"Position Checks"

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
18,482
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
just curious. I watch some YouTube flying videos recently noticed this phrase being used by pilots in response to "radar contact X miles from MYFIX 8,000". I don't recall having heard it in the air or referenced in any pilot reference or magazine. Even a Google search doesn't uncover much.

Do you hear it? Interested in the perspective of both pilots and controllers.
 
I hear it.... I dont think it is official at all, but it doesnt bother me. I guess it would be more important to bring it up if the position he referenced for you didnt check!
 
midlifeflyer said:
just curious. I watch some YouTube flying videos recently noticed this phrase being used by pilots in response to "radar contact X miles from MYFIX 8,000". I don't recall having heard it in the air or referenced in any pilot reference or magazine. Even a Google search doesn't uncover much.

Do you hear it? Interested in the perspective of both pilots and controllers.
Click to expand...

I heard it for decades. I don't think I ever thought enough about it to have any perspective.
 
It is verifying that the controller has identified the correct target. That is the reason they include your position when they say "Radar Contact." I don't recall any specific terms to be used. I usually say "concur." I have heard both as a controller. I have never seen anything that says it's a mandatory transmission. The controller is required to give the position except when it's obvious they have the correct target. Identifying a departure within one mile of the departure runway is one of them. That's why you just hear "radar contact" without the position when you've just departed. The other is if the controller used your position report as the means of identification.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
just curious. I watch some YouTube flying videos recently noticed this phrase being used by pilots in response to "radar contact X miles from MYFIX 8,000". I don't recall having heard it in the air or referenced in any pilot reference or magazine. Even a Google search doesn't uncover much.

Do you hear it? Interested in the perspective of both pilots and controllers.
Click to expand...
I have heard it enough times not to think it is unusual. Never thought anything one way or another about it.
 
I was taught long ago to think long and hard before adding clutter to the airwaves. IMO, unless you have a good reason to suspect there is potential for a discrepancy, you are wasting bandwidth. I sometimes use a click if I think a simple acknowledgement is needed.
On the other hand, I do get on their case if they misread my call sign (which is fairly often), or otherwise detect any discrepancy. I don't believe in letting inaccuracies slide.
 
never heard that one before.
 
RotorDude said:
.......unless you have a good reason to suspect there is potential for a discrepancy, you are wasting bandwidth. I sometimes use a click if I think a simple acknowledgement is needed.
On the other hand, I do get on their case if they misread my call sign (which is fairly often), or otherwise detect any discrepancy. I don't believe in letting inaccuracies slide.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not necessary and a waste of time to concur with the position. I'm gonna work on dropping it.
 
I'm wondering if any "Company" procedures require it, or at one time did, as a means of ensuring their pilots listen to the position given and make sure the controller didn't misidentify them. It wouldn't surprise me to find if this was in some Military directive once, or still is. Anyone know?
 
ATC is not one to waste radio time or add clutter.
I figure if they are saying your position, they have a reason. And I already know my position so why would they say it except to make sure we are all in agreement.
From this point we can go two ways; Always respond, or only respond if there is a miscompare. I don't fly where you guys are so I am not in places where the radiowaves are so tightly packed we can't respond to things atc tells us...so I usually respond. Otherwise, he will never know I heard him and we cannot catch a difference.
Even if the difference is exceedingly unlikely, as I mentioned - atc must be saying this for a reason. Perhaps it is to prevent something we are not even aware of. Good one to ask in the CtMF forum.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
ATC is not one to waste radio time or add clutter.
I figure if they are saying this, they have a reason. And I already know my position so why would they say it except to make sure we are all in agreement.
From this point we can go two ways; Always respond, or only respond if there is a miscompare. I don't fly where you guys are so I am not in places where the radiowaves are so tightly packed we can't respond to things atc tells us...so I usually respond. Otherwise, he will never know I heard him and we cannot catch a difference.
Even if the difference is exceedingly unlikely, as I mentioned - atc must be saying this for a reason. Perhaps it is to prevent something we are not even aware of. Good one to ask in the CtMF forum.
Click to expand...
No, it's not being said by ATC. It's
midlifeflyer said:
being used by pilots in response to "radar contact X miles from MYFIX 8,000".
Click to expand...
When I've been coming across it, it's been both in the IFR and VFR context. One of the few websites I came across discussing it, it was as a response to basic identification for flight following. I personally tend to agree with those who think it unnecessary. If it didn't check there would be a good reason to say something, but I don't see its usefulness otherwise. It doesn't appear in any FAA publication I am aware of.

