Why be so quick to report "traffic in sight" ?

[moxiepilot]

valid poit res -

 

[moxiepilot]

er, point

 

[TIS]

"As soon as I report traffic in sight I then must take on the complete responsibility for separation.."

WRONG...you have to also advise you are taking corrective action, or I have to continue giving you traffic.

Not quite. If the pilot reports, "Traffic in sight," it gives the controller a green light to issue a, "Maintain visual separation from that aircraft," instruction and THEN it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain separation - UNLESS he reports, "Traffic no longer in sight."

"Why should I do that when there is an ATC guy who can help me just in case I get busy and loose sight of that traffic? "

Because I am busier than you..if you see the traffic, call it in sight. If you want to play go IFR. Don't be a jerk

You've got the wrong attitude here. It's not about being a jerk. It's about staying away from other aircraft. Facilitating that, whether it be in VMC or IMC conditions is YOUR job when it comes to IFR traffic. I will call traffic when I'm darn good and ready thank you very much and if I never do then separation responsibiity remains with YOU 100% of the time. If that's the way I want it, that's the way it's gonna be. It's as much a tool for me to use as is for you.

If I'm flying into a hornets' nest like LAX or OAK you can bet I'm gonna leave the business of keeping ME away from the other guys in your hands as much as I can. The price of getting it wrong and seeing the wrong plane from where I sit is too great. And if I do make a mistake and it causes a loss of separation, who do you think will get to answer the tough questions from across the big green table? Here's a hint. It won't be you.

TIS

 

[TIS]

Even more important, when in a crew environment, the NFP should not call traffic unless the PF has it in sight.

I'll agree with this as an across-the-board rule as long as the PF is the PIC. There are instances when the PF is the SIC and their judgment about what's a safe margin of separation and what's not is not all it could be. PIC authority must enter into it fo rthis to be a valid rule.

A better way to do this is make sure that BOTH pilots see the traffic before calling it in sight. While I understand that this is not always possible on those occasions when it is a better level of situational awareness is created by it. You can always have a discussion about it if only one guy has the ability to see a traffic point out but that should, and almost always WOULD be the exception rather than the rule.

TIS

 

[LAXSaabdude]

I'll agree with this as an across-the-board rule as long as the PF is the PIC. There are instances when the PF is the SIC and their judgment about what's a safe margin of separation and what's not is not all it could be. PIC authority must enter into it fo rthis to be a valid rule.

A better way to do this is make sure that BOTH pilots see the traffic before calling it in sight. While I understand that this is not always possible on those occasions when it is a better level of situational awareness is created by it. You can always have a discussion about it if only one guy has the ability to see a traffic point out but that should, and almost always WOULD be the exception rather than the rule.

TIS

Point well taken. I guess I just take my "veto authority" as PIC for granted, and forgot to include it. I was just saying that at NO time should the NFP call traffic unless the PF has it, regardless of seat.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[TIS]

Well then, we agree!

TIS

 

[EagleRJ]

We should start a thread, "The Top Ten Reasons I Love TCAS".

TCAS is a great tool, but I think too many pilots use it as a primary tool, instead of using their Mark I eyeball to spot traffic. When ATC calls out traffic, what do most pilots do first?- look at the TCAS. We've all seen airplanes that aren't where TCAS says they are, and airplanes that don't even appear on the screen. It's also useless if an intruder has a faulty encoder, or the pilot has his transponder off because he is flying where he shouldn't be.
TCAS is usually pretty accurate, and can be used to pinpoint where the traffic is, but the need to constantly look out the windows remains the priority.

The only pet peeve I have with ATC and seperation is the way some facilities will attempt a visual so they can tuck you in behind a heavy and move more airplanes. Socal Approach (LAX) and NY Approach (JFK) are notorious for this. They would put a reletively light aircraft (Saab 340) on a course converging with a 747 on final and call it out as traffic. If you reported it in sight, you kissed your five miles goodbye- "Cleared for the visual approach- maintain at least 180kts to the marker. Caution wake turbulence rolleyes: )".
Most of the 747s were foreign carriers, who were usually all over the place and nowhere near the glideslope, so you had to do all sorts of dramatic things to stay out of their wake.
Some pilots at Eagle would refuse to play the game, and wouldn't call the heavy, even when it was right in front of them.

 

[TIS]

The only pet peeve I have with ATC and seperation is the way some facilities will attempt a visual so they can tuck you in behind a heavy and move more airplanes. Socal Approach (LAX) and NY Approach (JFK) are notorious for this.

I haven't seen SOCAL do this in a long time but they used to pull something that I just couldn't believe was legal until I had a friend at ASRS tell me it was.

The plan went like this. The airport is "VFR," by METAR only - not really a true statement from a practical standpoint in a jet moving at 3 miles a minute. This means visual approaches are possible. They point out some big guy headed for 24L - he's doing the ILS. You call him in sight. Bingo-bango, "Maintain visual separation from that aircraft, he's for the left, you're for the right, cleared visual approach to 24R." Yep! That's right! You're doing a visual approach by following a guy doing an ILS to the parallel runway!

