Aviation Aggravations

Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Henning said:
You can call yourself anything you want. You appear as an insecure and pompous fool, but whatever... Captain is an honorarium that others bestow upon you, not something you bestow upon yourself. However, a rowboat does not have a captain, a rowboat has a coxswain. Actually, the term Captain isn't an official term on a non Navy vessel. The official term is Master. My license reads as such:
3106077065_0e9606207a.jpg


3106909660_895a3f5bca.jpg


and my STCW which is the international document:

3106910004_fb4d263f79.jpg


You don't see the word "Captain" anywhere do you... Also, Captain denotes multiple required crew.
Click to expand...

U.S. Army, two silver bars = Captain. That is the official title.

John
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I grow more bored with this game...
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

lancefisher said:
Steven, you already indicated you realize you're in the minority with your opinion on this so I doubt that what I think will sway your mind. But I must say that (as a 3000+ hr commercial pilot for whatever that's worth), it's my opinion that pilots with more advanced ratings are the ones who should be expected to go beyond PTS requirements, not the other way around. The suggested call you've posted is appropriate for an IFR pilot (or student) to make to ATC, but expecting transient pilots whether instrument rated or not, to be know the location of every fix on every approach is extremely unrealistic. Heck, I have enough trouble finding half of the fixes that exist at my home drome as many of them have obscure names and only appear on one of many approach charts. And while it is plausible that any pilot could recognize a pilot broadcasting "FAF inbound" along with a runway number indicates that pilot is about 5 miles away from that runway's threshold, chances are that any non IR pilot in the vicinity will not come to that conclusion, so why not as a savvy IR pilot make a transmission that is far more likely to be understood by everyone. It's certainly to my own advantage to do so when making an instrument approach to an uncontrolled field as I certainly want everyone else to have as clear a picture as possible regarding my location.
Click to expand...

The suggested call I posted is not a creation of mine, it was taken from AC 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers". It's an example of a self-announce position report at an uncontrolled field, that format should not be used in a report to ATC.

I've said several times in this discussion that my preference is to state the fix by name as well as the distance from the threshold. I've been told that fix names should never be used. One respondent said a published airport name should not be used. Go figure.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
I've said several times in this discussion that my preference is to state the fix by name as well as the distance from the threshold. I've been told that fix names should never be used. One respondent said a published airport name should not be used. Go figure.
Click to expand...

One thing for certain is that there will never be unanimous agreement as to what should be included in any radio transmission.

Fix name plus distance works for me although I'd add a general bearing (W,SE,etc). Some folks will know where the fix is and thus benefit while others will only have the distance but that's all you can do for them anyway.

I was under the impression that you were advocating that all pilots should be trained to know every fix in the vicinity of an airport and that's just not going to happen so I won't count on it.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

lancefisher said:
I was under the impression that you were advocating that all pilots should be trained to know every fix in the vicinity of an airport and that's just not going to happen so I won't count on it.
Click to expand...

I never advocated that. I did present a self-announce report that used a fix name only and asked if a VFR pilot based at the airport concerned should be expected to understand it. The fix was an LOM that was depicted on the sectional.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
I never advocated that. I did present a self-announce report that used a fix name only and asked if a VFR pilot based at the airport concerned should be expected to understand it. The fix was an LOM that was depicted on the sectional.
Click to expand...

Expected to understand (as in should) or likely to understand (as in do)? What's an LOM?

Sectionals have a lot of clutter that at least some people tend to ignore. Victor airways and intersections are things I never used and fell into the "clutter" catagory for me.

Nav radios were things that got used when there was an instuctor in the right seat expecting you to use them.
Sure, someday you might actually have to use one someday - for some unknown reason, so it's a good idea to know how. But, why bother otherwise? (and this was all pre-GPS)

Perhaps it's just been a really long time since I was a student and forgot stuff.

Perhaps I'm just a really bad pilot.

Should I be worried that that this stuff might come up when I go for the (every two years in theory) flight review?

