Got ‘em on the Fish Finder

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
18,473
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
We know that when ATC point out traffic, the only response that satisfies them is reporting that we see them visually. But twice now, I’ve had this conversation (no not the location of the traffic) with ATC. Same facility both times.

”Traffic one to two o’clock, 5 miles, 500 feet above.”
”Looking….negative contact.”
”Do you have them on ADS-B?”
”Affirmative.”

We never reported visual contact and they continued to call them out until no longer a factor but there was definitely a different conversation between us.
 
That's interesting. This is the first I've heard of ATC asking if traffic had been acquired on an ADS-B display. I've heard pilots volunteer that info plenty of times, but always unsolicited.
 
tsts4 said:
…..I've heard pilots volunteer that info plenty of times, but always unsolicited.
Click to expand...

I think this is the problem. It’s the equivalent of having enough yahoos say things like “position checks” or ‘last call’ that more people start saying it. When enough dingleberries mention adsb, now ATC will start saying it. Of course maybe a controller can chime in if asking about adsb is now acceptable vernacular, but it’s probably just from hearing it so many times.
 
It’s a waste of a transmission. Can’t be used for separation so no need to even ask. I don’t even volunteer it to ATC. They need visual confirmation and any cockpit device or air to air radar for that matter can’t override approved ATC sep.
 
eman1200 said:
I think this is the problem. It’s the equivalent of having enough yahoos say things like “position checks” or ‘last call’ that more people start saying it. When enough dingleberries mention adsb, now ATC will start saying it. Of course maybe a controller can chime in if asking about adsb is now acceptable vernacular, but it’s probably just from hearing it so many times.
Click to expand...
Oh crap, I say those things sometimes.... well not the last call thing, they can figure out it was my last call when they don't hear me anymore.
 
At work, we do most of our mission VFR with radar advisories. Our work is often low and around lots of other VFR traffic, at altitudes where many VFR aircraft don't get radar service. As a result, we try to be very vigilant about looking for traffic, both out the window and keeping track of anything that comes up on ADS-B or TCAS. We fly with a crew of 3 (sometimes 4) and all of us are looking for traffic using various means.

As a result, typically when ATC calls traffic for us, we've been looking for it for some time, watching it on ADS-B or TCAS, and will continue to do so until it's clearly not a conflict. (Granted, not always, which is why we appreciate ATC's help.)

We know that "we have him on ADS-B" is not sufficient for ATC needs. But what I'd like to be able to say is something like "thank you for the heads-up, we've been watching them on ADS-B/TCAS, they don't seem to be a conflict for us, but we will keep watching them and looking for them out the window until they are no longer a factor. We don't feel like any further traffic calls are necessary unless the other airplane does something unexpected, and do not want your issuing of traffic calls to us for this airplane to take attention away from your other duties."

It would be nice if there was a shorter way to say that. How about "thanks, we good"?

(I also cringe at hearing the "fish finder" comments.)
 
RussR said:
We know that "we have him on ADS-B" is not sufficient for ATC needs. But what I'd like to be able to say is something like "thank you for the heads-up, we've been watching them on ADS-B/TCAS, they don't seem to be a conflict for us, but we will keep watching them and looking for them out the window until they are no longer a factor. We don't feel like any further traffic calls are necessary unless the other airplane does something unexpected, and do not want your issuing of traffic calls to us for this airplane to take attention away from your other duties."
Click to expand...
Unless it will remove ATC responsibility for the callouts, I don't really see even a short version being helpful, other than perhaps, "Traffic 12 o'clock? Don't care."

Obviously it made a difference to these controllers (maybe the same one on different days?) even if he just felt better that we knew about it, but that's with the controller, not the pilot, initiating the inquiry.
 
eman1200 said:
I think this is the problem. It’s the equivalent of having enough yahoos say things like “position checks” or ‘last call’ that more people start saying it. When enough dingleberries mention adsb, now ATC will start saying it. Of course maybe a controller can chime in if asking about adsb is now acceptable vernacular, but it’s probably just from hearing it so many times.
Click to expand...
I was going to say something snarky, but then I realized we already have a word that means snide.
 
My ADS-B in feeds Foreflight via a Stratus 2. I don’t know if it’s one of the devices, or the system itself, but when maneuvering in a spirited manner, it gives traffic alerts on myself. It’ll say traffic at .25 NM,and the position is about 10 seconds behind. I’ve also noticed that aircraft equipped with a Skybeacon or Tailbeacon can drop off at random when straight and level, at well over 1,000 AGL over mirror-flat terrain. (Friends’ planes, no doubt as to what ADS-B out they have.)

Bewteen false alerts and some equipment not giving a steady signal, I place a limited level of trust in the display. Plus here in south/central Florida, there are a number of antiques that won’t show up. Mark I Mod 0 eyeball is the primary TCAS down low.
 
the fish finder call drives me insane. It's like blending all of the redneck slapstick incompetence of Larry the Cable Guy with an added lack of situational awareness that they're wasting everyone's time and don't appear to know or care.
 
schmookeeg said:
the fish finder call drives me insane. It's like blending all of the redneck slapstick incompetence of Larry the Cable Guy with an added lack of situational awareness that they're wasting everyone's time and don't appear to know or care.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. By informing ATC and other traffic that they are incompetent and lack situational awareness, those pilots provide the rest of us with critical information to help us avoid them.
 
I hear this all the time "yeah, we got em on the box". Said with that deep "pro-pilot" voice, ya know.
 
ateamer said:
I don’t know if it’s one of the devices, or the system itself, but when maneuvering in a spirited manner, it gives traffic alerts on myself.
Click to expand...

