Tally & Contact

MachFly

MachFly

En-Route
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,514
Display Name
Display name:
MachFly
What's the difference between Tally and Contact when reporting traffic in sight on the radio? I know tally means you have visual. Does contact mean the same thing or does it mean that you have him on radar (TCAS, TIS, & ADS-B )?

It seems that contact get's misused very often. I tried googling for for but some sources say actual visual and some say radar. Since it's not normal terminology I could not find anything that officially defines it. Is there an official dictionary published by USAF or USAAF where I'd be able to find it?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I always thought it was "tally-ho" or "negative contact". Never hear of just "tally" or just "contact" though of course none are not FAA terms, except for "negative contact", which is in the AIM.
 
Although the slang equivalent of "negative contact" is normally "no joy."
 
The standard in the JANAP military pubs is "Tally-ho" when you see the target, and "No Joy" if you don't. Most military pilots shorten "Tally-ho" to just "Tally," which is why that's what you're hearing. Generations of pilots and controllers who learned and used those terms in the military before they became involved in civilian flying have infused their use in civilian pilots, and ensured their understanding by controllers with no military experience. The reality is that if you use those shorter military terms (instead of the FAA's "traffic in sight" and "negative contact"), the controller will understand even though they're not in the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary. In addition, you will not fail a practical test for using them instead of the FAA terms.

"Contact" is not to my knowledge used to signify visual sighting in any civilian or military pub. The opposite of "negative contact" in the FAA books is "traffic in sight," not "contact." I suppose that's because it doesn't take much of a hiccup in AM voice comm to turn "negative contact" into "contact" -- the two official FAA terms are so different as to be incapable of confusion. In addition, "traffic not in sight" is not in the books, probably for the same reason.

Also, the military has terminology for signifying the "tally" is radar only without visual acquisition -- "radar tally, no visual," followed by "visual" when the target is seen by eyeball. I'm not sure how many controllers without military experience will understand that particular usage but I'm unaware of anything in the P/CG to communicate that information and distinction. For some time, airline pilots were talking about seeing traffic "on the fish-finder" to signify TCAS acquisition without visual acquisition, but that usage seems to have faded (Gott sei dank').
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
What's the difference between Tally and Contact when reporting traffic in sight on the radio? I know tally means you have visual. Does contact mean the same thing or does it mean that you have him on radar (TCAS, TIS, & ADS-B )?

It seems that contact get's misused very often. I tried googling for for but some sources say actual visual and some say radar. Since it's not normal terminology I could not find anything that officially defines it. Is there an official dictionary published by USAF or USAAF where I'd be able to find it?

Thanks
Click to expand...

There are only two proper responses: "Contact" and "Negative contact," and they are to be used for visual contact only. Read the Contact entry in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Forget about Tally-ho...it is pretentious at best.

What do you care about what USAF pilots say? You are a civil pilot, right? The military are flying "public aircraft" and are not subject to the same rules as those of us who fly civil aircraft. Your references should be the AIM and Advisory Circular 90-42F.

Bob Gardner
 
Ron Levy said:
The standard in the JANAP military pubs is "Tally-ho" when you see the target, and "No Joy" if you don't. Most military pilots shorten "Tally-ho" to just "Tally," which is why that's what you're hearing. Generations of pilots and controllers who learned and used those terms in the military before they became involved in civilian flying have infused their use in civilian pilots, and ensured their understanding by controllers with no military experience. The reality is that if you use those shorter military terms (instead of the FAA's "traffic in sight" and "negative contact"), the controller will understand even though they're not in the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary. In addition, you will not fail a practical test for using them instead of the FAA terms.

"Contact" is not to my knowledge used to signify visual sighting in any civilian or military pub. The opposite of "negative contact" in the FAA books is "traffic in sight," not "contact." I suppose that's because it doesn't take much of a hiccup in AM voice comm to turn "negative contact" into "contact" -- the two official FAA terms are so different as to be incapable of confusion. In addition, "traffic not in sight" is not in the books, probably for the same reason.

Also, the military has terminology for signifying the "tally" is radar only without visual acquisition -- "radar tally, no visual," followed by "visual" when the target is seen by eyeball. I'm not sure how many controllers without military experience will understand that particular usage but I'm unaware of anything in the P/CG to communicate that information and distinction. For some time, airline pilots were talking about seeing traffic "on the fish-finder" to signify TCAS acquisition without visual acquisition, but that usage seems to have faded (Gott sei dank').
Click to expand...

How about the P/CG, Cap'n?

Bob Gardner
 
i use 'negative contact' or 'traffic in sight'
 
Ron Levy said:
The reality is that if you use those shorter military terms (instead of the FAA's "traffic in sight" and "negative contact"), the controller will understand even though they're not in the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I used to think this was true, Ron, but there are definitely controllers at civilian ATC facilities (KFNT for one, and at least one at DTW Approach) that will have no idea what you are talking about if you say "tally". Personally, I prefer the military style replies because they're shorter and I learned them from my primary training CFI when I was a student pilot at 76G, which is under Selfridge Approach's airspace so I guess there's a nostalgia element there for me. But after being asked to "say again" and "I don't understand that reply" a few times, I've stopped using them except when talking to Selfridge. (I guess I'd use them up at Alpena too, but I rarely pass through their airspace because of the MOAs between here and there.) It just isn't worth the extra hassle and wasted bandwidth.
 
