ACAS 10 bulletin, new R/T

[FlightDetent]

Dear all,

just a quick reminder that a new Eurocontrol ACAS bulletin have been published: http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/gallery/content/public/documents/ACAS_Bulletins-BUL10.pdf

Apart from yet again a great wealth of useful operational information, new R/T procedures are highlighted. Procedures implemented in PANS-ATM from 22nd NOV 07.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1689/rtacastt7.th.gif (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rtacastt7.gif)

Thank you John Law and your team, for several years already, the ACAS bulletins have been and continue to be a great aid.


FD (the un-real)

[Dogma]

This brief looks like total gobeldigook! Whats with the table - thats not the standard responce....and the illustrations!?:confused:

I sincerely hope my company produce something clearer.

[FlightDetent]

thats not the standard response....

It is THE standart R/T callout now, reference ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444. Eversince 22 OCT 07. Learn it and use it, from today on....

[hetfield]

@FD

Isn't it of nov 22nd 07?

[FlightDetent]

Sorry. :ouch: "TCAS - AR - EY"

[DeeKay]

But, as can be tracked from Dogma's post, not all of us is aware of the amendment :sad:

[FlightDetent]

But, as can be tracked from Dogma's post, not all of us is aware of the amendment :sad:
Hence my initial post, we all should be.

[Miraculix]

All that for:

"TCAS RA", "Clear of conflict, returning to" & "Clear of conflict".

It is a piece of junk information, the way it's set up.

I think that it's easier to say "TCAS Climb" or "Tcas descend", as that is what you hear the system announcing.

[Kiltie]

Uh oh, another ICAO vs UK difference here. I'll stick with CAP413 whilst in UK airspace and continue to use "TCAS CLIMB" or "TCAS DESCENT".

[Witraz]

Me,
I think I will fly the aircraft first. Avoid the RA and then try and work out whose airspace I am in and what I am meant to say. Whatever I say I will probably get it wrong.
My rules.
1. Keep it safe
2. Keep it simple

At the end of the day, what is more important. There are too many documents with too many conflicts.

[Speevy]

for such a sensible issue, I think soon Uk and then the rest will soon follow..

Hopefully

Speevy

[ACMS]

I agree with Witraz

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

[FlightDetent]

It is a piece of junk information, the way it's set up.

I think that it's easier to say "TCAS Climb" or "Tcas descend", as that is what you hear the system announcing.

Oh please, do go ahead. Last time we saw a pilot intentionally avoid published procedures, the death toll was 167, right? Latest CAP 413, being a manual not a regulation, is dated 1 MAR 06 and its contents have no relevance to worldwide published standards of PANS-ATM as of 22 NOV 07.

80% of RAs are nuisance 1000 ft level-off situations, what are you going to say on R/T when "adjust V/S, adjust" is issued? TCAS climb? TCAS descent?

:ugh: FD.

[FlightDetent]

1. Keep it safe
2. Keep it simple

At the end of the day, what is more important. There are too many documents with too many conflicts.

There's only one document, and the R/T has been greatly simplified. Win-win situation. :ok:

[Admiral346]

I will not accept procedural changes through "hearsay" on the net, only if made available through my company or authorities and adressed directly at me.

"Well, judge, read it on the web somewhere..."

Nic

[PBL]

FlightDetent,

there are a couple of things you said which I would like to query.

Last time we saw a pilot intentionally avoid published procedures, the death toll was 167, right?

I take it you are talking about Überlingen.

I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying. There were lots of applicable "published procedures", including those in the airplane flight manual, the regulations of the airspace in which he was flying, ICAO, and Eurocontrol advisory documents, and they were all different.

There's only one document

Well, this is legally just not right. The owner of the airspace in which you are flying defines the procedures. That's the document. And it changes every time you cross national boundaries. It is wishful thinking to imagine that all the countries in the world now agree on and have implemented in their air traffic regulations *exactly one* TCAS procedure, don't you think?

PBL

[FlightDetent]

I will not accept procedural changes through "hearsay" on the net, only if made available through my company or authorities and adressed directly at me.

Neither would I. PPRuNe is not a source, at best, sometimes it is a tool. So is the web. Ask your company/authority to show you ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444 page 12-4 (picture above). Then decide.

Yours, FD (the un-real)

[Groucho]

To me the new procedures make sense. HOWEVER, for FD and others, as said above, all pilots MUST adhere to published company procedures and cannot 'change' procedures on the basis of an internet post.

I trust that FD has taken appropriate steps to ensure that the question of when it is implemented in the UK and by individual airlines is resolved?

Until then, we carry on as per SOPs. I will bring this to the attention of my company. Thank you for the post, FD.

Does anyone know HOW this sort of thing is resolved - with an 'effective date' in November and not yet in place?

[FlightDetent]

I take it you are talking about Überlingen.
No dispute with Uberlingen, I share your views. In fact I am talking about Conhongas - pilots's decision not to implement available procedures.

