Traffic in sight....... J/K

[korben88]

A few weeks back while flying into KSLC for the first time with my instructor I had a weirdish experience.

Tower: Skyhawk 12345 (me) traffic landing 34R Alarus on final.

Me: (looks out window and sees a small low wing aircraft on final for 34R) Traffic in sight skyhawk 12345.

My instructor then keys the mic and says correction, still looking skyhawk 12345.

I figured that since he didn't see it that he called for the correction but on the way back to the home drome he told me to just always say "still looking" because then once you announce that you have thr traffic in sight the controller will turn responsibility of separation over to you...

Thoughts?

 

[Vance Breese]

I feel reporting traffic in sight has value for the process. It is important to make certain you have the correct traffic in sight.

We had a Cessna gathering at SMX and I reported the wrong Cessna in sight so now I state where I see the traffic. (Cessna 172 in sight 1 mile straight in.)

 

[Stinger]

You're correct that ATC will have responsibility for separation if you never report an aircraft in sight. But if you report them in sight, you'll be able to turn and follow on your own since most pilots will keep it closer than ATC is allowed to do with IFR aircraft and/or wake turbulence being a factor.

 

[Lndwarrior]

This just sounds assinine. Does he think not working with ATC is somehow going to protect you??? Does he do the same thing at non-towered airport's?

He sounds like the guy that flys in between the vfr altitudes because he's less likely to meet other traffic there.

Did he mention that this was the way he was taught as part of his CFI training?

When CFIs start making up their own rules what does that infer to their students? It suggests they can pick and choose which rules to follow.

I would find another instructor. This is not a guy you want to learn from.

 

[jordane93]

This just sounds assinine. Does he think not working with ATC is somehow going to protect you??? Does he do the same thing at non-towered airport's?

He sounds like the guy that flys in between the vfr altitudes because he's less likely to meet other traffic there.

Did he mention that this was the way he was taught as part of his CFI training?

When CFIs start making up their own rules what does that infer to their students? It suggests they can pick and choose which rules to follow.

I would find another instructor. This is not a guy you want to learn from.

+1

 

[Shawn]

once you announce that you have thr traffic in sight the controller will turn responsibility of separation over to you...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are your CFI is a complete dumbarse. ATC calling out a traffic advisory in no way negates the pilot responsibility to see and avoid. You are not IFR, they have zero responsibility to separate you....traffic or not. The will HELP you by calling out traffic but erroneously saying "still looking" will accomplish absolutely nothing except ATC telling you again where traffic is that you already know.

 

[Clark1961]

Traffic in sight is traffic in sight. Denying it goes against my grain for sure. My opinion is that we need honesty between ATC and pilots. If ymmv please stay the hell away from me.

 

[mtuomi]

Find a new CFI, your guy is a douche. And he clearly has no clue about separation.
The "in sight" only avoids unnecessary vectors for traffic, it has nothing to do with separation with VFR traffic (unless ATC specifically tells you to maintain visual separation from that traffic and you are in class B).

 

[Velocity173]

First, the phraseology is "negative contact." Not that it is a big deal. The controller understands "still looking," as well. Second, just because traffic is issued, doesn't mean they're trying to use visual sep. Could be someone they're not even talking to. In this case, they were probably trying to get visual so you could follow them. To not want to accept your own separation from a tiny Alarus, is ridiculous. Just makes for a more inefficient ATC system.

 

[MAKG1]

Amazing.

Most of the posts don't seem to know KSLC is a Class B airport and ATC DOES provide separation services to VFR traffic. It's not like Class D.

It's still not helpful to make ATC do all the work, and visual separation is much more efficient. But the instructor is not wrong.

 

[RyanB]

When CFIs start making up their own rules what does that infer to their students? It suggests they can pick and choose which rules to follow.

This just sounds assinine. Does he think not working with ATC is somehow going to protect you??? Does he do the same thing at non-towered airport's?

Agreed. Pilots and controllers are meant to work in unison and this negates that.

A CFI who suggests not to queue ATC of traffic being in sight is just idiotic.

"I see the traffic, but don't tell ATC" very inefficient.

 

[mscard88]

Ha. There are airline pilots who routinely do this. I heard it daily flying out of ATL for 24 years. Some even won't report the airport and/or preceding airplane in sight for a visual approach! And the visibility would be great!

 

[flyingron]

I figured that since he didn't see it that he called for the correction but on the way back to the home drome he told me to just always say "still looking" because then once you announce that you have thr traffic in sight the controller will turn responsibility of separation over to you...

First off "Still Looking" isn't recommended phraseology. The words are "NEGATIVE CONTACT."

While having the traffic in sight is a prerequisite for ATC telling you to maintain visual separation, acknowledging the traffic doesn't itself relieve them of the separation requirements.

Of course, if you don't take responsibility for your own separation, then you may have other delays. However, class B separation on VFRs are minimal (don't let them hit) rather than what they are in other airspace.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, if you don't take responsibility for your own separation, then you may have other delays. However, class B separation on VFRs are minimal (don't let them hit) rather than what they are in other airspace.

