A fellow ATCO at my unit had a similar experience recently. However in his case the pilot only had visual contact on one a/c and not the possible conflictor. He did however have said conflictor on TCAS, so he transposed relative a/c positions visually to his TCAS and advised other pilot 'Traffic on TCAS shows....etc'. My colleague cautioned the airbourne 'radar' controller that he must be careful about issuing traffic info in such circumstances. When the pilot expressed a desire to debate the issue a polite 'call me later' request was made. As my colleague was providing a FIS only on a VFR 'see and avoid day' this could not have been the same incident, COULD IT?
I believe that the inappropriate use of TCAS in this way is already dealt with in the appropriate documentation, for very practical reasons. I don't deny that safety is paramount but in this case there were inherent dangers in the use of TCAS to provide a radar svs to an a/c in flight from another airbourne a/c and my colleague wanted to bring this to the pilots attention. The CAA made us all undertake an appropriate course of instruction and long MER before allowing us to control a/c, yet nowhere in my licence does it say I am qualified to undertake the duties of a pilot. I think we must assume that the pilots licence is likewise limited.
My point is this there are two sides to every story and we as professionals do ourselves no credit by not ensuring we have the full facts before we 'pass sentence'in this forum.
I believe that an MOR or CHIRP report in this case would have been more appropriate than this forum (horses for courses) as all the facts would come to light and a considered view reached, not the sort of 'lynch mob' mentality displayed in some of the comments.
Well I've bored you all to death for to long, will make my next entry a witty one....
------------------
'Where d go?'- 'Where d who go!'
[This message has been edited by Black-Art (edited 29 June 2001).]