ICAO, and Eurocontrol advisory documents, and they were all different. So it was and the industry have learned eversince. I only attempt to show that another step was made and is a worldwide standard.

Well, this is legally just not right. The owner of the airspace in which you are flying defines the procedures. That's the document. And it changes every time you cross national boundaries. It is wishful thinking to imagine that all the countries in the world now agree on and have implemented in their air traffic regulations *exactly one* TCAS procedure, don't you think?
Could not agree more. I am ready to learn about airspaces/countries which decided not to adopt latest PANS-ATM chages, be it via web hearsay (and check with official sources if it is so). Until then, it is my responsibility as a pilot is to follow published procedures invented by people far more clever than me.


Groucho: My company would not advise me about recent changes in Doc 4444. They did show me €control ACAS bulletin, however. My SOPs which I must and will follow do not prescribe TCAS phraseologies, but they require me to adopt ICAO standards unless stated otherwise. There is a new standard in place, and I only attempt to bring it into the view of fellow pilots who may find themselves in the same position as I am.

At last, I am afraid :zzz: that the "new" procedure have been in place for 2 months and it is our responsibility to act accordingly.

[Witraz]

There's only one document, and the R/T has been greatly simplified. Win-win situation.

I wish I could agree, but I fly well outside just Europe. We have had standard R/T phases which have been around since I started flying 34 years ago. Unfortunatley some countries choice to ignore them. I once represented the UK at the Roselawn Phase 3 Icing Conference in Washington and raised some points directly with the FAA and got absolutley nowhere. I recently received in the post a document from the UK CAA on R/T procedures as applied to the UK. Am I waiting for the next 100 or so similar documents to arrive from every country I overfly or visit? Yes I am an old cynic. Too many people sitting in offices pushing pieces of paper around trying to change everything. If change makes flying safer, I will do my best to follow them.
I stick to my policies......
Keep it Safe
Keep it Simple

[PBL]

Groucho asks

Does anyone know HOW this sort of thing is resolved - with an 'effective date' in November and not yet in place?

Yes, I know. The regulator of the airspace is informed about changes (here to ICAO PANS-ATM 4444). There are internal procedures to decide what will be done; that is decided; it is then implemented procedurally in the usual way.

In the UK, the CAA SRG is aware of the changes. There are a number of departments at the CAA to which this change is relevant, who need to analyse and coordinate before issuing the change through the usual procedures (if it goes through Flight Ops, then one way would be a FODCOM followed by a change to CAP 493). The CAA is aware that this has to go through pretty quickly.

So please don't go saying things differently in UK airspace until that has happened. For other countries, I haven't checked (and probably won't because I don't have the time).

FlightDetent,

sorry for the misunderstanding,and glad you agree about Überlingen. I can't say anything about Congonhas because we are under contract concerning that accident.

it is my responsibility as a pilot is to follow published procedures invented by people far more clever than me.

Well, I think it is a pilot's responsibility to follow applicable air law, and ICAO procedures are not air law. The process of incorporating ICAO procedures into the air law of signatory countries takes a while. That is why I checked with the CAA.

If one uses "new" phraseology in airspace in which it is not yet law and the incident is serious enough to be investigated, and then somebody thinks the phraseology played a causal role, then one could get into some serious trouble. That would be my worry.

PBL

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

all pilots MUST adhere to published company procedures and cannot 'change' procedures on the basis of an internet post. - good advice from 'Groucho' there. Certainly ask your company, but you are on very thin ice if you operate outside SOPs.

[Miraculix]

80% of RAs are nuisance 1000 ft level-off situations, what are you going to say on R/T when "adjust V/S, adjust" is issued? TCAS climb? TCAS descent?


First of all, I was refering to the information on the link, the way it is communicated is a piece of junk! NEVER, NEVER tell people what NOT to do in an instruction or information.

NOWHERE, did I say that I would not follow the new procedure, I simply stated that, for a pilot, it would be easier to say TCAS Climb/descend. But I guess maybe they don't wan't people to transmit descend and climb on the frequency, as this may confuse the other aircraft doing the RA.

As to adjust V/S, I never have said a thing, as you so clearly state, it's all been nuisance warnings and I haven't gone astray from ATC-clearence, so nothing needs to be said.

Flight Detent chear up ;)

[dusk2dawn]

PBL, you write that "...ICAO procedures are not air law."

I can't quite follow you on that one because the AIPs I've checked all state somewhere in GEN under "National Regulations and International Agreements / Conventions in force" that the Convention on International Civil Aviation is a part of "National Regulations".

Then surely, Article 12 (Rules of the air)
<zipped> Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
must implicate that the contracting state is obliged to publish the desired differences, if these differences shall take preference to those established under the convention. Or?

[PBL]

you write that "...ICAO procedures are not air law."

