"Traffic 12:00 5 miles type and altitude unknown "

[roncachamp]

My closest near miss was a flight returning home in the morning, sun on the horizon. ATC (female controller) gives 5 miles and opposite direction callout altitude unknown. Few seconds later 3 miles, altitude unknown .... then a higher pitch 2 miles YOUR altitude.

My response on the first report was that I was looking directly into the sun and had no chance of spotting the other AC. My request for a vector at the 3 mile call out was met with "unable to provide a vector for traffic avoidance." At the one mile callout, I banked and descended (to the right) ... at that moment my angle to the sun was changed enough for me to distinctly see the pilot as he passed off my left wing. After the event a male voice (supervisor I guess) came on and stated that they could not provide a resolution vector as both AC were on direct course at one another and the concern that the controller would actually steer me into the other AC as AC#2 was not FF. Also, apparently the other AC changed altitude.

There is no support for that policy in Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. On the contrary, the order tells controllers VFR aircraft can be vectored when a pilot requests.

Your mixing of messages makes mine look like a rather stupid response. This is the message I replied to:

No, I was told in that situation, if you can't see him, do nothing, the controller will tell you when and in what direction to turn. This has happened a few times already in my 88 hours.

They shouldn't. If you don't report spotting the traffic and the controller believes you are in unsafe proximity to it he should issue a safety alert and advise on a course of action. It is solely the pilot’s prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken. You're unlikely to get such an advisory when the altitude of the other aircraft is not known.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Can't depend on that, as positive separation is assured only in Class B for VFR traffic.

That was the coolest thing, them asking those huge 747 heavies to verify me in sight. Most awesome flight yet and still not certain why they cleared a tiny 152 through the Bravo on a busy Saturday afternoon.... maybe a training exercise for them - since I didn't even ask and was expecting to go out of my way to avoid the Bravo!

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Traffic Advisory, aka "normal call":

"Belchfire 04Y, traffic, twelve o’clock, five miles, opposite direction,
altitude unknown."


Aircraft Conflict Alert, aka "not so normal call":

"Traffic Alert, Belchfire 04Y, twelve o'clock, advise you descend immediately."

This reminds me. On Saturday I did a Bay Tour with two student pilot passengers. For the very first time ATC on flight following said something like this:

"Multiple VFR traffic, 6 to 8 total planes, mostly around the Golden Gate Bridge, suggest you select an altitude of 2500 for your Bay Tour and remain clear of the Bravo and North and West of the Bay Bridge."

Normally they call out traffic one at a time. That REALLY got my attention, I'd never heard of it being that busy. We saw so many planes and you bet I stayed a lot farther away from those red bridge towers than I usually do. Several of the planes we saw were reported to me by my passengers and never by ATC so I guess their initial "6 planes" was all the flight following I was going to get. As I left the area they did however spot a helicopter that was not on FF and they advised I climb 500 immediately. I luckily had him in sight but I appreciated the help.

 

[dmccormack]

I fly real low where the only potential traffic is birds and basketball players.

 

[kkoran]

My closest near miss was a flight returning home in the morning, sun on the horizon. ATC (female controller) gives 5 miles and opposite direction callout altitude unknown. Few seconds later 3 miles, altitude unknown .... then a higher pitch 2 miles YOUR altitude.

My response on the first report was that I was looking directly into the sun and had no chance of spotting the other AC. My request for a vector at the 3 mile call out was met with "unable to provide a vector for traffic avoidance." At the one mile callout, I banked and descended (to the right) ... at that moment my angle to the sun was changed enough for me to distinctly see the pilot as he passed off my left wing. After the event a male voice (supervisor I guess) came on and stated that they could not provide a resolution vector as both AC were on direct course at one another and the concern that the controller would actually steer me into the other AC as AC#2 was not FF. Also, apparently the other AC changed altitude.

Since the controller said the altitude of the other aircraft was "unknown", what makes you think the other aircraft changes altitude?

 

[kkoran]

There is no support for that policy in Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. On the contrary, the order tells controllers VFR aircraft can be vectored when a pilot requests.

It wasn't a matter of policy. They were so close that the controller didn't know if a turn in one direction or the other would increase separation or run them together.

 

[pericynthion]

still not certain why they cleared a tiny 152 through the Bravo on a busy Saturday afternoon.... maybe a training exercise for them - since I didn't even ask and was expecting to go out of my way to avoid the Bravo!

When workload permits, they are mandated to do so. The airspace belongs to everyone, not just the airlines.

 

[Henning]

So am I the only one to get a traffic call with "type, altitude and direction unknown" in it?

Fwiw it was at 12:00 and 5miles and id had it in sight for a while.

My responce was "81 echo has the blimp in sight"

I got it for a glider once, I guess that's if they're just painting a primary target?

 

[Henning]

It wasn't a matter of policy. They were so close that the controller didn't know if a turn in one direction or the other would increase separation or run them together.

What do the FARs say with regards to collision avoidance & RoR? There is only one direction to instruct someone to turn (or that you should turn) in a head on situation; to the right:

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

There should never be question in any pilots mind on which direction to react to a head on whether a call or visual contact, your reaction should always be to turn right. That's why the rule exists.

