Class D Tower Controller - Few Questions

CC268

CC268

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
5,532
Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Let's say I have the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: I just took off from the runway, flying upwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM follow the Archer on downwind"

1. Archer in sight: I could technically respond with "1RM Wilco". I have been reading "Say Again, Please" and I am actually surprised at how many situations you can use "Wilco" for. I have never used it, but I want to start implementing it into my radio work to be more efficient.

2. Archer not in sight: Would the best thing to say be, "1RM Negative Contact"?

Scenario 2: On downwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM, #3, behind the Archer on Base, cleared to land 7R"

1. Archer in sight: Would best phraseology be, "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM"?

2. Archer not in sight: Would I simply say, "1RM Negative Contact"? I shouldn't repeat back "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM" if I truly don't have the Archer in sight, correct?

Thanks.
 
CC268 said:
Let's say I have the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: I just took off from the runway, flying upwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM follow the Archer on downwind"

1. Archer in sight: I could technically respond with "1RM Wilco". I have been reading "Say Again, Please" and I am actually surprised at how many situations you can use "Wilco" for. I have never used it, but I want to start implementing it into my radio work to be more efficient.

2. Archer not in sight: Would the best thing to say be, "1RM Negative Contact"?
Click to expand...

1 I'd just say "following the archer on downwind", I only use "wilco" for super basic stuff, not that following another plane is rocket surgery, but I'd still read it back.

2 Sounds good to me


CC268 said:
Scenario 2: On downwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM, #3, behind the Archer on Base, cleared to land 7R"

1. Archer in sight: Would best phraseology be, "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM"?

2. Archer not in sight: Would I simply say, "1RM Negative Contact"? I shouldn't repeat back "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM" if I truly don't have the Archer in sight, correct?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

1 I'd say cleared to land 7R behind the archer

2 I'd say "negative contact", hard to follow that traffic in, or know when to turn base/final if you don't have him in sight.
 
Thanks for taking the time respond :)
 
you "can" use wilco, but I wouldn't in this situation. I prefer to repeat a specific instruction like that, one where if I got it wrong or misunderstood it it could turn into a critical situation. come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I used wilco, but yeah, plenty of opportunities to use it if u want.
 
eman1200 said:
you "can" use wilco, but I wouldn't in this situation. I prefer to repeat a specific instruction like that, one where if I got it wrong or misunderstood it it could turn into a critical situation. come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I used wilco, but yeah, plenty of opportunities to use it if u want.
Click to expand...

Yea I just picked it up from Bob's book...I've never actually used it myself.

Scenario 2, Archer not in sight was probably my biggest question as I get this all the time
 
CC268 said:
Yea I just picked it up from Bob's book...I've never actually used it myself.

Scenario 2, Archer not in sight was probably my biggest question as I get this all the time
Click to expand...
I use wilco a decent bit but if it's something I likely could have misinterpreted or something directive for safety, I skip it. For instance, if they tell me to follow so-and-so out of parking, or to delay my crosswind turn for spacing on a straight in, I might reply with wilco.

For 2 not in sight, I would read back the clearance to land, then tell them I was looking for the traffic. If for some reason I thought I was going to have a difficult time acquiring them, I would ask tower to call my turn.
 
CC268 said:
Yea I just picked it up from Bob's book...I've never actually used it myself.

Scenario 2, Archer not in sight was probably my biggest question as I get this all the time
Click to expand...

When in doubt, report "negative contact," because if you do not, the next instruction will be "follow that aircraft." Although according to the AIM Class D controllers do not provide separation in VFR conditions, as a practical matter they do.

Thanks for reading my book.

Bob
 
Cooter said:
I use wilco a decent bit but if it's something I likely could have misinterpreted or something directive for safety, I skip it. For instance, if they tell me to follow so-and-so out of parking, or to delay my crosswind turn for spacing on a straight in, I might reply with wilco.

For 2 not in sight, I would read back the clearance to land, then tell them I was looking for the traffic. If for some reason I thought I was going to have a difficult time acquiring them, I would ask tower to call my turn.
Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded statement above...that is what I have been doing but I wasn't sure that was technically correct to do that since I don't have to traffic in site.
 
CC268 said:
Regarding the bolded statement above...that is what I have been doing but I wasn't sure that was technically correct to do that since I don't have to traffic in site.
Click to expand...

Responding with "cleared to land" is still appropriate as it does not still negate the see and avoid responsibilities of the pilot. If you are still negative contact you can ask for help. Quite often I will make the call "Tower, Skylane 12345, still negative contact...can you call my base?"

