Strange experience with Lansing Approach

[jpower]

Hey all! I had an interesting experience with ATC and was hoping ATC types and pilots who fly in this area more often than I do might be able to shed some light on the situation.

First the backstory. I went flying in a group of five planes on Sunday from Ann Arbor ARB to Coldwater OEB for lunch. On the way there, all five of us got flight following first with Detroit on 118.95, then Lansing on 127.3 (I think). Another pilot and I got set up with Ground before we took off, but I don't think that made any difference. Interestingly, Lansing said that Kalamazoo couldn't provide flight following all the way to Coldwater because of the ATC fire in Chicago. Presumably they had controllers from Kalamazoo working Chicago sectors, but side note, not sure how that works? Don't controllers get trained and certified on each sector they work? But yeah, the controllers were great and told us all to have good lunches, etc etc. Good times.

Because Kalamazoo couldn't provide continued flight following, Lansing cut us loose around the Litchfield VOR LFD, so on the way back, the first few planes called up for flight following with Lansing on the same frequency that we left off on. I was the last of the five planes up, and as I neared LFD I got on with Lansing Approach looking for flight following, I heard the controller scold the first pilot of our group for calling him instead of Toledo, because apparently that's Toledo's sector? Then I called up and asked for flight following, no response. Called again, no response. Okay, strange, called up Jackson Tower to see if he could give me a frequency for flight following, and he told me to check with Lansing on the frequency I was using. I mentioned that the controller had told one of our group to contact Toledo, and tower said that Lansing should be the right frequency and that he had no idea why Toledo would be the right facility. Also that meant that I knew it wasn't a radio issue, so I was being selectively ignored....

Sooo I'm still listening to the Lansing frequency for situational awareness, and good thing I was, because I heard him give a traffic alert to one of the planes of our party. I knew immediately he was talking about me, so I took a closer look around, got the traffic in sight, called him up, and said "Lansing, this is N12345, I'm the traffic you called for N54321, have him in sight." No response. A little later he gave the other guy an updated position report on me as I was passing him to the right (I deviated to the south to pass him, because I was in a fairly fast 172 and he was in a 152). I tried another time or two to raise Lansing as I was passing, but still nothing.

Back on the ground in Ann Arbor, I checked with the other pilots from our group, and they all heard me trying to get flight following and checking in after the traffic alert. So I was definitely being ignored, which I just wanted to rant about. Sure, fine, don't provide flight following, but can you be courteous and say "unable?" At least then I know I'm not having radio issues, which I was worried about until I called Jackson. And ESPECIALLY when I'm part of a traffic alert. It turned out fine, but I would really have liked to be able to talk with them to sort through it.

I was also curious about the Toledo vs. Lansing issue. Any ATCers out there know what might have been up? I've used Lansing going through there before, and Jackson Tower suggested Lansing, but Lansing was entirely convinced that we were going through Toledo's airspace...even though it was Lansing's on the way out?

Thanks!

 

[flyingron]

The best bet is to call the Supervisor/QA person for the facility on the next business day after the event (or as soon as practical) with the date/time and frequency it occurred at and ask them to look into it.

 

[MichiPilot]

I've used TOL and LAN approach often and have never had an issue with either...both seem relatively dead lately.

Though I don't think you getting on the radio an announcing yourself as someone else's traffic is a very good idea.

 

[eetrojan]

Though I don't think you getting on the radio an announcing yourself as someone else's traffic is a very good idea.

Can you explain why?

 

[jxdrl]

Hey all! I had an interesting experience with ATC and was hoping ATC types and pilots who fly in this area more often than I do might be able to shed some light on the situation.

First the backstory. I went flying in a group of five planes on Sunday from Ann Arbor ARB to Coldwater OEB for lunch. On the way there, all five of us got flight following first with Detroit on 118.95, then Lansing on 127.3 (I think). Another pilot and I got set up with Ground before we took off, but I don't think that made any difference. Interestingly, Lansing said that Kalamazoo couldn't provide flight following all the way to Coldwater because of the ATC fire in Chicago. Presumably they had controllers from Kalamazoo working Chicago sectors, but side note, not sure how that works? Don't controllers get trained and certified on each sector they work? But yeah, the controllers were great and told us all to have good lunches, etc etc. Good times.

