Very Light Jets with no TCAS in commercial airspace

[flying brain]

Times

Boom in private jets with safety loophole raises risk of collision

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3338008.ece

''The growth in the number of small, private jets could cause a mid-air crash because a loophole in safety rules means that they lack collision- avoidance systems, according to Europe’s air traffic regulator.

This month the first of a new breed of very light jets, known as VLJs, began operating from small airports in Britain. More than 100 are due to be delivered to air taxi companies and private operators in Europe each year for the next decade, according to Eurocontrol, the Brussels-based body that oversees air traffic control. They will operate in controlled airspace at similar heights to airliners but will not have the advanced safety systems that prevent collisions.

The Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) is a cockpit device that monitors the airspace within 40 miles of the aircraft and informs pilots when there is any risk posed by another plane. If two aircraft continue on a collision course the system instructs one aircraft to climb and the other to descend. If one aircraft does not have the system or if it is not working properly, a collision may still occur.

In September 2006 154 passengers and crew onboard a Gol Airlines Boeing 737 died after an Embraer Legacy business jet sliced off its wing tip in Brazil. The 737 plunged 37,000ft (11,278m) into jungle. The Legacy was damaged but landed safely. Investigators found that the TCAS of the Legacy was not operating and could not correspond with the 737’s system.

Under international aviation safety rules all jets weighing more than 5.7 tonnes must have TCAS. VLJs typically weigh less than 4 tonnes and are therefore exempt.

Alex Hendriks, the deputy director of air traffic management strategies at Eurocontrol, told The Times: “TCAS is mandatory for airlines because of safety considerations. Why should we exclude a certain category of aircraft just because they are small?

“It is the same as saying that motorcycles are smaller than cars and therefore don’t have to have lights when they are ridden at night.” Mr Hendriks is leading a review about VLJs and the consequences for European airspace safety and capacity. One of the key questions is whether VLJs should lose their exemption from the TCAS requirement.

Mr Hendriks, a pilot who recently flew a Cessna Mustang light jet across the Atlantic, said: “We have already warned the VLJ operators that there may be additional regulations that will force them to have the full TCAS that airlines have. The risk will increase as the traffic increases.

“We don’t want to wait for a crash before we come up with a regulation.”

Any new regulation may not come into force until 2012 to allow operators time to install the equipment. It will cost £100,000 to equip each aircraft. The cramped cockpits may have to be redesigned to accommodate the equipment.

Jet Bird, which has ordered 100 Embraer Phenom VLJs and plans to start an air taxi service in Europe next year, has decided against fitting the system.

Stefan Vilner, its chief executive, said: “First of all it’s very costly and secondly it’s not required.”

He added: “I don’t think our customers would have a clue whether it was there or not. If you catch a Ryanair flight you don’t think about its TCAS, you assume safety is a given.”

Mr Vilner said that the risk of a collision would be minimised because Jet Bird would be operating away from the busiest sections of airspace.

David Kaminski-Morrow, of Flight International magazine, said: “Europe’s skies are already congested and VLJs will make them more so. I hope it won’t take a mid-air collision before VLJ operators start considering whether the safety investment is worth making for their passengers and their business.”

Should not all jets operating in European airspace be fitted with a piece of safety equipment that only makes sense if all aircraft in that airspace are fitted with it? Whether passengers are aware of the operator's safety equipment or not is irrelevant - it is exactly that so-called ignorance that should make responsible management ensure that the best safety systems are fitted! Maybe it is not just the passengers that are ignorant....

[A310driver]

Commercial airspace???

TCAS not operating????

Maybe it's not just the passengers that are ignorant....???

That is one statement amidst your jibberish that you have so ably shown is demonstrably correct.

[Capn Bloggs]

Investigators found that the TCAS of the Legacy was not operating and could not correspond with the 737’s system.

Not quite right. The TRANSPONDER of the Legacy was inoperative (because it seems the TCAS was switched off), hence that lack of a TCAS warning in the 737.

Lack of a TCAS only means that no CA guidance will be given to the pilot of the VLJ. Assuming that aircraft above 5,700kg have a TCAS and the VLJ has a transponder, then at least one aircraft will be given CA guidance.

That said, it does seem ridiculous to me that a high-performance jet of any type, especially a single-pilot one in busy European airspace, does not have TCAS.

[silverjetblubird]

If anyone needs TCAS, it will be the wealthy doctors, lawyers, business tycoons and rogue traders who buy these things. The ground is going to kill more of them than mid air collisions. These things are going to be lawn darts the world over.

[Basil]

The quotations attributed to Mr Vilner remind me of the attitudes of some cowboy air taxi operators of the seventies.
Time for a small change to the legislation.

[CargoOne]

This is not something new... Some existing business jet are below 5700 kgs MTOW, like Cessna Citation Mustang, CJ1, CJ2 etc...

