[TC_LTN]

For years, as an Air Traffic'er, I have winced at the phrase, in response to my provision of traffic information; "We have it on TCAS". I don't quite know why it has always niggled me but I think it is because it always feels as though somehow the pilot has achieved some electronic confirmation that I have got it right despite me having a vastly superior detection capability than most aircraft I am servicing. The Human Factors around this confirmation bias have always intrigued me because I am equally niggled when I deliver traffic information on a primary contact only to be told by the crew; "Nothing seen on TCAS". I have always resisted the response; "No ****, Sherlock" but I am always left with the impression that the crew place slightly more weight on gaining visual acquisition via their TCAS contact as opposed to my pointing out of the primary contact.

Anyway, this week for the first time, I experienced a new response to traffic information for me; "I have it on Pilot Aware". This was in response to traffic information on an opposite direction A321, 600 ft above my recipient of a Traffic Service. Given the weather conditions (CAVOK) you could hardly miss it visually, which was my aim in the provision of the information but the PAW user then said he was "turning to avoid". I have no problem with that, although clearly given the vertical and lateral separation of the two aircraft, no risk of collision existed. A few minutes further on I passed further traffic information on two more contacts apparently operating in the visual circuit of a GA airfield, one with Mode S and a second, primary only contact. On this occasion, the pilot reported; "Nothing seen on Pilot Aware". Resisting the temptation to say; "Great, try looking out of the window", I continued to update the contacts as my aircraft flew within 300ft and 1 mile laterally of the transponding aircraft and about 1.5 miles of the primary. At no point did he report visual with the circuit traffic.

With all the talk that has gone on about Human Factors in relation to electronic conspicuity, I wonder what skills and considerations we will need to impart during the fragmented deployment of EC via a variety of methods in combination with traditional UK FIS or whatever the next manifestation of FIS is?

[Dave Phillips]

A really good topic and something I tried to kick-off with my recent Airprox, report, issued the other day.

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploade ... 018103.pdf

My point - are we entering an area of greyness in an area that should have as much clarity as possible? Looking at my Airprox, would the scenario have had a 'better' resolution if one/both of us didn't have a TAS? Can we directly apply our UK FIS "Visual/Not Visual" protocols with EC or do we need something more/different?

[Balliol]

[not a dig but just an opinion] I think there could be a tendency for ATC to be a bit purist here to be honest... we could all reference the regulations but I think pilots are just trying to say “I’ve haven’t got the traffic visual and my TAS device isn’t showing it either, so I’m working hard looking/please keep me regularly updated” or conversely “I haven’t got it visual yet, but my TAS device and you are confirming where it is so I’ve got an avoidance plan in action thanks”

[G-BLEW]

For years, as an Air Traffic'er, I have winced at the phrase, in response to my provision of traffic information; "We have it on TCAS". I don't quite know why it has always niggled me but I think it is because it always feels as though somehow the pilot has achieved some electronic confirmation that I have got it right despite me having a vastly superior detection capability than most aircraft I am servicing…

I've never had that kind of conversation with a controller, but I have witnessed a fair number of them. I've always taken it to mean 'Yup, we have it on the screen and we both now know about the traffic and where it might be going'. I guess I've taken it as an electronic version of 'traffic in sight', and although obviously not as good as a visual acquisition, I've considered it better than 'looking'.

Edit: Agreeing with Ice, that shouldn't change the 'contract' between pilot and controller.

Ian

[Iceman]

All that a radar controller can do is to continue to provide the contractually agreed level of service (BS, TS, DS) and assume nothing about what aids the pilots may or may not have and may or may not be using, including their Mk 1 eyeballs.

Iceman

[Lefty]

Personally, I do worry that with all these different EC systems, that pilots are placing an unrealistic amount of trust that thier particular EC device is showing them all the traffic that is out there, and that they therefore can relax thier external scan.

The reality however, is that none of the currently popular systems (PAW, FLARM, OGN etc), will accurately show you more than 25-30% of the targets that are potentially out there.

It would be a very different story if the government (/ European Governments), were to mandate one or other of these protocols and / offer financial assistance to get it installed in all GA registered in Europe.

Until then, I believe they are building false levels of confidence.

[Dave W]

... if the government (/ European Governments), were to mandate one or other of these protocols ...

[Stuck Record Mode] I hope they don't, unless and until the over-arching safety argument for that is developed far more comprehensively and credibly than it has been to date.

[GolfHotel]

I’m very much with @Lefty on this. Having had a TM250 for 4 years I’m very concerned at the confidence people have in the systems.