Because Kalamazoo couldn't provide continued flight following, Lansing cut us loose around the Litchfield VOR LFD, so on the way back, the first few planes called up for flight following with Lansing on the same frequency that we left off on. I was the last of the five planes up, and as I neared LFD I got on with Lansing Approach looking for flight following, I heard the controller scold the first pilot of our group for calling him instead of Toledo, because apparently that's Toledo's sector? Then I called up and asked for flight following, no response. Called again, no response. Okay, strange, called up Jackson Tower to see if he could give me a frequency for flight following, and he told me to check with Lansing on the frequency I was using. I mentioned that the controller had told one of our group to contact Toledo, and tower said that Lansing should be the right frequency and that he had no idea why Toledo would be the right facility. Also that meant that I knew it wasn't a radio issue, so I was being selectively ignored....

Sooo I'm still listening to the Lansing frequency for situational awareness, and good thing I was, because I heard him give a traffic alert to one of the planes of our party. I knew immediately he was talking about me, so I took a closer look around, got the traffic in sight, called him up, and said "Lansing, this is N12345, I'm the traffic you called for N54321, have him in sight." No response. A little later he gave the other guy an updated position report on me as I was passing him to the right (I deviated to the south to pass him, because I was in a fairly fast 172 and he was in a 152). I tried another time or two to raise Lansing as I was passing, but still nothing.

Back on the ground in Ann Arbor, I checked with the other pilots from our group, and they all heard me trying to get flight following and checking in after the traffic alert. So I was definitely being ignored, which I just wanted to rant about. Sure, fine, don't provide flight following, but can you be courteous and say "unable?" At least then I know I'm not having radio issues, which I was worried about until I called Jackson. And ESPECIALLY when I'm part of a traffic alert. It turned out fine, but I would really have liked to be able to talk with them to sort through it.

I was also curious about the Toledo vs. Lansing issue. Any ATCers out there know what might have been up? I've used Lansing going through there before, and Jackson Tower suggested Lansing, but Lansing was entirely convinced that we were going through Toledo's airspace...even though it was Lansing's on the way out?

Thanks!

I learned to fly out of JXN and still live in the area. 127.3 is the freq for LAN. There's also 118.65 IIRC but that would cut out right around the area you're in. I know this from an IFR flight and missed/forgotten freq change. I quickly switched to 127.3 when I didnt get my turn to final.

Also, Litchfield is definitely controlled by LAN as we never talked to Toledo doing any local approaches and it's in the opposite direction.

Kalamazoo has denied the transfer for me before too.

Was it the same radio you used to call JXN you were using to try LAN?

 

[MichiPilot]

Can you explain why?

In a controlled environment, as an aircraft that is not in radar contact, I feel that you may think you are someone's traffic when you aren't.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Can you explain why?

Why: What if you're wrong? What if there's another aircraft you hadn't spotted that you assume is your aircraft? Also, taking up airwaves to respond to a call that wasn't directed at you.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Could things have been simplified if only the lead plane in the group called in for flight following?

 

[frfly172]

With Chicago at limited service,the surrounding facilities have to take up the slack. Calling the controller ,when not under their control just makes things more difficult for everyone. Why not fly as a group of whatever and let one aircraft do the comma?

 

[MyassisDragon]

I would call the supervisor and ask the question directly. (let us know the outcome if you do)

But I do know on Saturday I went from KGRR to KYIP (willow run) and got Lansing on a FF ( hand off from GRR) and was dropped about 35 miles from YIP, normally it is 15miles. So maybe they were working a smaller area due to the workload or kalamazoo/ chicago issue. But like always the lansing controller was very friendly and accommodating.

Just a thought I would not rule out the radio issue, especially if you were 40+ miles from Lansing. I know depending on the plane and what radio I am using (antenna on top vs 2nd comm on bottom) I cannot get a good signal that far out but every one else can hear me. Sometimes in the Tiger I have to keep the antenna cleaned from lead build up from exhaust other wise it diminishes my comm distance quite a bit

I have also noticed better reception heading in one direction vs the other depending on antenna placement on the plane, wings or fuselage seem to get in the way or the gremlins only like traveling away from the sun..