[Capn Bloggs]

the odd one or two shuttling fat cats between meetings
I'll bet that those have TCAS, because the Flt Ops boss of said fat cats would have demanded it even though the regs may not require it. Not so for the new cut-throat bottom line-driven airtaxi operators.

[BEagle]

TCAS was originally only a Terminal area protection system - designed to warn if ATC porked up. However, it is now used everywhere by 5700kg+ aircraft.

Perhaps the compromise should be that single pilot VLJ operation will only be permitted in CAS if the aeroplane is fitted with TCAS?

[Jabawocky]

You can order your Cirrus SR20 with TCAS.....a PVT 4 seater!!!! So why on earth would you not do it with a VLJ.

It may not be law, buts its common sense.

J

[PPRuNe Radar]

TCAS is not a requirement for RVSM operations.

However, in Europe at least, it is mandated for fixed-wing turbine engined aircraft having a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5,700kgs, or a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 19. Not much help in getting VLJs to carry it though. :\

[Single Spey]

Not sure what all the concern is about. These aircraft will still have to be equipped with transponders so will be 'visible' to TCAS equipped traffic. Do we know if these VLJs are able to respond to TCAS warnings within the expected parameters of Rate of Climb/RAte of Descent?

I would be more concerned by the implied suggestion that European ATC is so poor that TCAS is now seen as an integral part of safety and not just the final safety net it was designed to be.

[Anotherflapoperator]

Lawn darts? Surely Sir means fit them with an EGPWS sywtem as well then?

[threemiles]

Even without TCAS they need Mode-S transponders in Europe, with enhanced features within the densly flown airspace. ATC will be able to use advanced collision avoidance prediction from this.

While a TCAS equipped aircraft will get TA/RA for non-TCAS aircraft, two VLJs without TCAS definitely will not get any help to avoid collision.

[SWBKCB]

Quote:

Stefan Vilner, its chief executive, said: “First of all it’s very costly and secondly it’s not required.”

The consensus on the second point seems to be 'if it's not required, it should be', but can anybody comment on the first point re cost? What sort of figures are we talking about?

[Jetscream 32]

Im heavily involved in this industry at present and whilst it is wise to be cautious, the majority of this thread is storm in a tea cup type stuff.

TCAS for VLJ's would be far more effective in use in class G as a lot of these a/c will be operating from regional fields without any radar capability until they join airways.

As for airways, due to the low speeds currently anwhere from .58 to .68 then Swanwick appears to favour 280 or below unless you can get a quick climb above 370, and even then it depends on your destination and the day etc.

The biggest problem by far facing the introduction of the VLJ's is pilots - simply put - we do not have enough...... either for the charter fleet or for the owner fleet that will require safety / mentor pilots (although i do not agree with the word mentor we seem to be sheep in europe and have a desire to follow the yanks) - wrong, very wrong....... IMHO

Still we manage to drive with the smart car on the roads so i am sure we will manage with VLJ's - its all relative, and there is a sensible solution out there..

:E

[Noiffsorbuts]

Having recently arrived as a pilot in the world of GA I was deeply shocked to discover that it was legal to operate a small jet below 5700KGS without TCAS. It is absolutely ridiculous that any new VLJ should not have it and any operators who are doing this should be named and shamed. (I am certain that the new Mustangs being purchased by LEA are all properly and fully TCAS equipped by the way.)

In ten years of busy airline shorthaul flying I know that TCAS saved my bacon and those of my pax at least once through an RA and it is a vital tool in any event to assist situational awareness because of the display of prox traffic in busy airspace. Just think how many times one has regulated a climb or descent rate or queried an ATC instruction because of ones ability to "read" what is going on around one. It is essential.....

The problem I suggest arises more with older equipment like CJs where a retrofit costs in excess of £25000 rather than purchasing of new, where there are no excuses.

I must say that I did think that there was legislation which was coming into effect this summer making it mandatory, but I am not sure where I heard that.

The biggest problem seems to be a lack of appreciation by some owners who despite their millions are blissfully ignorant of the risk and this is componded by cowboy operators who are literally gambling with the lives of their pilots and indeed customers to make themselves a few extra pieces of silver.

TCAS should be mandatory for any AOC operated aircraft.

[spekesoftly]

but can anybody comment on the first point re cost? What sort of figures are we talking about?

The article in the first post mentions a figure of £100,000 to equip each aircraft.

[Noiffsorbuts]

£25000 is the guide to retrofit a Citation.............

[Agaricus bisporus]

Presumably a collision with a 5.6 ton object is not deemed hazardous, whilst 5.7 tons is...

Preposterous!

If they share airways with the rest of us then they need TCAS. End of.

[Contacttower]

If they share airways with the rest of us then they need TCAS. End of.

Well if you're going to take that line, stop all airliners ever descending through class G airspace, make all aircraft that enter controlled airspace have TCAS and kick out all light GA traffic without TCAS that travels in the airways...to be fair often they are a similar size and weight to VLJs and the only difference is that they are slower and travel at lower altitudes....they share the same departure and arrival paths. :suspect:

[Life boat]

What can you expect, in terms of lame excuses, from a person as ignorant as Mr. Vilner.

