Message-ID: <3699613C.368C@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:26:04 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: What is "no joy"
References: <77aol4$gi9$1@news1.rmi.net> <roy-1001991958450001@mcsv29-p12.med.nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.72.212.175
X-Trace: 11 Jan 1999 15:41:37 GMT, 166.72.212.175
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 41
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!166.72.212.175
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:44063

Roy Smith wrote:
 
> "Peregrine" <mhorwith@rmi.net> wrote:
> > What does the radio comm "no joy" mean? Is it appropriate 
> > communication protocol?
 
> It is military slang.  The "proper" phrase for civilian use is 
> "negative contact".

> I'm usually a bit of a stickler for correct radio terminology, 
> but I even I have to admit, "no joy" is in such widespread use
> that the chances of its use causing any confusion are almost nil.

Agreed, here, but one point:
The "proper" civilian phrase when one sees the traffic is
"has traffic" or "traffic in sight"

I hear a lot of people who don't see the traffic respond
"looking" (which shouldn't be a problem).  

But sometimes I hear "looking for traffic" or "don't have traffic".

In the latter case, if the beginning of the transmission were
stepped on or garbled, the controller might believe the traffic
is in sight and no further advisories are necessary.

Point to consider in radio transmissions -- making sure that
the negative and positive response couldn't be mistaken for
each other.  Both "negative contact", "no joy", and even just
plain "we're looking" accomplish this.

For the sake of completeness, I'll point out there is a third
response to traffic advisories.  IFR flights in VMC have the same
responsibility to "see and avoid" as do VFR flights.  So if one is IFR,
in IMC, and advised of traffic, it is appropriate to respond "Cessna
1234 is IMC", so that one's inability to "see and avoid" is clear to 
the controller.

Snowbird