I think the key word here is "responsibility". As has been stated earlier, there is a legal responsibility to see and avoid in visual conditions, and the instructor is attempting to pass this legal responsibility off to someone else. That alone would cause me to recommend finding another instructor.

Unfortunately my experience has also been that pilots who shirk their responsibilities also exhibit some other traits that I consider dangerous.

YMMV.

 

[Shawn]

But the instructor is not wrong.

While he may be "correct" in Class B, he is still actions are still very much wrong IMO.

Not clarifying that distinction between B and C/D with the OP is even more troublesome and setting the student up for and even more dangerous situation in the future if he is now expecting that same separation service in D.

 

[MassPilot]

First off "Still Looking" isn't recommended phraseology. The words are "NEGATIVE CONTACT."

I was taught to say "we're looking" if ATC issues traffic and I don't spot it immediately and then "negative contact" if I can't find it after 15 seconds or so. Is this not correct?

 

[MAKG1]

While he may be "correct" in Class B, he is still actions are still very much wrong IMO.

Not clarifying that distinction between B and C/D with the OP is even more troublesome and setting the student up for and even more dangerous situation in the future if he is now expecting that same separation service in D.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The OP never said nor suggested that the CFI's assertion applied to any situation other than the one they were in at the time. There is some suggestion to the contrary, as this was the FIRST flight to KSLC. Unless that was also his first towered airport (rather unlikely IMO), he's been exposed to Class D procedures.

 

[MAKG1]

I was taught to say "we're looking" if ATC issues traffic and I don't spot it immediately and then "negative contact" if I can't find it after 15 seconds or so. Is this not correct?

Close enough. The phrase is "looking." I don't know who else you would be reporting as looking....

 

[flyingron]

I was taught to say "we're looking" if ATC issues traffic and I don't spot it immediately and then "negative contact" if I can't find it after 15 seconds or so. Is this not correct?

It is not correct. ATC assumes you are looking if they issue you a traffic report. "Looking" conveys no information. Either you see it (traffic in sight) or you do not (negative contact). If you see it later, you can always then report traffic in sight.

 

[MetalCloud]

I always say "looking" to acknowledge their traffic call. After a bit, if I don't see it, I let them know. If I do see it, I let them know.

Never would I play that game the OP's CFI played. That's a douche move. We all have to help each other out.

 

[MassPilot]

It is not correct. ATC assumes you are looking if they issue you a traffic report. "Looking" conveys no information. Either you see it (traffic in sight) or you do not (negative contact). If you see it later, you can always then report traffic in sight.

They can't assume you're looking until you at least acknowledge them, which is what I use "looking" for. I always thought of "negative contact" to mean that I'm giving up on focusing so much attention on scanning the section of the sky they called out since enough time has passed that the relative position of the traffic has probably changed.

 

[flyingron]

No, NEGATIVE CONTACT means you not have the traffic in sight. PERIOD. ATC may continue to issue further updates for the same traffic or not. You don't see the word "LOOKING" in the AIM, Controller's handbook, or PCG.

 

[MAKG1]

They can't assume you're looking until you at least acknowledge them, which is what I use "looking" for. I always thought of "negative contact" to mean that I'm giving up on focusing so much attention on scanning the section of the sky they called out since enough time has passed that the relative position of the traffic has probably changed.

You could just respond with your tail number. But the "looking" response is pretty universal.

 

[F01LA]

No, NEGATIVE CONTACT means you not have the traffic in sight. PERIOD. ATC may continue to issue further updates for the same traffic or not.

This is the way I do it (now), after learning it is the correct phraseology. "Looking" is much more common though, I think because "negative contact" feels too final. Coming back with a "negative contact" immediately after a traffic call is uncomfortable to some people.

I am curious to know what ATC thinks about all this, or if they care either way.

 

[Sam D]

Back to the OP, maybe ask your CFI why stop at "negative contact" fib? For the best ATC services, declare an emergency!

 

[MassPilot]

This is the way I do it (now), after learning it is the correct phraseology. "Looking" is much more common though, I think because "negative contact" feels too final. Coming back with a "negative contact" immediately after a traffic call is uncomfortable to some people.

I am curious to know what ATC thinks about all this, or if they care either way.

That's how I feel about it. Immediately responding with "negative contact" sounds like you're not even bothering to look. It does save you an extra transmission though. I guess I'll start doing it this way.

 

[Velocity173]

Technically it's

This is the way I do it (now), after learning it is the correct phraseology. "Looking" is much more common though, I think because "negative contact" feels too final. Coming back with a "negative contact" immediately after a traffic call is uncomfortable to some people.

I am curious to know what ATC thinks about all this, or if they care either way.

Talked about before. While controllers have specific phraseology, the AIM is recommended phraseology.

On position I've had "searching," "looking," "no joy," "radar contact," "got em on the fish finder," and of course "negative contact." None of it matters until you hear "traffic in sight" or something similar. Yes, I've used a pilot's reply of "tally" as confirmation and subsequent visual separation.

