Originally Posted by
172_driver
Fair enough, now we are deviating off the original topic. Looking at the memory items for a TCAS RA it's an entire page of nested IF-statements and uneccessary comments, further complicated by AUTO TCAS available/not available. Eye candy to an engineer, sore eyes for an aviator. Also a testament to Airbus inability to write good user friendly manuals. Flying a TCAS maneuver is a short simple procedure and should be described as such. Can't see a situation where auto TCAS will ever save the day. The DHL/Tu154 midair was due to someone disregarding TCAS all together and the GOL/Embraer Legacy midair was a malfunctioning transponder, wasn't it? Just my opinion...
https://skybrary.aero/articles/asses...ing-radar-data
That link should be sobering reading then.
For those who don’t want to read it, in essence it refers to an EASA study of 1176 RAs in 2020 that found:
- The overall RA compliance (for all RAs) at 8 seconds after the RA 38% (Method A) or 55% (Method B) of RAs were flown with the required vertical rates, and at 12 seconds after the RA 55% and 54%, respectively.
- Opposite responses (i.e. those responses carrying the highest risk) at 8 seconds were recorded in 34% of cases in Method A and 1% in Method B. At 12 seconds 17% and 1%, respectively.
I always far preferred the Boeing “buckets” to the red/green VSI on the 320, but auto TCAS absolutely is a brilliant invention - I agree wholeheartedly on your comments about Airbus manuals.