New 2020 Phrasing

NordicDave said:
I say "have them on ADS-B, looking". At least ATC knows you know about relative location.
Click to expand...
They don’t care, it won’t affect how the do their job, they ignored it. They usually are not pilots.
Only if you say you have them in sight, then they say something like “maintain visual separation” and it’s now up to you ...they can focus on other traffic.
 
Many occasions ATC has told other traffic "he has you on ADS-B and looking" or something to that effect. Flying through or near SFO were ATC is talking a rate of 100 mph without a breath, I actually just say "looking" or "have visual", if there is even enough window to say that.
 
What a perfect use of ADS-B to already know the traffic location on your device, confirm it visually, expect ATC to advise you of it, and then be pre-wired to respond simply "in sight" when they point it out (which you can predict they will, based on what your device is showing you).

Why waste your time and ATC's time blabbering about what you've got on your panel?????
 
I know. So boring. But:

TRAFFIC IN SIGHT− Used by pilots to inform a
controller that previously issued traffic is in sight.

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.

https://www.faa.gov › air_traffic › publications › media › pcg_4-03-14
 
To play "what-ifs"

Aircraft 1 is ADSB-out equipped and on a 1/2 mile final.
Aircraft 2 is ADSB-out equipped and is cleared for some operation other than low-approach/landing that puts them, even temporarily, on the final approach course (maybe they're cleared to cross the final approach course or an overflight of the airport at a non-conflicting altitude).
Aircraft 3 is a grandfathered J-3 Cub without an electrical system or ADSB using a handheld radio on a 2 mile final.
Aircraft 4 is you, an ADSB-in equipped aircraft out of range and/or below reception of local ADSB TIS-B towers.

So when you say you have 2 on the "fish finder" or ADSB, you're still short an aircraft and one of the 2 you do "see" isn't the one ATC is expecting you to follow. So yeah, echoing what others have said, ADSB-in information is irrelevant to ATC.


MooneyDriver78 said:
I consider your number to land to be FYI, and I don’t bother repeating it. And don’t bother runway number if it’s active runway and I’ve already acknowledged it (“enter right downwind for 10”, etc) and already in the pattern on said runway. Not sure if that’s correct either, but I’ve never been corrected. My home airport has a large school, so traffic on the radio can clog up the frequency.
Click to expand...

I only consider my "order" to be important when its being given to me on a downwind and possibly base and I'm expected to continue to fly my pattern until there's enough separation for me to follow the aircraft in front. Once I'm on final, my position in the line-up becomes superfluous as there isn't much I can do to extend and create separation.

The runway number is important and at least my interpretation is that you should always acknowledge it though local customs that dont follow this rule may exist. Local customs are likely to exist when there is only 1 runway (and its reciprocal) to land but when landing at airports with multiple runways, especially multiple active runways, this can be important. This is particularly critical at airports with parallel runways as I've regularly been setup for an approach to one runway and asked to side-step to the parallel runway (e.g. cleared for to enter right downwind to 10R but cleared to land 10L)
 
NordicDave said:
I say "have them on ADS-B, looking". At least ATC knows you know about relative location.
Click to expand...
They know you know about relative location already since they told you where to look in the first place.
 
Looking, negative visual contact.
 
Am I the only one here how doesn’t know WTF “Tallyho” is meant to signify?
 
wrbix said:
Am I the only one here how doesn’t know WTF “Tallyho” is meant to signify?
Click to expand...


Probably. But to help you out,...

"Tallyho!" is the traditional call to the hounds in equestrian foxhunting when someone sights the fox. It's been used in other settings to mean, loosely, that the quarry is in sight and the chase has begun.

In this context it would simply signify that you've spotted the plane you're looking for.

Tallyho!
 
wrbix said:
Am I the only one here how doesn’t know WTF “Tallyho” is meant to signify?
Click to expand...
It's just dated military brevity jargon for visually acquired foe (friendly being 'visual'). There's different terms for acquiring a friendly, a foe, an air friendly, and air foe, a ground friendly, a ground foe. Acquiring by sensors (radar), acquiring visual. All have different terminology. The air brevity makes their way to the civil side because we do most of our garrison training in the NAS.

ATC is culturally familiar (regional dependent) with the local military operators and common transient players (AR tracks, MTRs etc) and are not phased by it. Civil operators are of course expected to limit the scope of their communication to what's in the AIM. Since many of us wear dual hats, we're often guilty of inadvertently using joint-mil brevity in civilian life; no harm no foul. But in the hyperbolizing chamber of POA it's an egregious lapse in inflight discipline that warrants a dedicated thread. Or as they call it around here, Tuesday. :D
 
Cleared to land number three. Unless they say report traffic in sight.
 
The FAA made us put all this money into our planes and into the system and it appears they are not using it. Will the FAA ever update the language or is ADS-B just a nice thing for pilots to play with?

