ATC of Near-Miss over BOS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Was the Dash-8 instructed to maintain visual separation after reporting the
C172?

Yes, if I remember correctly, they were given that instruction.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're both
IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.

Problem? Good idea?

Personally, I use this sometimes. However, lately I will also call IFR
traffic before ATC does (assuming VMC) if I strongly suspect that the other
IFR aircraft (normally jet traffic) is the reason for my delaying vectors.
This results in a more timely "maintain visual separation, cleared direct
to..."

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"john smith" wrote in message
The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he was cleared
higher?

The AA was probably watching his TCAS. That's the only way he would have
known what the separation was at 00:18 in the dark!
After the AA made this known on frequency, the Lear driver made the wise
crack about missing by 1000.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Yes, if I remember correctly, they were given that instruction.


What altitude was the Dash-8 assigned after it was instructed to maintain
visual separation with the C172?

"john smith" wrote in message
.. .

The AA was probably watching his TCAS. That's the only way he would have
known what the separation was at 00:18 in the dark!


No doubt, but was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he
was cleared higher?



After the AA made this known on frequency, the Lear driver made the wise
crack about missing by 1000.


How is that cracking wise?

It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation?

No. Although you can still have a near miss if one of the pilots felt
the other got too close.

If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other in
view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a near
miss?


i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

None whatsoever.

That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably sure I'll *keep*
site of the traffic.

- Andrew

That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably
sure I'll *keep* site of the traffic.

Same here... as soon as I catch sight of the traffic, and call it out
to ATC, it just becomes part of my regular scan between instruments and
outside. I also try to remember to continue to scan for other
unexpected traffic, but definitely keep checking back at least every
few seconds so I don't lose sight of the plane.

I'm relieved that the consensus seems to be that calling out traffic
eliminates the IFR separation, because that's the way I've thought it
works for a while now (I think my instructor explicitly told me so a
couple of years ago tho). Case in point as to why this is a good thing:
I was flying for a night checkout at a flying club I recently joined,
and while transiting near a Class D airport (Westchester County, NY),
ATC called out traffic 9 o'clock descending from 4000 to 3000. I was at
2500, VFR flight following. Since I was in the way, ATC couldn't clear
the guy down for approach into Westchester, but I knew that as soon as
I called the traffic out that he'd be able to clear him down. I
couldn't get a word in edgewise, and by the time I could, he was
already passing overhead, so my call was "... traffic in sight no
factor", which was immediately followed by ATC call to the other plane
to descend pilot's discretion.

I think this is an important thing for pilots to understand, since some
may operate under the assumption that separation services will still be
provided even if they call out "traffic in sight". (Which they might be
- unless ATC says "maintain visual separation").

--
Guy

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:

If I remember correctly, the Learjet agreed to stay at 5000 ft even though
they called the other target in sight.

The lear was cleared to climb (while maintaining visual separation), and the
MD80 was told that the lear had visual and would be climbing through the
MD80's altitude. The MD80 was not told to maintain visual separation, but
it had reported the lear in sight.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

site

Yikes. Sight.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other
in
view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a
near
miss?


They both reported seeing the other, but only the LJ was instructed to
maintain visual separation. The MD80 pilot apparently felt the LJ came too
close.