Riddle me this, pilots

i'd make both file a report with the ATC manager - I think FAR's say
something about how even though a rule had not been broken (or maybe it had)
if you have both N#'s you can just request them to file a report (or next
time)

Matthew


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

My question for the group is.....

I was taught long ago that when a controller uses the word "immediate",
compliance should be thus. I still believe that to be good policy. Too
bad
you couldn't nick the guy for disregarding.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

In article ,
Chip Jones wrote:

In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately."

Why did it get that far? If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see
the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting
for me to spot this plane?" If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?

Plus if two aircraft are 2 miles apart and you turn one 90 degrees,
by the time the turn is completed they will have both covered a mile.
My mental image of this is that you're turning a situation where the
two course lines would converge to a sharp point into a situation
where they would converge in a nice rounded corner.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...

Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?

Chip, ZTL

It reminds me of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where Jack Ryan has
to choose between steering the sub into the torpedo or away from the
torpedo. As such, I think the pilot feared a head on; a 70 degree turn is
about a mile in a cruising Baron. The Baron also guessed that he could
descend away from the climbing aircraft as reported - guessing (correctly
fortunately) that the interloper would not descend back out of the weather.
(a 400 ft altitude change following a 6 second turn should be considered
deliberate, imho.)

Based solely upon the vectors you listed, I also think the course he chose
(~20 left) put the aircraft closer to the destination instead of further
away, which may have also been a factor in his decision-making process.

Maybe a left 360 would have done the trick more comfortably for everyone? I
was recently "spun" in VMC about 3 miles from a VOR at 7000 in an SR22 with
no traffic reported -although I presumed that was the problem- which is what
made me think of it. It's puts the plane right back where it started, just
two minutes later.

While we hope never to be faced with an unverified target in IMC, please
make the suggestion that best resolves the conflict from your viewpoint.


--

Bob
PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...

The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of
the
group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here
in
Atlanta. Here's the deal.

I was working a Center departure sector mixing Atlanta terminal departures
of every ilk and kin with enroute overflight traffic north of metro
Atlanta.
The sector weather was typical summer MVFR down here- lots of convection,
hazy, hot, humid etc with building thunderstorms here and there impacting
the sector. I had received my briefing from the previous controller and
had
just assumed responsibility for the airspace. Part of my technique is to
do
one more quick traffic scan *after* I take over (while the previous
controller is still at hand) to ensure we didn't fumble a situation while
we
changed the guard.

I am working a Baron IFR at 7000 flying from Chattanooga TN to Charleston
SC, on course heading of about 110 or so. Doing my scan, I see he has an
IFR off the nose about 15 miles at 6000 and another IFR guy crossing from
the NE at 8000 and 20 miles, so he is separated. I notice additional
traffic for this guy, a VFR indicating 6600 about six miles south, heading
about 055 or so, converging with him. I ask the previous controller if
she had issued traffic, she said she hadn't.

I made the traffic call.. "Baron 123, VFR traffic one to two o'clock, six
miles, northeast bound converging, altitude indicates six thousand six
hundred." The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact."

I make a few unrelated routine calls to other traffic, keeping an eye on
this VFR target. His Mode C indicates that he is in a climb, and the
conflict alert activates (both data blocks begin to flash). I make
another
call at four miles. "Baron 123, your traffic now two o'clock, four miles,
northeast bound, altitude indicating six thousand niner hundred VFR,
converging right to left." The Baron responds "123 is IMC, no contact."
The situation now has my undivided attention.

At three miles converging (next update), the traffic is indicating 7000.
The next update, the traffic is still at 7000. This guy is flying VFR
where
one of my IFR's is IMC. I swing into alert mode. The target slashes are
a
mile long each and the radar display is delayed a bit from actual position
so these guys are getting close and closing fast. The Baron needs to yank
it right most ricky tic and get behind this guy.

In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say
"Baron
123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the
right
indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately." The
Baron
pilot says "We're turning left to 090, no contact." I then watch as the
Baron swings into a left turn, prolonging the collision vector another
minute. His left turn away from the traffic puts him wing high with
closing
traffic off the right side. The Baron also descends four hundred feet
during the maneuver as the targets merge. To me, this looks remarkably
like
a TCAS maneuver because of the altitude change. I key up and say "N123,
are
you TCAD equipped, do you have traffic avoidance avionics?" He gives me a
curt "Negative, we do not have the traffic." The targets have merged
thanks
to the left turn, and I cannot distinguish the one from the other.
Anything
I say now about the traffic would be a dangerous guess because I have lost
the flick between these two aircraft. Instead of responding to the Baron,
I
issue a vector to the IFR traffic at 6000 to get him away from Baron 123
(who is now well below assigned IFR altitude). At the next position
update,
I have tail to tail between the baron and the VFR. I tell the Baron,
"Traffic no factor, maintain 7000." He responds "We never saw him..."
[The
unknown SOB in the VFR remains at 7000 for the next fifty miles- his
profile
never changed and I have every reason to believe that he never saw the
IFR,
IMC Baron].

