Graybeard,
Agreed I think it all performed well and the outcome was as desired....
I find it interesting that GPWS is not correlating with TCAS - surely at such low levels (i.e. +1000ft it is possible that TCAS could issue an advisary that if adhered to GPWS would then issue warnings - how do you deal with that ?).
Call me a devils advocat for stating that scenario, I am just trying to understand what is going on and thinking what possibile issues could arise and how they can be addressed.
I find it interesting how you guys deal with situations when the horns are blaring giving warnings, to me that seems like a huge distraction, but sometimes I read on the herald where instances occur when more than one alarm could trigger at once and the reaction to one could trigger to another. I would like to hope my lack of knowledge at least provokes some thought.
I am coming from a software development perspective and are wondering why the TCAS is not linked to the GPWS as for the prime solution you want to make sure both sets of parameters are included.
I think my question about supersonic planes is as the time for TCAS reaction is greatly reduced by rate of closure thus a supersonic aircraft would have to be identified much further out than one close in travelling subsonic.
You say angle of attack is not important ? does TCAS not identify if an aircraft will pass under/over and by how much to identify what action you should take - if not how does it establish a reaction for yourself that will not conflict with the TCAS resolution on the approaching aircraft.