Like a bunch of stuff pilots say, seems harmless. Mostly curious about who has been using it or hearing it used and for those using it, why
 
luvflyin said:
It is verifying that the controller has identified the correct target. That is the reason they include your position when they say "Radar Contact." I don't recall any specific terms to be used. I usually say "concur." I have heard both as a controller. I have never seen anything that says it's a mandatory transmission. The controller is required to give the position except when it's obvious they have the correct target. Identifying a departure within one mile of the departure runway is one of them. That's why you just hear "radar contact" without the position when you've just departed. The other is if the controller used your position report as the means of identification.
Click to expand...

This! As for what the pilot's response should be, is that what you're curious about? I suppose the pilot could say nothing, but I think I would acknowledge it, even with a simple "roger, affirmative, concur" etc.
 
The question is about the pilot's response of "position checks" after being told radar contact. Not the other way around.

If the position does indeed check, then there's no point in saying anything. If it doesn't, then bring it up. In 8 years of ATC, never once observed a target on radar that didn't match their actual position. Suppose it's possible (EA-6 :D). Just personally never saw it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
just curious. I watch some YouTube flying videos recently noticed this phrase being used by pilots in response to "radar contact X miles from MYFIX 8,000". I don't recall having heard it in the air or referenced in any pilot reference or magazine. Even a Google search doesn't uncover much.

Do you hear it? Interested in the perspective of both pilots and controllers.
Click to expand...
SteveO in the TBM 850? He's the only pilot that I have ever heard doing that. I like his videos. That plane seems awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/user/steveo1kinevo/videos

As for your question he always responds "positions checks" when the departure controller says "radar contact x miles west of xxx". I have never heard that in any other video or from other pilots. And to me it seems like a good practice to make sure ATC is actually looking at you when giving you vectors.
 
I've yet to hear anyone say "position checks", and wouldn't myself unless there was a discrepancy. There never has been one, I expect I'm rarely close enough to another target, and after all I'm a primary target on their screen. ;) OTOH, a discrepancy in the altitude is more common, and I've been known to say "8JT is indicating 8100" or "altitude checks".
 
I suppose if I heard "radar contact observed ten miles South of SAC vortac" and I was actually to the North (or thought I was) I would feel compelled to say something. But yeah I hear it all the time.
 
I've heard it. Flew with a guy yesterday who says it.

I don't say it. It's unnecessary.
 
I was trained to respond this way, so I do. I've had ATC respond 'position as reported' when picking up flight following, so I guess it's a 2 way street? It seems worth the effort to confirm they're looking at the right plane. I fly/train in a moderately busy airspace and I've been run right through the localizer enough times to doubt they always have a firm grasp on where I really am.
 
orange said:
SteveO in the TBM 850? He's the only pilot that I have ever heard doing that. I like his videos. That plane seems awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/user/steveo1kinevo/videos

As for your question he always responds "positions checks" when the departure controller says "radar contact x miles west of xxx". I have never heard that in any other video or from other pilots. And to me it seems like a good practice to make sure ATC is actually looking at you when giving you vectors.
Click to expand...
SteveO is one. I like his videos too. But I've heard and seen others. SteveO's use prompted my curiosity, but hearing it elsewhere online is what led to my question.

I don't think anyone would disagree it's "a good practice to make sure ATC is actually looking at you when giving you vectors." I sure hope everyone does that. The question is more about the necessity of saying anything back to ATC if there is no discrepancy.

Personally I don't care. To me it's just harmless surplus language. Definitely not a required readback and not even mentioned in the controller glossary or in any other FAA publication I have found. I'd be surprised if someone found it an any US training manual.

Actually, I was toying with the idea of trying it out. But not "position checks." Since it's non-standard phraseology anyway, I was thinking more in terms of "Yep, that's me."
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The question is about the pilot's response of "position checks" after being told radar contact. Not the other way around.

If the position does indeed check, then there's no point in saying anything. If it doesn't, then bring it up. In 8 years of ATC, never once observed a target on radar that didn't match their actual position. Suppose it's possible (EA-6 :D). Just personally never saw it.
Click to expand...

It's probably pretty rare nowadays in the automated environment. I saw a lot of them once. A new ASR-8 was put in at Lemoore, NLC. The Frequecy Management Office blew it and gave the Secondary Radar a pulse repetition frequency to close to Castles, MER. We would get replies from their interrogations. There were a few adventures from that until they figured out what was going on.

Misidentifications can be serious stuff. Look up the history of FAR 91.123 (e). That one was written in blood.
 
luvflyin said:
It is verifying that the controller has identified the correct target. That is the reason they include your position when they say "Radar Contact." I don't recall any specific terms to be used. I usually say "concur." I have heard both as a controller. I have never seen anything that says it's a mandatory transmission. The controller is required to give the position except when it's obvious they have the correct target. Identifying a departure within one mile of the departure runway is one of them. That's why you just hear "radar contact" without the position when you've just departed. The other is if the controller used your position report as the means of identification.
Click to expand...