His statements speak for themselves, too costly and not required, I´m not surprised, he hasn´t learned anything since he left Sterling.

To actually suggest that as long as the passengers are not aware of the missing TCAS, it´s OK with him. God forbid they have an accident in their shiny new VLJ, due to lack of TCAS.

Shame on you Mr. Vilner, you must be proud of your cost cutting measures.:=

I hope that at least some of their potential costumers will vote with their feet, and seek out the operators who take safety seriously.

How exactly are they going to operate away from busy european airspace?

Mr. Vilner, I bet you wouldn´t buy a car today, that does not have Airbags, ABS, ESP etc, etc, even though it is not required......?

My 2 cents worth,

[Kiwiguy]

Not implying I am an old fellah, or anything, but it does remind me of when White Star were excused from fitting enough lifeboats for the Titanic.

You'd think the Gol crash would be enough, but a highly resistant strain of bureaucrats now have greater immunity to common sense than they had in 1912.:8


That said, it does seem ridiculous to me that a high-performance jet of any type, especially a single-pilot one in busy European airspace, does not have TCAS.


Sorry to make light of a serious topic, but the above topic got me thinking about TCAS in jet fighters...

I couldn't stop grinning when I thought about the collision advisory alerts during a dog fight:

"Sorry skipper... my sidewinders couldn't get a lock on because of all the TCAS alerts." ha ha :}

[ChristiaanJ]

If they share airways with the rest of us then they need TCAS. End of.You want to share the space? Share the cost. Or get the hell out of my way.

[peanutgallery]

Lobbying insurance companies to refuse insurance on VLJs without TCAS would be the most effective step forward.

[RichieD]

In the UK at least.. it seems the CAA are planning (despite rigorous objections from the GA sector/glider pilots etc) to blanket bomb the whole issue by mandating Mode-S transponders on anything that flys, see:
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1698&pagetype=90&pageid=9307 (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1698&pagetype=90&pageid=9307)
Call me a pessimist :suspect:, but this just seems to be a pre-cursor to expanding the existing controlled airspace within the UK to provide more capacity as a result of the increase in the number low cost airline movements.:(

[ShyTorque]

TCAS should be mandatory for any AOC operated aircraft.

There are plenty of small private bizjets not on an AOC, how about including them, too?

You want to share the space? Share the cost. Or get the hell out of my way.

But without TCAS, they probably won't know you're there....

[10002level]

I wonder what will happen to some of these expensive toys??

http://www.glumbert.com/media/planecrash

[ZAGORFLY]

Stefan Vilner, its chief executive, said: “First of all it’s very costly and secondly it’s not required.”

I can't believe his words! For him lives have a little cost. a recipe for disaster.

Welcome The VLJ in the world for the rich and famous but not at the expenses of the Public transportation network! Triple the taxes to pay extra controllers and give them a corridor for speeding along together only, and we will see them buying a TCAS.

happy skies!

[BEagle]

Re. the CitationJet2 crash:

The CitationJet departed Burlington (BTV) around 14:45 on a routine flight to Atlantic City (AIY). The pilot first made a low pass down runway 29 and then return to land on runway 11. After touchdown the airplane failed to stop and overran the runway and into the Intercoastal Waterway. The occupants were rescued by a boat.

According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,000 pounds required 2,930 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, which was the approx wind at the time of the accident, the airplane required 3,500 feet of landing distance. Runway 11 at Bader Field is a 2,948 foot-long, 100 foot-wide, asphalt runway. Bader Field is normally closed to jet traffic.

All the TCAS in the world isn't going to protect such people....

Of course, people-tubes will be able to see them on TCAS and follow any TA/RA as every VLJ will have at least Mode C. It's VLJ on VLJ that is the non-TCAS risk

[Deeko01]

One of our Citations does not have TCAS as it was not fitted at factory as it was not required, the newer citations we have all got TCAS at the factory, re the LEA mustangs l dont believe they have TCAS as such but a different system called TIS (Traffic Information Service), think its produced by Garmin.

[Taxi2parking]

Mr Stefan Vilner is obviously a man that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. What is even more amazing is that he is still employed by this company – what sort of CEO goes public in the press and implies that his potential customer base is full of people too stupid to ask the right questions about safety. Some sort of tabloid expose might be the best thing to help him understand the error of his ways.


As mentioned in a previous post, finding the pilots is going to be a major headache for these operators and Mr Stefan Vilner's attitude to this safety issue should perhaps make people think twice before sending in a CV.

[Basil]

Little look at the Mustang here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-zDfl_DwXI)

[FullWings]

An interesting side effect:

Aircraft > 5700Kg MTOW that are mandated to have TCAS will still get TA and RA alerts/commands from VLJs that are transponder equipped, i.e. all of them that operate in CAS.