I use "Wilco" all the time as well, but not in your scenario. The purpose of a read back is to confirm that critical instructions were received and understood correctly. Wilco would be appropriate for something like "advise prior to any altitude change".

The two response to a traffic advisory should be either "Traffic In Sight" or "Negative Contact"...all else is just pilot slang.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Responding with "cleared to land" is still appropriate as it does not still negate the see and avoid responsibilities of the pilot. If you are still negative contact you can ask for help. Quite often I will make the call "Tower, Skylane 12345, still negative contact...can you call my base?"

I use "Wilco" all the time as well, but not in your scenario. The purpose of a read back is to confirm that critical instructions were received and understood correctly. Wilco would be appropriate for something like "advise prior to any altitude change".

The two response to a traffic advisory should be either "Traffic In Sight" or "Negative Contact"...all else is just pilot slang.
Click to expand...

Thanks this was a great post and clears things up for me. Good news is this is essentially what I have been doing so it's good to know I've been doing the right thing for the most part.

I had to do this today when I got a long straight in final and there was an archer on base...I was #2...I basically said "#2 cleared to land 7R, looking for the archer"...probably would have been more appropriate to say "negative contact, cleared to land 7R"
 
CC268 said:
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM, #3, behind the Archer on Base, cleared to land 7R"
Click to expand...

So does this mean there are 3 planes, and you are 3rd to land, right behind the Archer, with another plane in front of the Archer?... or does it mean there is a plane between you and the Archer?
 
FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg.pdf

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.

TRAFFIC IN SIGHT− Used by pilots to inform a controller that previously issued traffic is in sight
coloradobluesky said:
"looking"
Click to expand...

While it does covey the same message as "Negative Contact" and is commonly used...you will not find that term defined in the Glossary.
 
Skyrys62 said:
So does this mean there are 3 planes, and you are 3rd to land, right behind the Archer, with another plane in front of the Archer?... or does it mean there is a plane between you and the Archer?
Click to expand...

3 planes total...probably someone on final, archer on base, and me on downwind
 
Last edited:
CC268 said:
I've used this a lot but my understanding is this isn't technically the correct thing to say...not that it's a huge deal since 99% of pilots seem to use it
Click to expand...

But it's short, concise and everyone understands it, and that's the most important aspects of using that radio
 
CC268 said:
I've used this a lot but my understanding is this isn't technically the correct thing to say...not that it's a huge deal since 99% of pilots seem to use it
Click to expand...

No, not technically correct. You should use "no joy" for traffic not in sight and "tally" for traffic in sight..."tally ho" if you have British ancestry.
 
CC268 said:
So is it acceptable to say,


3 planes total...probably someone on final, archer on base, and me on downwind
Click to expand...
Read back all clearances, runway crossings, and hold shorts. If you can't accept a clearance the response is "unable". I have only rarely had to decline a landing clearance. In your case I usually say in plain English which traffic I don't have in sight while accepting the clearance.
 
Velocity173 said:
No, not technically correct. You should use "no joy" for traffic not in sight and "tally" for traffic in sight..."tally ho" if you have British ancestry.
Click to expand...

Hey man I wasn't picking on anyone I was just relaying what is written in Say Again Please. It's what I have mostly used myself.
 
bobmrg said:
When in doubt, report "negative contact," because if you do not, the next instruction will be "follow that aircraft." Although according to the AIM Class D controllers do not provide separation in VFR conditions, as a practical matter they do.
Click to expand...

I phrase it that Class D controllers often try to provide separation. Sometimes pilots foil their best efforts, other time, well, their best efforts might not be quite good enough. As always, head on a swivel...
 
VFR Separation in CDA: AIM 3-2-5(e) if anyone is interested.

Bob
 
In the airline world, "Tally ho or no Joy" is rarely used. Some typical responses would be Not in Sight, Looking for traffic, searching etc.

For the traffic pattern I would teach my students to just say Traffic not in Sight, negative contact. Simple terms.

It's perfectly ok to take the landing clearance and report the traffic not in sight in the same transmission.
 
Matt L said:
For the traffic pattern I would teach my students to just say Traffic not in Sight, negative contact. Simple terms.

It's perfectly ok to take the landing clearance and report the traffic not in sight in the same transmission.
Click to expand...

In my opinion "traffic not in sight" is too easy to misunderstand as "traffic in sight" and that is why I use “negative contact”.

"Negative contact" is also what in in the AIM.

I find it beneficial to meet with the tower to ask them what they would like.

In my experience different towers have different cultures and sometimes develop their own procedures and phraseology.

I have always had the local towers welcome my clients and their questions.
 
CC268 said:
Let's say I have the following scenarios:

Scenario 1: I just took off from the runway, flying upwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM follow the Archer on downwind"

1. Archer in sight: I could technically respond with "1RM Wilco". I have been reading "Say Again, Please" and I am actually surprised at how many situations you can use "Wilco" for. I have never used it, but I want to start implementing it into my radio work to be more efficient.

2. Archer not in sight: Would the best thing to say be, "1RM Negative Contact"?

Scenario 2: On downwind
Tower: "Cherokee 1RM, #3, behind the Archer on Base, cleared to land 7R"

1. Archer in sight: Would best phraseology be, "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM"?

2. Archer not in sight: Would I simply say, "1RM Negative Contact"? I shouldn't repeat back "#3 cleared to land 7R, 1RM" if I truly don't have the Archer in sight, correct?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Specific use is defined in AIM 4-2-3 c and recommended for high volume traffic or time-critical situations. Such as when Denver ATC informed me of a nordo target comin' right at me turn right immediately and descend!!, I never saw the little blue kitfox. But discovered my cherokee will dive at 1500 fpm.
 
Matt L said:
For the traffic pattern I would teach my students to just say Traffic not in Sight.
Click to expand...

You may wanna SERIOUSLY reconsider that teaching practice as you are setting your students up for failure and a potentially dangerous habit as sated above that can easily be confused with 'traffic in site" and it is far from standard phraseology.

Negative contact or looking.
 
#1 "Wilco, traffic to follow in sight."

#2 "Cleared to land seven right, looking for traffic."

I use "wilco" quite a bit. I say "traffic not in sight" I don't think I've ever said "negative contact" as a pilot.

Just do me a favor and never, ever, ever.....EVER...say, "be advised."
 
Me too and I hate it so much I don't want to hear it from anyone regardless of which side of the radio they're on. Its one of most moronic phrases anyone on God's green Earth can ever utter. You may as well be saying, "Hey, I'm about to tell you something."
 
Shawn said:
You may wanna SERIOUSLY reconsider that teaching practice as you are setting your students up for failure and a potentially dangerous habit as sated above that can easily be confused with 'traffic in site" and it is far from standard phraseology.

Negative contact or looking.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that Big of deal. Using Traffic not in sight, not in sight, looking, searching or whatever people use these days is sufficient. If tower misunderstands you, just repeat.
 
I would hope the controller says low wing, high wing, or twin. I'm airplane innocent as to names. Unless a previous radio call had made that clear.
 
Standard phraseology is designed to be standard for many good reasons. If you want to be more professional and speak the language of aviation, use it when it is applicable to the situation. In emergency situations, it is often not nearly descriptive enough, and whatever plain language necessary to best convey your needs/condition/intentions to the controller should freely be used.
 
whattauser said:
Standard phraseology is designed to be standard for many good reasons. If you want to be more professional and speak the language of aviation, use it when it is applicable to the situation. In some situations, it is often not nearly descriptive enough, and whatever plain language necessary to best convey your needs/condition/intentions to the controller should freely be used.
Click to expand...

FTFY

No emergency required to use plain English. Clarity over brevity.
 
Clark1961 said:
FTFY

No emergency required to use plain English. Clarity over brevity.
Click to expand...

SMH...Which is why I said "when it is applicable." If it is not, it would not make sense to use it and clear plain language is needed.
 
whattauser said:
SMH...Which is why I said "when it is applicable." If it is not, it would not make sense to use it and clear plain language is needed.
Click to expand...
SMH...if what you claim is true use of the word emergency changed the meaning to be "use plain English only in emergency situations" Sorry that you couldn't accept correction.
 
Clark1961 said:
SMH...if what you claim is true use of the word emergency changed the meaning to be "use plain English only in emergency situations" Sorry that you couldn't accept correction.
Click to expand...
I know you like to argue for the sake of argument, and that it amuses you. However, at least try to frame your points without ignoring basic English language construct and the use of logical fallacies. (Disregard; that probably wouldn't be any fun at all.)
 
Matt L said:
I don't think it's that Big of deal. Using Traffic not in sight, not in sight, looking, searching or whatever people use these days is sufficient. If tower misunderstands you, just repeat.
Click to expand...
If Tower thinks you said "traffic in sight" when you really said "traffic not in sight," how would you find out that you needed to repeat?

There's a reason why the Pilot/Controller Glossary uses different-sounding phrases for "traffic in sight" and "negative contact."

Reminds me of the time when I was a student pilot and used the word "ascending" in a transmission to Tower. I recognized immediately why that was not a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top