Do you stress out when you don't see the traffic called out?

[Richard]

Ans....all of the above.

Changing your position removes the safety hazard.

Not in all cases.

This happened to me personally:

Entering left traffic from the east to land RWY 19, TWR advised a Cirrus had just departed for turnout to the east. I already knew this because I had been monitoring TWR. I was on the 45 to downwind when ATC queried the Cirrus of why they had had started an early turnout where they had been directed NOT to turn early because of inbound traffic (me). I turned a few degrees to the north for increased separation (or so I thought). It is a fluid environment, 'member? My turn, which I thought was away from conflict, actually brought me nearer to the near hit. He blossomed in my windscreen and I pulled up into an accelerated stall. That pilot was wearing a dark blue polo and sunglasses.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Not in all cases.

so.....when would "Changing your position removes the safety hazard" not remove the safety hazard?

 

[Richard]

so.....when would "Changing your position removes the safety hazard" not remove the safety hazard?

Read my edit to the same post.


To continue;

A separate flight. Landing at KPRB, a non-towered field, a Bellanca entering left downwing RWY19 on the 45. I'm left closed traffic in a liaison warbird. He says he has the traffic on dwnwnd in sight. I assume he means me but he might also mean the Aeronca behind me. He says he will stay to the 'outside of the warbird'. I waggle my wings and ask if he sees me. No response. A cross controlled roll to my right and I see his shadow. I say I am right in front of him. No response. I make my regular radio calls in the pattern. I begin turn to base and his shadow is inside of me. I stop my turn. He lands in front of me. His only radio call was initial then very short final

Yes, this was not ATC but my point is don't ever think traffic is where you think it is or will stay where you thought it was, ATC or not.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Read my edit to the same post.

I did....

you failed to properly position your aircraft.

 

[Richard]

I did....

you failed to properly position your aircraft.

How so? ATC controlled, right where they wanted me to be.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

How so? ATC controlled, right where they wanted me to be.

unless you were IMC.....even on an IFR flight plan "you" are responsible for seeing and avoiding "all" traffic. ATC is not responsible for separating VMC traffic. They do "de-conflict" traffic....but they will always have an out and blame the pilot should a mid-air occur.

There is one small case where you could get a reprieve....if you were in a position to land....you'd have the right of way. Even then I'd argue you could avoid the hazard by going around.

Sorry....this is a lose-lose for the PIC.

 

[Skyscraper]

After 15 seconds or so, "negative contact, request vector." No, it doesn't freak me out.

This.

I get far more antsy when in un-conctrolled and busy airspace like multiple airports within a few miles and multiple freq's in use.

 

[KyleT]

I just learned about the near miss reporting system. I think this would be a good start to see what and who and why. But they say less than 10% are reported.

 

[35 AoA]

To OP you will find that most of these traffic alerts go without incident, even if you never see them. This is by no means "advice" but from my personal experience, if I hear "altitude unknown" or "altitude unreported" I'm going to start my scan low, as it is probably just some VFR non-talker loving life down low out of anyone's business. The time when the hairs stand up on my neck are when I hear something like a combination of 11/12/1 o'clock, opposite direction and co-altitude. I think people probably over estimate their visual scan for a scenario like that given the closing velocity. At that point, I will do something to not be in that piece of sky anymore. I don't know if this is a true thing or not, but most guys you will talk to will say that if on an IFR clearance you can be at most +/- 300 ft. So I will immediately deviate by 100-200 ft, maybe buy myself some space just by being neither on a specific alt or a 500 increment (VFR) of it. I will also turn a healthy 45-60 deg away from that and start looking for something tracking across my canopy. That will slow our closure and like previously mentioned, introduce some kind of crossing rate that the eye is going to be able to pick up a lot quicker than stable motion on the canopy of a really small dot in a cluttered sky (and it will be small until very close to the time when you are dead). Has always kept me safe. It isn't the "book" answer, if there is such a thing, but it makes sense to me.

 

[danhagan]

I used to have the Zaon, that thing was worse than useless.

I have a Zaon, and it has worked well. Paid for itself in full last flight ... denied FF by ATC and had a Piper Seneca closing on my 06:00. I manuevered, he never saw me.

I don't know if it's standard phraseology, but I think it is, and it works real nice in a radar environment. It's the enroute equivalent of "call my base," an all too frequent occurrence in MVFR on a busy day with traffic in the opposite pattern.

You can always request a vector if you feel uneasy about the situation. If you're on a collision course the controller just isn't going to keep calling traffic like a robot either. .

