Some Class B ATC Comm Questions

[TedR3]

I had my night x/c this weekend from Wings Field to Atlantic City. It was a great clear calm night for flying.

Went through the Philly Bravo both ways with great views of center city, the ballpark and PHL.

On the way back to Wings the same controller was on both departure and approach, so the frequency was busy even though it was almost midnight.

On the way back, I got some ATC calls that I wasn't sure of the proper response. So, I got the recording from the internet and listened again.

At one point - while at 3,500 and still in the bravo - we got:

"4LP, VFR descent for Wings Field is approved"

What's the proper response? "Roger" or a read back?

We were still about 10 miles from the field. Because it was not an instruction to descend to a specific altitude, I took it to mean that the descent was at my discretion. We were far enough out that we did not have the field in sight, so I maintained 3,500. Apparently, this was not what the controller wanted because within 30 seconds I got:

"4LP, you can continue your descent to Wings Field"

So, I went down to 2,500.

We then got a traffic call for a 737 descending right at us 12 o'clock, 9 miles. He was easy to see b/c of his landing lights. We advised we had him in sight. Then the controller cleared the 737 down to 3,000, and advised us:

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

Do I properly understand that this instruction means it is my responsibility to maneuver as required to stay clear of the 737? The 737 ended passing above us to our right, close enough to be interesting but not alarming.

 

[silver-eagle]

I would acknowledge the transmission with "4LP, roger". And yes, he's directed you to keep clear of the 737. "4lp, 737 in site."
Were you with an instructor and if so, what did he say?

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Based on what you wrote and my experience with them, I would have done the same thing. If ever in doubt though, ask them. At night, I prefer to stay high as long as possible in case of any problems, and it usually makes spotting the field easier.

Them telling you "Decent is Approved", without you asking for one, may be a tip off to ask for further instruction or tell him you wish to maintain 3500 till closer to Wings. He then would have probably vectored you for traffic.

I flew to ACY as well on my night XC but was going back to Perkiomen. Took my instructor and I 2 or 3 circles around where we expected Perk to be in the black abyss before we spotted the runway.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

At one point - while at 3,500 and still in the bravo - we got:

"4LP, VFR descent for Wings Field is approved"

What's the proper response? "Roger" or a read back?

Yup, all that is required is acknowledgment. The controller is really just giving you a heads up that altitude is at your discretion and that you can descend into Wings at your leisure. Occasionally there may be traffic that could be a conflict in which case he/she may restrict your VFR descent above a certain altitude.

With 2,000 feet to lose (3,500 - 1,500) 10 miles is about the right spot to start descending at 500 fpm to level off at 4nm from the field so the controller was probably expecting you to start down soon.

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

"Maintain visual separation with the 737, Skyhawk 4LP"

The controller just needs to guarantee that you see the 737 and will visually separate yourself from it.

 

[spinfire]

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

Since this is an instruction that would be complied with "wilco" (received and will comply) seems appropriate.

I've had a Boston approach controller tell me on initial contact "advise prior to starting descent". I was about 50 miles away and only at 6,500 feet in a 172. I responded back with something like "it won't be anytime soon" and sure enough I had been handed off to another Boston approach sector before I was ready to begin my descent.

 

[dell30rb]

how did you go back and get the recording? does live atc have a function for this

 

[Sac Arrow]

With most ATC transmissions requiring acknowledgement only, you can just reply with your call sign. "Roger" and "Wilco" is implied.

"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not in sight" is a good response for a traffic advisory or landing sequence instruction. They would like to know that.

 

[TedR3]

I flew to ACY as well on my night XC but was going back to Perkiomen. Took my instructor and I 2 or 3 circles around where we expected Perk to be in the black abyss before we spotted the runway.

The beacon at Wings is out, so we had trouble seeing it even though we knew from the GPS it was right in front of us.

 

[TedR3]

how did you go back and get the recording? does live atc have a function for this

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php

 

[HPNPilot1200]

"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not in sight" is a good response for a traffic advisory or landing sequence instruction. They would like to know that.

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

 

[Sac Arrow]

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

Good point - athough truth be told I tend to use "Tallyho" and "No Joy" in the pattern!

 

[bobmrg]

I had my night x/c this weekend from Wings Field to Atlantic City. It was a great clear calm night for flying.

Went through the Philly Bravo both ways with great views of center city, the ballpark and PHL.

On the way back to Wings the same controller was on both departure and approach, so the frequency was busy even though it was almost midnight.

On the way back, I got some ATC calls that I wasn't sure of the proper response. So, I got the recording from the internet and listened again.

At one point - while at 3,500 and still in the bravo - we got:

"4LP, VFR descent for Wings Field is approved"

What's the proper response? "Roger" or a read back?