I can't quite follow you on that one because the AIPs I've checked all state somewhere in GEN under "National Regulations and International Agreements / Conventions in force" that the Convention on International Civil Aviation is a part of "National Regulations".


You won't find it in 14 CFR (US) or the ANO (UK). I haven't checked the LVO (D).

Article 12 might say that signatories are obliged to keep their regs uniform, but it doesn't specify how or in what time frame they have to do it. And some signatories, such as the US, have regulations and procedures that conflict with ICAO procedures, and that's that.

PBL

[punkalouver]

Just in case anyone feels that this is an accurate statement(which of course is important in analyzing an accident)....

I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying.

Here is an exact quote from the report....

The TU-154 AOM stated that manouvering opposite to the RA is PROHIBITED.

[Jerricho]

What are pilot thoughts on ATC passing radar observed traffic information rather than simply "ROGER"?

Of course, maybe it's not the traffic that's causing the RA.

[PBL]

Just in case anyone feels that this is an accurate statement(which of course is important in analyzing an accident)....

Quote:
I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying.
Here is an exact quote from the report....

The TU-154 AOM stated that manouvering opposite to the RA is PROHIBITED.

Young man, I do not want to have to deal with your misleading and provocative comments about TCAS any more. You have managed to shut down productive discussion amongst TCAS experts on one thread already. You have called my expertise and that of my colleagues into question with a series of rhetorical tricks, and this may mislead others into taking what you say seriously. It wastes mine and everyone else's time and patience. I ask you to stop stalking me.

For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p53 of the English edition of the report. I quote:
TU154M Flight Operations Manual

The TU154M Flight Operations Manual [title given in Russian] chapter 8.18.3.4, dated 6 December 1999, describes the significance of TCAS with the following passage:
(1)...
(2) For the avoidance of in flight collisions is the visual control of the situation in the airspace by the crew and the correct execution of all instructions issued by ATC to be viewed as the most important tool. TCAS is an additional instrument which .....


PBL

[FlightDetent]

What are pilot thoughts on ATC passing radar observed traffic information rather than simply "ROGER"?

Of course, maybe it's not the traffic that's causing the RA.

Unless it is a nuisance warning, during an RA let's admit it, ATC have failed understand and reslove a conflicting situation. Any information during the manouvre is superfluous, possibly incorrect, and may introduce yet another distracting factor onto flightdeck. As examples in the bulletin show (scary ones if you ask me!) the need to reiterate correct procedures cannot be underestimated. If a had a koruna for every time I hear pilot reply "we have it on TCAS" I would be a happy airline mogul - pretty much a same thing.

The new R/T nicely solve problems with nuisance warnings, removes ambiguity and is shorter. More time for ATCOs to manage the 4D model once RA is completed. I like it.

FD (the un-real)

PS: I just received a flight safety message with the new R/T from company FS dept. :D Job well done.

[FlightDetent]

As to adjust V/S, I never have said a thing, as you so clearly state, it's all been nuisance warnings and I haven't gone astray from ATC-clearence, so nothing needs to be said. That sounds as a very sensible thing to do, however it is a clear contradiction of the previous procedures. Now, it is the published thing to do. Good for us.

[punkalouver]

For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p53 of the English edition of the report. I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFU Report
TU154M Flight Operations Manual

The TU154M Flight Operations Manual [title given in Russian] chapter 8.18.3.4, dated 6 December 1999, describes the significance of TCAS with the following passage:
(1)...
(2) For the avoidance of in flight collisions is the visual control of the situation in the airspace by the crew and the correct execution of all instructions issued by ATC to be viewed as the most important tool. TCAS is an additional instrument which .....

For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p103 of the english edition report. I quote:

Originally Posted by BFU Report
TU154 AOM

The TU154M AOM(para. 8.18.3.2 (4) dated 6 December 1999) stated that manouvering opposite to a TCAS RA is prohibited.

This would seem to contradict the first part of your statement...

"I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following
procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying."

There were lots of applicable "published procedures", including those in the airplane flight manual, the regulations of the airspace in which he was flying, ICAO, and Eurocontrol advisory documents, and they were all different.

The second part of your statement is of course very accurate. In reality he was not following most of the procedures, rules and regulations and recommendations concerning response to TCAS including a very clear one in his AOM. There was conflicting statements on how to react to an RA. Seeing as you said earlier...."Well, I think it is a pilot's responsibility to follow applicable air law", I would assume that it includes this case where the air law of Germany would provide a final answer on the poorly written AOM of this company. It says to NEVER go against an RA. We saw the result of breaking this applicable air law.

[411A]

I once represented the UK at the Roselawn Phase 3 Icing Conference in Washington and raised some points directly with the FAA and got absolutley nowhere.

As you should have been aware, the FAA has published exceptions to standard ICAO procedures, just as many other countries do....certainly not a surprise I would expect of someone with extensive international experience, as claimed...:rolleyes: