…. even if some aircraft are voluntarily fitted, I’m sure you will agree that it is quite an anomaly in Australian regulations.
… a bit like voluntary/recommended radio calls in CTAF vice MBZ !! … In principle I would agree with the requirement if it went hand in hand with hardwired (+ air/squat switch) TXPDR’s!
.
… as we have discussed many times in this place and elsewhere, TCAS will see (most) transponding aircraft (there are some examples of TCAS not seeing TXPDR aircraft in certain proximity situations), that, and the ‘part picture’ issues of crew traffic SA coupled with the inaccuracy of ‘GA’ TXPDR encoders!! .. whats the real point??
.
.. is TCAS a safety improvement? .. in part yes, is it as good (from cost and safety benefit) than other technology options?? … I think not!
.
…. remind us of why delays in policy decisions on future tech solutions (such as low-level/GA equipped ADS-B), have occured! … would you like to revisit your views on this issue??
Let’s say there are only 100 aircraft which do not have TCAS. Why should the passengers in these 100 aircraft fly to sub-standard safety rules compared to flying in other leading aviation countries?
… agreed … so are you going to answer the questions posed in my previous post??
Scurvy.D.Dog, you quote putytat (I believe) in stating:
5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.
…… ICAO, in the context of airspace service level determinations … and you well know this
Do you really accept that 1950s radio “calling in the blind” techniques can be used for mitigation, but modern and proven TCAS cannot be?
… separate issues (see above) … ‘calling in the blind’ (such as CTAF) is more often than not
un-alerted see-and-avoid’ …. You support this notion don’t you, otherwise why support Class E and CTAF over MBZ??? … my view on this is well documented, it is you who seems to support 1950’s techniques!
Aren’t you getting mixed up with the fact that a small number of air traffic controllers in Australia do not want TCAS to be used as mitigation, as they believe that aircraft to aircraft safety devices are not in their best interests?
…. ‘mixed up’ … seems quite clear where the mix up’s occur! ….Provide a quote for your ridiculous accusation, or do the decent thing and retract it!
Or do you have some other explanation as to why TCAS cannot be used for safety mitigation?
… please do us all the courtesy of reading responses in full … TCAS can play a ‘part’ in mitigation of collision risk, it is silly to spend a large amount of industry money if that investment can be better spent closing other holes in the collision risk cheese!!
I agree that the mandatory radio “calling in the blind,” which we have in our CTAFs, has safety problems
…. Ahhhh, so the need for your AusNAS 2C costly change from MBZ to CTAF was for what cost and safety benefit??
– but not as many as modern TCAS.
…. TCAS is irrelevant unless both aircraft in the conflict pair are Transponding ‘accurately’ .. how many conflict pairs in CTAF’s do you guess do not have a TXPDR (therefore rendering TCAS useless)?
What do you think?
… stop being disingenuous!
Many many people over many years have been putting sound opinions and counter arguments … you ignore them all … you clearly do not care what others think! … If you do, answer ‘all’ of the questions posed to you! … better still, ask the Mod’s to return the ADS-B threads from last year … all the questions/opinions and technical data is there for all to see!
.
…
what do you think? 
.
squawk6969
Really this flying stuff is not that hard, sure it requires some brains and some effort, but really why does everyone from bugsmashers to jet jockeys to legislators make it so damned difficult!
.
…. There is only one bloke you need to talk to about that!!!