 

[eetrojan]

Why: What if you're wrong? What if there's another aircraft you hadn't spotted that you assume is your aircraft? Also, taking up airwaves to respond to a call that wasn't directed at you.

Maybe it's counterproductive to monitor approach without actual flight following, and then reply out of the blue if you believe you're being identified as traffic, but...

The OP had been actively trying to establish flight following, but received no replies because of a comms issue or because he was being ignored. And, while that was happening, he believed he was being called out as traffic to somebody in his own group who had established services.

Shouldn't his interjection have persuaded the controller to give him a squawk code and identify him on the scope to get him involved in advisory services and confirm he was in fact the traffic?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Shouldn't his interjection have persuaded the controller to give him a squawk code and identify him on the scope to get him involved in advisory services and confirm he was in fact the traffic?

Nope. VFR radio services are make believe we'll play along if we aren't busy with the real stuff.
Semi flight of 5 all sort of flying together and all wanting separate but equal radio services is dumb and a pia. Make it a flight of five slow down to the lowest common cruise speed and soak in the mutual appreciation awesomeness. Or just meet at the destination. Do not call yourself out as traffic you don't know what you don't know.

 

[jpower]

Thanks for all of your replies! I'd be interested in calling Lansing, but I don't know where to find the phone number. Any ideas?

To clear up a few things:

1) I knew I was his traffic, because I could see the plane. It's one of our club's planes so I'm familiar with it, and we were close enough to get a traffic alert, sooo...it was pretty clear he was talking about me.

2) I know my radios were working because I called Jackson on the same radio as I was calling Lansing. Also I confirmed after the flight that those who were on with Lansing heard me trying to contact them for flight following.

3) Yeah, five airplanes all going the same place at once not in a flight of five probably isn't the best idea. Our slowest was a 152 and our fastest by far was an Arrow, though on the way back, the Arrow flew a right offset course. Definitely something for other planes to do in the future. Also, might be a better idea to let the faster planes take off first. Even though they'll be waiting longer at the destination, it simplifies things.

 

[MyassisDragon]

2) I know my radios were working because I called Jackson on the same radio as I was calling Lansing. Also I confirmed after the flight that those who were on with Lansing heard me trying to contact them for flight following.

Just playing the devils advocate here. When looking at the chart if you were traveling from LFD to ARB then you were consistently around 40-45 miles from Lansing and only 10-15 to Jackson depending on when you called and even closer to the planes in your group. So the probability of them hearing you is a lot greater than Lansing.

Going by personal experience, I know if I am out 45-50 miles in one of the planes I rent ATC cannot hear me at 3500ft or below. The radio is one of those budget TKM MX 170B drop in replacements for the King KX170. But if I switch to comm 2 which is a Bendix 170 and turn it to test then I can TX and Receive ATC (barely) . I have also confirmed this in another plane with a Garmin 430 when flying below 3000ft in the same locations. I have to get inside of that 40-45 mile range before thy can hear me without using an RCO.

Here is what I found......

After this happened in three different planes I looked up the operating range of VHF reception distance and found a formula. 1.23 multiplied by the square root of altitude minus 10% for unknown. This makes sense if I have a radio not operating perfectly or has a slightly weak transmit.
A good radio at 2500ft agl would be 1.23*sqrt2500*.90= 55miles.

So not to trying to be argumentative , or blindly sticking up for the controller but you could have been having transmit issues and they actually were not hearing your transmission.

 

[JoeSelch]

To clear up a few things:

1) I knew I was his traffic, because I could see the plane. It's one of our club's planes so I'm familiar with it, and we were close enough to get a traffic alert, sooo...it was pretty clear he was talking about me.

Just because you could see the plane ATC was talking to still does not mean that YOU were the traffic.

The alert may have been about another target ... Perhaps more likely to be on a conflicting path or an otherwise more imminent threat.

In this instance, it may have been a pretty good bet that it was you. But you don't know that and should not have inserted yourself into the dialog.
Kinda like the would-be do-gooders in the hypoxia thread...

 

[N801BH]

Could things have been simplified if only the lead plane in the group called in for flight following?

Agreed 100%..

One plane should establish contact and request FF for a flight of 5.... and the rest just monitor that freq......

 

[airdale]

Just because you could see the plane ATC was talking to still does not mean that YOU were the traffic.

The alert may have been about another target ... Perhaps more likely to be on a conflicting path or an otherwise more imminent threat.

In this instance, it may have been a pretty good bet that it was you. But you don't know that and should not have inserted yourself into the dialog.
Kinda like the would-be do-gooders in the hypoxia thread...

Usually I have flight following if I'm not IFR, but occasionally on a local flight -- maybe giving someone a quick ride -- I will just monitor Approach. In that situation I have a couple of times recognized myself as the traffic being called. "VFR traffic three o'clock, altitude indicates 2300, southeast bound" --- both the altitude and direction of flight is correct and I know roughly where the guy ATC is talking to is because he is being vectored for a practice approach. So it is almost certainly me.

In these cases, I call Approach just like the OP indicated and I also hit the IDENT button so that he knows who is checking in. "Bugsmasher N12345, I think we're your traffic and I just hit IDENT." Uniformly, the response from Approach has been "Thanks" with no undertone of irritation or unhappiness.

Out in the weeds, just listening to Center, I can't imagine that I would be able to know with any certainty that it was me being called. So I won't be checking in. In fact there are only a few Center sectors where I even remember the freq, so I'm seldom listening in anyway.

 

[Palmpilot]

Flight following is a privilege, not a right.

 

[kkoran]

Agreed 100%..

One plane should establish contact and request FF for a flight of 5.... and the rest just monitor that freq......

That might work if they were actually flying in a formation. Significantly dissimilar aircraft, lack of formation training, etc. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[N801BH]

That might work if they were actually flying in a formation. Significantly dissimilar aircraft, lack of formation training, etc. I wouldn't recommend it.

Define "formation"..

I have been involved with this set up over the years back in Fla... A group of 4-10 planes, all headed to River Ranch resort to get breakfast or Cedar Key for lunch or dinner...... Planes were 1-8 /1-4 mile in trail and center knew exactly who were were and what was happening..
No threat of a mid air among us and they NEVER denied the request of the talking / requesting plane for FF...

Altho that was years ago.. Times might have changed since then...

 

[ClimbnSink]

Been handled as a flight for ff purposes with 1-2 mile separation. No need for fancy flying, or stud cards.

 

[jxdrl]

Just playing the devils advocate here. When looking at the chart if you were traveling from LFD to ARB then you were consistently around 40-45 miles from Lansing and only 10-15 to Jackson depending on when you called and even closer to the planes in your group. So the probability of them hearing you is a lot greater than Lansing.

Going by personal experience, I know if I am out 45-50 miles in one of the planes I rent ATC cannot hear me at 3500ft or below. The radio is one of those budget TKM MX 170B drop in replacements for the King KX170. But if I switch to comm 2 which is a Bendix 170 and turn it to test then I can TX and Receive ATC (barely) . I have also confirmed this in another plane with a Garmin 430 when flying below 3000ft in the same locations. I have to get inside of that 40-45 mile range before thy can hear me without using an RCO.

Here is what I found......

After this happened in three different planes I looked up the operating range of VHF reception distance and found a formula. 1.23 multiplied by the square root of altitude minus 10% for unknown. This makes sense if I have a radio not operating perfectly or has a slightly weak transmit.
A good radio at 2500ft agl would be 1.23*sqrt2500*.90= 55miles.

So not to trying to be argumentative , or blindly sticking up for the controller but you could have been having transmit issues and they actually were not hearing your transmission.

If you're using 127.3, it goes through JXN. You can raise LAN on the ground after the JXN tower is closed on that frequency for clearance.

This is from memory so it may be foggy. I know in that area, transitioning from the north, you need to switch to 27.3 from 18.65 or you will be too far for comm if around 3k.

