"Traffic in sight"

[Rez O. Lewshun]

it was humor.... something hard to find in a GOP voter lately!!

 

[JFReservist]

I don't know, I thought J-O-B-S being three letters was funny...
...the whole Marxist twist, maybe not so funny.

 

[SELCAL checks]

fwiw, i've been given climb clearances by controllers in a couple of different centers in the US based on a "report passing traffic" from ATC. was in the 30s, traffic was head on each time, and the standard seperation was definitely not applied. i think i've experienced it the most in memphis center, been a couple years since the last time though.

 

[Mach 80]

It still goes on and it's a stupid useless habit of some people so in an effort to get the word out the issue was brought up again.

It sometimes creates blockage of a more important transmission all because some guys think it's necessary to make a SECOND transmission to tell the controller that the traffic is in sight. By pointing this out and helping stop it, the far more important transmission not being blocked with this totally useless transmission might be the important one to you. As someone else said, in the flight levels a simple, one time "roger" or thank you" is all that's needed with no follow up transmission.

It also adds to unnecesasary radio clutter just like when people can't seem to acknowledge instructions to go to another frequency without adding the disengenious, stupid, useless "have a good day" or have a nice wekend"...as IF someone needs a reminder or instructions to do so. Think about it. Occasionaly a busy controller is already trying to get his next transmission off but held up for another couple of seconds having to listen to one of these waste of time, stupid, insipid, "have a good weekend"s. Believe me, in busy airspace with constant radio instructions being given, a busy controller doesn't want, nor need, to hear it. Just acknowledge the change and move on and get out of his hair.

Some of you guys have these bad habits SOOO unconsciously ingrained that it's simply become acceptable to you without any thought to them.

Selcal,

What you point out was a somewhat experimental thing some years ago. It was done away with, but if it was still in effect then certainly it would be good to let the controller know whether or not you had the traffic in sight. As things stand now, it makes no difference to the controller if you see the traffic or not.

Oh......I do love the major airline guys who tell a major airport departure control they "are airborne" with their initial transmission as they report out of 1,000'. What a hoot. Almost a tie with "with you" as far as a useless redundant waste of time.

Sorry about the obvious misspelling of "point". I know how to spell it - it was more of a typographical error but glad you had so much fun with it just as a middle school kid would. I wasn't on here earlier to correct or respond because, thankfully, I'm too busy and have much more important priorities than to get on here every single day.

Ok...I'm 'switching' now.

 

[bubbers44]

I once flew with a captain that always talked in riddles on the radio and to his crew while flying.

He liked to say out of SJC, we would like to drop the double nickel today on Bay departure. Controller would say who is calling? Walter would say Aircal 126. Controller: say again your request? Walter: we would like to drop the double nickel. Controller: Say again. Walter: We would like to drop the 5,000 ft restriction on SJC 005 degree radial. Controller: approved.

This went on all day. I gave credit to those controllers for their patience. They were happy to deal with pilots who called traffic in sight when it wasn't required. They had to deal with Walter.

 

[mrebuck]

Flightinfo...a trusted source for a good laugh since '73

 

[j32wreck]

golly

 

[Ralph Cramden]

I want my 5 minutes back...

 

[regionalcap]

Don't worry. In a couple of months Mach 80 will start another redundant thread about being redundant. :smash:

 

[deceptibum]

Mach 80 is my hero. I love hearing dictations like this. I can only imagine the consequences of his other crewmember saying "in sight". He must be such an inspiration to all he flies with to correct such unprofessional radio technique. RELAX A LOT!!!! Mach 80.....have you seen how many replies are just making fun of you....I mean are you that dense that you can't see why no one on this board would ever want to fly with you. SETTLE DOWN MAN IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT TO 65.

 

[Mach 80]

The purpose of the post is apparently working.

People are reading it and now maybe more will not make a useless, cluttering, possible blocking, second radio transmission of "traffic in sight" at FL 370 after the initial acknowlegement. Please continue to spread the word on this thread and thank you all very much.

 

[BoilerUP]

The purpose of the post is apparently working.

People are reading it and now maybe more will not make a useless, cluttering, possible blocking, second radio transmission of "traffic in sight" at FL 370 after the initial acknowlegement. Please continue to spread the word on this thread and thank you all very much.

Well then its decided.

I'm going to double my useless, cluttering, possible blocking second radio transmissions now...just to piss off whiny radio nazis like yourself who can't conceptualize the fact your technique doesn't dictate another's procedure.

"Goooooooooooood mornin' Memphis BoilerUP checkin' in wich'ya at flight-level TREE seven zero with the taco rocket above in sight. How you doin'?"

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Mach80, you've got a great pokerface.
Thanks for the laughs.

The purpose of the post is apparently working.

People are reading it and now maybe more will not make a useless, cluttering, possible blocking, second radio transmission of "traffic in sight" at FL 370 after the initial acknowlegement. Please continue to spread the word on this thread and thank you all very much.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

The purpose of the post is apparently working.

People are reading it and now maybe more will not make a useless, cluttering, possible blocking, second radio transmission of "traffic in sight" at FL 370 after the initial acknowlegement. Please continue to spread the word on this thread and thank you all very much.

Nope. Instead I'm going to say "Roger Doger there Oakland Center, we got the....ahhhh....is that a 737....yeah....the 737 in sight. Thanks for the heads up."

Threads about radio calls are almost as entertaining as threads about pilot costumes or ALPO.

 

[Steeler Fan]

The purpose of the post is apparently working.

