SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
"Suck it, Trebeck!"
"I've got him on TCAS"
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
RetiredATLATC
Well-Known Member
Doug,
It lets me know that your equipment is working (thought I don't really care) other than that it does nothing. There is not "maintain TCAS separation" in the ATC 7110.65.
Jon
MikeOH58
Well-Known Member
three things that drive me nuts, and if I were a controller, would make my blood boil
*"Got him on TCAS". Especially when its coming from a PPL in a glass cockpit 172 or warrior in the traffic pattern of a class D airport.
*People that only reply to ATC communications with "Roger and N#".
"Cherokee 12345, # 2, perform right 360 for spacing, report established"...."Roger 12345". There is a controller at my home airport that really rips into guys (and gals) that dont read back.
finally...
When a VFR advisory cannot be handed off, and even though they are told to squawk 1200, the people that insist on keeping their original code and checking in with new approach with it. I hear it all the time inside and outside NYC's bravo, and not once has a controller not made a remark about squawking 1200 or accepted the code.
*"Got him on TCAS". Especially when its coming from a PPL in a glass cockpit 172 or warrior in the traffic pattern of a class D airport.
*People that only reply to ATC communications with "Roger and N#".
"Cherokee 12345, # 2, perform right 360 for spacing, report established"...."Roger 12345". There is a controller at my home airport that really rips into guys (and gals) that dont read back.
finally...
When a VFR advisory cannot be handed off, and even though they are told to squawk 1200, the people that insist on keeping their original code and checking in with new approach with it. I hear it all the time inside and outside NYC's bravo, and not once has a controller not made a remark about squawking 1200 or accepted the code.
That's what I am talking about. I have seen guys respond to RA's on an aircraft beside them that is intercepting the parallel localizer on the PRM's. It really screws things up and there was no collision hazard to begin with.
I understand where you are coming from. I just disagree with it from the other side of the fence. I have seen too many RA's that created multiple problems where none existed to start with. If you are operating outside of the bravo airspace, that is a different matter.
Chris
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
While this is one of my major peeves, I do have a minor one. It's the chucklehead, who, after ATL tower tells everyone to acknowledge with callsign only, proceeds to regurgitate the entire transmission. Makes you wonder if they really did hear and understand what tower told them.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's what I am talking about. I have seen guys respond to RA's on an aircraft beside them that is intercepting the parallel localizer on the PRM's. It really screws things up and there was no collision hazard to begin with.
I understand where you are coming from. I just disagree with it from the other side of the fence. I have seen too many RA's that created multiple problems where none existed to start with. If you are operating outside of the bravo airspace, that is a different matter.
Chris
I understand what you're saying, but you need to look at it from our point of view. We have absolutely no way of knowing for sure that the traffic we see out the window is the same traffic that is causing the RA. We have just 5 seconds to respond to an RA in order to avoid a collision. I don't have time to query the controller or spend precious seconds looking around the sky. If I'm getting an RA, I'm acting on it.
Bernoulli Fan
Controller
What would you read back in that instance? Would it make a difference if it were obvious local was about to have a meltdown from the hundreds of different planes bombarding him with requests?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I don't think any fighter dudes do it to piss you off or in an effort to get around your regs. They do it because it's habitual...it's what they will do in every other situation flying around.
Isn't that what the term 'WILCO' is for?
I have to agree that many GA pilots' use of 'roger' is very annoying. People mis-use it when they actually mean 'affirmative' or 'WILCO'. Words mean things.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Just to add to all of this:
Yes I dislike it when pilots say "Got him on TCAS"
Here in Canada we are bound by our regulations to pass traffic when:
Two PPS (Radar Targets = "Present Position Symbols") are to merge with the minimum required vertical separation (IE 1000') than workload permitting you shall pass traffic as appropriate.
Passing traffic 20NM away may seem like a big distance, but keep in mind that those distances close quickly to us realtive to what we need to get done.
If we have several things piling up (Handoffs to do, expected handoffs coming in, level changes to issue, traffic conflictions to solve, turbulence information to give etc etc etc, we have a small break in the action we give traffic calls when we can.