I love the way when an aircraft is not detected with EC but is detected with the Mk1 eyeball the assumption is very often made that the other has no transponder.

So that’s why I agree with @Dave W as well.

But when I hear “I have him on TCAS” I have never thought it was smug.

[CloudHound]

I've done quite a bit of flying this year compared to the previous few. Not only that but mostly cross country, mid week in excellent weather. Didn't seem to matter my destination I always ended up near Farnboro'

My point is that despite PAW and occasional help from FAB even under BS, all my contacts were acquired visually. In part that's because of the advice given on the PAW website and, as importantly here, that it's an aid not a replacement.

It may not be possible to train-in good practice to experienced pilots, but there should now be a focus on training at ab initio etc. level to take account of this technology.

That said, the LH 737 at Linate refused his take off clearance 'cause the departing SAS wasn't showing on TCAS.

[James Chan]

I remember transiting airspace during my PPL instruction - when the controller told airline traffic about me, they said they had me on their TCAS. Then the controller told me about the airline traffic and I said "looking" and then "traffic in sight".

I was taught back in the day, that if I am visual, I may be asked to keep that traffic in sight and maintain own separation. So if I lost visual at any point, or never saw it to begin with, then I should inform the controller immediately so they can help me re-acquire, or failing that, re-apply other means of separation again where applicable.

Now what I don't know is what the controller's expectation is of the other aircraft having me on their TCAS. Were they just meant to nod and carry on until a resolution advisory is issued? Or just say they can't see me? I don't know.

Fast forward 10 years and more people have traffic information on-board. I am aware of the limitations. But is everyone else? I treat these things for helping point out other traffic to me prior to visually acquiring traffic. If the controller sees / informs me about it too, I will acknowledge it.

But I don't believe it is particularly wise for me to be fixating on "dots" on a device in my cockpit to "pretend I am visual" so that I may separate myself from other traffic called.

[exfirepro]

Perhaps the responses should be either ‘Visual’ - to confirm visual acquisition or ‘I have him on my Traffic Screen, but Not Yet Visual’ to advise the Controller that you can see the relative position of the traffic on Screen (and hence have a pretty accurate idea where it is) but have not yet acquired it by eye. This should then be followed by ‘G-XX now visual with the reported Traffic’ when sight by eye is achieved.

To my mind simply saying ‘Looking’ when you have a visual position on a Traffic Screen implies to the controller that you have (little to) no idea where the aircraft is, even though you may well have a pretty accurate position and approach direction right in front of you.

Regards

Peter

[GolfHotel]

Perhaps the responses should be either ‘Visual’ - to confirm visual acquisition or ‘I have him on my Traffic Screen, but Not Yet Visual’ to advise the Controller that you can see the relative position of the traffic on Screen (and hence have a pretty accurate idea where it is) but have not yet acquired it by eye. This should then be followed by ‘G-XX now visual with the reported Traffic’ when sight by eye is achieved.

To my mind simply saying ‘Looking’ when you have a visual position on a Traffic Screen implies to the controller that you have (little to) no idea where the aircraft is, even though you may well have a pretty accurate position and approach direction right in front of you.

Regards

Peter

Hopefully you have a pretty good idea of position, direction, height and possible type. That’s what you have just been told by ATC.

[BehyBill]

I think the bias is mainly from "what the eye sees is better than what the ear can hear", I don't think it would have been a different experience if what they got from TCAS/PA comes as "cockpit audio warning" rather than a "nice map overlay or simple left/right arrow", I think they will pay more attention to what ATC says?

Don't forget that when ATC says to a pilot "traffic on your left....", he will always find one around and say "I have it on sight" (not necessarily the one ATC is referring to) or just say "looking for traffic", both are consequences of lazy mental exercise from pilot side, having PA + Tablet + "does not show on my screen" is just an easy extension of that "lazy exercise of visual superiority"

But to be fair, the same "visual superiority" applies to a situation where pilot is looking out of the window for the real world on a good VFR day while ATC is looking at their virtual radar screens

[Rob P]

Personally, I do worry that with all these different EC systems, that pilots are placing an unrealistic amount of trust that thier particular EC device is showing them.

I think that's a worry you can put to one side.

You can't operate PAW (the only one I have experience of) for more than a couple of hours before you clearly see an aircraft out of the window that does not show up on screen.

That lesson is repeated frequently.

With this experience, not even the stupidest pilot is going to believe the system is all-detecting.

Rob P

[johnm]

A traffic service is useful, but not the whole story as we know. I merely acknowledge with call sign, so the ATC'er knows I've heard him.