My question for the group is about the Baron pilot's decision to disregard
my suggestion to yank it towards the traffic and instead to turn away from
him. From a controller's perspective, the quickest way to achieve "Oh
Sh*t"
lateral separation with crossing traffic is to aim one airplane right at
the
other. The idea is that as both aircraft are moving through space, the
maneuvering aircraft is steering for a point where the traffic *used* to
be
but no longer is. Once the nose of the turning aircraft swings through
his
traffic's vector, every additional second buys additional separation.
When
we do this with IFR traffic, we call this a "Wimpy Crossover" or a "Bubba
Turn". If an aircraft turns away from conflicting crossing traffic, every
additional second of turn sees the targets get closer until either they
merge or else they *finally* get to the point of course divergence. The
closer the targets are when an away turn is initiated, the less effective
an
"away" turn is.

Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?


I'd have probably requested a vector for traffic avoidance before the
traffic alert became necessary.

It's possible that the VFR target was indicating bad Mode C, he may have
been at a proper VFR cruising altitude and no factor for the IFR traffic at
7,000.

"Henry Bibb" wrote in message
...
I'd have *asked* for the vector by about the second call, if I couldn't
see
him.
I do that even in VFR with flight following.

Good point. It would have been easier to get the ball rolling in the right
direction if we had started earlier instead of waiting until an actual alert
phase.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"GLPILOTSRV" wrote in message
...

I would have followed the suggested heading. Without TCAS, the Baron was
not
authorized to make the altitude deviation.


I suspect the altitude loss was due to an unusually steep turn and was not
intentional.

Chip Jones wrote in message The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no
contact."

Howdy!

While your scenario may be right on the money, let me point out that some
pilots will claim to be IMC even when there isn't a cloud in the sky. Their
reasoning is that by doing this, it keep the onus of seperation on the
controller. We both know this isn't quite how it works, but then again, a
chimpanzee flew Mercury 7.

D.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:MCe0b.184104$o%2.89767@sccrnsc02...
This was drilled into us for shiphandling at sea...turn into the
conflicting
traffic.

We drill this concept into ATC developmentals too. Same principle.

Sad thing is that if you had yelled at the Baron "Negative, turn
right immediately," the situation would have gotten worse, not better.

I thought so too


I hope you tracked the intruder to his destination.


No I didn't. My supervisor and I has a very short discussion about doing so
and then decided we could prove nothing. Could have been bad mode C, no way
to prove he was not VMC, the baron never saw him etc etc.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Chip

Look at it this way. If he had had a mid air then you would have been
exonerated.

Big John


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:12:19 -0400, "Chip Jones"
wrote:


"David Corsi" wrote in message
news:Ize0b.146544$cF.53272@rwcrnsc53...
the thing I don't understand is if he is IMC why would he decide to turn a
different direction from the ATC directed one? i too would guess a TCAD
manuever based on azimuth data but I somehow doubt that was the case
really.
i just don't understand the logic, did he just mishear the heading
assigned
or did you repeat the 180 degree heading when he responded 90?


When he responded that he was turning left, I didn't repeat my suggestion to
turn right. I don't know if he misheard me, but I did tell him both the
direction and azimuth of the suggested turn in my alert which would make it
harder to misunderstand IMO. I didn't repeat the vector suggestion because
in my mind he was countermanding my suggestion by excercising his PIC
authority. To me, he was on scene while I was looking at things through a
long range filter. He also acted decisively without hesitation even if I
think he went the wrong way. Too many unknowns between my alert /suggested
vector and his response / maneuver to allow me to comfortably restate my
suggestion.

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote in
:

long story snipped...

Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my
suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath?

I think I would have turned in the direction you gave, since I couldn't
see
the traffic & presumably you could, at least on radar. You have a much
bigger picture than I do. Either he misunderstood you or he's a lot more
arrogant than I like to think I am. If he knows he's faster than the
converging traffic, a turn away could work, but how could he know that?
OTOH, if you really, really want him to turn to a heading, give it as an
instruction, not a suggestion.


The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction instead of
a suggestion is that I do not have separation responsibility between an IFR
and a VFR in this class of airspace. Because of that, I have to follow the
7110.65's provisions regarding safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the
7110.65 requires me to make a suggestion instead of taking control with an
instruction in this case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the
phraseolgy "immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if
your best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I suggested
this to you, I would actually have to key up and say something as ridiculous
as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate information here], suggest you
fly your present heading immediately for traffic!" Silly, ain't it?

The logic is that during an alert, the FAA doesn't want ATC issuing
*instructions* to a controlled aircraft that might cause it to collide with
an uncontrolled aircraft. Say I instructed a 180 turn just as the unknown
VFR made a radical turn to the west to avoid ( know it's very very
unlikely). In such a collision, the ATC instruction would likely be
identified as the *cause* of the collision and as the controller I'd be hung
for not following the book. This was drilled into me a long long time ago
when as a young pup I assigned ATC vectors to a VFR aircraft in distress
(IFR pilot in VFR-only airplane stuck on top in winter clag looking for a
friendly airport). Eventually I vectored the pilot down into an airport
safely and then got reamed by facility management for not *suggesting* the
vectors instead of assigning them. My chewing for that event went something
like this- "Good job Chip. The pilot called to say thanks- he wants to buy
you a beer. HOWEVER, assign ATC headings contrary to the 7110 again, you
moron, and you will be decertified...you could have killed that guy."

Chip, ZTL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---