Topslide,
Quote:
But apart from that, in general terms, there is no inherent reason why you shouldn't be turning just as long as you aren't doing so based on looking at your traffic display.
I must admit, along with others I am sure, some of what I read on here concerns me somewhat.
IF you are a genuine pilot, it concerns me that I might be unlucky enough to be flying above/below you when you respond to an RA and decide it appropriate to throw in a turn for good measure. God forbid I ever am.
Oh, and by the way, there is an inherent reason why you should not turn...
because the procedures say you don't.
How hard is that to understand?!
Well, I'm going to have to rise to that one.
Project pilot during the implementation of TCAS at a substantial UK airline as a matter of fact. I spent months studying the system and looking at historical incidents from the FAA TCAS transition Program, as well as undergoing training with avionics manufacturers, and liasing with the ATC operational training guys so that our trainees would appreciate what was going on at the other end of the radio.
What you've done is selectively quote me, and ignore the caveat in the preceding part of my post.
You keep banging on about the fact that 'the procedure' says don't turn. It may or may not, depending on the manufacturer and the operator. If it does say 'don't turn' the major factor there is likely to be performance. (Because contrary to perceived opinion, TCAS RA inhibition based on performance is pretty rough and ready, you may well not be able to achieve the RA, and turning in those circumstances isn't going to help. But you don't want to know that do you, after all, I can't possibly be a professional pilot, and can't possibly be better informed than you.)
The bottom line is this:
You have an arsenal of tools at your disposal to avoid hitting another aircraft (6 in fact). None of them are flawless. A truly professional pilot would strive to identify the relative merits of the different methods, so that he or she would appreciate the driving force behind a set of SOPs, rather than just blindly following them in a 'one size fits all' manner.
A turn for collision avoidance has a number of strengths, as well as weaknesses (some of which you have alluded too). I don't suggest that its a flawless method. I certainly don't think people should be throwing in turns willy nilly just because they think its a good idea. But I'm concerned that you seem to insist that no one else must ever consider it, just because your type at your airline has a procedure.
And I reitereate, for the avoidance of any doubt,
turns must never be initiated based on the traffic display.
We're falling into the beancounters trap here folks. They don't want to spend money training you to appreciate the systems you work with. They just want to give you a single sentence SOP and would have you believe that all situations can be solved by it. God forbid you might have to exhibit some professional judgement.
Wizo
2) RAs are only effective if BOTH pilots react to them,
Not so. Most RAs are quite adequate to achieve safe separation by themselves, whether the other aircraft manouevres or not. (The only substantial exception to this is where RA inhibitions are present, and both aircraft are inhibited in the same sense.) All that is required is that the other aircraft does not manouevre in the opposite direction. If you look at the alerting times, the flight path changes, and the target separation, either aircraft can generate a vertical miss in most scenarios.
None of which detracts from the virtue of the rest of your post, that I wholeheartedly agree with.
pb