Black-Art
In the case I am talking about both pilots had BOTH aircraft visual so it is probably not the same incident. As I said, I am not going to identify it for exactly the same reasons that CHIRP does not.
I don't think the situation comes under the parameters of an MOR and CHIRP is optional. Of course your colleague is perfectly able to use either if he sees it appropriate to his situation.
In our case ATC did not give a warning call as he seemed to be unaware of the second, conflicting aircraft, rapidly closing on the first one that he was providing a service to.
If he HAD issued a timely warning then there would have been absolutely no cause for concern on our part and no radio call would have been made from our aircraft, which was merely a pilot's genuine effort to prevent a mid-air collision between two other aircraft that he could see in danger, not an attempt to be a "TCAS smarta$$" or an ATCO. No avoiding action was offered, just a piece of highly relevant safety information.
I certainly agree (and so would my colleague) that TCAS should not be used in the manner you have described. In my experience over the past couple of years (on three different aircraft types) it is not actually very reliable, even against aircraft correctly using a transponder, which is why pilots must continue to look out on a "see and be seen" basis. In addition, I agree it isn't a pilot's job to be an ATCO but it IS his responsibility to look out for fellow aviators if possible and also to help out ATC, if possible (ideally without stepping on toes) so that we all benefit from a safer aviation environment.
After all, we are part of the same team, aren't we? Which is why we were surprised by this ATCO's remonstration on the R/T and hence this thread.
Edited because I thought of a bit more to say!
ShyT
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 29 June 2001).]