I've given traffic 50NM away from another when head to head, if you consider 1000 knots of closure (Topgun reference not intentional) the time it takes is minimal and the pilots have a heads up.
So in short, we don't appreciate "Yea got him on TCAS"
because:
A.) That information means nothing to us, and is useless information, I would rather hear a "Traffic in sight" if anything is going to be said at all... even a "Roger, Thanks" would suffice.
B.) We are required to pass the traffic, so while some of those pilots may get annoyed and don't see the point, we are required to do it.
If an appropriate traffic call was given to the GOL or the Legacy in the Manaus collision, the accident might well have been avoided...
Yes I dislike it when pilots say "Got him on TCAS"
Here in Canada we are bound by our regulations to pass traffic when:
Two PPS (Radar Targets = "Present Position Symbols") are to merge with the minimum required vertical separation (IE 1000') than workload permitting you shall pass traffic as appropriate.
Passing traffic 20NM away may seem like a big distance, but keep in mind that those distances close quickly to us realtive to what we need to get done.
If we have several things piling up (Handoffs to do, expected handoffs coming in, level changes to issue, traffic conflictions to solve, turbulence information to give etc etc etc, we have a small break in the action we give traffic calls when we can.
I've given traffic 50NM away from another when head to head, if you consider 1000 knots of closure (Topgun reference not intentional) the time it takes is minimal and the pilots have a heads up.
So in short, we don't appreciate "Yea got him on TCAS"
because:
A.) That information means nothing to us, and is useless information, I would rather hear a "Traffic in sight" if anything is going to be said at all... even a "Roger, Thanks" would suffice.
B.) We are required to pass the traffic, so while some of those pilots may get annoyed and don't see the point, we are required to do it.
If an appropriate traffic call was given to the GOL or the Legacy in the Manaus collision, the accident might well have been avoided...
MikeOH58
Well-Known Member
Its an amendment to a clearance....Shouldnt matter if its local or not...Its non standard with the assumed local procedure.
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
Is "negative contact" actually a preferred resonse if there is no visual contact with the traffic? That's usually what I say, but sometimes I feel riddle-ish (no offense ) when I do. I avoid mention of the TCAS, but if the controller gives me multple advisories on the same traffic in an enroute environment, I might say something like (negaive contact, we have them on tcas) just so they know I'm paying attention and not blowing them off. That is rare and I try and avoid that too though.
) when I do. I avoid mention of the TCAS, but if the controller gives me multple advisories on the same traffic in an enroute environment, I might say something like (negaive contact, we have them on tcas) just so they know I'm paying attention and not blowing them off. That is rare and I try and avoid that too though.
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
Damn those Riddle grads... Oh.... Wait...
Hey, I'm a budding "extended campus" riddler so can I chalk it up to self deprecating humor?
BE19Pilot
Flying a Box
Hi Guys,
I didn't read the thread fully, but I agree with Doug about this being a major pet-peeve. IFR separation requires that the controller either use RADAR or the pilot stating that he has visual contact with either terrain or traffic to absolve him/her of providing separation services. Saying, "I have him on the fish-finder" or some other vernacular is especially aggravating when you are flying into busy airspace like LGA for example. When I was a check-airman, I made it a point to teach new F/Os to just acknowledge we were searching, get dual concurance that the traffic was indeed insight and let the controller know.
I didn't read the thread fully, but I agree with Doug about this being a major pet-peeve. IFR separation requires that the controller either use RADAR or the pilot stating that he has visual contact with either terrain or traffic to absolve him/her of providing separation services. Saying, "I have him on the fish-finder" or some other vernacular is especially aggravating when you are flying into busy airspace like LGA for example. When I was a check-airman, I made it a point to teach new F/Os to just acknowledge we were searching, get dual concurance that the traffic was indeed insight and let the controller know.
amorris311
Well-Known Member
i had a student say that to tucson approach a few weeks ago. i laughed and called up and said he was retarded, we are looking. there are a couple of guys down in tucson that come back when southwest guys say that and they just cringe. they typically call back with a smartass remark.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
I hate it worse when they say it, but are in a 172 G1000.
ITS TIS, NOT TCAS!
ITS TIS, NOT TCAS!
Similar threads
- Locked