VLJ vs. VLJ is a different proposition as neither will be aware of the other's presence if conventional means of separation fail... :ooh:

Edit: I see BEagle got to this point first but I think it bears repetition.

[Denti]

One of our Citations does not have TCAS as it was not fitted at factory as it was not required, the newer citations we have all got TCAS at the factory, re the LEA mustangs l dont believe they have TCAS as such but a different system called TIS (Traffic Information Service), think its produced by Garmin.

TIS is a service that to my knowledge is only available in parts of the USA and even is on the decline there (http://www8.garmin.com/aviation/tis.jsp). It needs traffic information uplinking from ground radar stations and therefore is a ground dependent system and not an independent system like TCAS. And sadly (although a very good idea) it is not relevant anywhere outside the USA.

[Basil]

The TCAS I used would only give a TA on a Mode C intruder although, I believe, TCAS 2 will give TA/RA under the same conditions.
Certainly recollect eyeballs swivelling as TA appeared to close in :eek:

[A310driver]

Spot on Beagle

Even "little" guys plodding along below 10k now have TIS... while no RA is produced,the information and warning is there for the monitoring. No doubt that TCAS is the best but we get all these experts on here bloviating about that which they know squat.

[RatherBeFlying]

Zaon (http://www.craggyaero.com/Zaon.htm) offers two low cost traffic alert systems which show relative altitude. The $1800 box also gives a quadrantial bearing:ok:

Europe also has the FLARM (http://www.flarm.com/) system priced at EUR 574.20. They refuse to sell to North America because of lawyer infestation:ouch:

In a perfect world, the aviation authorities would decree FLARM on board everything -- instead of Mode S.

[Nugget90]

In July last year I wrote to the UK CAA proposing that VLJs operating in European airspace should be required to carry and operate ACAS II. As part of my argument I wrote that, "With the impending arrival of VLJ aeroplanes in UK/European airspace, given that their performance capabilities would seem to enable them to operate amongst aeroplanes operated for commercial air transport (and which are currently required to carry and operate ACAS II), there would seem to be a risk that the protection afforded to the occupants of the latter against close encounters with VLJ aeroplanes will reduce from current standards".

I suggested that, "EUROCONTROL might wish to consider introducing - as early as is reasonable, given that it takes time to install equipment such as ACAS II to existing airframes - ACAS II as an airspace requirement, leaving EASA to consider developing an aircraft requirement (for the world-wide protection of VLJs registered in a State subject to EASA Regulations and operated for whatever purpose) in another, possibly later, timeframe".

I received a prompt and comprehensive reply to my letter, the nub being that ICAO was already looking at a means by which GA aircraft might be made subject to two discriminants, (a) one being aeroplanes with limited performance, and (b) the other being aircraft of MTOW exceeding 5,700 kg (12,500 lbs) or having one or more turboject engines, so that any requirements for carriage of safety equipments (such as ACAS II) might be directed at the second (more capable/heavier/complex) category.

I was informed that EUROCONTROL had aired the issue (VLJs not required to carry ACAS II) at a workshop in May 2007, at which EASA had also declared their concern.

So what this means is that the two agencies in Europe that are currently responsible for developing policies for the carriage and operation of safety equipment are fully aware of the concerns such as have been expressed in this thread, as that ICAO will develop Standards and Recommended Practices that will need to be taken into account by States, affecting both aircraft manufacturers and operators in due course. I suspect that the European regulatory authories will get there first and will in consequence develop appropriate airspace, operational and aircraft requirements. In the meantime I was told that the CAA would monitor developments and, if necessary and where possible, introduce their own rules for safety.

[ChristiaanJ]

Nugget90,
You obviously know what you are talking about.
I hope you're right, and that the usual procrastination does not lead to a few nasty mid-airs that could have been avoided, before there is some more stringent rule-making.

[CargoOne]

Just trying to remember how it was before 2000 when most of aircraft in Europe were not equipped with TCAS/ACAS... I cannot recall we were missing airframes at the rate 1 per day or so :confused:

[Jetscream 32]

cargo 1 - exactamondo.......!!!

As long as VLJ's are operated in a professional manner, with an appropriately qualified driver at the helm, then by all accounts i feel all this hysteria about not having ACAS II / TCAS or any other form of collision avoidance is completely unnecessary and not a disaster waiting to happen as some seem to think...... Yes the new avionics are a very useful safety feature and i would always suggest having them fitted if an available option for the given aircraft type - but some people on here have really got their nickers in a twist regarding how they are going to be operated and who is going to operate them...

Most of you are sounding off with zero knowledge of the aircraft or the pilots who are currently on TR courses to fly them, a lot of you are talking like a fresh ppl with 100hrs is going to be tear-arsing round the skies in a pocket rocket - this is not the case in any way shape or form currently....