 

[WingNut42]

But I do know on Saturday I went from KGRR to KYIP (willow run) and got Lansing on a FF ( hand off from GRR) and was dropped about 35 miles from YIP, normally it is 15miles. So maybe they were working a smaller area due to the workload or kalamazoo/ chicago issue. But like always the lansing controller was very friendly and accommodating.

This is interesting as I was surprised how long Lansing hung on to me saturday heading up to Flint. Actually 9G2, I was less than 5 Miles from the Flint Chalie when they let me go. That said, it was my first time over there maybe that is normal now that I look at the chart.

I also don't know how much the MSU game affected their traffic Saturday. I didn't get a handoff east or west between Lansing and Kalamazoo, but that isn't unusual. Don't know if it's common or just me. As a general rule however, I would second the opinion that lansing tends be friendly, as does Kazoo for that matter.

 

[SoonerAviator]

1) I knew I was his traffic, because I could see the plane. It's one of our club's planes so I'm familiar with it, and we were close enough to get a traffic alert, sooo...it was pretty clear he was talking about me.

No, you ASSUMED that you were the traffic that was announced. It may be a solid assumption, but it is not yours to make. I would refrain from responding to transmissions directed to another tail number, even more-so when you hadn't been able to establish contact with the originator.

The only instance that comes to mind where you should be free to respond on the frequency is when help/assistance is requested. Ex: ATC calls out for any traffic near XXX to get a visual on an aircraft in distress, help relay radio comms, etc.

 

[airdale]

No, you ASSUMED that you were the traffic that was announced. It may be a solid assumption, but it is not yours to make. I would refrain from responding to transmissions directed to another tail number, even more-so when you hadn't been able to establish contact with the originator.

The only instance that comes to mind where you should be free to respond on the frequency is when help/assistance is requested. Ex: ATC calls out for any traffic near XXX to get a visual on an aircraft in distress, help relay radio comms, etc.

Interesting. Please post a link to the official rulebook where all of these constraints are documented. Certainly you are not just making them up.

 

[kkoran]

Define "formation"..

I have been involved with this set up over the years back in Fla... A group of 4-10 planes, all headed to River Ranch resort to get breakfast or Cedar Key for lunch or dinner...... Planes were 1-8 /1-4 mile in trail and center knew exactly who were were and what was happening..
No threat of a mid air among us and they NEVER denied the request of the talking / requesting plane for FF...

Altho that was years ago.. Times might have changed since then...

I don't need to; the FAA already has:

FORMATION FLIGHT- More than one aircraft which, by prior arrangement between the pilots, operate as a single aircraft with regard to navigation and position reporting. Separation between aircraft within the formation is the responsibility of the flight leader and the pilots of the other aircraft in the flight. This includes transition periods when aircraft within the formation are maneuvering to attain separation from each other to effect individual control and during join-up and breakaway.

a. A standard formation is one in which a proximity of no more than 1 mile laterally or longitudinally and within 100 feet vertically from the flight leader is maintained by each wingman.

b. Nonstandard formations are those operating under any of the following conditions:

1. When the flight leader has requested and ATC has approved other than standard formation dimensions.

2. When operating within an authorized altitude reservation (ALTRV) or under the provisions of a letter of agreement.

3. When the operations are conducted in airspace specifically designed for a special activity.

 

[azure]

In these cases, I call Approach just like the OP indicated and I also hit the IDENT button so that he knows who is checking in. "Bugsmasher N12345, I think we're your traffic and I just hit IDENT." Uniformly, the response from Approach has been "Thanks" with no undertone of irritation or unhappiness.

Umm... maybe, but hitting IDENT without being asked to do so is specifically frowned upon. They might not have been unhappy because they would have told you to do it anyway - but it's still a no-no (that one is in the AIM, but I don't have time ATTM to look up chapter and verse).

Announcing yourself as someone else's traffic... I'd like to hear from a controller about that. I think at worst it is probably just useless verbiage, since the controller knows that you can't know for sure whether you're the traffic he just called. But I can't think of an upside to it either. I will admit that I've done it, in the course of asking for flight following when out practicing maneuvers and I hadn't intended on getting FF. Once the controller has identified you he'll know whether you were that traffic and all you've done is bogged down the airwaves for a couple of extra seconds. A little like ATITAPA.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Interesting. Please post a link to the official rulebook where all of these constraints are documented. Certainly you are not just making them up.

