"Position Checks"

luvflyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

A friend told me a similar story except it was in S. Korea in 1974 and we both were stationed at Osan Air Base. An aero club plane (think C150) was lost and didn't have a transponder. Our practice area for the aero club was south of the base. Approach saw a target there and 'assumed' it was him, as the plane actually responded and matched the headings and so they gave the plane a northerly heading. Don't know how but approach realized the plane was north of the base and flying the northerly heading. Actually crossed the DMZ into N. Korea. Approach turned him south and he made it back to the base, heard he was fired at but not sure. Wasn't long after that a recon RF-4C hit the runway and took off without a run-up, which they usually spend about a minute running up each engine. Don't know where he was headed but makes you wonder. Controllers were 'fired' as a result, whatever that means. Probably sent back to the states or a radar site on the Aleutians.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
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
Click to expand...

I was a lot of details off. It was Lake Erie and the result was 16 parachutists jumped out of a B-25 into the lake and didn't survive. The B-25 was relying on ATC Radar for their position. There was a Cessna that was part of the operation as a photography plane I think. The Cessnas target got identified as the B-25. The Cessna was over the drop zone. The B-25 was over the lake. The NTSB report doesn't seem to be available anymore. The court case is, which goes into a lot of detail of what happened at Cleveland Center. It doesn't seem to go into the initial radar identification of the target though. The court case was DREYER v. UNITED STATES.

I'm not thinking that this is the incident that lead directly to 91.123 (e). I doubt if I'm going to be able to find it but there was an incident many moons ago that involved an aircraft practicing flying ATC issued headings while just listening in on the frequency that led to a misidentified radar target incident.
 
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...

Coming off the tracks, it is possible that you can get some position drift. It's pretty rare, but I've seen it happen. When the controller tells you that you're radar contact 5 or 10 miles west of whatever, you're actually cross checking what he's telling you to see that your FMC concurs. Discrepancies are pretty rare, though.
 
Bobcat1 said:
Coming off the tracks, it is possible that you can get some position drift. It's pretty rare, but I've seen it happen. When the controller tells you that you're radar contact 5 or 10 miles west of whatever, you're actually cross checking what he's telling you to see that your FMC concurs. Discrepancies are pretty rare, though.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's an important cross-check. And, I think obviously, if there is a discrepancy, it would be wise to point it out.
 
I disagree with the idea of telling a controller "position checks." All you're doing is contributing to a controller's potentially false assumption that he or she is talking to the right aircraft. You have no idea if there is a target in the same position as you, a target squawking your code by accident, etc. Regarding stating this phrase "especially in IMC," I argue that this is potentially worse. Again, you have no idea who else is out there. There are pilots who break 14 CFR in IMC.

I was flying with Grissom Approach (GUS) a few summers ago, and a VFR aircraft departed a satellite airport squawking a non-discreet military helicopter code for an unknown reason. You can imagine the confusion that ensued when both that aircraft and an actual military helicopter requested flight following from that controller within the same minute.

Approach: "Cessna 1234, Radar contact, 10 miles east of Lafayette."
N1234: "Cessna 1234, roger."

The same goes for saying "altitude checks." Although this is a different topic, it's the controller's responsibility to ensure that your Mode C readout is within the acceptable tolerances. You being inside the aircraft and not behind the radar display have no idea what your Mode C altitude is reading.
 
I've seen a similar discussion somewhere else recently. It seems like a waste of bandwidth to me. ATC assumes that you are where they say you are - so, no need to confirm the obvious. If you're somewhere else, THEN speak up.
 
In my 22 years and 3k hours of flying IFR and VFR I've never heard this...or at least I don't think so. I agree that it seems unnecessary. There seems to be a lot of made up phraseology by bored CFIs that get passed on to their students.
 
You don't hear it that much but big deal. If you're getting wrapped around the axle about hearing it, then you have very few problems in this world.

I just might start saying it just to aggravate you!
 
Bobcat1 said:
You don't hear it that much but big deal. If you're getting wrapped around the axle about hearing it, then you have very few problems in this world.

I just might start saying it just to aggravate you!
Click to expand...
Aggravate whom? :confused: I haven't noticed anyone getting wrapped around the axle about this inconsequential question. At worst, some folks have suggested there might be a reason for it and others disagreed that it was useful even for that.

Guess you don't see much in the way of threads where people do get aggravated. :rolleyes:
 
I've seen it done only upon initial radar contact coming off oceanic enroute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top