 

[Henning]

That was the coolest thing, them asking those huge 747 heavies to verify me in sight. Most awesome flight yet and still not certain why they cleared a tiny 152 through the Bravo on a busy Saturday afternoon.... maybe a training exercise for them - since I didn't even ask and was expecting to go out of my way to avoid the Bravo!

SFO has always been an easy to deal with Bravo, I doubt if I get rejected a Bravo transit even 5% of the time at any Bravo and got some of the slickest shortest handling getting into PHX that I got anywhere LOL. On a quick jump from Deer Valley to PHX to pick someone up I was warned to expect getting routed all over Hell's creation, but the controller brought me straight in on a tight base and dumped me right in on the runway next to Cutter in the middle of a bunch of traffic sweet as can be. Thanked him for giving me the Approach Express Lane. LA is always pretty good as well about getting you through.

 

[roncachamp]

It wasn't a matter of policy. They were so close that the controller didn't know if a turn in one direction or the other would increase separation or run them together.

As it was presented it appears to be a matter of facility policy, a policy that is not consistent with Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.

 

[jesse]

What do the FARs say with regards to collision avoidance & RoR? There is only one direction to instruct someone to turn (or that you should turn) in a head on situation; to the right:

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

There should never be question in any pilots mind on which direction to react to a head on whether a call or visual contact, your reaction should always be to turn right. That's why the rule exists.

Sometimes you've got to make exceptions - your family isn't going to care if you died in compliance with 91.113.

For example, I've had a situation where I had head on traffic that was instructed to go left and climb by the controller. Soon as that happened I rolled into a steep left turn and went for the deck.

 

[Henning]

Sometimes you've got to make exceptions - your family isn't going to care if you died in compliance with 91.113.

For example, I've had a situation where I had head on traffic that was instructed to go left and climb by the controller. Soon as that happened I rolled into a steep left turn and went for the deck.

If that was done for near in collision avoidance, it was improper for the controller to turn them left. The rule was developed in the shipping industry and works very well which is why aviation adopted the RoRs right from the maritime sector, right down to layered privileges by control-ability options. The key is to ingrain the instinct to avoid collision by turning right. Thing I teach people to remember is that if they are going to have a meeting accident, "make sure the other boat hits you on the red side, makes it their fault." That will leave them turning right.

 

[jesse]

If that was done for near in collision avoidance, it was improper for the controller to turn them left. The rule was developed in the shipping industry and works very well which is why aviation adopted the RoRs right from the maritime sector, right down to layered privileges by control-ability options. The key is to ingrain the instinct to avoid collision by turning right. Thing I teach people to remember is that if they are going to have a meeting accident, "make sure the other boat hits you on the red side, makes it their fault." That will leave them turning right.

Personally I'd rather avoid getting hit in the first place then be right. Don't care what side they hit me on The range was probably 1/4 mile and closing.

 

[roncachamp]

If that was done for near in collision avoidance, it was improper for the controller to turn them left. The rule was developed in the shipping industry and works very well which is why aviation adopted the RoRs right from the maritime sector, right down to layered privileges by control-ability options. The key is to ingrain the instinct to avoid collision by turning right. Thing I teach people to remember is that if they are going to have a meeting accident, "make sure the other boat hits you on the red side, makes it their fault." That will leave them turning right.

If that was done in a flight following situation it was wrong for the controller to instruct the pilot to do anything at all. If a collision appears likely he should advise a turn or climb/descent. Authority and responsibility must remain in the cockpit.

 

[Henning]

Personally I'd rather avoid getting hit in the first place then be right. Don't care what side they hit me on The range was probably 1/4 mile and closing.

That IS why you should care. It's about training every operator to do the same thing in the same situation so the reflex action of both avoids the collision without wasting time for thought.

 

[jesse]

If that was done in a flight following situation it was wrong for the controller to instruct the pilot to do anything at all. If a collision appears likely he should advise a turn or climb/descent. Authority and responsibility must remain in the cockpit.

It was inside class C airspace, in the traffic pattern, controller instructed the pilot to go left because that'd put him back onto the downwind he was supposed to be in the first place. I'm just trying to point out that the situation can be dynamic.

 

[Henning]

It was inside class C airspace, in the traffic pattern, controller instructed the pilot to go left because that'd put him back onto the downwind he was supposed to be in the first place. I'm just trying to point out that the situation can be dynamic.

Oh hell, in the pattern 1/4 mile is a ton of room.

 

[gismo]

Oh hell, in the pattern 1/4 mile is a ton of room.

Maybe not if you're head to head.

 

[matthammer]

keep in mind when they say type and altitude unknown it means it could also be birds.

I was passing through the TRSA at AVP a couple years back when ATC gave me an advisory for traffic passing off my right side. There was traffic, alright... traffic most fowl.

 

[dmccormack]

I was passing through the TRSA at AVP a couple years back when ATC gave me an advisory for traffic passing off my right side. There was traffic, alright... traffic most fowl.

These guys were just off the runway at Keller brother (08N) Friday morning:

Pictures don't show how close these truly were. Fortunately the roar of the Mighty Lycoming O-145 coupled with slow speed gave them all a chance to be ingested on another day...