FWIW, YMMV, etc.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

TMetzinger said:
Well, I don't trust TIS, but TCAS is like having your own ATC radar - it actively interrogates the surrounding space in real time, so what you see in the cockpit is MUCH closer to what ATC sees.

So I think "not in sight, on TCAS" is a valid reply, it tells ATC you're looking, you haven't seen them, but your TCAS system is painting a target that appears to match. Since you will have to follow your TCAS resolution advisory if you don't have them in sight, ATC is alerted that you might climb or descend unexpectedly.
Click to expand...

Actually, not quite. TCAS is different from what ATC sees. Further, crews are discouraged from using terms like "On TCAS" because it is a given that any proximity traffic will be on TCAS and this info doesnt do ATC any good . Hope this helps,
Doug
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I was comparing TIS and TCAS and highlighting the difference, but WTH. My point was that saying you've got a target on TCAS can be useful, and saying that when you've only got TIS (many seconds behind real time) is not only less useful, but it's misleading. I've heard ATC thank a crew for saying they had the target "not in sight, but on TCAS" before, followed by "he should be no factor".

On the other hand, you can have a primary transponderless target seen by ATC and TCAS won't show him at all, so it's not "a given" that proximity traffic will be on TCAS.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

F.Baum said:
Actually, not quite. TCAS is different from what ATC sees. Further, crews are discouraged from using terms like "On TCAS" because it is a given that any proximity traffic will be on TCAS and this info doesnt do ATC any good .Doug
Click to expand...

It does ATC some good. If I call traffic and the response is "We've got 'im on TCAS" I stop calling that traffic. Whether he ever sees it or not, if he's got the target on TCAS he's got all the information I can give him.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
It does ATC some good. If I call traffic and the response is "We've got 'im on TCAS" I stop calling that traffic. Whether he ever sees it or not, if he's got the target on TCAS he's got all the information I can give him.
Click to expand...

Would that apply for traffic seen on an active TAS (not certified for collision avoidance but otherwise similar to "TCAS")?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
It does ATC some good. If I call traffic and the response is "We've got 'im on TCAS" I stop calling that traffic. Whether he ever sees it or not, if he's got the target on TCAS he's got all the information I can give him.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't it also be correct to say that you cannot say "maintain visual separation from that traffic, do x" until they say "Traffic in sight"? Don't know if you use that tool much, but I hear it fairly often down here. "Maintain visual separation, on course" or "Maintain visual separation, descend pilot's discretion, maintain 2,700" and the like.

I suppose, those are things you'd do to give the pilot some more flexibility, and if they choose to say "We've got him on TCAS" that you don't have to bother clearing him on course just yet. :)
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

lancefisher said:
Would that apply for traffic seen on an active TAS (not certified for collision avoidance but otherwise similar to "TCAS")?
Click to expand...
If it provides the same information I'd treat it the same way.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
But wouldn't it also be correct to say that you cannot say "maintain visual separation from that traffic, do x" until they say "Traffic in sight"? Don't know if you use that tool much, but I hear it fairly often down here. "Maintain visual separation, on course" or "Maintain visual separation, descend pilot's discretion, maintain 2,700" and the like.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, visual separation requires visual contact.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
F.Baum said:
Actually, not quite. TCAS is different from what ATC sees. Further, crews are discouraged from using terms like "On TCAS" because it is a given that any proximity traffic will be on TCAS and this info doesnt do ATC any good . Hope this helps,
Doug
Click to expand...
It does ATC some good. If I call traffic and the response is "We've got 'im on TCAS" I stop calling that traffic. Whether he ever sees it or not, if he's got the target on TCAS he's got all the information I can give him.
Click to expand...

It does me some good, too, if I know I'm the traffic being called.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

AuntPeggy said:
It does me some good, too, if I know I'm the traffic being called.
Click to expand...

