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.