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of fellow pilots that live in their own little airline world thinking that anything outside of that is alien and dangerous.......

yet most have never flown corporate and have no idea of the professionalism crews place on being just as or even more capable than their airline bretheren... remember many corporate drivers run the flight department, they dont just wonder in pick up a sector plan pre prepared and assume the role of skygod in their nice fluffy environment...

pretty much a pointless thread and not very newsworthy, as only a handful of people have any experience of them currently....

[ChristiaanJ]

RVSM and GPS now have an added potential of putting you at exactly the same point in space at exactly the same moment.

[Jetscream 32]

im confused??? your point being???? - rvsm - garmin , yep great. your sounding like we are ADS-B operating already - and that VLJ do not have windows - dont know what the problem is!!!

[ChristiaanJ]

Oh well....
A few near misses and mid-airs will help to concentrate minds beautifully.

[Jetscream 32]

mmm conversation would be better face to face rather than bitching over net taking every word literally.........

[ChristiaanJ]

mmm conversation would be better face to face rather than bitching over net taking every word literally.........Jetscream, I agree.
But in view of the distance between Invershnoozy and the South of France, let's try to make do what we've got.

But yes, anytime we're in the same area, let's share a wee dram.

[wigglyamp]

A few posts have discussed TCAS pricing.

A typical ACAS system (TCAS 11 Change 7) providing TA/RA will likely be around $200K fitted. - can be much more depending on type of displays used (dedicated TCAS/VSI or integrated EFIS)

There are a lot of TCAS 1 and TAS (Traffic Advisory Systems) that only provide TA's. Prices start at around $11K for a 6 mile Avidyne 600 that only opetrates to 15000 feet, to over $21K for a system suitable for the speed and altitude of a VLJ, so fully installed in a pressurised VLJ will probably be around $50K.

The system being offered on the Eclipse 500 is the L-3 Skywatch, which falls into the TAS/TCAS 1 category (it's still not certified on the aircraft).

The TIS system (ATC Traffic data up-linked to the aircraft by Mode S datalink) DOES NOT operate in Europe and is gradually being dropped in the USA as ADS-B is rolled out - the FAA have mandated that ADS-B will be the preferred future Air Traffic system in the States.

[manrow]

In my opinion one group which seeks to reduce costs and legal controls on a sector of aviation is NBAA: in full - National Business Aviation Association (essentially of America). Their intentions are exactly as required by their members which I hope I have accurately described in my first sentence. In principle I applaud their motivation, but when an issue like this one comes up I sense the downside too.

I know from having spent many years attending European meetings intended to prepare rules for future aviation travel to apply to all users that the NBAA were virulent in their pursuit of avoiding any extra costs to be loaded upon their members, (and they usually succeeded!) The NBAA enjoys phenomenal support in America as you would expect, but now may be the time to tell their members that to enhance aviation safety for all users means they have to join the club too and fit the hardware for the benefit of all.

[keepin it in trim]

The mark 1 eyeball is a poor defence in high closure rate situations, the time from the target being big enough to see, to REALLY BIG, is just too short (limitations of the human eye v angle subtended at distance x), amongst other factors. I also personally find that at high level, when I am looking at a target acquired visually after first seeing it on tcas, it is very difficult to make a visual assessment of whether the target is same altitude or not.

TCAS/ACAS can be a real life saver, particularly in level bust incidents, and guess which type of flights/aircraft were involved in the most serious level busts in UK airspace last year! (I speak as a pilot of mid-sized corporate jets- so not having a go, merely making the point). Personally I think TCAS/ACAS should be mandated for all turbine aircraft.

[Fork Handles]

To help the vlj pilots assess the altitude of possible threats couldnt we issue then each one of those Sportys' Pilot shop gadgets that you look thru to see if you will be above or below clouds. Combined with a hold entry calculator, fuel drain and King video "ace that avoidance" it would make an ideal end of type rating gift.Especially if they "aced" the test.:E
Maybe a vets badge after they sucessfully avoid their first commercial jet.:ok:

[Ignition Override]

Do the European regulatory agencies use what the US FAA:suspect: (in the past) called 'cost/benefit' formulas for various mostly delayed/ignored recommendations from the NTSB's safety staff?

US military fighter/attack aircraft also have no TCAS, from what I've been told by guys in the Reserves.

[blablablafly]

IO they have no TCAS but have full time controllers looking after their everymove and special airspace set aside... and their own radar on board to find the badboys... :8 So all in all well equiped I say ;)

[Basil]

Jetscream 32,
I agree that we should not become hysterical, however we must take into account the fact that our new electric goodies have been offset by crowding more aircraft into the existing airspace.

RVSM reduces by half the time available to recognise and react to a level bust. For instance, a couple of years ago, we were at 330 with crossing traffic on an intercept vector climbing 320. The crossing traffic confused 320 for 330 and continued above 320. TCAS saved the day.