I will concede that it has increased SA and therefore reduced accidents but as a pilot tool not an FAA tool.
 
cgrab said:
The FAA made us put all this money into our planes and into the system and it appears they are not using it
Click to expand...

Curious, and not just to you but to the forum as a whole: What "differences" are pilots expecting in the way ATC provides separation to aircraft with ADS-B?

As far as I know, there is nothing "new" in the way we are supposed to provide separation or the way we say it.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Curious, and not just to you but to the forum as a whole: What "differences" are pilots expecting in the way ATC provides separation to aircraft with ADS-B?

As far as I know, there is nothing "new" in the way we are supposed to provide separation or the way we say it.
Click to expand...
“Report when you see it on adsb instead of looking out the window like you should be doing in the airport environment while VFR”?

I don’t think there’s any scenario where it makes sense to be looking at adsb traffic when in the airport environment and talking to ATC. Everyone is much better off if you’re looking outside at that point. JMO
 
The tower clears aircraft for takeoff or landing, ensuring that prescribed runway separation will exist at all times. In scenario given, there is no need to respond with anything other than repeating the instruct #3 cleared land.
 
I will point out something that may not be obvious to some pilots. All controllers need is 3,000' separation for two small (Class 1) aircraft landing on the same runway.
 
Last edited:
MooneyDriver78 said:
I don’t, they don’t care about your “fish finder”, either “looking for traffic ” or “I have traffic in sight” are my replies.
Click to expand...
The words are "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT". The controller assumes you're looking for any traffic they call out to you. The fact you're looking tells them nothing either.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I will point out something that may not be obvious to some pilots. All controllers need is 3,500' separation for two small (Class 1) aircraft landing on the same runway.
Click to expand...

Is that a typo, or has it changed from 3000 recently?
 
Yep, sorry. I had typed in all the separation 3,000, 4,500, and full runway and simplified it down until I screwed it up.
 
cgrab said:
The FAA made us put all this money into our planes and into the system and it appears they are not using it. Will the FAA ever update the language or is ADS-B just a nice thing for pilots to play with?

I will concede that it has increased SA and therefore reduced accidents but as a pilot tool not an FAA tool.
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn’t change procedures until the planes were equipped, which was less than 2 weeks ago. I believe now that the system is in use, there will be changes introduced slowly.
 
I just say "looking" with my tail number. It's very important that there is no confusion that you don't have traffic in sight so they make the right decisions on their end. The "screen", while helpful to find traffic, is no substitute for seeing traffic.
 
n2230b said:
i like............. “What are your intentions?”
Click to expand...
I like . . . . . "Are you declaring an emergency, sir?"

I tell students that the answer to that question is always "yes" - while you figure out what he knows that you don't. :eek:
 
As someone said in another thread, adsb was to give the FAA and controllers more information about your position, not other pilots.
 
The "more information" is the thing I'm most curious about. More "accurate" information than we already have? Yes, but other than possibly reducing the separation we already require, I don't see any major changes in the way ATC operates.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I don’t think there’s any scenario where it makes sense to be looking at adsb traffic when in the airport environment and talking to ATC. Everyone is much better off if you’re looking outside at that point. JMO
Click to expand...
Unless we allow drones to share the airspace. :)
 
flyingron said:
The words are "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT". The controller assumes you're looking for any traffic they call out to you. The fact you're looking tells them nothing either.
Click to expand...

My habit has been to say “Looking”, which implies Negative Contact. Like “With You” before it, it’s a habit I need to break.
 
flyingron said:
The words are "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT". The controller assumes you're looking for any traffic they call out to you. The fact you're looking tells them nothing either.
Click to expand...


I sorta like, "Target in sight."

"Negative contact" seems to me to imply that you've stopped looking, but I don't know what ATC assumes. The word "looking" implies that I haven't yet seen the traffic but I am still scanning for it.
 
Good valid point Walt. I could possibly see more radar coverage as well, possibly expanding class E airspace as radar would be no longer limited to line of sight.

We'll see.
 
cgrab said:
The FAA made us put all this money into our planes and into the system and it appears they are not using it. Will the FAA ever update the language or is ADS-B just a nice thing for pilots to play with?

I will concede that it has increased SA and therefore reduced accidents but as a pilot tool not an FAA tool.
Click to expand...

They’ve been clear it isn’t a primary traffic system from the beginning.

So no, it’s unlikely to get any special phraseology. Too many ways it can fail.

As someone said in another thread, there’s an ADS-B Out mandate, it has little to do with traffic management, and ADS-B IN isn’t mandated at all.

It’s not a traffic system. That’s just a side effect.

Basically its always going to be “Thats nice you have some extra info on your iPad... do you see the traffic or not? I have to separate you by what you see out the plexiglass.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top