 

[jesse]

Maybe not if you're head to head.

Exactly. Somewhere between 3 to 6 seconds head to head.

 

[Henning]

Exactly. Somewhere between 3 to 6 seconds head to head.

Count out three seconds, that is a long time. That is not a near miss or even anything that requires radical action. It amazes me that people who operate cars all day long closing within inches of each other at 120mph+ closing speeds are afraid to get within 1/4 mile of another plane.

 

[jesse]

Count out three seconds, that is a long time. That is not a near miss or even anything that requires radical action. It amazes me that people who operate cars all day long closing within inches of each other at 120mph+ closing speeds are afraid to get within 1/4 mile of another plane.

Whatever Henning. You're just being ridiculous. If I'm three seconds from creating a debris field at 800 AGL if I don't make a course change you can damn well expect I'm going to make one. 3 seconds isn't much time, especially when you have a student on the controls that has about 1.2 hours TOTAL TIME under his belt.

 

[dmccormack]

Count out three seconds, that is a long time. That is not a near miss or even anything that requires radical action. It amazes me that people who operate cars all day long closing within inches of each other at 120mph+ closing speeds are afraid to get within 1/4 mile of another plane.

There's a big difference between cars and airplanes -- jersey barriers, guardrails, and lane markers.

 

[danhagan]

There is no support for that policy in Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. On the contrary, the order tells controllers VFR aircraft can be vectored when a pilot requests.

Your mixing of messages makes mine look like a rather stupid response. This is the message I replied to:

Was only quoting the portion you indicated that a vector would be provided by ATC. My message was to let others know that you MIGHT not get that vector, even when specifically requested. There was no intention to make your response look stupid. Appreciate you highlighting the "can" portion above ... makes sense as ATC elected NOT to provide a vector.

 

[danhagan]

Since the controller said the altitude of the other aircraft was "unknown", what makes you think the other aircraft changes altitude?

In my area, radar coverage is spotty .... Didn't include the entire transmissions, but the #2 AC had departed my home field Dona Ana 4100 AGL, flew below 6500 a short period and than began a climb.

 

[roncachamp]

Was only quoting the portion you indicated that a vector would be provided by ATC.

You also quoted a message from eMKay.

My message was to let others know that you MIGHT not get that vector, even when specifically requested.

There's no justification for not providing that requested vector.

 

[danhagan]

You also quoted a message from eMKay.

Actually geico266

There's no justification for not providing that requested vector.

Justification I received was what I told you the male controller transmitted (that there was a concern the vector would cause an accident). I've been given vectors for traffic plenty of times, as have most others here.

ATC is going to be different in all areas. Even in my own area 128.20 ATC ABQ CTR for western NM and eastern AZ is Great ... ATC 135.87 ABQ CTR for eastern NM west Texas not so much (they're about as useful as the Phoenix approach guys - count on getting ignored or dropped FF).

 

[roncachamp]

Justification I received was what I told you the male controller transmitted (that there was a concern the vector would cause an accident).

I know what the controller told you, he was wrong.

What if you had collided with that other traffic anyway? Would the controller's refusal to provide the requested vector have been a cause of the accident?

I've been given vectors for traffic plenty of times, as have most others here.

I don't doubt it, but controllers that assign headings to VFR aircraft operating outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, are in violation of Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.

ATC is going to be different in all areas.

There will be variations due to the class of airspace, radar coverage, and traffic density, of course, but where those things are equal the service should be the same. They're all required to abide by the same requirements.

 

[Mike I]

The phraseology that I hear often when VFR is "Suggest heading xxx...", and it would seem that way it's not technically assigned. Then again, I've been wrong before.

 

[roncachamp]

The phraseology that I hear often when VFR is "Suggest heading xxx...", and it would seem that way it's not technically assigned. Then again, I've been wrong before.

You are correct. A suggested heading is not an assigned heading and it is the proper thing to do in the situation described.

 

[danhagan]

I know what the controller told you, he was wrong.

What if you had collided with that other traffic anyway? Would the controller's refusal to provide the requested vector have been a cause of the accident?

Am sure the NTSB report would've read "failure of both AC to see and avoid" without mention that one of the AC was blinded by the sun.

I don't doubt it, but controllers that assign headings to VFR aircraft operating outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, are in violation of Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.

There will be variations due to the class of airspace, radar coverage, and traffic density, of course, but where those things are equal the service should be the same. They're all required to abide by the same requirements.

Understood. Just trying to let newer pilots know that it isn't a perfect world all the time and if you've pre-thought a few scenarios or heard/read of someone elses, that info. could save you some day.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Am sure the NTSB report would've read "failure of both AC to see and avoid" without mention that one of the AC was blinded by the sun.



Understood. Just trying to let newer pilots know that it isn't a perfect world all the time and if you've pre-thought a few scenarios or heard/read of someone elses, that info. could save you some day.

This might be true since I read in another thread if I learn to start using the Garmins which are in all my new rental planes now there is a "nearest" function or something like that. Knowing that, now, ahead of time, may save my butt one day when I need to find the nearest airport in a hurry.