People are reading it and now maybe more will not make a useless, cluttering, possible blocking, second radio transmission of "traffic in sight" at FL 370 after the initial acknowlegement. Please continue to spread the word on this thread and thank you all very much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCsDdIWvx3o

 

[pipe]

Hey MACH 80 --

YOU'RE ON GUARD!!!!!!!

 

[bubbers44]

Anal captains should be punished by their FO's. I always did. It was a lot of fun and always hoped when I became a captain I wouldn't drive my FO to that. I was lucky and it never happened. Maybe they were just nicer than me.

 

[Captain X]

When a controller pints out traffic during cruise at the flight levels, he/she is only doing it simply so you won't be startled seeing another aircraft coming at you. After acknowledging the call, it is NOT necessary nor required to make another call to center to report the traffic "in sight". The controller really doesn't care too much.

2008 AIM 5-5-10. Traffic Advisories (Traffic Information) ​

a. Pilot.
1. Acknowledges receipt of traffic advisories.
2. Informs controller if traffic in sight.
3. Advises ATC if a vector to avoid traffic is desired.
4. Does not expect to receive radar traffic advisories on all traffic. Some aircraft may not appear on the radar display. Be aware that the controller may be occupied with higher priority duties and unable to issue traffic information for a variety of reasons.
5. Advises controller if service is not desired.


b. Controller.
1. Issues radar traffic to the maximum extent consistent with higher priority duties except in Class A airspace.
2. Provides vectors to assist aircraft to avoid observed traffic when requested by the pilot.
3. Issues traffic information to aircraft in the Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas for sequencing purposes.

 

[Mach 80]

As this implies: "3. Advises ATC if a vector to avoid traffic is desired" and 5.Advises controller if service is not desired."
this section was clearly intended for traffic that that the controller isn't controlling and for below 18,000' such as IFR aircraft getting traffic advisories on VFR aircraft.


By the way, the AIM is badly in need of a re-write in many areas.

 

[Bringupthebird]

I would not want to argue intention of the AIM in front an administrative law judge. Besides if the traffic is so busy at FL370 that a friendly sign off is blocking vital transmissions, then maybe RVSM needs to be re-thought.

 

[123]

the far more important transmission .

Is me finding out the score of the game. I hate it when someone is clogging the airwaves and I am trying to ask ATC for an update to the score...:angryfire

 

[TheInsider]

When a controller pints out traffic during cruise at the flight levels, he/she is only doing it simply so you won't be startled seeing another aircraft coming at you. After acknowledging the call, it is NOT necessary nor required to make another call to center to report the traffic "in sight". The controller really doesn't care too much.

Yesterday there were two blocked transmissions because pilots unecessarily called back to report "traffic in sight". An AA flight bugged INDY center TWICE to let the controller know the traffic was in sight....the second time with great irritation in his voice because he wasn't responded to on the first transmission when it was quite clear the controller was doing some coordination.

I see your point. My biggest gripe is when pilots, after receiving a traffic call looks in that direction until the traffic is in sight. Now that ATC pointed out traffic we know that the traffic is there somewhere. What we should do is look in all other places and try to locate unknown traffic.

 

[say again]

this section was clearly intended for traffic that that the controller isn't controlling and for below 18,000' such as IFR aircraft getting traffic advisories on VFR aircraft.

Clearly intended? Is this according to you? Are you kidding me! I will continue to call traffic in sight that has been pointed out to me, whether or not you agree. You have no credibility in my book.

 

[brokeflyer]

As this implies: "3. Advises ATC if a vector to avoid traffic is desired" and 5.Advises controller if service is not desired."
this section was clearly intended for traffic that that the controller isn't controlling and for below 18,000' such as IFR aircraft getting traffic advisories on VFR aircraft.


By the way, the AIM is badly in need of a re-write in many areas.

is there a reason you starred this thread again?

you know how irritating it is to see the same BS over and over?...that should be put in the AIM too....get a life and go get yourself screwed...it'll do ya a lotta good.

 

[Steeler Fan]

is there a reason you starred this thread again?

you know how irritating it is to see the same BS over and over?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCsDdIWvx3o

 

[metro]

Bump.

Back to the original thread-Mach 80 is incorrect in the first place. Although yes ATC doesn't really care if you have traffic in sight or not -they are not telling you this so you "won't be startled"-they are telling you this as a heads up that if you deviate from your present clearance there will be a violation of separation of airspace between the 2 targets.

 

[Mach 80]

metro,

At least as told to me by an older controller some years ago when they could ride in our jumpseats -- I asked why the traffic was bothered even being pointed out. He said when airlines first got jets, the pilots were unaccustomed to the high altitude perspective of seeing planes coming head on at the high closure speeds and they would occasionaly make a non-necessary evasive manuever. After several of these capers it resulted in a policy of controllers making an advisory call of traffic.

He also told me it was sort of a nuisance for controllers to have to do this and nearly as much to listen to a pilot to later say he had the traffic in sight since it was useless info to the contoller.

Reporting, or whether you have the traffic in sight or not, doesn't change anything for anyone.

 

[metro]

maybe it depends on who you ask. That was what a controller told us a couple years back...maybe I'll ask another one today..if I can do it w/ out clogging up the frequency w/ useless transmissions

!

 

[Mach 80]

>>>maybe it depends on who you ask.<<<

Maybe. No matter who is right, in any case, bothering to make a 2nd transmission is totally useless to the controller or anyone else and only adds to radio clutter.

 

[wings421]

If you guys flew Mach 80 then you'd know that you get handed off every few seconds and couldn't afford a congested freq.

Mach 80, thats fast, and we don't like you because you're dangerous *bite*