That.

I've said "affirm" or just my call sign before, "position checks" isn't really uncommon and communicates the same info
 
Everskyward said:
I have heard it enough times not to think it is unusual. Never thought anything one way or another about it.
Click to expand...

Ditto...hear it often, mostly out of more remote, non-radar airports. Always considered it a valid acknowledgment that the controller's understanding of your position coincides with yours.
 
luvflyin said:
Misidentifications can be serious stuff. Look up the history of FAR 91.123 (e). That one was written in blood.
Click to expand...

Where's the database of events leading up to each FAR? I realize some rules have been made for a reason, but finding the underlying event can be challenging, unless you're aware of a resource I haven't yet found.
 
I may have detail or two off, but it went something like this. A pilot is out practicing stuff, I think an instructor was onboard. They decide to do some practice flying vectors. They are just listening in. Controller gives another plane a couple 30 degree turns to identify the target. The practicing airplane flys the turns. Controller says Radar contact then starts vectoring the plane he's talking to, but it's the wrong target he's vectoring. I don't remember if it was rocks or a building he hit. The practicing airplane was over Lake Michign as I recall. It was a long time ago.

I don't know of any one stop place to find the history behind the FARS. There has to be one somewhere
 
Last edited:
uncreative said:
I was trained to respond this way, so I do. I've had ATC respond 'position as reported' when picking up flight following, so I guess it's a 2 way street? It seems worth the effort to confirm they're looking at the right plane. I fly/train in a moderately busy airspace and I've been run right through the localizer enough times to doubt they always have a firm grasp on where I really am.
Click to expand...

"Radar contact (position)" is the only thing that's required. If you told the controller your position on call up (position correlation) to establish radar contact, there's no need for them to repeat your position again either. It's just simply "radar contact." If it doesn't match what they see (questionable indentification) then they'll use an alternate means of identifying you (turns / beacon). To throw extra verbiage in doesn't do anything for safety.

As far as getting vectored passed final, they either forgot about you or needed it for spacing. Has nothing to do with position information because that was already confirmed prior to the vector.
 
So a CFI was flying that close to another target and knowingly following another planes vectors, so the controller didn't notice another target flying the same vectors? OR though a aircraft in a very different location to where the main target was turning was the plane he was trying to talk to?

Did the CFI also squawk the same code at the other target?

I'm not buying it.

Ether that or the controller and CFI were idiots
 
hat
James331 said:
So a CFI was flclose to another target and knowingly following another planes vectors, so the controller didn't notice another target flying the same vectors? OR though a aircraft in a very different location to where the main target was turning was the plane he was trying to talk to?
T
Did the CFI also squawk the same code at the other target?

I'm not buying it.

Ether that or the controller and CFI were idiots
Click to expand...

It was a long time ago. There may not have been any beacon code involved. Probably not seeing as how the controller used turns to identify. The CFI was not flying anywhere close to the other airplane. That's the point. The controller obviously didn't notice. The pilot of the airplane working with ATC obviously didn't notice that the altitudes and headings he was getting we're driving him into terrain. The system broke down. It started with a pilot operating his aircraft according to an instruction given to another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes. A law was enacted that said don't do that anymore.
 
It at least has the same potential as 'with you' for pilots to produce a > than a yottabyte of vociferous opinions on something that is barely worth mentioning! :D
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
It at least has the same potential as 'with you' for pilots to produce a > than a yottabyte of vociferous opinions on something that is barely worth mentioning! :D
Click to expand...
i was going to say that but figured "harmless surplus language" was less "fighting words"
:D:p:D
 
The reason I was told to say "Position Checks".. I usually do say it if I am IMC on departure. When IFR, it is an easy way to confirm that your instruments are reading correctly or they have something messed up. ex. They say "Radar contact 5 mi west of PIT at 5000" and my altimeter shows 200' or my gps shows me 12 miles north of PIT, then there is obviously something wrong. Just an easy way to confirm things are good or bad early on.
 
JasonM said:
The reason I was told to say "Position Checks".. I usually do say it if I am IMC on departure. When IFR, it is an easy way to confirm that your instruments are reading correctly or they have something messed up. ex. They say "Radar contact 5 mi west of PIT at 5000" and my altimeter shows 200' or my gps shows me 12 miles north of PIT, then there is obviously something wrong. Just an easy way to confirm things are good or bad early on.
Click to expand...
How does saying "position checks" add anything to your confirmation? I always confirm that what ATC says is the same as what my instruments show. But I don't say it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top