Great point Peggy. My home drome is 10.1nm from class C. If I'm circling their airspace I'm listening to their frequency. If they call me out to someone else I'll call up and let them know it's me and to give me a number (transponder) if it will help. They almost always will give me a number and thank me for letting them know. We all have to work together to ensure what we do is as safe as possible for all involved.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

TMetzinger said:
I was comparing TIS and TCAS and highlighting the difference, but WTH. My point was that saying you've got a target on TCAS can be useful, and saying that when you've only got TIS (many seconds behind real time) is not only less useful, but it's misleading. I've heard ATC thank a crew for saying they had the target "not in sight, but on TCAS" before, followed by "he should be no factor".

On the other hand, you can have a primary transponderless target seen by ATC and TCAS won't show him at all, so it's not "a given" that proximity traffic will be on TCAS.
Click to expand...
Tim,
The first part of your post is correct. I took issue with the ATC part. Do you fly a TCAS equiped airplane ? When TCAS became mandatory about 15 years ago everyone was activly discouraged from reporting that they "have traffic on TCAS " and its been that way ever since. Consider the fact that in many cases (Like a visual approach) when you must make visual contact this verbage is meaningless. I dont know what they are putting TCAS into these days but the smallest plane I have flown with TCAS has been a turboprop and of course all airliners are equiped as well . It might help if you consider the type of airspace these TCAS airplanes operate in (Busy terminal areas, or class B when they are below 10K and RVSM ) .In other words, by your reasoning every single call for traffic would end with "Got em on TCAS" . This would be totally redundant (And a little iritating because in most cases it would not relieve ATC from separation requirements ).
Your analogy about primary targets is false because if you dont see a target on the fishfinder neither will ATC . There are exeptions to this but they are rare and in the case of traffic above 10K will ussually involve sailplanes . Also, I would be carefull about advising ATC what is a factor. Unless you know what the other plane's instructions are and you know that they will comply this is meaningless to ATC.
Lastly and this is purely subjective, between CAP, work, and my own plane I fly about 80-90 hours a month out of a busy terminal airport (Lotsa TCAS equiped planes) and the last time I heard someone report traffic on TCAS was about 10 years ago. I think with a little practice Tim you can sound like a pro on the radio ;) . Happy Holidays,
DC
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

F.Baum said:
Your analogy about primary targets is false because if you dont see a target on the fishfinder neither will ATC . There are exeptions to this but they are rare....
Click to expand...

The existence of a primary target means a non-transponder aircraft is being painted on ATC radar. So what are the exceptions?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
The existence of a primary target means a non-transponder aircraft is being painted on ATC radar. So what are the exceptions?
Click to expand...

I am just thinking out loud here so feel free to make corrections. I used to own a bone stock Aeronca Champ without an electrical system and I based it near LAX . It didnt have a TX or mode C but since it was licensed without an electrical system this was OK. This is the exeption I was refering to and I dont know if this is still legal. I understand that you need mode C to get above 10K (Sailplanes exepted ) so you are going to show up on TCAS . My Champ wouldnt get above 10 anyways . When I flew the Champ or my sailplane I dont go near any arrival or departure routes . Sometimes I get picked up as a primary in glass sailplanes.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

F.Baum said:
I take it you are ATC so correct me if I am wrong but the only time you need to have someone on the TCAS is PRM (?).
Click to expand...

I have no experience with PRM. I did a quick review of the requirements for dual and triple simultaneous independent ILS approaches in FAAO 7110.65 and found no requirement for TCAS.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

F.Baum said:
I am just thinking out loud here so feel free to make corrections. I used to own a bone stock Aeronca Champ without an electrical system and I based it near LAX . It didnt have a TX or mode C but since it was licensed without an electrical system this was OK. This is the exeption I was refering to and I dont know if this is still legal.
Click to expand...

Still is.

I understand that you need mode C to get above 10K (Sailplanes exepted ) so you are going to show up on TCAS .
Click to expand...
Not just sailplanes, balloons and aircraft which were not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system and which have not subsequently been certified with such a system enjoy the same exception.

