Any traffic please advise

Have to agree that "looking" in response to a traffic call is reasonable.
Saying "roger" makes it unclear as to whether you actually have the traffic
in sight.

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:
Many people parrot what they hear without a thought about its usefulness or
suitability, "with you," "checking in," "looking," etc, for example. Once
stuff like this gets loose in the pilot community, it's harder to get rid of
than cockroaches.

I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
"contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive. No
response while I look is also counterproductive, because the controller
has no idea whether I heard the traffic call or not. Responding with
"looking" acknowledges the transmission and tells the controller than I
don't have the traffic but I'm not blowing it off. After I've had a
chance to actually scan for the traffic, I will respond with either
"negative contact" or "traffic in sight."



JKG

Jose wrote:
It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.

You should be listening on the frequency for long enough that such
students have made several such turns before you are close enough for
that to matter. Make your own position report. That should be enough
of a prompt for pilots in the area to respond if warranted.

That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
as 10 miles out. In my plane I'm usually approaching at 170 knots
ground speed. Not much time to wait for the next transmission. If the
freq is busy I agree with you, however, if the freq is dead it can be
helpful.

-Robert

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...

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT, Kris Kortokrax
The next thing the Feds need to make verboten is folks who
fire up and broadcast over CTAF that they're going to taxi
from their parking spot over to the active runway (what possible
purpose could that information / transmission serve?).

At some airports failing to call up before taxiing out of parking
results in two airplane facing nose to nose with engines running and
one having to shut down and push back. Not all airports have good
visibility and wide taxiways. Its happened at my home field quiet
often. Pilots have to coordinate the use of the taxiway before pulling
out around a blind hill.

-Robert

Unfortunately, taxi calls do clog the frequency both on the ground an in
the air, and are usually unnecessary in my opinion.

i think that's the answer in all of this. Pilots need to be smart
enough and adjust their level of verbosity based on the amount of
traffic on the frequency. Sometimes when the freq is really dead its
good to hear someone say something just to know you have the radio
dialed in and receiving correctly.

-Robert

Dan Luke wrote:

That's great, but the ones clueless enough to say it are that way because of
chronic inability to ever FIND a clue.

Or change what they're currently doing...

Robert M. Gary wrote:
It can be very useful when the freq is quiet. Often times you'll find
that if students are in the pattern they only talk when turning. If a
student pilot is on downwind, if you don't ask, you probably won't hear
him on the radio until he's turning base, possibly in front of you.

Did you make a position report entering the airport environment, for
instance as you entered the 45?

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
I agree, except for "looking." When ATC calls traffic, you have three
choices in my experience: Negative contact, traffic in sight (not
"contact"), or looking. If ATC calls traffic, responding with "negative
contact" before I have a chance to look is counterproductive.

I disagree with that analysis. "Negative contact" tells ATC that a) you
heard their radio transmission, and b) that you don't have the traffic in
sight. The exact same thing that "looking" tells them, except that it's the
official phrase. There's nothing about "negative contact" that implies
"I've been looking for awhile and haven't seen anything". It just means you
don't see the traffic at this point in time. Furthermore, there IS the
possibility that you already have the traffic in sight. If you're doing
your job as a pilot, there's a GOOD possibility you already have the traffic
in sight. So it's not a given that you're going to respond with either
"looking" or "negative contact". You may well tell them "traffic in sight".

Now, all that said, I use "looking" all the time. It's briefer than
"negative contact", and ATC knows what I mean. They aren't going to confuse
that with something else. So I'm not saying that one shouldn't use
"looking". I'm just saying that the justification you gave doesn't actually
provide a logical conclusion in favor of it.

Pete

That's hard for IFR pilots who often get dumped onto airports as close
as 10 miles out.

Just announce your position. "Please advise" aftwerwards (or instead)
is useless.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.