Controller question: Any benefit to knowing pilot can see traffic on screen?

[Sam D]

Let me preface my question by getting this out of the way: if traffic is called out to me, I either see it ("traffic in sight") or I do not see it ("negative contact") and reply accordingly.


Now on to the question...
With increasing traffic information in the cockpit, I was wondering if there is any benefit to a controller to know that I can see exactly what traffic he/she is talking about on screen just not out the window. Something tells me that this does nothing for the controller, but gosh darn it, the helpful part of me REALLY wants to mention it! Especially by the second or third time the traffic is called out.

P.S. And I'm not talking about the terminal environment. I'm talking about basic traffic calls en route.

P.P.S. And I'm really not asking if I can say "Got 'em on the fish finder".

P.P.P.S. Last one (promise) am I the only one that wants to blurt out "I win!" when I see the other guy before he sees me?

 

[Velocity173]

Well, it might give them a warm fuzzy but it doesn’t count as seeing the aircraft. More important, they can’t use it in visual seperation, which would make their life easier. Worked a lot of fighters when I did ATC and they would always call “radar contact” for traffic. That’s great and all but I couldn’t use it for visual.

Also, unless it’s a safety issue, don’t initiate a call out of traffic that you see on whatever traffic detection device you’re using. I’m hearing that more and more on the freq and you can tell in the controller’s voice how annoyed they are.

I’m sure someday we’ll all be able to seperate ourselves through ADS-B in but until then, it’s just a nice device to increase SA.

 

[luvflyin]

Let me preface my question by getting this out of the way: if traffic is called out to me, I either see it ("traffic in sight") or I do not see it ("negative contact") and reply accordingly.


Now on to the question...
With increasing traffic information in the cockpit, I was wondering if there is any benefit to a controller to know that I can see exactly what traffic he/she is talking about on screen just not out the window. Something tells me that this does nothing for the controller, but gosh darn it, the helpful part of me REALLY wants to mention it! Especially by the second or third time the traffic is called out.

P.S. And I'm not talking about the terminal environment. I'm talking about basic traffic calls en route.

P.P.S. And I'm really not asking if I can say "Got 'em on the fish finder".

P.P.P.S. Last one (promise) am I the only one that wants to blurt out "I win!" when I see the other guy before he sees me?

They gotta hear 'in sight.' If you want the controller to shut up and quit calling traffic on that Target, say "in sight." If you want to trust your whichever gadget your using to decide the Target on your scope, or whatever it is, is the same Target the controller is talking about, that's up to you. I wouldn't recommend it. How much assistance you want from ATC to help you meet your responsibility to 'See and Avoid' is up to you. Except in A, B and C airspace where yer kind of stuck with it if you wanna fly in there. TRSA's to, unless you say 'negative TRSA service.'

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

if traffic is called out to me, I either see it ("traffic in sight") or I do not see it ("negative contact") and reply accordingly.

Yay. Rare - and commendable.

 

[Palmpilot]

I was originally taught to say "looking" when I didn't see the traffic, but I started saying "negative contact" when I learned from one of the King video courses that the the preferred response was either "traffic in sight" or "negative contact" (and I confirmed it in the Pilot/Controller Glossary). However, there are people who use "contact" as a substitute for "traffic in sight," and probably as a result, there have been a couple of times when controllers thought I said "contact" when I said "negative contact." Consequently I have decided to go back to "looking," which has never caused any misunderstanding in my communications with ATC.

 

[Tantalum]

I cringe whenever I hear the "got 'em on the fishfinder!" .. reminds me of the ATCmemes video where the pilot calls back "roger, looking for the wake turbulence"

I was tough the same as this:

"traffic in sight" or "negative contact"

Also love when they give you a traffic alert and you are IMC
ATC: "Cherokee 76V, 1 o'clock, same altitude, opposite direction, 3 miles, Skylane. Report in site"
me: "we're IMC"
ATC: "stop climb.. etc." and then you hear them tell the other pilot "expedite climb"
...

Granted, they have no idea if I am IMC or VMC, but those types of calls are disconcerting

 

[sarangan]

One should be cautious about reporting traffic in sight unless you are absolutely sure it the same aircraft they are referring to. This is not the time to be showing off how good your eyesight is There have been accidents due to the pilot reporting the wrong traffic in sight, which makes ATC to stop issuing alerts. The infamous midair over San Diego between an airline and a C172 back in 1978 was exactly due to this.