My Champ wouldnt get above 10 anyways . When I flew the Champ or my sailplane I dont go near any arrival or departure routes . Sometimes I get picked up as a primary in glass sailplanes.
Click to expand...
I've had mine up to 11,000 over GRB. I could have gone higher but it was October and too damn cold up there. I was painted on radar, but it was a weak target and may have gone unnoticed had I not told the controller where to look.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
I've had mine up to 11,000 over GRB. I could have gone higher but it was October and too damn cold up there. I was painted on radar, but it was a weak target and may have gone unnoticed had I not told the controller where to look.
Click to expand...

Bringin back memories here. I mostly cruised up and down the beach with mine. Cant recal ever flying above 3000 MSL in the thing.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

F.Baum said:
Your analogy about primary targets is false because if you dont see a target on the fishfinder neither will ATC.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Any aircraft that either doesn't have a transponder or their transponder is inop or turned off will be completely invisible to your TCAS, but will show up as a primary target only on ATC radar. Occasionally I'll get traffic calls from ATC for "Slow-moving traffic, 1 o'clock and 2 miles, type and altitude unknown, might be a flock of birds." I guarantee you that flock of birds isn't going to show up on your TCAS. Or, that LSA or ultralight or slow-moving airplane flying into a headwind that doesn't have an operating transponder - How do you know the difference? You don't.

Lastly and this is purely subjective, between CAP, work, and my own plane I fly about 80-90 hours a month out of a busy terminal airport (Lotsa TCAS equiped planes) and the last time I heard someone report traffic on TCAS was about 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess some of the pros have gotten it right. I hear "got 'em on TCAS" or "got 'em on the fishfinder" all the time, and I've only been flying for 5 1/2 years. I would guess that maybe it's the people who just got into the right seat of a King Air for the first time and want to sound cool - All the big jets going into your busy terminal airport have gotten over the fact that they have TCAS. ;) (I fly out of a class C airport, for what that's worth.)
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
Wrong. Any aircraft that either doesn't have a transponder or their transponder is inop or turned off will be completely invisible to your TCAS, but will show up as a primary target only on ATC radar. Occasionally I'll get traffic calls from ATC for "Slow-moving traffic, 1 o'clock and 2 miles, type and altitude unknown, might be a flock of birds." I guarantee you that flock of birds isn't going to show up on your TCAS. Or, that LSA or ultralight or slow-moving airplane flying into a headwind that doesn't have an operating transponder - How do you know the difference? You don't.
Isnt this what I said ? ;) If ATC has a TX equiped plane, so will the crew. You dont typically get primary targets where jets fly and when you do they are ussually gliders. When is the last time you saw balloon traffic above 10 ?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess some of the pros have gotten it right. I would guess that maybe it's the people who just got into the right seat of a King Air for the first time and want to sound cool - All the big jets going into your busy terminal airport have gotten over the fact that they have TCAS. ;) (I fly out of a class C airport, for what that's worth.)
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. Any profesional crew (Which would exclude Tim M ;) ) doesnt use this term and I have NEVER been ask if I have a target on TCAS . Although the TA mode is a requirement for PRM . Happy Holidays
DC
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
Well, I guess some of the pros have gotten it right. I hear "got 'em on TCAS" or "got 'em on the fishfinder" all the time, and I've only been flying for 5 1/2 years. I would guess that maybe it's the people who just got into the right seat of a King Air for the first time and want to sound cool - All the big jets going into your busy terminal airport have gotten over the fact that they have TCAS. ;) (I fly out of a class C airport, for what that's worth.)
Click to expand...

I hear it a lot too. NY Approach/Center, Wash App/Center, Potomac App...I think I've heard it on all of them within the last two weeks (mostly from airline pilots) :dunno:. I heard "fish finder" come out of the mouth of my captain just last week...I would've said something, but he's about number 12 on our seniority list and has been flying for longer than I've been alive, so I just silently cringed in my seat :frown2:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top