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

[Bernoulli]

This thread is in response to the thread titled "Anyone hear NY APP yell at 888BW last night? ... in which 888BW basically almost had a mid air with Jet Blue 182 heavy. 888BW had told ATC he had the Jet Blue 182 heavy "in sight" about one minute before he performed an evasive maneuver to avoid a mid air collision with Jet Blue 182 heavy.

In a radar environment, ATC will maintain separation for all IFR aircraft and if a VFR aircraft is receiving advisories (flight following) ATC will provide separation on a work-load basis... If the VFR aircraft is in a Bravo airspace he/she will receive separation just like any IFR aircraft. So... if ATC warns you about traffic and will keep doing so the closer you get and will eventually turn both aircraft so they do not hit, why then would you be so quick to report the traffic in sight? If you report the traffic in sight (and the other traffic reports you in sight) and it's either the wrong traffic or you loose sight of the traffic, you have now put yourself in an unneccesarily less safe situation and possibly on a collision course with another aircraft because ATC aint warning you of each other anymore. ATC thinks you both have each other in sight and will maintain visual separation from each other. When ATC tells me I have traffic, I only report "traffic in sight" when I am absolutely positive that I have the traffic they are warning me about and I only do so at a point where I'm positive we could never collide... So I rarely report the traffic in sight...I simply tell them I'm looking for traffic even if I have the traffic in sight. I may see the traffic but I let ATC work for me and make sure I have that extra safety layer. I always look for traffic when advised and will allways maintain separation when I see traffic, but I rarely give up that extra layer of separation safety that a radar environment provides. As soon as I report traffic in sight I then must take on the complete responsibility for separation... 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? Someone please give me a good reason why I should reduce my separation safety when ATC will help me do it. I hear aircraft report traffic in sight all the time and then procede to almost collide. It's dumb... why do it when you can simply say you are still looking for traffic? OK... Flame on.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Jet Blue "heavy", huh...

OK.

Kinda kills your credibility right off the bat.

 

[say again]

JetBlue 182 HEAVY???? I think I've been away to long !!! JK

Looks like Yank beat me to it....oh well!!

 

[say again]

This thread is in response to the thread titled "Anyone hear NY APP yell at 888BW last night? ... in which 888BW basically almost had a mid air with Jet Blue 182 heavy. 888BW had told ATC he had the Jet Blue 182 heavy "in sight" about one minute before he performed an evasive maneuver to avoid a mid air collision with Jet Blue 182 heavy.

In a radar environment, ATC will maintain separation for all IFR aircraft and if a VFR aircraft is receiving advisories (flight following) ATC will provide separation on a work-load basis... If the VFR aircraft is in a Bravo airspace he/she will receive separation just like any IFR aircraft. So... if ATC warns you about traffic and will keep doing so the closer you get and will eventually turn both aircraft so they do not hit, why then would you be so quick to report the traffic in sight? If you report the traffic in sight (and the other traffic reports you in sight) and it's either the wrong traffic or you loose sight of the traffic, you have now put yourself in an unneccesarily less safe situation and possibly on a collision course with another aircraft because ATC aint warning you of each other anymore. ATC thinks you both have each other in sight and will maintain visual separation from each other. When ATC tells me I have traffic, I only report "traffic in sight" when I am absolutely positive that I have the traffic they are warning me about and I only do so at a point where I'm positive we could never collide... So I rarely report the traffic in sight...I simply tell them I'm looking for traffic even if I have the traffic in sight. I may see the traffic but I let ATC work for me and make sure I have that extra safety layer. I always look for traffic when advised and will allways maintain separation when I see traffic, but I rarely give up that extra layer of separation safety that a radar environment provides. As soon as I report traffic in sight I then must take on the complete responsibility for separation... 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? Someone please give me a good reason why I should reduce my separation safety when ATC will help me do it. I hear aircraft report traffic in sight all the time and then procede to almost collide. It's dumb... why do it when you can simply say you are still looking for traffic? OK... Flame on.

OK, you were the pilot of 888BW, weren't you????

 

[A1FlyBoy]

Comeon, Cessna 210's that use the 'heavy' in their call sign 'always' get better treatment.

 

[say again]

Comeon, Cessna 210's that use the 'heavy' in their call sign 'always' get better treatment.

......Or laughed at!!!!!

 

[Yank McCobb]

Besides, it was Jet Blue 182 that was the first traffic pointed out. But it was Jet Blue 29 that was the traffic of concern and the one he descended to "avoid". Jet Blue 29 reported the RA and that they had the Cherokee in sight the whole time.

More credibility problems for you Bernoulli.