IMHO, "looking for traffic" is a silly statement. As opposed to what, "not looking for traffic"? Probably the best response is "negative contact", or "traffic in sight".

 

[Palmpilot]

IMHO, "looking for traffic" is a silly statement. As opposed to what, "not looking for traffic"? Probably the best response is "negative contact", or "traffic in sight".

I don't care whether it's silly. I care about about avoiding miscommunication.

 

[Shawn]

Do you see them visually?...yes or no? that simple and answer accordingly. That is what controller needs.

Fish Finder, ADSB, TCAS, iPad...simply an aid to situational awareness where to look and possibly where to turn until you acquire them visually. You seeing traffic on the screen and taking action to avoid a collision IS helping the controller so he does not need to focus on your traffic advisory any more even if you never get a visual. Simply telling him you see a screen does not help anyone if you do not have a visual and you are still on a converging path.

"negative contact" or "traffic in sight"...everything else is just slang.

 

[luvflyin]

Also love when they give you a traffic alert and you are IMC
ATC: "Cherokee 76V, 1 o'clock, same altitude, opposite direction, 3 miles, Skylane. Report in site"
me: "we're IMC"
ATC: "stop climb.. etc." and then you hear them tell the other pilot "expedite climb"
...

Granted, they have no idea if I am IMC or VMC, but those types of calls are disconcerting

or

ATC: "Cherokee 76V, 1 o'clock, same altitude, opposite direction, 3 miles, Skylane. Report in site"
me: "we're IMC"
someone: Uh, approach, this is cessna november 12345, a cessna 172 slant golf, and we are, uh, over the lake and we would like to get flight following to wherever and we are at three thousand and we are going to climb to seven thousand five hundred
ATC: with voice now up about 10 decibels and an octave higher "stop climb.. etc." and then you hear them tell the other pilot "expedite climb" IMMEDIATELY

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you see them visually?...yes or no? that simple and answer accordingly. That is what controller needs.

Fish Finder, ADSB, TCAS, iPad...simply an aid to situational awareness where to look and possibly where to turn until you acquire them visually. You seeing traffic on the screen and taking action to avoid a collision IS helping the controller so he does not need to focus on your traffic advisory any more even if you never get a visual. Simply telling him you see a screen does not help anyone if you do not have a visual and you are still on a converging path.

"negative contact" or "traffic in sight"...everything else is just slang.

Slang which everyone understands as, "I heard you and am looking."

I will say "looking and if, after looking fir a bit, I still don't see it, "negative contact."

Beats "roger."

 

[Palmpilot]

On reflection, I'm thinking that maybe neither "looking" nor "negative contact" conveys any useful information if the only thing that would change what a controller has to do is "traffic in sight." So maybe simply acknowledging the transmission would be sufficient until the pilot acquires visual contact.

 

[Velocity173]

I keep saying it til I’m blue in the face, just use “tally” or “no joy” and all the confusion / increased verbiage is eliminated!

 

[Tantalum]

someone: Uh, approach, this is cessna november 12345, a cessna 172 slant golf, and we are, uh, over the lake and we would like to get flight following to wherever and we are at three thousand and we are going to climb to seven thousand five hundred

Oh man.. that is the worst. I love that you got the "slant golf" in there for the VFR flight following request! The courteous people around here (or those with a competent CFI on board) will just chime in quick "Skyhawk 738 VFR request"

Also sucks when you just got handed to SEE tower and you are approaching TOMTY on the RNAV 17 and are awaiting clearance / instruction and there is someone is in the pattern who is all out of sorts "Skyhawk 123, extend downwind, I will call your base" - very broken english "okay, Skyhawk 123 is turning base now"

 

[Timbeck2]

As a controller I would question anyone who replied: "negative contact" immediately after I gave them a traffic call with, "well geez dude, take a little time to look whydon'tcha?" In other words, "looking" is just as acceptable as "negative contact."

 

[denverpilot]

As a controller I would question anyone who replied: "negative contact" immediately after I gave them a traffic call with, "well geez dude, take a little time to look whydon'tcha?" In other words, "looking" is just as acceptable as "negative contact."

Conveys more information than the arguably more appropriate “roger”, too.

Nothing says you have to respond with ONLY “negative contact” or “in sight” in the first communication that there’s someone out there to look for.

“Negative contract... yet...” Hahahaha.

