Ask a CFI: How should a pilot respond to a traffic advisory from ATC?
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
ATC is only interested in confirmation of air traffic acquired visually.
When you you are flying under IFR, or receiving services from ATC while flying VFR in the terminal environment or en route (VFR Flight Following), it is common to receive traffic advisories from ATC. Traffic advisories are issued to alert pilots to other known or observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of their aircraft to warrant their attention. While it is the responsibility of every pilot to see and avoid other air traffic, advisories from ATC serve as an extra set of eyes in the sky.
A traffic advisory from ATC would commonly sound something like this: “Traffic, 2 o’clock, one zero miles, southbound, eight thousand.” If the type of aircaft is known by ATC, that information may also be included.
There are only two official responses to a traffic advisory issued by ATC:
1) “Traffic in sight” if the pilot sees the traffic or
2) “Negative contact” if the pilot does not have the traffic in sight.
However, Flight Training Central spoke to ATC personnel on the subject who confirm that the phrase “Looking for traffic” is often used informally and is generally understood and accepted by ATC as a useful alternative to a “negative contact” response, especially in VFR operations. The term “Looking for traffic” implies active participation on the part of the pilot in acquiring a traffic target. Once the target is acquired, the pilot should follow up with a “Traffic in sight” response.
Given the availability of traffic information on installed avionics and portable EFBs on the flight deck, you may also hear pilots respond to traffic advisories with confirmation that a traffic target is visible electronically such as “I have him on TCAS,” “I have him on my iPad” or “I have him on my screen.” It is worth noting that, in Flight Training Central’s discussion with ATC personnel, it was noted that ATC is ONLY looking for confirmation when targets are acquired visually. Electronic confirmations are not helpful to controllers in offering visual separation or assurances that conflicts will be avoided.
- Rusty Pilot Week Launches at Sporty’s - September 15, 2024
- The five most frequently missed Private Pilot Written Test questions—August 2024 - September 13, 2024
- New episodes of Sporty’s Pilot’s Discretion Podcast - September 6, 2024
Where do we find the “Official Response” list?
Thank you for that post – when VFR and especially cross country flights around busy airports like DC/Baltimore, I will always request flight following. I have responded in the past “I’ll keep an eye out for the traffic” and once in sight I would call back and report traffic in sight. Probably more words than needed, I’ll change it to just “Looking for the Traffic.
From my military flying experience the response for a traffic advisory would be “tallyho” if the traffic is seen and “no joy” if the traffic is not in sight. These may not be the official responses for civilian flying, but I have used them and they have always been accepted by ATC.
On another note, I am curious as to whether or not ATC really expects a pilot to see traffic at 4+ miles, which seems to be the distance that traffic advisories usually begin. In my experience, it is difficult, if not impossible to see small aircraft at more than 2 miles. When flying in the usual summer haze in the northeast, seeing traffic beond one mile can be challanging.
I propose a small change to the response for traffic advisories that will make them much more effective.
Many times my students will respond with “looking for traffic” and then immediately turn to me and say “Where did he say?“.
I propose we add the direction of the traffic to the response. For example, “looking for traffic at 11 o’clock“.
This adds almost no extra time to the response, and it greatly increases the retention of the pilot receiving.
Two other inappropriate responses to an ATC, pointing out of traffic is “I have them on T Cash“ or even worse “I have them on the fishfinder“
I don’t know how many times I’ve listen to pilots, put their head down and look at electronic device before looking outside and using the proper phraseology.
I’ve had new hire first officers on airliners use inappropriate phraseology and unfortunately I’ve heard some experienced pilots say the same phrases when they really need to put their head out on a swivel and look for the traffic, and then announce when they visually have it in sight
Can you point me to the FAR/AIM section on where this is covered…where it says “Traffic in sight” and “Negative contact” are the only two official responses?
Thank you!
My thought would be that if “traffic in sight” and “negative contact” are the two official and expected responses, would it not be best practice to only use those instead of “looking for traffic”?
For the same reason that we use “niner” or “Romeo” to be distinct and avoid confusion, the phrase “looking for traffic” could be misconstrued by ATC who hears the word “traffic” to mean that you see the traffic. If we limit our phrases to the officially accepted jargon and teach our students to do the same, I believe we will increase clarity and overall safety in flight.