 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / IFR / September 2008contact terminology?
ATC: airplane 67Z, "traffic westbound at your 2 o'clock, 5000 feet" Now, if I see the traffic, it's "airplane 67Z has the traffic" What if I don't have it visually, but it shows up on my traffic display? I've heard stuff like "yep, got 'im on the fishfinder" but I'm wondering if there is a standard "official" response? there's also the thought that if you don't have it visually, you don't really "have it" - i.e. the electronic display does not provide as good separation info as actually seeing the traffic with your Mark 1 eyeball. > What if I don't have it visually, but it shows up on my traffic > display? "Negative contact." It's good if you have it on your traffic display, but you technically need visual contact in order to assume responsibility for separation. > there's also the thought that if you don't have it visually, you don't > really "have it" - i.e. the electronic display does not provide as > good separation info as actually seeing the traffic with your Mark 1 > eyeball. Yes, especially since TCAS displays are not very accurate in azimuth. Anthony, can you cite a source that supports your answer? Of course not, you never do, and your responses really don't matter since you don't fly and never have. You know nothing about traffic displays or how they work, and have certainly never seen or used one. You have never seen converging traffic from an aircraft except in your imagination or in MSFS, and neither of these means anything to those of us who actually fly. > Anthony, can you cite a source that supports your answer? Of course not, you > never do, and your responses really don't matter since you don't fly and > never have. According to this passage: When reporting other aircraft to ATC, the following terminology shall be utilized: "Traffic in sight" or "negative contact." "Tally ho" and other such phrases not found in the pilot/controller glossary shall not be utilized. "Roger" shall only be utilized to indicate reception of a transmission, not an "affirmative" or "negative" response. "Wilco" shall be utilized to indicate reception and compliance. cited from http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-510/P-5100014.htm the military apparently does use the term. Or how about this? http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/N.HTM states: NEGATIVE CONTACT- Used by pilots to inform ATC that: a. Previously issued traffic is not in sight. It may be followed by the pilot's request for the controller to provide assistance in avoiding the traffic. b. They were unable to contact ATC on a particular frequency. so anthony did not give erroneous information even though he did not cite sources. shywon ( Another flight sim pilot who does have a few hrs in real life who is tired of the bashing every comment this guy makes) > You know nothing about traffic displays or how they work, and have certainly > never seen or used one. You have never seen converging traffic from an > aircraft except in your imagination or in MSFS, and neither of these means > anything to those of us who actually fly. > Yes, especially since TCAS displays are not very accurate in azimuth. You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the operational requirements of using one. TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. Please restrict your answers to material you know about... maybe microsoft flight-sim? > You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the > operational requirements of using one. I know that TCAS displays are mediocre in azimuth, and that their accuracy in this respect depends hugely on the design of the hardware on the local aircraft (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). Distance is more reliable. Altitude depends on the accuracy of the remote transponder. > TCAS is not the only traffic display device out there. What other ones are there, and how do they work? >> You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >> operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What other ones are there, and how do they work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye >>You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >>operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What other ones are there, and how do they work? PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION. >>>You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >>>operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > PLEASE REAL PILOTS: IGNORE WITH THIS PRETEND PILOT HAS TO SAY. HE IS A > GENUINE HAZARD TO AVIATION. I can just see planes falling out of the sky right after reading one of MX's posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a thing is possible. >>>> You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >>>> operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > MX's posts. I'm more concerned about someone who would think such a > thing is possible. Well, Dave S. sees it as I do. So, you can be concerned about both Dave and me. And, who besides you said the Maniac's posting would immediately cause airplanes to fall out of the sky? You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. And, what a laugh to call that piece of sh.t game a simulator. > You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of > the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. Nobody learns to fly by reading USENET. No intelligent person ever believes what he reads on USENET without independent verification. > And, what a laugh to call that piece of sh.t game a simulator. Few people with a correctly configured sim call it a game. > Nobody learns to fly by reading USENET. No intelligent person ever believes > what he reads on USENET without independent verification. So that somehow is supposed to mean your obnoxious, unwanted, and INCORRECT assertions are welcome? Go back to giving medical advice.. im sure the peeps over in that other usenet village are missing their idiot.. > So that somehow is supposed to mean your obnoxious, unwanted, and > INCORRECT assertions are welcome? Your inference is incorrect. His inference is actually quite correct. You do not fly, have never flown, and easily could have looked up how the various traffic alerting systems work. Yet, you make blanket unsubstantiated statements that are not based on either knowledge or experience. The responses that you elicit simply point out the fact that you are not a pilot and have no knowledge or experience flying or working with avionics. >> You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of >> the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Few people with a correctly configured sim call it a game. This is correct. A toy is far more descriptive. A game implies there's something to win or lose. >>> You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of >>> the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This is correct. A toy is far more descriptive. A game implies there's > something to win or lose. Point well taken. >>You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of >>the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Few people with a correctly configured sim call it a game. It is not possible to correctly configure that game to be a real aviation simulator. But, since you are only a simulated pilot, you just don't understand that. > It is not possible to correctly configure that game to be a real > aviation simulator. The Navy disagrees. >>>>> You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >>>>> operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Well, Dave S. sees it as I do. And in this particular thread, MX was right and Dave S had to manufacture a non-existent quote just to contradict MX and point out that he wasn't some sort of design engineer when clearly he isn't either. > So, you can be concerned about both Dave and me. > > And, who besides you said the Maniac's posting would immediately cause > airplanes to fall out of the sky? Because you described him as not just a hazard, but a "GENUINE" hazard with caps added for emphasis on everything. What other inference should one make from that? Are you now going to try and downplay what you were previously so adamant about before? The best you can say about your statement is you grossly exaggerated any threat he might pose and the worst you could say about mine is I just took your exaggeration one more step to show how completely ridiculous it was. > You obviously don't understand how misinformation in aviation is one of > the weak links in the accident chain. Neither does the "simulator" jock. Here's what you don't understand. After reading one or two sentences of an MX post, anyone with at least a room temperature IQ should be able to figure out the guy is completely clueless. Now let's assume for a moment they aren't that smart, but still have enough neurons firing to fly an actual aircraft even as a student pilot (which is quite a stretch to begin with, but lets go way out on a limb for the sake of argument). If they choose to base their decision making skills on what a person with no proven credentials whatsoever writes on friggin usenet, then they have FAR bigger problems than MX could ever create. In fact, their chain is made of dental floss to begin with. > And, what a laugh to call that piece of sh.t game a simulator. > And in this particular thread, MX was right and Dave S had to > manufacture a non-existent quote just to contradict MX and point out > that he wasn't some sort of design engineer when clearly he isn't either. Manufactured? BS. MX: (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine azimuth). I'm done with this pissing contest. This time. for now. > MX: (since it must depend essentially on radar sweeps to determine > azimuth). You need some way of correlating replies or echoes from other aircraft with azimuth, which means a directional antenna. A directional antenna that actively paints or interrogates a distant station is radar. None of this has anything to do with ATC when the context is TCAS. >> You know nothing of the technical standards regarding TCAS, nor the >> operational requirements of using one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What other ones are there, and how do they work? Andrew.. I'm not doing your homework for you, so that you can then pretend to know what you are talking about. And true TCAS does not need any radar sweeps from ATC to do its job (thats the last freebee to a sim pilot). If you KNEW what the hell you were talking about you would understand why. Again. You dont know. You are guessing. You are giving erroneous advice that potentially can get