I use "traffic in sight" or "searching". I like standardization so I'll start using "negative contact". I would have had no idea what tally-ho or no-joy meant until I read it on the web (although when my brain is functioning well I can figure most things out)
Slang is only fun when people know what you mean...
 
bobmrg said:
There are only two proper responses: "Contact" and "Negative contact,"
Click to expand...

Bob, I am not arguing about what is or is not called out in FAA pubs.
As a communications professional, who has had to define standard terminology for law enforcement, fire, and EMS public safety radio organizations, this runs counter to all norms in life-safety communications.

You do not want duplicate words in the positive and negative responses to the same question. "Contact" and "Negative Contact" can easily be misunderstood, especially if part of the communications is blocked or cut off.
"Negative Contact" could be heard as "Contact" is the first word is missed, causing the controller to cease managing separation. Neither the pilot or controller would realize there was a miscommunicaton until something significant occurs.

A public safety example of this was choosing not to use "emergent" and "non-emergent" for methods of responding to calls. We use "Routine" or "emergent" so that they cannot be confused.

Standard or not, I will continue to use "Traffic in Sight" or "Negative Contact", due to the lack of common words (or even similar sounding words) in the two responses.
 
bobmrg said:
How about the P/CG, Cap'n?

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

The two responses listed in the PCG as a response to a TRAFFIC ADVISORY are TRAFFIC IN SIGHT and NEGATIVE CONTACT. CONTACT is NOT listed probably for the reasons Ron mentioned.
 
IMO you need to be proficient in the Overhead Break to use terminology like 'Tally Ho'
 
Thanks for clarifying



bobmrg said:
What do you care about what USAF pilots say? You are a civil pilot, right? The military are flying "public aircraft" and are not subject to the same rules as those of us who fly civil aircraft. Your references should be the AIM and Advisory Circular 90-42F.
Click to expand...

I've done some of my initial training with air force pilots and in air force "aircraft" (class D sim), also I'll be signing the contact as soon as I get my degree. So yes, for now I fly as a civilian but this is going to change soon and I might as well try to do a smooth transition than wake up one morning and have everything change.

Another thing is when you fly around military bases taking to military controllers I think it might be better to use terminology that the controllers and pilots in the area are most accustomed to. (not really sure about this one)

And finally it's best to make transmissions as short as possible as long as they are still easy to understand.
 
maddog52 said:
The two responses listed in the PCG as a response to a TRAFFIC ADVISORY are TRAFFIC IN SIGHT and NEGATIVE CONTACT. CONTACT is NOT listed probably for the reasons Ron mentioned.
Click to expand...

You're right, and I apologize to you and Ron. There is an entry for CONTACT but it has nothing to do with communications.

Bob
 
Fearless Tower said:
IMO you need to be proficient in the Overhead Break to use terminology like 'Tally Ho'
Click to expand...

That's actually a very good maneuver, even for civilian aircraft. Chance are as a civilian you wont be going as fast but it still works great when you want to loose a significant amount of altitude and don't want to start your descend early (ex: if there are mountains in the area).
 
MachFly said:
That's actually a very good maneuver, even for civilian aircraft. Chance are as a civilian you wont be going as fast but it still works great when you want to loose a significant amount of altitude and don't want to start your descend early (ex: if there are mountains in the area).
Click to expand...

Reference to the overhead break and nomex flightsuits is an inside joke referring to prior contentious threads about the pseudo-military crowd.

If you fly an RV, you are btw. exempt from using the P/C glossary. It's a regulation, somewhere, I swear. :stirpot:
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Me too, and nothing else (except "looking for traffic")
Click to expand...

It is generally advised to use "negative contact" instead of "looking for traffic". "Looking" communicates an active (ongoing) search for the traffic. The controller may wait for a return call or assume that the act of looking is ongoing. "Negative contact", on the other hand, makes a statement to the controller that he can not rely on you for separation nor should he have any expectation that he may soon be able to.
 
jason said:
It is generally advised to use "negative contact" instead of "looking for traffic". "Looking" communicates an active (ongoing) search for the traffic. The controller may wait for a return call or assume that the act of looking is ongoing. "Negative contact", on the other hand, makes a statement to the controller that he can not rely on you for separation nor should he have any expectation that he may soon be able to.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I like to get flight following every flight so I will try to remember to use this next time.
 
MachFly said:
That's actually a very good maneuver, even for civilian aircraft. Chance are as a civilian you wont be going as fast but it still works great when you want to loose a significant amount of altitude and don't want to start your descend early (ex: if there are mountains in the area).
Click to expand...
It was a joke.....I'm guessing you missed the multiple threads we've had recently discussing the OB.