Some pilots at Eagle would refuse to play the game, and wouldn't call the heavy, even when it was right in front of them.

is it any wonder?

TIS

 

[Vector4fun]

I haven't seen SOCAL do this in a long time but they used to pull something that I just couldn't believe was legal until I had a friend at ASRS tell me it was.

The plan went like this. The airport is "VFR," by METAR only - not really a true statement from a practical standpoint in a jet moving at 3 miles a minute. This means visual approaches are possible. They point out some big guy headed for 24L - he's doing the ILS. You call him in sight. Bingo-bango, "Maintain visual separation from that aircraft, he's for the left, you're for the right, cleared visual approach to 24R." Yep! That's right! You're doing a visual approach by following a guy doing an ILS to the parallel runway! TIS

TIS,

I'm sure I don't grasp the whole "picture" here, but I'm curious why you'd feel less comfortable being, say 2 miles away from the guy on a parallel final and being able to see him, than you apparently would being 2 miles away and being solid IMC, which would also be quite legal. You've both got a localizer to track.

 

[enigma]

TIS,

I'm sure I don't grasp the whole "picture" here, but I'm curious why you'd feel less comfortable being, say 2 miles away from the guy on a parallel final and being able to see him, than you apparently would being 2 miles away and being solid IMC, which would also be quite legal. You've both got a localizer to track.

Vector, here's more of the picture. (not all because I'm not exactly sure of the complete scenario). You're both inbound to LAX, following the same loc. Then atc clears you to sidestep. In that case, you've got to: get a vis on the parallel, re-tune, re-identify, fly the airplane and keep the heavy in sight.

If you were both on seperate locs to begin with, visual seperation would be no problem, but the way lots of approach facilities do this is the way I described earlier.

In my opinion, the problem that we, the IFR guys, have with calling traffic isn't a mid-air, it's the possible loss of seperation and the ensuing violation.

There was a pilots counsel article written about this very subject a couple of years ago, and the lawyer cautioned against accepting visual seperation, because of the possible loss of required seperation. What looks acceptable from the cockpit, may not be seen as acceptable from the snitch patch software inside your radar set.

regards,
enigma

BTW, I don't all traffic unless I am 99% positive that I have the correct traffic, that there is no way I can lose contact with said traffic, and that I'm not close enought to catch said traffic. Only when accepting a "follow him" clearance comes with a get out of jail free card, will I accept seperation responsibility.

 

[TIS]

TIS,

I'm sure I don't grasp the whole "picture" here, but I'm curious why you'd feel less comfortable being, say 2 miles away from the guy on a parallel final and being able to see him, than you apparently would being 2 miles away and being solid IMC, which would also be quite legal. You've both got a localizer to track.

Well, first there's the simple concept of conducting a visual maneuver by following someone who ISN'T conducting a visual maneuver.

Then there's the fact that you're doing a visual approach based on having the preceding aircraft in sight - only he's not the preceding aircraft - at least not to YOUR runway.

And there's the fact that the guy doing the ILS thinks he's got IFR separation going for him but that separation is being provided, in part, by a guy maintaining visual separation from him.

Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the guys doing ILSs as a matter of course at LAX are foreign carriers - I'll leave it at that so I don't get in deeper than I already am.

It's just stacking a whole lot of cards in the shape of a house.

TIS

 

[Vector4fun]

Enigma,

Thanks, OK I understand about the side-step thing, and I try not to do that. I always ask if it becomes an option inside 20 miles. If the crew declines, I'll go to plan C.

I'm not sure I'm on the same page about the loss of visual though. While I've seen that happen, I've never seen anyone even suggest violating a crew unless they never reported losing visual, and something dangerous resulted. If you loose sight of the other aircraft and say so, it then becomes our job to re-establish standard separation. That might mean abandon the approach and go-around though.


TIS, this isn't meant to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand the problem better because we sometime find ourselve in a similar operation. Normally vis is not the problem here that is may be in LA though. We don't even try running visuals below about 6 miles surface vis. Nevertheless, It's possible the flight vis is lower.

Well, first there's the simple concept of conducting a visual maneuver by following someone who ISN'T conducting a visual maneuver.

I don't see how this is a problem. Unless your saying the guy ahead is going to follow the loc/gs into IMC conditions. I run practice ILS approaches every day, and almost any day the WX is suitable, there's a visual approach behind the practice ILS.

Then there's the fact that you're doing a visual approach based on having the preceding aircraft in sight - only he's not the preceding aircraft - at least not to YOUR runway.

All quite legal and "safe" according to the FAA and the 7110.65. You may disagree, but the controller is operating by the book. Your problem then is with the "book", and not the controller.

And there's the fact that the guy doing the ILS thinks he's got IFR separation going for him but that separation is being provided, in part, by a guy maintaining visual separation from him.

OK, I'll take this as a compliment. You'd prefer I provide separation than a fellow airline pilot. Even though I might be legal running 1 1/2 miles or even less under certain conditions on parallel ILSs.

Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the guys doing ILSs as a matter of course at LAX are foreign carriers - I'll leave it at that so I don't get in deeper than I already am.

Mmmmm, OK. I always kinda enjoyed working Lufthansa. Nice guys, brought us German beer.

It's just stacking a whole lot of cards in the shape of a house.

TIS

OK TIS, I understand, (I think), you're uncomfortable with some ATC procedures. I'm sure I don't know anyone who likes all of the 7110 any more than every paragraph of Parts 91, 135, and 121.

The flip side of that is that the controllers at NY, ORD, and LAX don't set the arrival rate. Flow control and the shift supervisor do. The controllers are then left to cram 5 lbs into a 4 lb bag. Refer back to ORD in 2000. A dozen controllers were given reprimands and a week or two on the beach for running 3 1/2 miles during a facility evaluation. (An evaluation that ORD had failed for something like the previous six times.) A controller at those places can't keep his job without running them as tight as the 7110 allows.

We can fix the whole problem just as soon as we get somebody to reduce the arrival rates at those airports, and/or those cities build some more runways and airports.

 

[EagleRJ]

I've seen SOCAL do that at LAX a few times, and I haven't had a problem with it procedurally. I thought it was done with a waiver, but I guess it's a normal procedure. The reason the preceding aircraft is on an ILS instead of a visual approach is probably only because it is a foreign carrier. SOCAL gives only ILS approaches to the foreign heavies now, because they've had too many of them head for the wrong runway, or even Hawthorne Municipal. When the vis is down in the LA Basin, the procedure also helps keep the final from getting longer and longer, since terrain limits the space ATC has to work with.

The problem I have with visual approaches given to smaller aircraft behind a heavy is when the controller uses it to take away your separation. Once you call the traffic in sight, you are given a speed that will close the gap, making room for more arrivals. Pretty soon, you're three miles or less behind the heavy, and a dot or more above the glideslope, hoping he puts it down on target so you can still land in the touchdown zone. It's just not worth it.
The next time they try to do that, I'll just hold the heavy at 5NM on the TCAS, and if ATC wants me to speed up, I'll accept either a sidestep or a missed. I'll do everything I can to help move things along, but not at the cost of safety!

 

[TIS]

Okay Vector, here's what happens at LAX

Like I said the aiport is VFR - might be 3 miles or it might be 6 but it's VFR. It's also about 1745L in late September - sun's goin' down and the runway is - ta da - 24R.

So your visibility is fine as you pass the airport on the high right downwind because you're lookin' straight down on it. But you're goin' 10 miles east to follow that foreign carrier I was talking about.

SOCAL turns you to 150° and points out the Lauda 767, or the Air China 747-400, or the Korean - 777, or Mexicana A-320 - not one of which is guaranteed to do what they're cleared to do. You're lookin' and as you're lookin' you realize that you're gonna need the ILS because that airport you just passed is now awash in a reddish brown haze that limits your vis to about 1.5 to 2 miles. But you can see that guy goin' for the left, by gum, and you say so.

Next thing you know you're stuck doing a technically legal visual maneuver based on someone else who's doing a strictly IFR procedure for ALL the right reasons. Can you make it work? Sure you can. Is it a good idea? Well that depends on a lot of things that the PIC may or may not have control over.

And that's my point. While that may seem Kosher to you, it's not with me. It's bending and twisting the rules to make things work and the more you do that the thinner the safety margin becomes. As you said five pounds into the four pound bag, only in LAX it's more like ten pounds into the two pounder.

TIS

 

[Bernoulli]

Like I said the aiport is VFR - might be 3 miles or it might be 6 but it's VFR. It's also about 1745L in late September - sun's goin' down and the runway is - ta da - 24R.

So your visibility is fine as you pass the airport on the high right downwind because you're lookin' straight down on it. But you're goin' 10 miles east to follow that foreign carrier I was talking about.

SOCAL turns you to 150° and points out the Lauda 767, or the Air China 747-400, or the Korean - 777, or Mexicana A-320 - not one of which is guaranteed to do what they're cleared to do. You're lookin' and as you're lookin' you realize that you're gonna need the ILS because that airport you just passed is now awash in a reddish brown haze that limits your vis to about 1.5 to 2 miles. But you can see that guy goin' for the left, by gum, and you say so.

Next thing you know you're stuck doing a technically legal visual maneuver based on someone else who's doing a strictly IFR procedure for ALL the right reasons. Can you make it work? Sure you can. Is it a good idea? Well that depends on a lot of things that the PIC may or may not have control over.

And that's my point. While that may seem Kosher to you, it's not with me. It's bending and twisting the rules to make things work and the more you do that the thinner the safety margin becomes. As you said five pounds into the four pound bag, only in LAX it's more like ten pounds into the two pounder.

TIS

My understanding of a visual approach is that ATC may issue you a visual approach clearance but you do not have to accept it... can't you simply say yeah we have the guy in sight but negative for the visual... request the ILS. Also... On initial contact with approach can you not let them know you are negative for a visual approach when you suspect that they will do what you just described?