Any traffic please advise

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:07:57 -0700, unicate wrote:
"Looking" is another one that is used frequently here at our Class D
airport. Why is that wrong? It indicates that the person heard the
advisory and is looking but doesn't yet see the traffic, it's clear,
concise, and brief. ?

I tend to hear more of "Looking, [but] no joy" in the Houston Class B
airspace...

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.
Jim

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised
by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if
I
saw the aircraft.


It's redundant. You wouldn't say "looking" if you'd spotted the traffic,
would you?

That's what I thought until I got spanked.
Jim

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...

"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was
chastised
by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know
if
I
saw the aircraft.


It's redundant. You wouldn't say "looking" if you'd spotted the traffic,
would you?

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...

That's what I thought until I got spanked.


You were right. The controller was out of line.

Jim Burns wrote:
"Looking, no joy" is what I usually say. A long time ago I was chastised by
a controller for just saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.
Jim




I say "5-8-Sierra looking" (simply to ack the controller's message), if
I don't already have the traffic. Once I have the traffic, or if I
already had it, I'll announce something like "5-8-Sierra has the Cessna
in sight" If I don't see it in a decent amount of time (relative to the
distance and vector specifics contained in the alert), I'll follow up
with "5-8-Sierra, negative contact".

The FAA controllers I most often fly with (NY & BOS Centers, BDL, PVD, &
Cape app/dep) seem to be fine with it all. They don't seem to like an
instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
response. The contract towers in delta space compare to the FAA folks.

They don't seem to like an
instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
response.



That's a pretty fine line, don'tcha think?

Newps wrote:


They don't seem to like an
instant "negative contact", and they really hate no response or a slow
response.



That's a pretty fine line, don'tcha think?

Possibly.

As for no and very slow response, if you're on the frequency, it means
you asked for advisories, flight following, or are on an IFR plan. I
don't see the problem with ATC expecting you to be listening to them and
prepared to respond promptly to a call. If you aren't going to pay
attention, perhaps you don't really want or need the services and should
simply squawk 1200.

B A R R Y wrote:

They don't seem to like an instant "negative contact",

How did you deduce this?

--
Peter

"Jim Burns" wrote:
A long time ago I was chastised by a controller for just
saying "looking", he specifically wanted to know if I
saw the aircraft.

If you saw the traffic you would have said "traffic in sight", not
"looking", and if you didn't reply at all, he wouldn't have known if you
even heard his traffic alert. So far, I haven't read any sensible
argument here for discontinuing the use of "looking" -- it's still the
shortest, most concise way to say "I heard you but I don't see it yet".
The controllers here seem to appreciate it and haveno problem with it.