Military Aircraft and TCAS

[nav attacking]

Does anybody know anything about any FAA requirement for TCAS on military aircraft when operating below FL290 over the mainland USA. I have heard rumours that 51 Sqn were trying to get TCAS fitted on the basis of this regulation.

The FAA website http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/operations/td/projects/tcas/ clearly states that:

TCAS I is a mandated system for aircraft with less than 31 and more than 10 passengers, with no resolution advisory.



and

TCAS II is a mandated system for all aircraft flying within the NAS and Europe with 30 or more passenger seats or maximum certified takeoff weight greater than 33,000 lbs.

Does the RAF currently have a military exemption to these rulings?

If so, is it open ended or are we to have TCAS fitted by a certain date?

Would also be interested to know if Eurocontrol are due to implement it as a requirement for aircraft operating below FL290?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Haven't looked at it recently, but I'm believe there is a 'state aircraft' exemption in there somewhere.

Wouldn't put cash on it though.

pb

[Juan Tugoh]

That would be the RAF way of doing things - look for a way out of fitting a system to enhance spatial awareness and collision avoidance. Bite the bullet and fit the blinkin TCAS it might save some lives.:ugh:

[Brain Potter]

Like many areas of the civil regulatory process, the mandatory requirement for TCAS doesn't apply to State aircraft. The following quotes are lifted from the Eurocontrol website with some of the jargon removed:

http://www.eurocontrol.int/mil/public/standard_page/cnsacas.html



ACAS Policy

The ECAC Member States have commonly agreed on an ACAS policy and a mandatory ACAS II implementation schedule. This mandatory implementation does not apply to State Aircraft.

However, the Military Authorities of the ECAC Member States agreed on a voluntary installation programme on military transport-type aircraft (MTTA) equivalent to their Phase 1 civilian counterparts by 1 January 2005.

Situation in German airspace

Notwithstanding that the military commitment is voluntary, Germany has made ACAS II mandatory within its airspace...from 1 January 2005...for all aircraft whether civil or MTTA..


The German withdrawal of State exemption was what finally forced the MoD into fitting TCAS into the TriStar and VC10.

The Nimrod is not regarded as an MTTA so it continues without TCAS.

The FAA regulations are, I believe, broadly similar.

The below-F290 issue is to do with RVSM regulations requiring carriage of TCAS. Again this does not apply to State aircraft, which can be RVSM certified without TCAS. In fact, State aircraft do not need an RVSM certification to fly in such airspace, but as the controller would then have to apply increased separation against other traffic it is not likely that ATC would grant a clearance for flight at those levels.

[nav attacking]

Thanks for the info BP.

The FAA site doesn't mention anything about state aircraft exemptions though! I have since heard that the P3 does have an exemption from the FAA ruling just wondered if they were as helpful with us, it has been a long time since a none TCAS UK Military aircraft has been over there.

Juan Tugoh

Unfortunately there is no chance of the UK MOD spending the money required to update an ageing airframe such as ours. There are far too many other things that are deemed far more important than TCAS when we have pilots that can look out and our own anti coll mode on radar.

[zedder]

it has been a long time since a non TCAS UK Military aircraft has been over there.

No it hasn't. An MR2 was over there about Easter time. It flew partway down the East Coast of the USA, including through New York Zone, quite happily.

With regard Germany, even though they have withdrawn the State Exemption, I understand MR2 has a waiver for the current year. An MR2 also went there quite recently.

None the above negates the fact that not fitting MR2 with TCAS when it was requested quite a few years ago (using the usual argument that it was due out of service soon), was a bl00dy crass decision.

[Pontius Navigator]

There were similar issues with nav aids over the Atlantic and with 8.33 kHz radios.

In the latter case some aircraft that did not usually fly in upper airspace, Tornado GR 1 for instance, did not have to comply whereas the Tornado F3 did. Although there may have been a State exemption the rules were actually binding.

On nav aids I think the height was either 270 or 290; Nimrod had to be fitted with Omega to permit flight in the upper air structure. No exemptions.

[Biggus]

Pontius,

With reference to your last comment, I think you are refering back to MNPS, when you needed 2 independent long range nav aids to go above FL270 in the North Atlantic. Omega was one system that met the requirement, hence presumably the fit to Nimrod.

Still, a properly fitted, funded, system has to be better than a hand held GPS, intended for use by foot soldiers, attached to a wall with wiring up to an aerial installed in an old sextant mount!

[Brain Potter]

In Europe, it is only military transport type aircraft (MTTA) that are being required to carry TCAS - either under a voluntary programme or by legislation (Germany).

Is Nimrod a MTTA? - I would suggest not as it is regarded as a reconnaissance aircraft for Diplomatic Clearance purposes. So it would not need any "waivers" - unless someone is being very liberal with their interpretation of what defines a MTTA.

I don't think that the FAA have got so deeply involved as the ECAC regulatory authorities, probably because the US military has the muscle to refuse to accept any mandates that it doesn't like. The USAF decided to fit TCAS to all it's transport-type aircraft following a mid-air between a C-141 and a Luftwaffe Tu-154 off West Africa; a lesson that the UK MoD ignored until the German legislation forced their hand. I don't know whether this USAF programme extended as far as multi-engine non-transport types such as B-52, B-1B etc, but if they did I suspect that this will have been at their own volition and not as a result of FAA regulation. I'm fairly sure that as a military aircraft Nimrod can operate in US airspace in the same way that RAF fast-jets frequently do.