Constraints? You want me to cite regs that tell you what not to do? The FAR book would be a hell of a lot thicker if they had to cite everything you weren't supposed to do. I am basing my comments off of logic. i.e. You can't possibly know if you are someone else's traffic with any certainty, so don't assume as such and clog up the airwaves with it. There's no reg to prevent you from doing so, but it shouldn't take a whole lot of thinking to see why it's not an advisable practice.

 

[petrolero]

Constraints? You want me to cite regs that tell you what not to do? The FAR book would be a hell of a lot thicker if they had to cite everything you weren't supposed to do. I am basing my comments off of logic. i.e. You can't possibly know if you are someone else's traffic with any certainty, so don't assume as such and clog up the airwaves with it. There's no reg to prevent you from doing so, but it shouldn't take a whole lot of thinking to see why it's not an advisable practice.

Baloney. It doesn't really matter if he knows for 100% sure that he was the traffic being called out. He was offering that he was a) on freq and b) believed he was the traffic in question and c) had the other plane in sight - all helpful things, all pertinent to the situation at hand, and absolutely not useless chatter clogging up the freq.

The next step, if he had been heard by ATC, would have been for ATC to just say "aircraft calling, ident" or issue a squawk and verify his position that way. But there is no harm whatsoever in calling up and initiating comm if you are on frequency, as long as you're not stepping on anyone else's transmissions - but that is true with any comm any time.

 

[jpower]

Yeah I stand by my decision to call them up when I saw the traffic. The controller told him I was at his three o'clock, 1/2 mile. Well, there I was, at his three o'clock, about 1/2 mile away. In a situation like this, even if I'm not the traffic the controller was calling, I still want to get on the radio because that means we have even more of a situation on our hands.

A similar situation actually happened during a night cross country during my training. We were going W29-SBY-OXB-W29, and another slower plane was just behind us flying the same route, though decided not to land at SBY and just overfly it. Just after we leveled off after climbing out from SBY, we saw another aircraft close by. We jumped back on with Patuxent Approach just as he gave the other plane a traffic alert. We said that we were the traffic and had him in sight, Approach thanked us and gave us a squawk code, and all was well.

Maybe some of the controllers here can comment?

 

[petrolero]

It would have been possible to test the comm with Lansing by asking one of the other aircraft in your party with a squawk/comm to ask about your signal via relay.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Though I don't think you getting on the radio an announcing yourself as someone else's traffic is a very good idea.

I don't think anyone is talking about "announcing themselves" as if it's a CTAF - At least that's not the way I read it.

I've done the following several times when monitoring an ATC freq but not talking to them:

ATC: "Bugsmasher 1234, traffic at <exactly where I am>, altitude indicates <my altitude>, type unknown."
N1234: "Negative contact, looking"
Me: "Podunk Approach, Mooney 5678, I think we're that traffic, level at 6500."
ATC: "Mooney 5678, squawk 4321, ident."
Me: "Squawk 4321 and ident, 5678."
ATC: "Mooney 5678, radar contact. Bugsmasher 1234, that traffic is a Mooney at 6500, has you in sight."
N1234: "Traffic in sight, 1234."

I'm not telling the other plane it's me, I'm simply calling the controller I was only monitoring before to let them know I'm listening, I have the traffic, and verify my altitude. Once I do that, the controller can let the other plane know what they're looking for and verify the altitude, and in every case I've done this, the other airplane spotted me.

In a controlled environment, as an aircraft that is not in radar contact, I feel that you may think you are someone's traffic when you aren't.

That's why you call ATC and not the other airplane - But I don't think the OP was talking about "announcing himself" to the other aircraft, I think he meant that he was trying to do what I did in the example above.

Why: What if you're wrong? What if there's another aircraft you hadn't spotted that you assume is your aircraft? Also, taking up airwaves to respond to a call that wasn't directed at you.

You're not able to be wrong because the controller is the one verifying it... And you let the other aircraft respond before you make your call, so the only thing you're "taking up airwaves" for is to check in and get a squawk, same as if you were just calling up cold for flight following.