someone killed if they follow what you are saying as accurate. Does that bother you in the least? > Andrew.. I'm not doing your homework for you, so that you can then > pretend to know what you are talking about. And true TCAS does not need > any radar sweeps from ATC to do its job (thats the last freebee to a sim > pilot). Nobody said anything about radar sweeps from ATC. Transponders interrogated by TCAS do not provide lateral position information, so this must be inferred by the local TCAS hardware, which in turn implies a sweeping interrogation of some kind that can correlate azimuth information with transponder replies or direct radar echoes. Current TCAS II systems do not provide reliable azimuth information, only general indications of azimuth that can be considerably off. That's one reason why these systems do not provide lateral RAs. > Again. You dont know. You are guessing. You are giving erroneous advice > that potentially can get someone killed if they follow what you are > saying as accurate. No competent pilot takes anything he reads on USENET seriously without independent verification. Indeed, no intelligent person does that. > Does that bother you in the least? Since it's your imaginative speculation rather than any kind of real risk, it doesn't bother me. First, the information I give is not generally inaccurate, and it won't get anyone killed. Second, only an idiot flies based on what he reads on USENET alone, and idiots are not likely to survive in any case. > Nobody said anything about radar sweeps from ATC. Yes... YOU did.... ...and idiots are not likely to survive in any case. You've done quite well do far. > Yes... YOU did.... Where? TCAS uses at least one directional antenna. It is this antenna that provides azimuth information, independently of any equipment ATC might have. The directional characteristic required for the antenna provides very low azimuth resolution, which means that bearing information on the TCAS display is only approximately accurate, unless the equipment substantially exceeds the minimum requirements for the system. >> Yes... YOU did.... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > minimum > requirements for the system. This is more or less correct. TCAS is also inaccurate in range compared to a ground based sensor. Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never admit he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is that he has never, ever flown with TCAS, TIS, ADS-B, or for that matter a Narco Mark 12. Rather than argue minor points, why bother since he has no experience with any of these systems and wouldn't even know how to turn one on let alone use it effectively or understand how they work. > Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never admit > he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is that he has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > any of these systems and wouldn't even know how to turn one on let alone > use it effectively or understand how they work. Good question. I don't argue with him for that very reason. I suspect that those who do have some burning need to feel like they have accomplished something, but proving you have more experience than someone who has zero experience is not much of an accomplishment in my book. Anthony doesn't nym shift, so anyone who is annoyed can simply add him to their killfile. I don't really care if anyone beats up on Anthony as he well deserves it for a number of reasons, but justifying beating up on him by saying he's a hazard to aviation is truly pathetic. Agree completely, mostly I respond because he's an idiot. >> Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never >> admit he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Anthony as he well deserves it for a number of reasons, but justifying > beating up on him by saying he's a hazard to aviation is truly pathetic. Sign me pathetic. I was trying to make a point (perhaps a bit too strongly) about a jerk who speaks with such authority and who has zero flying experience or credentials. >>> Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never >>> admit he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is that he [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > strongly) about a jerk who speaks with such authority and who has zero > flying experience or credentials. Be that as it may the problem with that approach is occassionally Anthony is right. If you simply post a blanket statement that says Anthony is always wrong, you might want to be sure that what he just posted was. Otherwise a casual reader might question your knowledge, experience, and credibility rather than his. >>>> Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never >>>> admit he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > posted was. Otherwise a casual reader might question your knowledge, > experience, and credibility rather than his. If someone wants to question my knowledge, experience and credibility, they can be my guest. I know a few things about a few medical procedures. But, I don't pretend I am a medical doctor on some medical forum. The guy just plain pisses me off. >>>>> Before we continue with Anthony, let's all remember that will never >>>>> admit he is incorrect or has made a misstatement. Bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The guy just plain pisses me off. Then plonk him. > The guy just plain pisses me off. If you want to ignore him, ignore him. If you want to argue his points, argue his points. But blanket ad hominem attacks are IMO neither constructive nor conducive to a pleasant atmosphere in this newsgroup. Furthermore, at least for me, it makes it harder ignore MXS if I choose to do so because while he is in fact in my killfile, you aren't, and I see your replies to his posts. So please, in the interest of an improved SNR here, just ignore him if you don't want to argue with him. > > The guy just plain pisses me off. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So please, in the interest of an improved SNR here, just ignore him if you > don't want to argue with him. Agreed. There should be more than enough history built up at this point that anyone can find, to realize that there's no value being added. New readers that don't do due diligence on this (or any) group get what they deserve by jumping into the deep end. The vets already understand the game of self-inflation being played, so why provide a right hand for rosey to use? > > The guy just plain pisses me off. > > So please, in the interest of an improved SNR here, just ignore him if you > don't want to argue with him. I've found he doesn't agrue if you use the 'reply' feature of outlook, rather than the 'reply group' feature. He's just looking for attention, so if you don't reply publicly, he's not interested. > This is more or less correct. Yes, I know. More less than more, and the fact remains that Anthony wouldn't even know how to turn a TCAS on, let alone how to interpret the display or understand how it works. > More less than more, and the fact remains that Anthony wouldn't even know > how to turn a TCAS on, let alone how to interpret the display or understand > how it works. Neither the principle nor the turning-on of a TCAS system is particularly difficult to understand. At least I do not find them so; perhaps they might be challenging for some. If it were widely difficult to understand and use, however, it wouldn't be very useful. > Neither the principle nor the turning-on of a TCAS system is particularly > difficult to understand. At least I do not find them so; perhaps they > might > be challenging for some. If it were widely difficult to understand and > use, > however, it wouldn't be very useful. How often have you used TCAS or any other traffic warning system? > How often have you used TCAS or any other traffic warning system? Every time I fly. >> How often have you used TCAS or any other traffic warning system? > > Every time I fly. Exactly. >> Every time I fly. What brand TCAS? Are you using a 28v or 12 v system? What kind of display? Are you actually flying now, or still playing MSFS? >>> Every time I fly. >> > What brand TCAS? Are you using a 28v or 12 v system? What kind of display? He wouldn't know because he's sitting in coach munching on peanuts. >>>> Every time I fly. >>> >> What brand TCAS? Are you using a 28v or 12 v system? What kind of display? > >He wouldn't know because he's sitting in coach munching on peanuts. It doesn't even do that. Why the hell do we even deal with it any more? For the love of god everyone just killfile and move on. How about complaining to it's ISP for violating the charter of the rec.aviation groups where it doesn't fly ror have any intent to - go back to the sim groups where it belongs. This is truely, seriously getting silly. I killfiled it yonks ago but keep getting all the replies. Ignore and it will eventually go away and maybe we can get a number of useful groups back. > How about complaining to it's ISP for violating the charter of the > rec.aviation groups where it doesn't fly ror have any intent to - go > back to the sim groups where it belongs. ISPs have to deal with one person complaining about another all day long. About 99.99% of those complaints go into the wastebasket. There's no requirement to obey any charter (which hasn't been violated, anyway). There is no violation of TOS. And often the ISP isn't even providing the newsgroup service (lots of people here use Google, alas! or some other dedicated newsgroup service). >>>>>Every time I fly. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > replies. Ignore and it will eventually go away and maybe we can get a > number of useful groups back. These unmoderated Usenet groups have grown to be useless. Pilots who do not fly professionally should join the AOPA Forums, which are moderated and require some measure of proof of credentials. There are some pissing contests there, like any reasonably open but moderated forum. Professional pilots can join any number of forums. Propilotworld is a fairly good one, which permits pilots who fly for a living to discuss technical issues about flying and a broad range of job related and personal concerns. Most important, the moderators check your FAA airman records before they allow you to join. I've had it with this forum and and hitting the master kill switch. > What brand TCAS? Are you using a 28v or 12 v system? The sim provides the TCAS input for the display (which is the only simulated part), so brand is not relevant. Likewise for the electrical system. > What kind of display? In the Baron, the display is a Sandel ST3400. In the airliners, it's part of the overall avionics suite, which I think