Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

"Traffic in sight"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mach 80
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 28

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
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.
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCsDdIWvx3o
 
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.
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.



 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mach 80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
icon30.gif
!
 
>>>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.
 
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*
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top