Announcing yourself as someone else's traffic... I'd like to hear from a controller about that. I think at worst it is probably just useless verbiage, since the controller knows that you can't know for sure whether you're the traffic he just called. But I can't think of an upside to it either.

You can verify your altitude and provide your type to ATC so they can relay it to the other plane (who already knows it 'cuz he heard you). It also takes a bit of stress off the controller I'm sure, as they now know your plan and that they'll be able to call you if necessary.

 

[airdale]

... You can't possibly know if you are someone else's traffic with any certainty ...

We all make judgments base on our personal experience and capability. Consider this: Possibly some of us have better situational awareness than you do.

 

[SoonerAviator]

You're not able to be wrong because the controller is the one verifying it... And you let the other aircraft respond before you make your call, so the only thing you're "taking up airwaves" for is to check in and get a squawk, same as if you were just calling up cold for flight following.

Sure you can be wrong. What if you weren't the contact ATC was referring to? You go ahead and call out that you are the traffic and have "traffic in sight". Everyone assumes all is well. Unfortunately, there's another guy you didn't know about/didn't see who is now assumed to not be a factor by all parties. See what I'm getting at? You can absolutely be wrong. I have no problem with him calling up ATC and "checking in". Simply calling out to respond to an ATC transmission that wasn't directed at him, especially when he couldn't establish contact on FF to begin with isn't the best solution, imo. YMMV

We all make judgments base on our personal experience and capability. Consider this: Possibly some of us have better situational awareness than you do.

Don't make this a personal attack. Since there is zero way for us to reasonably debate how much "situational awareness" some have, it's a fruitless effort to even delve into. Don't stoop to that level. I do agree that we all make judgments based on our experiences. I'm not saying he was absolutely wrong and should be lambasted for doing so. I simply stated how I would have done it and supported it with logic as I saw it. There isn't any rule that says he can't do what he did, so there was no harm done. I just see it differently as to my understanding of the AIM and it's best practices for radio comms. Your interpretation may be different, and you are entitled to that interpretation. Consider that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sure you can be wrong. What if you weren't the contact ATC was referring to? You go ahead and call out that you are the traffic and have "traffic in sight". Everyone assumes all is well. Unfortunately, there's another guy you didn't know about/didn't see who is now assumed to not be a factor by all parties. See what I'm getting at? You can absolutely be wrong.

Yes, but if you are, ATC will know it and everyone will be informed.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Yes, but if you are, ATC will know it and everyone will be informed.

Awfully difficult when he didn't confirm established contact with ATC. He mentioned that his group could hear him, but he couldn't get a response from FF. At that point, you have made an open call that the other aircraft might have heard, but is no guarantee that ATC heard. For me, it's just a matter of responding to a call which was not directed at him, especially when not in contact with ATC/FF to begin with.

Maybe ATC heard him and decided he was the traffic, maybe they never heard any of his calls. My main point is that it seems like a dangerous practice for people to start responding to ATC calls not directed at their tail number, even more so when they aren't in established contact with ATC to begin with.

 

[azure]

You can verify your altitude and provide your type to ATC so they can relay it to the other plane (who already knows it 'cuz he heard you). It also takes a bit of stress off the controller I'm sure, as they now know your plan and that they'll be able to call you if necessary.

I agree. It's the "I think we're that traffic" part that I called "useless verbiage" because it conveys no information to the controller that he wouldn't have had anyway after you called him up, got a squawk code, and got radar identified.

But as I said before, I don't see any dire consequences from it either. It's not like giving a position report that's several miles off, or misleading the controller in some other way. Just an unnecessary second or two on the frequency, something I'm sure we all do from time to time.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I agree. It's the "I think we're that traffic" part that I called "useless verbiage" because it conveys no information to the controller that he wouldn't have had anyway after you called him up, got a squawk code, and got radar identified.

But as I said before, I don't see any dire consequences from it either. It's not like giving a position report that's several miles off, or misleading the controller in some other way. Just an unnecessary second or two on the frequency, something I'm sure we all do from time to time.

Agreed.