Mk1 eyeball is not very good for target aquisition in a clear blue sky at high altitude and speed. When not intentionally focussed upon an object the natural resting focus is relatively close to the operator (of the eyeball) and may not pick up even an obvious target (Empty field myopia). The RAF taught the technique of looking at the wingtip at regular intervals to extend the focus point. A small target head-on is almost impossible to detect visually even at short range and low level. Had an Alpha Jet line up to face us as we passed 100kn on the T/O roll; only his landing light indicated that he was there. (The sight of a TriStar thundering towards him encouraged him to keep the turn going and exit the runway.)

Mike Jenvey makes valid points and, re the experience of the pilots, I've met one or two dodgy characters in the Air Taxi business. Don't forget that this will be the 'entry level' private jet and it will be single pilot. Single pilot is great fun but I've frightened myself more often single than multi crew (and you can hold the comments that this says more about Basil than the system :))

wigglyamp mentions $50k - $200k for the kit. Sounds to me as if the manufacturers are leaning on legislation to elevate the price to aircraft operators who have no option but to fit the equipment. So, for the full Monty, it works out at about $400 per week amortized over 10years? - lot of dosh but, if necessary, then the customer will have to pay the extra $10 ppph. (conservatively based on 20hrs pw with 2 pax)

[Graybeard]

Pilots I know who fly turboprops in clusters over and near the wildfires in California really like the Ryan TCAD, now the Avidyne TAS600. It gives them traffic awareness, but not resolution advisories.

ACAS II is preferred, and is not a huge incremental cost when done at the factory. The cost, size and upper fuselage space for the required directional antenna is significant, however. The directional antenna is only to aid the pilot in visually acquiring the traffic, and is not part of the collision avoidance computations.

Maybe an ACAS 1.5 with all the air-air coordination of ACAS II, but lacking the large, fancy, 4-element directional antenna, would be a good compromise. The TAS600 uses much simpler dual element blade antennas top and bottom.

GB

[PBL]

blablablafly said of military aircraft in the Flight Levels

they have no TCAS but have full time controllers looking after their everymove and special airspace set aside... and their own radar on board to find the badboys.

and was seemingly forgetting all those transports, which are often much less well equipped than commercial transports (remember Ron Brown's trip to Dubrovnik?).

I don't know about "special airspace set aside". Military aircraft fly often in the same airspace as everyone else, and are controlled, for obvious reasons, by the same controllers (who often have to have a security clearance for that reason).

PBL

[calypso]

The combination of TA only and TA/RA equipped aircraft cannot be a good one. The TA aircraft will be tempted to maneuver based on his TA display and this may jeopardize the RA by the other aircraft. In any case even on the most modern ACAS II the traffic display is erratic at best.

[fullyspooled]

CargoOne,

Have you not noticed nowadays that you actually see MUCH more traffic in the airways than you did in the year 2000. Every day I notice the proximity of other aircraft that ten years ago would have surprised me.

The skies are FAR busier now, and soon the traffic levels will multiply at a faster rate. Combine this with a watering down of average pilot proficiency, and the result is a short wait for disaster.

I wouldn't fly nowadays without TCAS - irrespective of what my MEL stated, and neither, IMHO, should VLJ pilots, operators or air taxi companies.

I think a well timed letter to the Daily Mail about Jet Bird will do the trick.

[Jetscream 32]

foolyspooled

i would think very carefully about your actions to newspapers - especially as you will affect the whole industry operating them not just a minor few that some people on here have a bee in their bonnet about.

creating and wrecking a profile of a type of aircraft because you dont think they have the right kit on board, and because you think that all the pilots operating them will be inferior to you - is a poorly thought out plan....

how about you lobby a professional body for action and speak to us operators about them and understand what we are doing to encourage safe operations for al airspace users - full stop...!

[Flying Binghi]

Sound advice Jetscream, thrashing the issue out in PPrune first is a good idea.

[CDN_ATC]

I would like to add to this thread that more than once I've passed traffic to two aircraft at night (informing them of each other as I'm required to do at times)

Out of curiosity I've asked them to "Report traffic in sight"

More than once I've passed traffic when they were at a distance of 20NM or more, and the pilots reported "Traffic in sight" at 3-4NM or less, closing at close to 1000knots (opposite direction aircraft)

That's when they were heads up looking out the window.....

[rosie11]

Hi,

I am a university student currently studying Air Transport with commercial pilot training and I currently hold a CPL.

For my dissertation I am studying the Pilot's opinion of ACAS and have developed a survey for pilots who have flown a ACAS equipped aircraft.

The survey will take less than 5 minutes and is completely anonymous and optional.