We were still about 10 miles from the field. Because it was not an instruction to descend to a specific altitude, I took it to mean that the descent was at my discretion. We were far enough out that we did not have the field in sight, so I maintained 3,500. Apparently, this was not what the controller wanted because within 30 seconds I got:

"4LP, you can continue your descent to Wings Field"

So, I went down to 2,500.

We then got a traffic call for a 737 descending right at us 12 o'clock, 9 miles. He was easy to see b/c of his landing lights. We advised we had him in sight. Then the controller cleared the 737 down to 3,000, and advised us:

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

Do I properly understand that this instruction means it is my responsibility to maneuver as required to stay clear of the 737? The 737 ended passing above us to our right, close enough to be interesting but not alarming.

Wilco...."I understand and will comply." To be said only if you truly understand the instructions and intend to comply. If you don't understand the instructions, ask for clarification.

Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

With most ATC transmissions requiring acknowledgement only, you can just reply with your call sign. "Roger" and "Wilco" is implied.

"Traffic in sight" or "Traffic not in sight" is a good response for a traffic advisory or landing sequence instruction. They would like to know that.

Please give us a citation for that. Pilots should not assume that anything is implied by a call sign. Roger and wilco are in the pilot/controller glossary for a reason.

Bob Gardner

 

[pilot_dude]

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

"Traffic, no joy"

 

[Mike I]

When asked to "maintain visual separation" by ATC, this is distinctly different from ATC advising of traffic. This delegates the responsibility for avoidance with that traffic from ATC to you, and you're now responsible for not running into it. When asked to "maintain visual separation", it is proper and expected to give a full readback, not simply "roger" or "wilco".

From 7110.65 (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0702.html):

PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction)-BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).

If applicable,

ON CONVERGING COURSE.

DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?

If the answer is in the affirmative,

MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.

If the pilot advises he/she has the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation from it (pilot must use that entire phrase):

APPROVED.

I have heard ATC say "confirm maintain visual separation" when a pilot simply acknowledges with "wilco", as they must hear the readback to delegate the separation responsibilities.

 

[poadeleted20]

At one point - while at 3,500 and still in the bravo - we got:

"4LP, VFR descent for Wings Field is approved"

What's the proper response? "Roger" or a read back?

Either.

We then got a traffic call for a 737 descending right at us 12 o'clock, 9 miles. He was easy to see b/c of his landing lights. We advised we had him in sight. Then the controller cleared the 737 down to 3,000, and advised us:

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

You'd already told the controller you had the traffic so there was no need to say that again. I probably would have just said, "Wilco, 4LP."

Do I properly understand that this instruction means it is my responsibility to maneuver as required to stay clear of the 737?

Correct.

 

[denverpilot]

At one point - while at 3,500 and still in the bravo - we got:

"4LP, VFR descent for Wings Field is approved"

What's the proper response? "Roger" or a read back?

Either but Roger is less verbose. You can always read-back for clarification or even ask the question, "Do you need it now?" for a shortened way to find out.

To save time, if I were ready to descend, I'd have replied with, "Roger, descending out of X, pilot's discretion, 4LP."

Since you were staying up there, and since the controller was being vague, I think I would have reverted to plain English and "Thanks, we'll remain at 3,500 until we have the airport in-sight then descend at pilot's discretion, unless you need us lower now, 4LP."

It's short and to the point enough that I wouldn't consider it a huge waste of airtime, since ultimately he didn't really tell you what he wanted and a mental wag of the mic to get the full picture is never a bad thing.

We were still about 10 miles from the field. Because it was not an instruction to descend to a specific altitude, I took it to mean that the descent was at my discretion. We were far enough out that we did not have the field in sight, so I maintained 3,500. Apparently, this was not what the controller wanted because within 30 seconds I got:

"4LP, you can continue your descent to Wings Field"

So, I went down to 2,500.

You never said you were leaving 3500 as required, so that one's really his fault. If he wanted you lower he should have made it compulsory. There's a weird tendency by some controllers to "leave VFR traffic alone" sometimes, although all of us would happily comply if told to descend.

I try to avoid that silliness by just telling them what I'm doing and why when they pop the little vague hints.

We then got a traffic call for a 737 descending right at us 12 o'clock, 9 miles.

At that point you immediately have the big picture of why all the vague offers of lower. He needs you away from the IFR traffic but he still has the visual-separation hole card up his sleeve.

He was easy to see b/c of his landing lights. We advised we had him in sight. Then the controller cleared the 737 down to 3,000, and advised us:

"Skyhawk 4LP, maintain visual separation with the 737, he's going to turn his base leg once he's east of you."

What's the proper response here? I just advised that I had the traffic in sight.

That's all he needed. He needed to know one aircraft or the other took away his separation responsibility or he'd have to start giving vectors to keep you out of the 737's bubble of protected airspace. He was trying to keep you both "happy". Bet he's passive-aggressive in real-life, too.

Do I properly understand that this instruction means it is my responsibility to maneuver as required to stay clear of the 737? The 737 ended passing above us to our right, close enough to be interesting but not alarming.

