See and Be seen

[MARZ]

Thought I'd share an experiment (maybe I'm late to the game and its been done before)

Over time I've noticed that while on flight following when traffic is called out, the percentage of success vs not of spotting traffic was, for both others and me, not as high as I personally would like.

So I've put on an LED landing light that I leave on all the time.

But that's not the experiment.

The last five times I've been called as someones traffic I've waited for the pilot to respond as looking, at that point I rock my wings three or four times in hopes to "flash" my position. In all five cases the pilot looking for me immediately calls traffic in sight.... 100%

What do others do?

[Oscar Avalle]

That sounds like a good idea. I just keep the landing light on and the strobes.

[xftrplt]

It's a highly effective technique, and widely used by tactical jets, where the wing flash might be a 90 degree roll.

Presenting motion and more surface area are key.

However, if there's no pressing need for a visual, say clearance is not a question, I'm not rocking my wings every time traffic doesn't have me.

[johnggreen]

I almost always file IFR for any flight over 100 miles. As the vast majority of my flights are over 300 miles, I'm on IFR flight plans a lot. Not exactly on topic, but I have found that the position reporting of center controllers leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea why as I know they are well trained, but I rarely get a traffic position report that is accurate. It is not unusual for a clock position report to be three hours off. Distance is usually correct. There may be a controller on this site that can shed some light.

Long and short, I rarely sight traffic until the second or third call out.

Jgreen

[M016576]

I almost always file IFR for any flight over 100 miles. As the vast majority of my flights are over 300 miles, I'm on IFR flight plans a lot. Not exactly on topic, but I have found that the position reporting of center controllers leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea why as I know they are well trained, but I rarely get a traffic position report that is accurate. It is not unusual for a clock position report to be three hours off. Distance is usually correct. There may be a controller on this site that can shed some light.

Long and short, I rarely sight traffic until the second or third call out.

Jgreen

That brings up a whole different topic: who files IFR even if in severe clear conditions, to help with collision avoidance and make transitions into busy airspace easier?

I try to stay VFR to the max extent possible, but will file IFR if I'm heading into busy airspace (LA, San Fran, Seattle, Vegas), just to help with sequencing. I really hate filing IFR if I don't need to: it tends to add 20 minutes of time and fuel burn onto my trips.... I guess I get enough IFR at "work" to keep me from wanting more....

[AndyFromCB]

Flight following saved my ass about a month ago. Was on a direct collision course with a Seneca, didn't see it until 30 seconds before what would have been an impact. I leveled off my descent upon a third or so stern warning from the controller. His words were: the targets appear to be merging on my scope. Glad I did, he was about 400 feet below me.

[DonMuncy]

Every flight other than local practive filghts, I file.

Pros

1) Traffic call outs

2) Transition into controlled airspace

3) Avoidance of MOAs and TFRs.

4) Ready emergency assistance

5) Potential crash location

6) Some weather advice

Cons

1) Extra time getting vectored places I don't want to go.

I realize most of these are available with Flight following, but I have been dumped from FF.

[M016576]

Flight following saved my ass about a month ago. Was on a direct collision course with a Seneca, didn't see it until 30 seconds before what would have been an impact. I leveled off my descent upon a third or so stern warning from the controller. His words were: the targets appear to be merging on my scope. Glad I did, he was about 400 feet below me.

Flight following is always a good idea: a great compromise between IFR and VFR flight. All the flexibility of VFR with an extra set of eyes to help with collision avoidance, without the pain of being vectored around at ATC's will. The only downside: in a heavy traffic environment, center may drop you, as you are on a not to interfere basis with the higher priority IFR traffic. Ultimately, a good vigilant lookout doctrine is always required, no matter how you file, but it's nice to have center there for the "glove save".

[Jeff_S]

I almost always file IFR for any flight over 100 miles. As the vast majority of my flights are over 300 miles, I'm on IFR flight plans a lot. Not exactly on topic, but I have found that the position reporting of center controllers leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea why as I know they are well trained, but I rarely get a traffic position report that is accurate. It is not unusual for a clock position report to be three hours off. Distance is usually correct. There may be a controller on this site that can shed some light.

Long and short, I rarely sight traffic until the second or third call out.