I would greatly appreciate your cooperation

Thanks


Click Here to take survey (http://www.pprune.org/forums/%3Ca%20href=)">Click Here to take survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=YP5Fh21irE1n2JJhf_2f5jkg_3d_3d)

[Nugget90]

This thread contains posts that have queried the value of TCAS/ACAS II when the pilots might be termed 'professional' (whatever that means). IMHO this doesn't mean very much, and it matters less if the 'professional' being discussed is a pilot or an air traffic controller. ACAS II is there to provide the pilot with advice that can 'save the day' in the event that something has happened to allow two aircraft to approach one another closer than either the pilot, or the controller if one is involved, would wish. So, for example:

The pilot of the intruder aircraft has continued climbing through his cleared flight level because he made an incorrect selection or because he misheard the numbers or because the 'altitude acquire' function failed to operate as expected and wasn't detected in time. Or because the controller cleared the aircraft to a wrong flight level or gave a heading that induced a conflict. or the pilot of an aircraft that could only post TAs attempted a last minute manoeuvre in IMC that induced rather than reduced the risk of a conflict.

There are many other scenarios: see the excellent series of ACAS Bulletins posted by EUROCONTROL to see what I mean! It really doesn't matter how 'professional' the pilots of one aircraft or the controller on the ground are when the 'other guy' does something unexpected: that is what TCAS/ACAS II is for - to post advice that, if followed, should save the day.

Just a comment also on the merits of TCAS I. This has not been mandated for any class of aircraft in the JAA Member States area because there can be no assurance or expectation that VMC will prevail. In the UK, many police and air ambulance helicopters have TCAS I to help their pilots identify any potential traffic operating in their vicinity: since they operate VMC for the most part this makes good sense. Yet for aeroplanes that will frequently be operating in IMC, TCAS I makes no sense: it's not dissimilar from a non-altitude reporting intruder being shown on the TCAS display. You can see the threat, but you don't know plus or minus a few thousand feet how his altitude differs from yours - and he could be co-altitude with no possibility of co-ordinated RAs if those algorithms are infringed! TCAS I is - arguably in IMC conditions - worse than no TCAS at all (but only if the non-TCAS aircraft has a serviceable, operating altitude-reporting transponder, of course).

In the busy air environment that is shared by many passenger and freight/cargo aircraft, TCAS/ACAS II is highly valuable safety equipment and should, I would argue strongly, be carried by all aeroplanes that by virtue of their size, weight, speed or complexity of operation render the 'see and avoid' principle of little value.

[IO540]

There are some people here who think the VLJs will be flying the same tracks and levels as CAT.

A bit more understanding of "IFR GA" in European airspace is needed here.

The VLJs won't be on the same tracks - they are much slower and the lower end VLJs from the GA piston makers have a low ceiling (e.g. the Diamond D-Jet, FL250 max).

So a large % of so-called VLJs will in fact be flying Eurocontrol routings not very different from what a piston IFR tourer will be flying - in that great void between the airway MEAs and about FL200/250. That's where I fly around Europe and there is quite obviously virtually no traffic there. Only rarely does one get visual with a big jet - even on a 700nm flight right across Europe's businest airspaces at say FL170. It's obvious from the ATC interaction there is not an issue flying "slower" in this huge unused airspace void.

And the Eurocontrol routings will take a flight plan filed for say FL150-250 way away from the busy terminal areas in which there is CAT at those levels, so that isn't an issue either.

And if a VLJ has a ceiling of say FL400 and you file the Eurocontrol flight plan for that and get it accepted (which you will) then given your TAS will be maybe 2/3 of a 777, ATC are not going to actually give you anywhere near the same level on the day.

So.... the "problems" are solved even before they appear. It's a non-issue.

Some VLJ owners are going to get a few suprises on the last front, relative to what they paid for, thinking their new jet will be so much more capable than the turboprop which would have carried them a little bit slower but much further, much cheaper and with more load, but that is not a safety issue :)

Finally, the marketing case for "thousands of VLJs" (phrase taken from a NATS presentation I went to) falls flat on its face as soon as one starts looking at Europe. Most of it hangs on air taxi operations anyway. It's easy to look at turboprop sales and activity over the past 10-20 years and they are only a little slower. There isn't any reason to believe the manufacturers' wild projections.

Incidentally, are there even any certified TCAS systems capable of generating an RA, for light GA? I am not aware of any.

[Denti]

Thanks for posting that link Mike, according to those mission profiles the Eclipse uses pretty much the same altitude profiles as say a 737 or most probably any other shorthaul jet.

[threemiles]

It's obvious from the ATC interaction there is not an issue flying "slower" in this huge unused airspace void.

This is a dangerous conclusion. Even this huge unused airspace would be used by commercial jet aircraft climbing and descending to higher altitude somewhere.

[IO540]

Even this huge unused airspace would be used by commercial jet aircraft climbing and descending to higher altitude somewhere.

It isn't because the route accepted by the Eurocontrol computer will take you away from those areas.

Mike Jenvey - you are right IMHO and some VLJ operators may get suprises. However, there won't be suprises on routings granted by Eurocontrol because you know the filed route before you fly. It may be 700nm for a GC distance of 600nm...

[PPRuNe Radar]

Apart from military airspace, where is this great void over Europe where there is no traffic ? :confused:

[Jetscream 32]

reply for mike jenvey.....