Yes. You're always responsible to both see (eyeballs) and avoid (move!) even when talking to a controller. VFR or IFR, doesn't matter. If you see it, don't hit it.

If he'd have given you an assigned heading prior to the starting point of this story, there would be a difference. You'd maneuver first and then report that you couldn't maintain the assigned heading. (Report deviations from any assigned heading, altitude, etc. And typically it happens simultaneously but the Aviate, Navigate, Communicate rule applies here too. Move out of the way first, report second.)

As far as "other stuff" that may have been going on, perhaps on a different frequency, was that he probably gave the 737 a traffic alert that included your relative position, that you were VFR, and that you had them in sight, so they could ignore their TCAS if they were so-equipped. The comment that they were going to turn behind you is a hint that they'd already seen you too. They may have played the game of "We see him on TCAS" which isn't adequate for the controller's rules, but transport aircrews do that one to controllers all the time. Controllers with merging targets don't have time to explain the regulations to the 73 crew, though and if you'd heard the controller talking to the 73, he probably sighed and switched tactics to get *you* to say the magic words "in sight" knowing you were actually looking out the window. I've heard that screwup by airline crews who should know better a whole bunch of times.

The controller could have done this a completely different way with better phraseology... "Traffic is a Boeing 737, 10 O'Clock, descending out of X for 3000, Xxx-bound. Recommend ten degrees left or a descent to 2500.", during his initial call to you.

That's pretty time-consuming though, and sometimes all they have time for is the "hint"/vague phraseology. Or he was hoping the 737 crew was going to call a proper "in-sight" before you did.

He could have also just commanded the descent instead of hinting at it.

You sound like you did fine, given what the controller dealt you, and the airliner passengers got to see one of those "dangerous small planes" go past their windows. Heh.

I just try to visualize what they're really trying to do when they stop being controllers and become spectators.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

Ed told me to try doing this (we briefed radio stuff over the phone; I was rusty and nervous again) and it worked really well last Saturday when I flew solo to a towered airport. As soon as I said "negative traffic" they then asked the other plane to look for me. The other plane said they had me in sight and then the controller was happy and sequenced the guy as number two after me to land.

Though because I'm in a 152 (I think) I heard him say "go around" to someone. My guess is the number two plane was too close to me on final but I don't know since I don't have a rear view mirror and was focused on my landing and that moment.

 

[jesse]

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

I use and teach "negative contact" (which is in the pilot/controller glossary). I am not a fan of "looking for the traffic" and highly discourage it.

"Negative traffic" works too, but it is not in the Pilot/Controller glossary.

 

[eMKay]

"Negative traffic" is even better as "traffic not in sight" can often sound like "traffic in sight."

Yes, I have made that mistake.

 

[TedR3]

Thanks to everyone for the responses!

 

[denverpilot]

I use and teach "negative contact" (which is in the pilot/controller glossary). I am not a fan of "looking for the traffic" and highly discourage it.

"Negative traffic" works too, but it is not in the Pilot/Controller glossary.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have a bad habit to go break now.

 

[nosehair]

There's a weird tendency by some controllers to "leave VFR traffic alone" sometimes, although all of us would happily comply if told to descend.

Excellent write-up, over-all, except for this part.

I guess it's "old school", but I don't like controllers telling me when to descend or anything, except when I am IFR.

When VFR, I like seeing some geographical point, or electronic means of seeing distance and azimuth, before descending. Then there may be clouds to consider maneuvering through, so it is always my decision, and I hate having to descend or turn because some airliner may be within 5 miles of me.

So, all of us do not "happily comply", when VFR. Some controllers also do not like 'bothering' us.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess it's "old school", but I don't like controllers telling me when to descend or anything, except when I am IFR.

When VFR, I like seeing some geographical point, or electronic means of seeing distance and azimuth, before descending. Then there may be clouds to consider maneuvering through, so it is always my decision, and I hate having to descend or turn because some airliner may be within 5 miles of me.

I understand your concerns, but in B-space, you just don't have a choice on that -- the FAA has given us a "like it or lump it" situation. As for the clouds, if what the controller is telling you to do while VFR in B-space will put you in a cloud, you are not only allowed, but in fact obligated to tell the controller ASAP that so a "clear of clouds" alternative can be devised. The only alternative to all that is to stay out of B-space, which is what quite a few pilots choose to do.

 

[denverpilot]

Agreed. Once you've decided to go bombing into a Bravo and you've accepted a clearance, you play by their rules.

I'll certainly be forward and ask for something that's better for me if I need it, but a command to turn or change altitude in a Bravo is compulsory because there's probably a large fast aluminum tube full of other people headed your way.

It helps to remember that if a controller screws up separation three times in their entire career, there's a good chance that you'll get them fired. Not a nice way to behave in "their" airspace.