Copied Traffic
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
From: North West, UK
Copied Traffic
Whilst flying VFR, I've always been under the impression that when ATC warns you of other traffic lets say "one O clock left to right 2 miles" that the correct response is either "looking G-ACBD" if you cannot yet see this traffic and "contact traffic G-ABCD" if you can see the traffic.
Whilst flying in the back seat of some training flights, I sometimes hear a response of "copied traffic" even though they do not have eye contact with the traffic. Do you not think this is poor and could be miss understanding. It makes me cringe.
Any views on this or any other phrases that you don't like hearing.
Whilst flying in the back seat of some training flights, I sometimes hear a response of "copied traffic" even though they do not have eye contact with the traffic. Do you not think this is poor and could be miss understanding. It makes me cringe.
Any views on this or any other phrases that you don't like hearing.
Joined: Apr 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 57
From: Surrey, UK ;
Traffic
My view is that "Looking for that Traffic G-CD" lets every body know - hopefully including the traffic involved - that you haven't yet seen him.
Just saying "copied traffic G-CD" just says you heard the message.
If I could see the traffic I would probably say something like "visual that trafiic one oclock and above G-CD" or similar (and often not with pedantic adherence to correct phraseolgy) to make it quite claer what I could se and if necessary what I was going to do.
DGG
Just saying "copied traffic G-CD" just says you heard the message.
If I could see the traffic I would probably say something like "visual that trafiic one oclock and above G-CD" or similar (and often not with pedantic adherence to correct phraseolgy) to make it quite claer what I could se and if necessary what I was going to do.
DGG
Ohcirrej
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
From: This is the internet FFS.........
"contact traffic G-ABCD" if you can see the traffic.
)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
"Roger, G-ABCD" is the only correct response I would use.
There is no such correct phraseology in CAP413 as those you mention above. If you want to change this, by all means offer your concerns to the Safety Regulation Group who may devise a more appropriate response for inclusion in CAP413.
You are both VFR I assume? In which case the responsibility for separation from each other lies with each aircraft, not the controller. Once he has passed traffic information, this is his task completed in effect, and he would naturally assume after you reply "Roger" that you will be making an effort to look out.
That's not to say that your non-standard phraseology wouldn't actually enhance the safety of the whole situation. I would however avoid use of "contact the traffic" as the word "contact" generally infers a frequency change.
There is no such correct phraseology in CAP413 as those you mention above. If you want to change this, by all means offer your concerns to the Safety Regulation Group who may devise a more appropriate response for inclusion in CAP413.
You are both VFR I assume? In which case the responsibility for separation from each other lies with each aircraft, not the controller. Once he has passed traffic information, this is his task completed in effect, and he would naturally assume after you reply "Roger" that you will be making an effort to look out.
That's not to say that your non-standard phraseology wouldn't actually enhance the safety of the whole situation. I would however avoid use of "contact the traffic" as the word "contact" generally infers a frequency change.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
"C/S, looking, visual / nothing seen" =
clear, concise, unambiguous and an appropriate response to a nice ATC mate trying to keep 2 of you out of the same place at the same time.
If you see it - miss it.
If you don't see it -"nothing seen" will usually get further ATC info to get you a chance to see it / avoid it.
"Roger" is not particularly informative (even though it is in a pretty book).
Roger (I see it?)
Roger (I hear you?)
Roger (so why are you still flying towards it?)
KISS stay alive
clear, concise, unambiguous and an appropriate response to a nice ATC mate trying to keep 2 of you out of the same place at the same time.
If you see it - miss it.
If you don't see it -"nothing seen" will usually get further ATC info to get you a chance to see it / avoid it.
"Roger" is not particularly informative (even though it is in a pretty book).
Roger (I see it?)
Roger (I hear you?)
Roger (so why are you still flying towards it?)
KISS stay alive
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are both VFR I assume?
In which case the responsibility for separation from each other lies with each aircraft, not the controller.
Sorry to be a pedant.
Ohcirrej
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,919
Likes: 0
From: This is the internet FFS.........
Yes EGCC4284, a reply of "copied traffic" is ambiguous. I have heard all sorts of versions, but my pet hate is the response "with the traffic" (or the airfield) in response to my traffic information. Does that mean you have the traffic in sight or the pilot is now equipped "with the traffic".
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
M609,
Strewth - A large number of civilian ATCOs would not have a clue wot you were on about, unless BoB had been on the telly the previous weekend!
You'll be advocating "watch the bubble" and "out high" next
(Check 6) 
Also! - be nice. Surley Visual / Blind (as we are all mates)?
Strewth - A large number of civilian ATCOs would not have a clue wot you were on about, unless BoB had been on the telly the previous weekend!
You'll be advocating "watch the bubble" and "out high" next
(Check 6)
Also! - be nice. Surley Visual / Blind (as we are all mates)?
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: N/A
in australia,
With reference to the AIP... if the tower says ABC, traffic 2 o'clock a cessna," for example, then all you must reply is your callsign "ABC." (It is assume you are looking for the traffic)
If, however, you cannot see the aircraft, then say "Traffic not sighted, ABC."
Simple, clear, and it leaves out superfluous words.
Carro
With reference to the AIP... if the tower says ABC, traffic 2 o'clock a cessna," for example, then all you must reply is your callsign "ABC." (It is assume you are looking for the traffic)
If, however, you cannot see the aircraft, then say "Traffic not sighted, ABC."
Simple, clear, and it leaves out superfluous words.
Carro
I say there boy
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
I tend to use "looking" for unsighted traffic and "visual" when the traffic has been seen. I can't say whether this is backed up by either CAP413 or ICAO, but it's suitably brief and appears to get the message across.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: Manchester
I'm not aware of any definite phraseology laid down in official documentation. Like every communication you need to say exactly what the situation is. If you can see the traffic then say so. If you cannot see the traffic then also say so.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 5
From: South of England
Thanks, Turtle. I was starting to feel pain from beating my head against the same brick wall!
The ICAO quotes are from PANS-ATM (Doc 4444).
One of the problems in the UK is that our CAA goes OTT with all the incredibly detailed garbage in CAP413, but does not reproduce the required phrases for pilots in isolation, as in 4444.
The ICAO quotes are from PANS-ATM (Doc 4444).
One of the problems in the UK is that our CAA goes OTT with all the incredibly detailed garbage in CAP413, but does not reproduce the required phrases for pilots in isolation, as in 4444.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,114
Likes: 1,088
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
It's ingrained in some of us not to use the word "contact"; because it's a military expression for "I'm being shot at".... 
I use "Looking" and then "Visual" when seen.
I use "Looking" and then "Visual" when seen.