I really do think “looking” is appropriate at times even though it’s non-standard. Especially when you know the controller is up against a need to provide some sort of separation if you’re IFR, etc. IFR with a VFR pop-up ahead at just over the separation minimums, the controller is essentially querying you...

“Hey, if you don’t see him, I’ve got a separation problem here in about two seconds...” and “Looking” (which is faster to say) will usually be followed up with “Turn left/right heading XXX vectors for traffic...”

All depends how many octaves the controller’s voice went up and how far away they said the traffic is. Heh.

 

[exncsurfer]

Conveys more information than the arguably more appropriate “roger”, too.

Nothing says you have to respond with ONLY “negative contact” or “in sight” in the first communication that there’s someone out there to look for.

“Negative contract... yet...” Hahahaha.

I really do think “looking” is appropriate at times even though it’s non-standard. Especially when you know the controller is up against a need to provide some sort of separation if you’re IFR, etc. IFR with a VFR pop-up ahead at just over the separation minimums, the controller is essentially querying you...

“Hey, if you don’t see him, I’ve got a separation problem here in about two seconds...” and “Looking” (which is faster to say) will usually be followed up with “Turn left/right heading XXX vectors for traffic...”

All depends how many octaves the controller’s voice went up and how far away they said the traffic is. Heh.

'looking' could also help passengers who aren't familiar with all the jargon understand and help you look without prompting vs. wondering what the heck negative contact means.(what? you can't reach him on the radio?)

Also, before someone argues, I am not trying to argue the correctness of the correct lingo.

 

[donjohnston]

IMHO, "looking for traffic" is a silly statement. As opposed to what, "not looking for traffic"?

Actually, "not looking for traffic" is an option.

I'll say either "Negative contact, looking" or "Negative contact, we're IMC".

Because if I'm IMC, looking for traffic 500' below and 5 miles out is kinda silly.

 

[midwestpa24]

Also love when they give you a traffic alert and you are IMC
ATC: "Cherokee 76V, 1 o'clock, same altitude, opposite direction, 3 miles, Skylane. Report in site"
me: "we're IMC"
ATC: "stop climb.. etc." and then you hear them tell the other pilot "expedite climb"

Even better when they call the other traffic in that situation as, "VFR traffic, altitude unconfirmed not talking to him."

VFR my...

 

[luvflyin]

Fer what it's worth. I was a Radar controller for about 25 years. The only thing that mattered was you heard the traffic call. Looking, negative contact, searching, whatever. I've worked with hundreds of controllers with all kinds of pet peeves about how how they think things should be said. This is not one of them.

 

[Dave S.]

Let me preface my question by getting this out of the way: if traffic is called out to me, I either see it ("traffic in sight") or I do not see it ("negative contact") and reply accordingly.


Now on to the question...
With increasing traffic information in the cockpit, I was wondering if there is any benefit to a controller to know that I can see exactly what traffic he/she is talking about on screen just not out the window. Something tells me that this does nothing for the controller, but gosh darn it, the helpful part of me REALLY wants to mention it! Especially by the second or third time the traffic is called out.

P.S. And I'm not talking a

Let me preface my question by getting this out of the way: if traffic is called out to me, I either see it ("traffic in sight") or I do not see it ("negative contact") and reply accordingly.


Now on to the question...
With increasing traffic information in the cockpit, I was wondering if there is any benefit to a controller to know that I can see exactly what traffic he/she is talking about on screen just not out the window. Something tells me that this does nothing for the controller, but gosh darn it, the helpful part of me REALLY wants to mention it! Especially by the second or third time the traffic is called out.

P.S. And I'm not talking about the terminal environment. I'm talking about basic traffic calls en route.

P.P.S. And I'm really not asking if I can say "Got 'em on the fish finder".

P.P.P.S. Last one (promise) am I the only one that wants to blurt out "I win!" when I see the other guy before he sees me?

Traffic calls are on a workload permitting basis as we know. More urgent traffic justifies a traffic alert. If it escalates to critical and you still have not taken action the controller is instucted by FAA policy to invoke 2-1-1 and prevent the collision any way possible.

Routine Traffic calls are on a workload permitting basis, traffic alerts ( which is a safety alert) and 2-1-1 are mandatory. There are a few ATC rules that can be utilized with the knowledge that you have the aircraft in sight such as visual separation, elimination of wake turbulence separation, etc.

You should always respond to any ATC transmission. And should always indicate that you have the traffic if you do. Otherwise that controller is required, if workload permits, to keep issuing it to you.

tex