I get this all the time when doing acro. Freaked me out the first time until I figured out what was going on. Having an aircraft 1 mile behind you and 1K above is a major concern when you are about to do an Immelman. I am using Stratux and iFlyGPS, so I think it must the the refresh rate of the ADS-B system.
 
RussR said:
At work, we do most of our mission VFR with radar advisories. Our work is often low and around lots of other VFR traffic, at altitudes where many VFR aircraft don't get radar service. As a result, we try to be very vigilant about looking for traffic, both out the window and keeping track of anything that comes up on ADS-B or TCAS. We fly with a crew of 3 (sometimes 4) and all of us are looking for traffic using various means.

As a result, typically when ATC calls traffic for us, we've been looking for it for some time, watching it on ADS-B or TCAS, and will continue to do so until it's clearly not a conflict. (Granted, not always, which is why we appreciate ATC's help.)

We know that "we have him on ADS-B" is not sufficient for ATC needs. But what I'd like to be able to say is something like "thank you for the heads-up, we've been watching them on ADS-B/TCAS, they don't seem to be a conflict for us, but we will keep watching them and looking for them out the window until they are no longer a factor. We don't feel like any further traffic calls are necessary unless the other airplane does something unexpected, and do not want your issuing of traffic calls to us for this airplane to take attention away from your other duties."

It would be nice if there was a shorter way to say that. How about "thanks, we good"?

(I also cringe at hearing the "fish finder" comments.)
Click to expand...
Ya could just lie and say in sight
 
luvflyin said:
Ya could just lie and say in sight
Click to expand...
"No factor." Probably not going to get very far and the wordsmiths' heads are going to explode, but I've used it successfully.

Nauga,
not to be confused with Max Factor
 
The last few times I've used flight following, eastern MA and RI, it's been really smooth with respect to traffic. Twice had traffic callouts that I looked for and found. One was no factor, the other was near the airport, and I was asked to maintain separation and was cleared to land, as the other aircraft was also in contact with ATC. The third traffic callout neither of us could see each other, so ATC gave an altitude restriction to the lower aircraft, and then cleared him of the restriction when we were past each other. Nobody had to turn.

So I attribute the success partly to great controllers, partly to being in a busy area where VFR traffic is often on FF, and a bit luck. Oh yeah, and I keep my sunglasses clean.

Just mentioning it because I don't think FF and controllers get enough credit, in general. Knock on wood my experiences with it have been good.
 
“No factor” simply by looking at adsb or tcas is a tough one. It’s just not that defined.
 
RussR said:
At work, we do most of our mission VFR with radar advisories. Our work is often low and around lots of other VFR traffic, at altitudes where many VFR aircraft don't get radar service. As a result, we try to be very vigilant about looking for traffic, both out the window and keeping track of anything that comes up on ADS-B or TCAS. We fly with a crew of 3 (sometimes 4) and all of us are looking for traffic using various means.

As a result, typically when ATC calls traffic for us, we've been looking for it for some time, watching it on ADS-B or TCAS, and will continue to do so until it's clearly not a conflict. (Granted, not always, which is why we appreciate ATC's help.)

We know that "we have him on ADS-B" is not sufficient for ATC needs. But what I'd like to be able to say is something like "thank you for the heads-up, we've been watching them on ADS-B/TCAS, they don't seem to be a conflict for us, but we will keep watching them and looking for them out the window until they are no longer a factor. We don't feel like any further traffic calls are necessary unless the other airplane does something unexpected, and do not want your issuing of traffic calls to us for this airplane to take attention away from your other duties."

It would be nice if there was a shorter way to say that. How about "thanks, we good"?

(I also cringe at hearing the "fish finder" comments.)
Click to expand...
Yeah. Just say looking negative contact. All that other stuff is like when a stripper starts talking about her life. No one, other than the stripper, cares.

Also on a serious note. Remember that the only legit means of separation is the mark one eyeball. I’m sure you guys have a briefed min separation that you won’t go below without a visual… right. All the tech makes things way safer so long as we don’t reduce our minimum safety margins based on the tech. Be safe out there in Indian land.
 
Kritchlow said:
“No factor” simply by looking at adsb or tcas is a tough one. It’s just not that defined.
Click to expand...
“No factor,” like lying about being in sight, is telling the controller they’re off the hook. If the pilot wants to do the rough equivalent of shooting the gap in thunderstorms displayed by FIS-B weather, who am I to complain?
 
midlifeflyer said:
“No factor,” like lying about being in sight, is telling the controller they’re off the hook. If the pilot wants to do the rough equivalent of shooting the gap in thunderstorms displayed by FIS-B weather, who am I to complain?
Click to expand...
The difference in the two scenarios you present is if the intrepid explorer with FIS-B weather flys through the thunderstorm there’s no damage to the storm. If the same explorer runs into you playing ATC with the adsb/tcas well… that’s a very different set of consequences.
 
midlifeflyer said:
“No factor,” like lying about being in sight, is telling the controller they’re off the hook. If the pilot wants to do the rough equivalent of shooting the gap in thunderstorms displayed by FIS-B weather, who am I to complain?
Click to expand...

I'd complain on account of there being two planes in this equation, and the other aircraft might not appreciate the rough equivalency. Nor would I wish a few sleepless nights on a controller who thought they did their job right and ended up watching two datatags disappear.

If you're going to get flight following or participate in the ATC system, why discredit the service they provide by fibbing?
 
Seanaldinho said:
I'd complain on account of there being two planes in this equation, and the other aircraft might not appreciate the rough equivalency. Nor would I wish a few sleepless nights on a controller who thought they did their job right and ended up watching two datatags disappear.

If you're going to get flight following or participate in the ATC system, why discredit the service they provide by fibbing?
Click to expand...
I was being a little tongue in cheek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top