ATC of Near-Miss over BOS

"Guy Elden Jr" wrote in message
ups.com...

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).


Reporting the traffic in sight does not eliminate standard IFR separation.
The assignment of visual separation eliminates the need for standard IFR
separation, the pilot must report the traffic in sight before visual
separation can be assigned.



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.


It appears to me if you're at 2500 MSL in the vicinity of HPN you're in
Class E airspace and no separation would be provided by ATC.

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...
Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.

I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
arguement nicely.

http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/k...r_miss_156.mp3

Marco Leon



Not a near miss. A clear-cut legal use of visual separation.

Chip, ZTL

Warren Jones wrote:

Not a near miss.Â*Â*AÂ*clear-cutÂ*legalÂ*useÂ*ofÂ*visualÂ*separation.

How could "near miss" be defined in this case, with one (or both, out of
curiosity) aircraft instructed to maintain visual separation?

- Andrew

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

How could "near miss" be defined in this case, with one (or both, out of
curiosity) aircraft instructed to maintain visual separation?


"Near miss" is not defined, the proper term is Near Midair Collision. A
Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more aircraft
in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is involved."

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
A
Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more aircraft
in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is involved."

In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a potential
hazard to safety.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:79uQe.2271$LK.187@trndny09...

In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a
potential hazard to safety.


Yup. Standard IFR separation can exist and if a pilot perceives a potential
hazard to safety we have an NMAC.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:79uQe.2271$LK.187@trndny09...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
A Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more
aircraft in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is
involved."

In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a
potential hazard to safety.

George Patterson

Actually, what we have is a a report of a NMAC. During the subsequent
investigation, the MD80 pilot's perception of the potential hazard to
safety, based apparently on his TCAS interpretation of the event, will
probably not correlate with the voice and radar tapes, nor with the witness
reports from ATC and the Learjet crew. The AAL was heading 150 at 6000.
The Learjet was launching out of BOS on a 070 heading climbing to 5000.
Visual contact was aquired between the Lear and the MD80. The controller
used correct phraseology to provide for visual separation. The MD80 driver
starts an on-air ****ing contest with the Lear driver. "That's bogus. You
were 300 feet below us." How does he know the Lear was 300 feet below him?
TCAS. And why does it matter? The Learjet was the maneuvering aircraft,
and climbing visually through the MD80. The vertical distance between
aircraft is irrelevent to flight safety in this event. A risk of collision
did not actually exist.

In my view, this situation will not be elevated into an NMAC incident
because it does not meet the definition of anything other than a "No
Hazzard" event. The MD80 did not have to maneuver to avoid the Learjet.
Even if he had maneuvered, he couldn't have hit the Learjet with a
sidewinder. The Learjet was maneuvering on a visual separation climb
clearance under positive ATC control. The weather was VFR. The Bankair was
turned behind the AAL before the visual sep clearance was issued. Doesn't
sound hazardous except maybe to the TCAS on the MD80. A risk of collision
did not actually exist.

More than likely, this event at BOS will not be classified as an NMAC
incident, but rather as a non-hazardous event.

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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?

Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
more questions?

--
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 =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
more questions?


I was trying to fill in the holes in your story.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
more questions?


I was trying to fill in the holes in your story.

So you had no point?

--
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 =----