Does this mean anything

[Diamnd15]

Does it mean anything when atc tell a pilot they have traffic, and the pilot comes back and says they have him on tcas. It seems like atc pays no attention at all to this but yet many pilots keep saying I have him on tcas

[Doug Taylor]

I'm not an air traffic controller, but I use "traffic in sight" or "looking", but at least from my perspective when I hear guys say "got 'em on tcas", it doesn't mean jack.

[JaceTheAce]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

I'm not an air traffic controller, but I use "traffic in sight" or "looking", but at least from my perspective when I hear guys say "got 'em on tcas", it doesn't mean jack.

Right, because what if it ain't workin'?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Diamnd15

Does it mean anything when atc tell a pilot they have traffic, and the pilot comes back and says they have him on tcas. It seems like atc pays no attention at all to this but yet many pilots keep saying I have him on tcas

Controllers in the past have told me that only "Traffic in sight" is helpful. Only then can they say "Maintain visual separation."

Things like "looking", "negative contact", "got him on the tcas", "roger" all mean that you don't have the traffic in sight, and separation remains the responsibility of ATC.

I teach my students to say "Traffic in sight" or "Roger". The ubiquitous "looking" isn't really necessary or helpful, since they assume you're looking. And it isn't in the AIM. However, ATC does want to know you heard the call out, so some acknowledgement is necessary. "Roger" serves well here.

[Flysher]

"got em on TCAS", "gotem on the fishfinder", and "tally ho" are all things that only the really cool pilots who get lots of women are allowed to say.

[daveatc]

For whatever reason, technology has outpaced controllers' regs. There is nothing specific about a pilot acknowledging traffic with TCAS. However, it's a double-edged sword in a good way. For merging target procedures, we only have to issue you a traffic advisory and you have to acknowledge it. Doesn't say anything about how you acknowledge it. The only time it's really essential for you to have traffic in sight is if you're following them in on a visual or in a really congested Delta Airspace or something like that. If you've got 1000 feet vertically on them and no control action is required on our part, I just want you to know the other guy is out there. It's just really a situational awareness heads up.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by daveatc

The only time it's really essential for you to have traffic in sight is if you're following them in on a visual or in a really congested Delta Airspace or something like that.

You can't issue a "maintain visual separation, [insert conditional instruction here]" without actually seeing the hunk of metal outside the windscreen with your eyes, right? Only having them on TCAS should be treated just the same as being in the soup with no visual contact.

[aviatorrbt]

Originally Posted by jfleisher

"got em on TCAS", "gotem on the fishfinder", and "tally ho" are all things that only the really cool pilots who get lots of women are allowed to say.

comedian, eh? haha

[Fox Xray]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

You can't issue a "maintain visual separation, [insert conditional instruction here]" without actually seeing the hunk of metal outside the windscreen with your eyes, right? Only having them on TCAS should be treated just the same as being in the soup with no visual contact.

We can only use visual if the pilot visually sees him and in the case of the A/C climbing the pilot agrees that he can maintain visual separation from the traffic he has in sight.

Seeing the traffic on the "fish finder" or the dozen or so other terms I have heard used cannot be used for visual separation.

[Doug Taylor]

What concerns me is when we're doing visual approaches with targets on final, targets on downwind and targets on base for parallel runways.

Flying into a major airport north of Arizona, often pilots will say "Got em on the fishfinder, we can take a visual" where I'm the traffic they're looking for. I'm a little afraid because it almost sounds like they're relying on the TCAS for traffic separation (which is doofus as hell), and may misidentify the traffic and cause a loss of separation.

I'm not sure many pilots take the danger of mid-air collisions seriously enough in the terminal area.

[cessnajockey454]

This past Friday, I was flying VFR just north of Houston, just over the edge of Class B airspace, at 11,500 heading north-east with Flight Following and an American Airlines jet was called as traffic 9 o'clock, 11,000 heading south-east.

As far as I could tell, I was where I was supposed to be and he was where he was supposed to be - our paths were about to cross with 500 feet between us.

But before I could call traffic in sight, the airliner notified ATC that he had a TCAS alert and that he was initiating a climb. Despite ATC's reply that we had 500 feet of separation, he still insisted on climbing. I watched as he began his climb up through and above my altitude.

I'm no TCAS expert, but it seems as if that could have caused a collision instead of avoiding one. I wonder what made him decide to climb instead of decend - besides ATC telling him, doesn't TCAS tell him what altitude the cause of the alert is at?

[daveatc]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

You can't issue a "maintain visual separation, [insert conditional instruction here]" without actually seeing the hunk of metal outside the windscreen with your eyes, right? Only having them on TCAS should be treated just the same as being in the soup with no visual contact.

Yes. I only say 'maintain visual separation' when they actually say 'in sight,' or something along those lines. When people say ' got him on TCAS,' and I need to apply visual, I will say 'Copy, advise when traffic is in sight.'

[Jason]

Originally Posted by bigdaddy

This past Friday, I was flying VFR just north of Houston, just over the edge of Class B airspace, at 11,500 heading north-east with Flight Following and an American Airlines jet was called as traffic 9 o'clock, 11,000 heading south-east.

As far as I could tell, I was where I was supposed to be and he was where he was supposed to be - our paths were about to cross with 500 feet between us.

But before I could call traffic in sight, the airliner notified ATC that he had a TCAS alert and that he was initiating a climb. Despite ATC's reply that we had 500 feet of separation, he still insisted on climbing. I watched as he began his climb up through and above my altitude.

I'm no TCAS expert, but it seems as if that could have caused a collision instead of avoiding one. I wonder what made him decide to climb instead of decend - besides ATC telling him, doesn't TCAS tell him what altitude the cause of the alert is at?

TCAS is a pretty smart instrument these days with a bunch of algorithams that I can't begin to explain. Maybe you had 500 ft of seperation and maybe you didn't.....all it takes is either aircrafts instrumentation to be just a bit off (even if you do have the correct altimeter setting) for the TCAS to interrogate it as only 400 feet seperation. It also takes into account not only the 'intruder' aircraft but also other aicraft in the area.....was there someone below him that would have prevented a descent?? It's also possible that for whatever reason his TCAS picked up a slight descent from your transponder and that would also cause a climb command. It's also possible that even though he stated "initiating a climb" that he wasn't really level yet - he was just at the top of climb in which case the TCAS would have probably issued an increase in climb rate rather than going from a cluimb to commanding a descent. Every operator's (that I know of) flight operations manual is written that if you receive an RA (Resolution Advisory) you are required to respond and follow the TCAS guidance - generally it gives you a climb or descent and a minimum rate of climb/descent to maintain until it announces "Clear of conflict".

There are a ton of reasons his TCAS may have issued a climb.....who knows what it was.


Jason

[mbtrebbe]

and an RA trumps ATC instructions

[seagull]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Controllers in the past have told me that only "Traffic in sight" is helpful. Only then can they say "Maintain visual separation."

Things like "looking", "negative contact", "got him on the tcas", "roger" all mean that you don't have the traffic in sight, and separation remains the responsibility of ATC.

I teach my students to say "Traffic in sight" or "Roger". The ubiquitous "looking" isn't really necessary or helpful, since they assume you're looking. And it isn't in the AIM. However, ATC does want to know you heard the call out, so some acknowledgement is necessary. "Roger" serves well here.

Interesting, hadn't looked at U.S. phraseologies in a while, but ICAO DOC 4444 lists the following three responses to ATC traffic information:
1. Looking out
2. Traffic in sight
3. Negative contact

[B767Driver]

Along the same lines...when ATC gives a new transponder code....do you repeat the code or simply put it in the box without reading it back.

As a CFI I always taught to responder, "Roger" and just put the code in the box to minimize frequency time. I don't see in the AIM where it addresses this. ICAO, or the military, however...may require the readback. It's come to my attention that ATC prefers to have the code readback.

Anyone?

[TonyC]

Originally Posted by Diamnd15

Does it mean anything when atc tell a pilot they have traffic, and the pilot comes back and says they have him on tcas.

No.

It means nothing.

There are two correct responses to a traffic call:

1) Traffic in sight

2) Negative contact


Anything else is clutter.

Originally Posted by Diamnd15

It seems like atc pays no attention at all to this but yet many pilots keep saying I have him on tcas

Pilots have other bad habits, too.







.

[ATC RET 2003]

It means two things to me...

1. two-way radio communications are being maintained

2. the pilot has him on tcas

The second, as has been thoroughly discussed, is useless information.

[FlyChicaga]

Here is a major problem I have with the "We've got 'em on TCAS" call. Many pilots out there seem to have this bad habit of stepping on one anothers radio calls, usually when they are handed a frequency change. Instead of waiting a few seconds to see if anyone is talking, they switch and immediately check-in as if they are the only ones using the frequency today. That can cause this:

ATC: "Traffic to follow 1 o'clock, five miles, A320."
Pilot: "Roger, we've got 'em on*squeeeeeeeeallll*in' in at 5000 with Whiskey."
ATC: "Roger Airline 1234, maintain visual separation with traffic ahead, you are cleared for the visual approach to runway 10L. Contact tower 123.45."

See the problem now? You don't really have them in sight, but you are now instructed to follow them utilizing a very basic instrument. TCAS is useful, but I'd say more in how it keeps you from colliding with it's internal logic, not in the visual display it provides.

For traffic calls from ATC, I now have two replies only: Traffic in sight, or looking for traffic. I want ATC to know I have the aircraft in sight, or that I acknowledge their advisory and am taking a look out the window. Even if in IMC, I'll just state "looking for traffic." The call "in IMC" does nothing for the controller from what I've been told.

I have a good article on my computer (wish I could post it) about TCAS troubles when pilots do not comply with ATC instructions due to what they see on the TCAS display. It has caused a few near misses because the pilots did not have the "big picture" and considered ATC was vectoring them into other traffic without a visual on them.

[awseft]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

For traffic calls from ATC, I now have two replies only: Traffic in sight, or looking for traffic. I want ATC to know I have the aircraft in sight, or that I acknowledge their advisory and am taking a look out the window. Even if in IMC, I'll just state "looking for traffic." The call "in IMC" does nothing for the controller from what I've been told.

I understand that when you say "looking" it means ATC need to keep you seperated. If you were in the soup your not REALLY looking.