You Calll Yourselves Pilots

[VH-XXX]

As for Mr H. Hughes, that about sums it up. Recently I have been advised by ATC of several threats, some of which I and another pilot on board have never seen, even with regular updates on where to look.

So you were listening this time Jabba? Once upon a time back in about 2011, 3 pilots in an RV10 didn't hear ATC warning that there was an oncoming Bell 412 Med 1 chopper. 'twas a little embarrasing for us My excuse was that I am a Mexican and didn't know where we were.

[Creampuff]

Recently I have been advised by ATC of several threats, some of which I and another pilot on board have never seen, even with regular updates on where to look.

This is why I find this to be a surreal discussion.

Knowledge produced no different outcome than blissful ignorance.

Although I realise that ATC determines potential conflicts by reference to objective criteria and procedures, and although I realise those dots and lines on RADAR screens may look awfully close, and although I realise that ATC is there to help (for which help I’m eternally thankful), I’m sometimes bemused at the traffic ATC considers others should know about and, in some cases, spot. It’s difficult enough spotting a 737, against a background of urban sprawl, on an ILS approach to the threshold of a runway that can be seen; Retard Vehicle 4 miles away and low? Yeah right…

And when are wedge-tailed eagles and pelicans going to be fitted with transponders for flights in controlled and E airspace?

When the RPT climbs out of Upper Kumbukta West, it must be very comforting for them to be alerted to and therefore be able to watch out for the aircraft 15 miles away on the same track squawking 1200 and an unverified level of 7,500’, also on the TCAS. The two gliders that are closer but just tiny specks on the windscreen? Blissful ignorance deals with those threats.

Knowing that there is a potential threat may result in concentration on that threat to the exclusion of other, potentially bigger threats.

The published studies about where mid-airs occur, and the factors that contribute to them, are instructive.

Alerted see and avoid is better than un-alerted see and avoid, only if the alert is to all threats, the relative risk of each threat is comprehended, and all those threats are seen or properly positioned in the pilot’s mind’s eye.

(Mexicans who don't know where they are: QED!)

[Jabawocky]

Trent, he was climbing, and so was I, the shot you see there is when I have pushed the nose forward and asked for more info, then did the orbit. Play it back if you wish. See what you think.

My GS and VS is far greater than the other aircraft. Had it been higher workload for the ATC I may not have been so lucky.





XXX yeah and the young Airline pilot was not any help either, and it was his backyard! But we did hear the call eventually......sadly it might have been the thrid attempt And we were in VMC and at the correct level.

[Trent 972]

Hi Jaba, I have watched the full replay and it seems the system worked as designed. But
At no stage prior to you passing behind the other aircraft were you ever above him, therefore you were climbing through his level whether he was on climb or not.
Assuming the reason you wanted to gain height quickly was because of the rising terrain on your outbound track, and as you know, the responsibility of terrain clearance until reaching LSALT/MEA/MORA for an IFR flight, remains with the PIC, with see and avoid still being applicable to an IFR flight when not in cloud.
I can't see the other aircraft did anything incorrectly assuming he was 'clear of cloud'
As you alluded to, I think it would be a good idea to send a carton of 'coldies' to BNE ATC with a thank-you note attached.
(Thankfully you weren't on approach to Pa Kettle's paddock on a frequency different from 'Area').
I'd miss you around here.
regards.

[Jabawocky]

Trent, that is all well and good and I agree I was climbing and crossing his path, however, he was in IMC and had no right to be there. This is the point you have missed. Had the ATC been dealing with other matters and I was not alerted we would have collided or been damned lucky not to.

You are correct about rising ground. I am and was fully aware of where I was and my surroundings so I stayed down and visual, and orbited. By rights I should have been safe to climb in cloud with no reported IFR traffic.

This clown was not IFR and was not in VMC conditions as required by the VFR. And he was not on the CTAF or Area frequency.

[Trent 972]

Jaba, in your post #78 you did say

I will concede one small option, there was as I broke through later a small ravine along that track, which may have been considered clear of cloud below 3000

Now you say he was in IMC.
However as you rightly said "At or below 3,000 ft AMSL or 1,000ft AGL" and clear of cloud, is VMC, and the other aircraft is depicted as below 3,000ft.

No excuse for not being on the proper Area Frequency though, and hence my quip about Pa Kettle's strip relating to the very important thread that Creampuff is leading the charge on. I rate that discussion as one of the most important on this board ATM.

Be assured that i'm not missing your point at all, but are you missing the point that you assumed it to be IFR conditions when (edit)there may have been legitimate VFR and even 'No Radio' aircraft abouts, and blasting unknowingly into the murk OCTA is fraught with danger.

Thank whichever God you pray to that the ATC'er had your back.

[kaz3g]

Apologies XXX, it should read 121.1 and it was simply a typo that got carried over as an error as should have been evident from the rest of the post.

Why, because of Locksley and then Mangalore being in close proximity with the increased likelihood of conflicting traffic.

But Area is the one to focus on, in my view...especially when the visibility is pretty crappy like it was Sunday afternoon.

Kaz

[Jack Ranga]

I think some of you are missing the point, the idea is to have a number of defences (layers), with eyes (see and avoid) being the last line of defence. I would prefer not to be relying on my ageing eyes as the only defence, it is much easier to spot someone whom you have spoken to, been advised by ATC, or seen on TCAS.

HH, yep, agree. It has been proven in many studies that alerted see and avoid works. Un-alerted, good luck with that

I've only had one instance where I passed about 200 ft directly above a crossing aircraft in the GAFA. Didn't see it till it flashed out the other side, scared the ****e out of me. I don't have a problem with people advocating no radio, no transponders............in the appropriate areas.