 

[Bernoulli]

My bad... Jet blue not a heavy (airbus 320 is way less than 255,000 LBS)
My bad... jet blue 29 was the aircraft of concern... I was watching the animation of the flight tracks while listening and the two were not sinked at the same speed... Made it look like JB182 was the aircraft.
As far as me being 888BW... Sorry guys...good try but I have never flown on the east coast. Only flown on the Pacific side of the country.

So... Do you guys think it is safe to quickly call traffic in sight in a busy environment and throw away the added safety of ATC helping you stay separated? Constructive comments would be appreciated (I know that's a hard one for many on this site). Thanks in advance

 

[GopherEvertt?]

My bad... jet blue 29 was the aircraft of concern... I was watching the animation of the flight tracks while listening and the two were not sinked at the same speed... Made it look like JB182 was the aircraft.

How were you watching the animation of the flight? Is there a website to observe air traffic, other than the usual fight tracking websites that show one flight over a large area?

 

[LAXSaabdude]

So... Do you guys think it is safe to quickly call traffic in sight in a busy environment and throw away the added safety of ATC helping you stay separated? Constructive comments would be appreciated

OK, I'll be the first!

No, you should not call traffic instantaneously. Even more important, when in a crew environment, the NFP should not call traffic unless the PF has it in sight.

Wanna get me irritated? Here's what you do. When there are a million airplanes on the horizon on a hazy day, and ATC calls out traffic to follow, call it out as quickly as you can, and watch me try to guess which aircraft we are following, or at least watch me jump on the radio to tell ATC that we do NOT, in fact, have the traffic in sight.

Wanna make me get absolutely apoplectic? After you have done this on my previous leg, on my next leg, do this. On a perfectly clear day, with ONE airplane anywhere within sight, and I say "Traffic in sight", make a big show of looking for the aircraft while I repeatedly say "Its' right THERE!".

Long answer short, the guy that drives me batty is the NFP who thinks he is the only one who can call traffic.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[moxiepilot]

Yank why are you concerned with the creditability of Bernoulli when you can plaininy see that the point of his question is based on a bigger picture rather than the small details? I'm not saying it isn't important to get as many facts straight as possible, but why bust his balls? You feel more important after satisfying your ego?

I feel for your FO.

 

[TDTURBO]

I think B raises a good point, I won't call traffic unless I am absolutley sure I have it.

 

[Singlecoil]

If it is obvious to you, then call the traffic in sight. Otherwise, you're just being a jerk to the controller who then has to keep saying, "Traffic 12 o'clock 5 miles...Traffic 12 o'clock 4 miles...Traffic 12 o'clock 3 miles...", etc. They don't have time to be doing that, but they are required to keep giving you alerts until you have the traffic in sight.

 

[zbwmy]

"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.

"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

 

[Flying Illini]

NO...do not be too quick to call traffic in sight. It's dangerous, especially in high-traffic areas. In our ops, both pilots must have the traffic (as well as the airport) before it's called "in-sight." On the east coast or in heavy traffic areas, we won't call it, no reason too. Or, when you reply to ATC's directions of where to look for traffic, you can say, you have traffic at our x o clock and at our xx o clock (if their close to where he called the other traffic. More often than not, he will come back with, follow traffic at xx o clock.

Long story short, no don't call too quickly...it benefits no one if you have the wrong traffic in sight.

 

[TDTURBO]

I was IFR in VFR conditions last year south of INDY and fly right under (200ft) a Sarartoga. I told approach about it and he said sorry 'bout that but you are in a blind spot on our radar. Apparently I was to low for the coverage, but they never told me they lost me like they usually do. It woke me up that IFR still doesn't mean jack for separation unless you're in the clouds, even then I had a close call coming into a feild that was IFR with a 152 in the pattern. He was illegal and scudded out of there.

 

[FlyChicaga]

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

 

[GravityHater]

I think this has already been covered in the airline vs 172 midair in the 70's, S California, no? The passjet reported seeing the wrong a/c?
It's a system deficiency for sure.
Los Cerritos?

 

[RoyBoy]

In and out of the clouds its allways the traffic he doesnt call out that i see! me " uhh aproach is there supposed to be a c-130 right below me?!?!? atc "traffic passing 500 feet below you no factor.."

 

[BaronDrvr]

If it is obvious to you, then call the traffic in sight. Otherwise, you're just being a jerk to the controller who then has to keep saying, "Traffic 12 o'clock 5 miles...Traffic 12 o'clock 4 miles...Traffic 12 o'clock 3 miles...", etc. They don't have time to be doing that, but they are required to keep giving you alerts until you have the traffic in sight.

I dont think the other guys point was to be obnoxious and be a jerk to atc. A good point was brought up that in a high traffic area with hazy conditions, the traffic you are supposed to follow can be mistaken for another aircraft. Their point was to not call it out prematurely. If you are not in fact certain that is the aircraft that atc is calling out, it would be unwise and dangerous to say you have them in sight.