Edit....just saw your join date....I think the OB debate happened back in September.
 
MachFly said:
Another thing is when you fly around military bases taking to military controllers I think it might be better to use terminology that the controllers and pilots in the area are most accustomed to. (not really sure about this one)
Click to expand...
If you deal with Luke or Yuma approach alot, then yes they will probably understand you better.
 
MachFly said:
That's actually a very good maneuver, even for civilian aircraft. Chance are as a civilian you wont be going as fast but it still works great when you want to loose a significant amount of altitude and don't want to start your descend early (ex: if there are mountains in the area).
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
It was a joke.....I'm guessing you missed the multiple threads we've had recently discussing the OB.

Edit....just saw your join date....I think the OB debate happened back in September.
Click to expand...

Yup... he'll have to read this thread to catch up on all the Overhead Break jokes...

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43567&highlight=overhead+break
 
Yeah that was before I got here, will take a look.
 
bobmrg said:
There are only two proper responses: "Contact" and "Negative contact,"
Click to expand...
BTW, for the actual meaning of "Contact," from the P/CG:
CONTACT-
a. Establish communication with (followed by the name of the facility and, if appropriate, the frequency to be used).
b. A flight condition wherein the pilot ascertains the attitude of his/her aircraft and navigates by visual reference to the surface.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
IMO you need to be proficient in the Overhead Break to use terminology like 'Tally Ho'
Click to expand...
Well, I am...
Jeanie said:
~~~~~. And preferably only if you look good in a nomex flight suit
Click to expand...
...and my wife says I do, along with the 20th Tactitcal Fighter Wing Officers Wives Club who, Fran told me, voted me the winner in the "Best Buns in a Flight Suit" contest in 1985.:D

Of course, that was 26 years and about 15 lb ago...
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Would you happen to have a copy of that that you can upload? I haven't had much luck finding it online.
Click to expand...
Nope. Haven't seen one since 1988, can't remember which JANAP pub it was, and IIRC, some of it was classified (or at least FOUO). Those terms were in there along with things like bogey, bandit, buster, gate, bingo, joker, weapons tight/free, parrot, strangle parrot, etc.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Nope. Haven't seen one since 1988, can't remember which JANAP pub it was, and IIRC, some of it was classified (or at least FOUO). Those terms were in there along with things like bogey, bandit, buster, gate, bingo, joker, weapons tight/free, parrot, strangle parrot, etc.
Click to expand...

I see

That was probably the reason I could not find it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nope. Haven't seen one since 1988, can't remember which JANAP pub it was, and IIRC, some of it was classified (or at least FOUO).
Click to expand...
Is it JANAP or ACP?

It's been a couple years since I've been in CIC, but I seem to recall the pro-words are in the ACP and the pub is indeed class, Conf, I believe.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Is it JANAP or ACP?

It's been a couple years since I've been in CIC, but I seem to recall the pro-words are in the ACP and the pub is indeed class, Conf, I believe.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so. Like I said -- it's been several decades, and I wasn't really paying attention to the title of the book from which they were teaching us, just the words they wanted us to use.
 
Generally I'll take a quick 5 or so second look for traffic, then call "negative contact" if I can't find it. Then I keep looking, and report "5SP has the traffic" when I do eventually get it.
 
I require a tophat and monocle before I can say "Tally ho"

seeing as how I fly with neither of these thing I normally just say "Got 'em" or "In sight"
 
bobmrg said:
There are only two proper responses: "Contact" and "Negative contact," and they are to be used for visual contact only. Read the Contact entry in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Forget about Tally-ho...it is pretentious at best.
Click to expand...
Sorry Bob, but I respectfully disagree. Ron had it right. The Civilian way is "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT" and "NEGATIVE CONTACT."
 
MachFly said:
Thanks for clarifying





I've done some of my initial training with air force pilots and in air force "aircraft" (class D sim), also I'll be signing the contact as soon as I get my degree. So yes, for now I fly as a civilian but this is going to change soon and I might as well try to do a smooth transition than wake up one morning and have everything change.

Another thing is when you fly around military bases taking to military controllers I think it might be better to use terminology that the controllers and pilots in the area are most accustomed to. (not really sure about this one)

And finally it's best to make transmissions as short as possible as long as they are still easy to understand.
Click to expand...
Air Force air traffic controllers use the phraseology in JO7110.65 which includes the same Pilot/Controller Glossary that is in the AIM.
 
kkoran said:
Air Force air traffic controllers use the phraseology in JO7110.65 which includes the same Pilot/Controller Glossary that is in the AIM.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of military air controllers besides those providing ATC services in the USA, and they use a lot of terminology not in those two pubs.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are a lot of military air controllers besides those providing ATC services in the USA, and they use a lot of terminology not in those two pubs.
Click to expand...
True, but as far as I can tell, the discussion has been about use in the ATC environment, not communications with weapons controllers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top