Jgreen

Remember that controllers can only tell your vector, not which way your plane is actually pointed. Even mild crosswinds can cause a 5 or 10 degree deflection between your heading and your bearing. So when you get a call-out, keep in mind what wind correction you may need to apply to determine where to really look. One nice trick if you have an HSI is to remember that to the controller, your 12 o'clock is where your HSI is pointed.

That said, I still do find it hard to see smaller planes even when called out. They just don't ever look as large as you expect them to.

[xftrplt]

I suspect many "no-contacts" are due to looking in the wrong place. Calibrate your eyes.

First, azimuth: find reference points in your cockpit for 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 o'clock.

Second, altitude: the 60/1 rule applies to altitude, too. At 5 nm, 1000' high/low is only 2 degrees. Bank 2 degrees to see how much/little that is.

[1964-M20E]

As for filing IFR it varies usually I do since I can. I get more aggravated about the altitude changes than the vectors or route changes they seem to try to get you where you want to go as quicly as possible. I do always get flight following if not on an IFR plan. I have not filed a VFR plan in a long time. Traffic call outs from ATC can be challenging and about 50% of the time I cannot find the traffic called out.

On my former plane I had the LED landing light and would leave it on all the time for better visibility. Before having the LED landing light I would keep the old style on all the time as well since I planed on changing it anyway I was not worried about burning out the bulb. My current plane will be getting the LED light soon since it has the nice plastic outer cover and the old style bulb will melt the cover quickly if you leave the landing light on. I need to generate less heat from the light.

[AndyFromCB]

Flight following is always a good idea: a great compromise between IFR and VFR flight. All the flexibility of VFR with an extra set of eyes to help with collision avoidance, without the pain of being vectored around at ATC's will. The only downside: in a heavy traffic environment, center may drop you, as you are on a not to interfere basis with the higher priority IFR traffic. Ultimately, a good vigilant lookout doctrine is always required, no matter how you file, but it's nice to have center there for the "glove save".

One great thing about flying from my home base (Omaha, NE) to anywhere in 600 miles radius is we don't have heavy traffic here in the Midwest, it's always direct IFR and when departing VFR Omaha Approach will actually almost insist handing you over to center. I can count on one hand when they didn't ask for type and destination on their own.

Getting the GTX330/ES installed at this annual, so with the GDL39 on my 796, I should be able to see same traffic as them.

As to lights, on my Arrow I had the landing light flashers and LED lights so they'd always stay on. Haven't installed them yet on 7RD, but they are next on the list.

[Piloto]

No matter how good your vision is spotting traffic visually is difficult. Specially when traffic view is blocked by your own airframe. Even when ATC is advising you there still the possibility of a collision like in this sad case:

José

[DrBill]

I file IFR for all flights over 30nm. It rarely adds more than 10 mins to the flight and keeps me out of active MOAs (quite a few in NC, SC, VA).

Most of my trips are solo, so I appreciate the "contact" with ATC controllers. The frequent frequency changing from center to approach, keeps me busy.

Most of the traffic call outs outside of 10miles i usually spot. The one picture I posted last week of the 1 mile callout was really the only time I didn't see it on that trip but now I know it was because they were already overhead.

Bill

[jlunseth]

I have found that in most instances, ATC's location of the traffic is the problem. I am sure they are telling us what they see on their scopes, but when they say they have traffic at your 12 o'clock, it can be found anywhere from 9 to 3. I have had some success ignoring their call of, say, 11 o'clock, and searching the entire sky in front. I have also on many occasions found the traffic several thousand feet below me. Since I have come to regard ATC's call out as a sort of hemisherical guideline, I find the traffic most of the time. The key is not to do what the FAA teaches, which is to figure out the variation between your track and your heading, and then adjust ATC's call out with that difference. The key is not to fixate on the spot that ATC calls out at all.

[flyboy0681]

No matter how good your vision is spotting traffic visually is difficult.

Tragic in more than one way.

Nice to know the Russian's were still carrying a navigator on-board well into the 21st century. I remember vividly going to JFK airport in the mid 80's and standing on the rooftop parking of the Pan Am terminal watching the goings on inside the Aeroflot IL-82's which were parked at the gate. They must have packed six or seven men in there. It still amazes me to this day that I would see 767's parked at the adjoining gates with only a two man crew.

The Hollywood mockup for the cockpits in this video were pretty laughable.