregard my suggestion to yank it towards the traffic and instead to turn away from him. From a controller's perspective, the quickest way to achieve "Oh Sh*t" lateral separation with crossing traffic is to aim one airplane right at the other. The idea is that as both aircraft are moving through space, the maneuvering aircraft is steering for a point where the traffic *used* to be but no longer is. Once the nose of the turning aircraft swings through his traffic's vector, every additional second buys additional separation. When we do this with IFR traffic, we call this a "Wimpy Crossover" or a "Bubba Turn". If an aircraft turns away from conflicting crossing traffic, every additional second of turn sees the targets get closer until either they merge or else they *finally* get to the point of course divergence. The closer the targets are when an away turn is initiated, the less effective an "away" turn is. 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? 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 =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Any Pitts S-1 pilots in this group? | Kai Glaesner | Aerobatics | 4 | April 12th 04 12:10 AM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | August 22nd 03 04:48 AM |