[Jabawocky]

I get your sticking point, I concede there may have been one option, but I am not confident that is where he was and it was by looking at his track a rather straight track......., yeah......I was trying to give too much benefit of doubt, and to be perfectly blunt, that tiny tub to the NW did not exist in the SE where he came from in front of me. Remember I had a good look at it in disbelief from under it all and when I climbed through it, and broke out around 5000'.

So I am 99.9% sure it was a IMC sneaky.

Enough ranting, I believe there is a bunch that do this around YSBK as well. So it is not as rare as we hope.

[Jack Ranga]

Surely replying to ATC saying, "I think you may be referring to me, I'm around that height and this is my estimated position", and finding that ellusive ident button on the transponder when asked to wouldn't have been that difficult?

Good idea but try:

'Centre ABC, with Ident, that may be me'

The frequencies get very congested with all the skydive calls plus the regular traffic. The controller that's looking after that airspace if they're on combine could be handling PJE at:

GLB
MRY
COR
NGB
EUA

irregularly you can add MER, AY & LTV.

If you were looking for that traffic as a result of the ATC concerns, then I would suggest the transmissions were indeed beneficial. Sounds like there was an airprox (correct me if I'm wrong), but were you responding to their actions or does your normal routine prevent you from using any other equipment in the aircraft (including maps or your radio)?

Seriously, you hear a controller trying to call you but you ignore them? Why?? Press the ident button and respond with your callsign only if you're worried about workload or attention.

[kaz3g]

Thank you Jack, your guardianship is much appreciated.

I'm just a few days off 70. I'm the same age as my Auster, and they call it an antique!

I hope to keep flying for a long while yet and I appreciate all the help I can get to do this.

Kaz

[JustJoinedToSearch]

JR any AIP etc guidance for this?

I vaguely seem to remember something, somewhere about not using ident unless specifically asked to by ATC?

[Captahab]

Biggest issues I see are the attitudes of Y and ease of DTO.

[Jack Ranga]

Jack Ranga:

Presumably, only traffic also with a transponder. Would you suggest requesting flight following?

Andrew, I've never knocked back a flight following request, try it. It can only be given if you are on radar, if you drop off radar the controller will terminate the service. Radar coverage in that area is pretty good.

In the area I fly, I hear very little useful traffic information on area. Usually, any traffic information is given relative to an already identified aircraft - so I have no idea if they might be referring to me, without knowing where the other aircraft is. I generally go with the odds and assume it isn't.

A VFR aircraft sqwarking 1200 is not 'identified' by the controller unless the Controller 'positively' identifies it. If it's not 'positively identified' it doesn't stop the Controller passing traffic on it, to others. If a Controller sees a situation developing on radar they are obliged, by law, to do something about it. That's why being ignored can be a tad annoying

[Jack Ranga]

Thank you Jack, your guardianship is much appreciated.

It's a pleasure kaz

[Jack Ranga]

I vaguely seem to remember something, somewhere about not using ident unless specifically asked to by ATC?

JJTS,

You are probably correct! I get caught up in commonsense sometimes!

[Jack Ranga]

I believe there is a bunch that do this around YSBK as well. So it is not as rare as we hope.

They do it everywhere Jaba, I've given traffic to IFR on VFR........pause. The IFR responds with 'we're not going to see that traffic, we're in IMC, request a heading'

[andrewr]

A VFR aircraft sqwarking 1200 is not 'identified' by the controller unless the Controller 'positively' identifies it. If it's not 'positively identified' it doesn't stop the Controller passing traffic on it, to others.

That's what I meant... I hear a controller say to a (probably IFR) aircraft something like: "VFR traffic in your 11 o'clock at 5 miles 5500 feet unverified" and I think I'm at 5500 feet, could it be me? Should I speak up? I have no idea where the aircraft referred to is. Usually it turns out they're 50, 100 miles away or more. I have no problem ignoring it now, but the first few times I was unsure because of the rule that VFR traffic are supposed to listen and announce if they may be in conflict.

I've never knocked back a flight following request, try it.

Maybe I will. How does it work in the case given, when you also need to switch to/from CTAFs and only have one radio?

Controller sees a situation developing on radar they are obliged, by law, to do something about it.

Out of interest, what separation is considered "a situation developing"? VFR, most would probably consider 1 mile is nothing to worry about, but I'm not sure what it looks like on radar.

[Creampuff]

Good questions, andrew. I'm keen to understand the controller's perspective and rules in those scenarios as well.

[Jack Ranga]

That's what I meant... I hear a controller say to a (probably IFR) aircraft something like: "VFR traffic in your 11 o'clock at 5 miles 5500 feet unverified" and I think I'm at 5500 feet, could it be me?

Was the traffic being passed to the IFR on his departure report? If so, it should have had a location and outbound track in the report. If you monitor the frequency you will hear all this information, you can then make an assessment of whether you are that traffic. If it's a random traffic report and you hear it:

'Centre, ABC, VFR, 10 miles south of xxx tracking east, A055'

'ABC, Centre, sqwark ident'

Should I speak up?

Why not? Remember, it wasn't ASA or ATC that encouraged VFR's to shut up and say nothing. I'll get banned (again) if I say who's bright idea that was.

I have no idea where the aircraft referred to is. Usually it turns out they're 50, 100 miles away or more.

'ABC, Centre, thanks, no observed traffic, area QNH 1013, have a good day'

I have no problem ignoring it now, but the first few times I was unsure because of the rule that VFR traffic are supposed to listen and announce if they may be in conflict.

That's entirely up to you and your judgement. Your risk assessment in other words I suppose.