I'd say Ron is most correct though. Do controllers care? Doubtful.

 

[Radar Contact]

But the instructor is not wrong.

The instructor telling his student to lie to ATC and you say he's not wrong...

 

[Radar Contact]

This is the way I do it (now), after learning it is the correct phraseology. "Looking" is much more common though, I think because "negative contact" feels too final. Coming back with a "negative contact" immediately after a traffic call is uncomfortable to some people.

I am curious to know what ATC thinks about all this, or if they care either way.

I can't speak for all of ATC but I don't care which you response you choose. Looking is by far the usual response from pilots. Routinely you'll here any of these when traffic is pointed out and I'm fine with all of them.

Looking, searching, negative contact, no joy, in sight, tally ho, visual, have them in sight and will maintain visual, don't see the traffic, I see them, etc etc.

I've got them on the box/fish finder/tcas and radar contact help us zero.

 

[Palmpilot]

This is the way I do it (now), after learning it is the correct phraseology. "Looking" is much more common though, I think because "negative contact" feels too final. Coming back with a "negative contact" immediately after a traffic call is uncomfortable to some people.

I am curious to know what ATC thinks about all this, or if they care either way.

I usually say "negative contact" these days, but I at least take the time to look in the indicated direction before saying it. If I spot it later, then I key up again to say "traffic in sight."

 

[bobmrg]

I was taught to say "we're looking" if ATC issues traffic and I don't spot it immediately and then "negative contact" if I can't find it after 15 seconds or so. Is this not correct?

Did your instructor ever have you read the Pilot/Controller Glossary in the AIM? "I was taught..." is usually followed by something the instructor made up.

Bob

 

[Shawn]

"Traffic in sight" or "Negative Contact" are the two correct answers to a traffic advisory from a proper terminology standpoint.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary

"NEGATIVE CONTACT"
− Used by pilots to inform ATC that:
a. Previously issued traffic is not in sight....

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

While "looking..." conveys the same message, you won't find that term in the Glossary.

 

[mscard88]

. Do controllers care? Doubtful.

Yup. Didn't care a bit when I controlled. I know what they mean.

Now, I do attempt to teach proper phraseology as a CFI. So I got that going for me, which is nice.

 

[Sundancer]

Tempest in a tea cup; that said, it's cheesy to lie to the controller, though probably not a mortal sin.

I tend to think of ATC as having the big picture, the one I can't see, for the most part. And that I have the view of my tactical situation, the part ATC can't see or know, or may not be qualified to judge. Anyway, I don't know the controller's plan, or what he's considering, so lying to him seems a bit slimy. . .

I tend to answer truthfully, even when I might be busy. And if I am otherwise jammed up, tell 'em "standby" or "unable". But it has to be legit, in my mind.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Yeah, it's not in the recommended glossary, but "looking" is easier to say, conveys the same information as negative contact and takes up less time on frequency (two syllables vs. five). I'm all for the standard "traffic in sight" when "looking" turns into "found."

Immediately responding with "negative contact" sounds like you're not even bothering to look.

Yes, or that you've given up! I like the action verb.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't know why some of us are so concerned about what negative contact "sounds like" when the folks with ATC experience are telling us that it doesn't matter.

 

[Dave S.]

That's a bogus non-team attitude.

Target resolution is the only VFR separation required except in class b. Notwithstanding that, ATC only has to issue advisories and if necessary traffic alerts. A pilot who chooses to not help just causes workload for the controller.

Of course, sometimes just vectoring you away from the other traffic is easier than playing 20 questions with the pilot.

tex

 

[mscard88]

I don't know why some of us are so concerned about what negative contact "sounds like" when the folks with ATC experience are telling us that it doesn't matter.

Controllers know from experience what all the terms mean. It's really not a big deal. At all.

 

[korben88]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The OP never said nor suggested that the CFI's assertion applied to any situation other than the one they were in at the time. There is some suggestion to the contrary, as this was the FIRST flight to KSLC. Unless that was also his first towered airport (rather unlikely IMO), he's been exposed to Class D procedures.

Correct Makg. This was in SLCs bravo, when we went down to Provo I identified and announced other traffic.

I think what he was ultimately trying to say (I will clarify when I see him next) is that in Class B airspace it's eaiser (better?) to just worry about flying instead of searching out traffic. I was on a straight in final, and I think he just wanted me to not spend a ton of time looking for the traffic.

I may be wrong, and again will have him explain in more detail next lesson.

 

[mscard88]

I think what he was ultimately trying to say (I will clarify when I see him next) is that in Class B airspace it's eaiser (better?) to just worry about flying instead of searching out traffic. I was on a straight in final, and I think he just wanted me to not spend a ton of time looking for the traffic.

I may be wrong, and again will have him explain in more detail next lesson.

Dunno what your instructor wanted. But I can tell you numerous times I've had ATL Approach (Class B) point out traffic to us, and most of the time when we picked them up visually they were inside the Bravo and often right under final approach, which often extends out 20-25 miles at airports like ATL. I am not your CFI, but I would say it would be very prudent upon you to look for that traffic.