"Contact one", any one else say that?

[flybymike]

Yet still available for use in Civvy street and still appears in the Holy Bible known as Civil Air Publication 413.

[Frognal]

Yes it does.

But it is specified as a military procedure in there.

The answer is 4, as you probably know.

[Fuji Abound]

Final 3 Greens,
When did you last read the highway code?
D.O.


Just a thought .. .. .. When more haven't read it than have be it the highway code or cap413?

[Crash one]

Perhaps a better plan than sqawking 7600 in a war zone.

[Final 3 Greens]

Perhaps a better plan than sqawking 7600 in a war zone.

Yes, lots of those in the UK, so clearly core information for you Crash1, whilst the standard guide that the authority has published has not proven worth half an hour to review.

[coldair]

'CRASH ONE' said ;

"I am talking about the SPIRIT of the "law" here, not the picky nano missing but obvious "real" meaning.
If you received a transmission "Gxx fast jet traffic on your 12oclock same height, break! break! break!" You didn't understand it but replied (with butterflies fluttering round your head) "Roger" & continued on your way.
What is the controller going to think when he sees three blips on his screen disappear? "

I need educating here, if ATC sent me that message I would assume that when he said 'break' he was stopping transmitting to me to send a more important message to another aircraft. I would indeed keep a sharp look out but not reply. Have I mis understood something ?

Somewhat off topic, the only time I have braked in midair, was as a low hour student and a seagull crossed right in front of me on the downwind. I hit the brakes ! and then thought to myself 'that was a rather daft thing to do !' ( I never did that again )

[Crash one]

need educating here, if ATC sent me that message I would assume that when he said 'break' he was stopping transmitting to me to send a more important message to another aircraft. I would indeed keep a sharp look out but not reply. Have I mis understood something ?

I must admit I was being a little flippant, How would a mil controller tell a pilot in such a position to take evasive action as rapidly as possible??

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Crash one

I must admit I was being a little flippant, How would a mil controller tell a pilot in such a position to take evasive action as rapidly as possible??

I think the point you are missing is that if the mil controller wanted to confirm you had received, understood and were going to take evasive action, then 'Roger' will not be an acceptable answer as it conveys no real information about your understanding, agreement or intentions.

If the Mil Controller just wanted to Cover His A$$, then the fact he said 'lookout' and you said 'Roger' is good enough. It doesn't really matter if your Roger meant 'Didn't understand that but don't care', 'Understood but not bothered', or 'Understood and I am now going to do something, but not bother to tell you or the other guy'

There was an interesting debate a month or so ago about the 'proper' response to a traffic advisory, and the general view of the UK Controllers seemed to be, they don't really care if you have seen the traffic or not, so Roger is perfectly acceptable. You have heard them say something, they don't care if you understood or what you do with the information if you did understand.

In the US and most of the rest of the places I have flown (including the UK if there is a real collision risk) the controller will badger you until you confirm you have the traffic visually or you are going to do something to address the risk.

[Crash one]

I don't think I'm missing the point. There are obviously occasions when "Roger" alone is not enough.
Under the described circumstances I would reply "G-xx roger, traffic in sight", whilst pulling some g. If I had time to reply at all. If the danger had passed before I could speak, I would the be able to reply "G-xx roger, traffic clear" or some such. I certainly would not be concerned with formulating the absolutely correct response.