Mine did. Morning flight returning to home base facing the sun.
ATC: Cessna 12345 Traffic unknown altitude 5 miles oppposite direction
Me: Negative contact
ATC: (a short time later) Traffic 12:00 opposite direction 3 miles unknown altitude
Me: Negative contact ... looking into the sun.
ATC: Traffic 12:00 opposite direction YOUR ALTITUDE.
Me: Request vector
ATC: Unable vector

I climbed and banked right, as I did the traffic blew right past where I just was ... a supervisor then got on at ABQ center and explained they could not give a traffic avoidance heading/vector in that situation as they could potentially put the aircraft INTO a collision. That when I got the Zaon.

 

[Velocity173]

I have a Zaon, and it has worked well. Paid for itself in full last flight ... denied FF by ATC and had a Piper Seneca closing on my 06:00. I manuevered, he never saw me.





Mine did. Morning flight returning to home base facing the sun.
ATC: Cessna 12345 Traffic unknown altitude 5 miles oppposite direction
Me: Negative contact
ATC: (a short time later) Traffic 12:00 opposite direction 3 miles unknown altitude
Me: Negative contact ... looking into the sun.
ATC: Traffic 12:00 opposite direction YOUR ALTITUDE.
Me: Request vector
ATC: Unable vector

I climbed and banked right, as I did the traffic blew right past where I just was ... a supervisor then got on at ABQ center and explained they could not give a traffic avoidance heading/vector in that situation as they could potentially put the aircraft INTO a collision. That when I got the Zaon.

The supervisor is wrong and should review 2-1-6 of the .65.

 

[danhagan]

The supervisor is wrong and should review 2-1-6 of the .65.

The supervisor indicated that the controller had to be talking to BOTH aircraft in order to provide an avoidance vector. I've asked for and received avoidance vectors in the past ... that was the first denial, and the closest to a mid-air I've had to date in 600 hours.

 

[sixpacker]

The supervisor indicated that the controller had to be talking to BOTH aircraft in order to provide an avoidance vector. I've asked for and received avoidance vectors in the past ... that was the first denial, and the closest to a mid-air I've had to date in 600 hours.

Why were you both at the same altitude? Below 3000 ft AGL?

 

[Seanaldinho]

The supervisor is wrong and should review 2-1-6 of the .65.

The supervisor indicated that the controller had to be talking to BOTH aircraft in order to provide an avoidance vector. I've asked for and received avoidance vectors in the past ... that was the first denial, and the closest to a mid-air I've had to date in 600 hours.

This is straight out of the .65.

b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert. Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware of another aircraft at an altitude that you believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible, offer the pilot an alternate course of action. When an alternate course of action is given, end the transmission with the word “immediately.”
PHRASEOLOGY−
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),
and/or
CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate) IMMEDIATELY.
EXAMPLE−
“Traffic Alert, Cessna Three Four Juliet, advise you turn left immediately.”
or
“Traffic Alert, Cessna Three−Four Juliet, advise you turn left and climb immediately.”

I see nothing saying he shouldn't have given you one.

Sounds like the supe is misinterpreting (I don't know how). If the controller is uncomfortable he should give you a climb/descend or a turn.

 

[petrolero]

I seldom see the traffic when they call a tiny 172 or something that is 8 miles out. I don't sweat it. I look but I know damn well I won't see him until he's inside 3 miles.

Sweet jebus I'm doing good to spot a towering cumulus 8 miles out.

 

[Velocity173]

The supervisor indicated that the controller had to be talking to BOTH aircraft in order to provide an avoidance vector. I've asked for and received avoidance vectors in the past ... that was the first denial, and the closest to a mid-air I've had to date in 600 hours.

Nah, that sup doesn't know what they're talking about. The .65 makes no mention of communications with both aircraft. Furthermore 4-1-16 b. of the AIM mentions giving the conflict alert to an aircraft under their control, in reference to another aircraft that is not under their control.

Out of all the safety alerts I gave when I did ATC, I don't recall a single one when I was in comms with both aircraft. If both aircraft were in comms with me, generally at some point one of the aircraft will request a vector or someone will deviate on their own. If I believed conflict was imminent and no one has requested a vector or deviated, a little non standard standard phraseology like "radar targets appear likely to merge" usually solves the problem.

 

[danhagan]

Why were you both at the same altitude? Below 3000 ft AGL?

Yes, I was inbound at 5500 heading east. Both of us below 3000 AGL.

This is straight out of the .65.

I see nothing saying he shouldn't have given you one.

Sounds like the supe is misinterpreting (I don't know how). If the controller is uncomfortable he should give you a climb/descend or a turn.

Like I said, that was a first for me ... unfortunately I REALLY needed that avoidance vector.

Nah, that sup doesn't know what they're talking about. The .65 makes no mention of communications with both aircraft.

Not sure if there have been any changes, but this incident was in 2007 or 2008. We passed close enough that I believe our primaries merged on the controller screen and that's why the supervisor jumped on so fast - I guess to see if I was still around.