is made by Honeywell and other subcontractors. > Are you actually flying now, or still playing MSFS? If you cannot tell, then it doesn't matter. You don't even know who makes the traffic avoidance system? Is it based on TCAS, TIS, or ADS-B, not that you'd know the difference. By your response, it is obvious that you are not actually flying, and still trying to convince people that your comments actually mean something based upon your playing MSFS. How do you turn it on? What color is the display? Who makes the traffic system? Of course, you don't know the actual answer, since you have never used any of these systems, don't know how they actually work, or what they mean. This is simply an extension of the fact that you do not fly. QED > You don't even know who makes the traffic avoidance system? There are multiple components, and in any case, it's a simulation. > By your response, it is obvious that you are not actually flying, and still > trying to convince people that your comments actually mean something based > upon your playing MSFS. How do you turn it on? What color is the display? > Who makes the traffic system? That depends on the aircraft. So, you don't know? >Neither the principle nor the turning-on of a TCAS system is particularly >difficult to understand. At least I do not find them so; perhaps they might >be challenging for some. If it were widely difficult to understand and use, >however, it wouldn't be very useful. I've never actually seen a TCAS unit, so I'm not familiar with the turning-on procedure. What kind of on-off switch does it have? Toggle, push-button, rocker, microswitch? Are they all the same? Please enlighten me. > I've never actually seen a TCAS unit, so I'm not familiar with the turning-on > procedure. There are many different types of unit, anyway. Additionally, TCAS may be integrated into other instruments, such as navigational displays, in which case it isn't turned on separately. There's no standard for such functions as avionics go, so variations are considerable. There is a standard for the way the traffic is displayed, however. Anthony, can you cite the standard that states how traffic is displayed? Of course not, because you don't know. This is an extension of the fact that you don't fly and never have. . > ATC: airplane 67Z, "traffic westbound at your 2 o'clock, 5000 feet" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > display? I've heard stuff like "yep, got 'im on the fishfinder" but > I'm wondering if there is a standard "official" response? Having them on the 'fishfinder' is not an acceptable alternative to having visual contact with the traffic.... IMHO.. traffic awareness displays are tools to help visualize traffic, not substitutes for fundamental piloting skills. I have no experience nor opinion on true TCAS devices, for which pilots are intended to obey resolution alerts without fail, and which are much more sophisticated than what I consider 'fishfinder' material Also, if the target is going to be behind you, you really cant reasonably maintain visual separation. I was passing over Easterwood Field (college station, Texas) coming home one afternoon. An American Eagle turboprop was climbing out and didn't have me.. I had him, but his climb profile was going to put him behind me yet not on a diverging course. I told the tower that I would not be able to keep visual on him, and the end result was the commuter had to level off for a minute until we were clear of each other/ had a diverging track on radar (ensuring separation..) Dave > ATC: airplane 67Z, "traffic westbound at your 2 o'clock, 5000 feet" > > Now, if I see the traffic, it's "airplane 67Z has the traffic" Actually the correct phrase is "airplane 67Z traffic in sight", although few controllers are going to care either way. > What if I don't have it visually, but it shows up on my traffic > display? I've heard stuff like "yep, got 'im on the fishfinder" but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > good separation info as actually seeing the traffic with your Mark 1 > eyeball. As has already been posted, the pilot-controller glossary will usually have the answer to these types of questions. Another excellent publication to keep by the commode is the ATC order 7110.65. Although it's certainly not required reading for pilots, it's very handy to have because with it you can also see what may be coming next. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_orders/media/ ATC.pdf For instance, when the controller issues traffic, and you have the traffic in sight, one thing you can include is... "airplane 67Z traffic in sight, will maintain visual separation". The reason is because if you don't include it, the next instruction from the controller might be "maintain visual separation" and you will have to acknowledge that instruction. So it makes both of your jobs easier by including it in your first response. Personally I dearly love to use the phrase, "got 'im on the fishfinder" because it's just one of those very cool pilot phrases that scores you points with just about everyone. Everyone that is except the controller who will find it about as welcome as a fart in church. The controller has without a doubt heard it quite a few times so the novelty has long since worn off and it conveys no useful information to them. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.