Mike - you seem to endorse a vigilanti style approach to things you do not like or see fit to investigate further or indeed have knowledge in?? Regulators make the decisions, we have to abide by them.

Im all for lobbying for things in the interest of flight safety but you have to have a a clear structured approach to what you want to achieve and the reasons you want to achieve it, based on facts not on personal opinion.

Just because YOU want every other aircraft operating in YOUR atmosphere to know where you are is not reason enough to call all the media into hysteria about this new breed of aircraft- when you have no facts to prove your ASSUMPTIONS...

Lots of pilots have had near misses with military traffic some very close, not fitted with TCAs, not under radar control - there will be mid-air's it is a statistic that is inevitable - however your approach is pretty rubbish in how you wish to enforce your views.

You seem to care little about your actions and how they affect jobs both directly and indirectly

If you have a problem - then get round the table and do things properly, talk constructively to the people that understand your concerns and can make a difference...... :=

[ZFT]

Remember 31/08/86? All the lessons should have been well and truly learnt that day!

[FlexibleResponse]

It won't be too long before the introduction of the "Free Flight" system will make these systems mandatory for all aircraft operating in the Free Flight designated airspace. When confidence is gained, designated free flight airspace will be expanded enormously and then all aircraft will be required to carry appropriate avoidance equipment. Even sky-divers will carry a transponder. Non-free flight airspace will then be the exception for certain types of flying activities.

My gut feeling is that will occur sooner rather than later. In the meantime...

If any aircraft wants to mix it with public transport aircraft on airways and in civil airspace, then that aircraft must be equipped with TCAS regardless of its size.

[threemiles]

It isn't because the route accepted by the Eurocontrol computer will take you away from those areas.

There is nothing such as Eurocontrol routes in Europe nor are there Eurocontrol computers taking you away from an airspace. Have you ever flown level in Central Europe at FL250? Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, London, Paris, Praha, Zurich? There will be traffic climbing and descending through your level every minute.

I assume you fly over the norther North Sea..., that may be the only place where your assumption is true.

[IO540]

Not flown (nor filed flight plans for) at FL250. Below that there doesn't seem to be a problem - the routings take one away from the SIDs and STARs.

One can fly overhead Frankfurt at FL130+ and I have done so a number of times. The traffic to/from the airport is a long way below.

[1985]

We have been briefed recently about these VLJ's and it is worrying if they can fly around Europe in the Upper airways and TMA's without TCAS. The performance figures we were shown put them in them in with commercial pax carrying traffic. They have high performance figures in the climb and descent and this is where having no TCAS will cause problems.

If they want to fly in the ATS route structure they should be subject to the same rules and regs as everyone else. I don't want to be worrying wether one aircraft has TCAS or not.

[Graybeard]

Ye of great faith in TCAS know should know that the VLJ will have Mode S transponders, so TCAS equipped a/c will escape and evade them quite handily. The VLJ will just have no TCAS protection from each other, thereby removing themselves in pairs from the aluminum gene pool..

As they mix it up with the heavies, a greater risk to VLJ will be wake turbulence.

GB

[threemiles]

One can fly overhead Frankfurt at FL130+ and I have done so a number of times. The traffic to/from the airport is a long way below.

Inbounds/outbounds EDFH, EDFM, military traffic Ramstein, EDDN and so on...
It can be silent on the one freq your on, but if you had a TCAS you'd seen what's going on around you...

Ye of great faith in TCAS know should know that the VLJ will have Mode S transponders, so TCAS equipped a/c will escape and evade them quite handily. The VLJ will just have no TCAS protection from each other, thereby removing themselves in pairs from the aluminum gene pool..

TCAS does not rely on Mode-S and Mode-S does not make it better than Mode A/C. TCAS on one aircraft only is 50% safety only as the TCAS one would get a RA and try to escape, but the VLJ stays level. 100% is definitely better.

[ESSP Flyer]

Maybe it's finally time for VDL MODE 4 to be implemented?

This enable all ac's to see each other, plus ac-ground vehicles when taxiing, all sort of things. Not very costly.

The system is invented by mr Håkan Lans, which was stolen from him and is now called ADS-B.....

http://www.eurocontrol.int/vdl4/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html

[Graybeard]

"TCAS does not rely on Mode-S and Mode-S does not make it better than Mode A/C. TCAS on one aircraft only is 50% safety only as the TCAS one would get a RA and try to escape, but the VLJ stays level. 100% is definitely better."

Try to escape? TCAS does better than that; it provides full escape from any correctly reporting target.

Mode S is better than Mode C for a long list of reasons, as it was the first real improvement in IFF since WWII. The VLJ will have full air data computer for altitude, reporting in tens of feet, rather than hundreds.

Mode C has only Gillham Code input of 11 distinct, unmonitored wires. Break one connection, and reported altitude is wrong, by hundreds of feet. In spite of FAA requirement to use the most accurate altitude source in the airplane for TCAS retrofits, some operators or TCAS vendors chose Gillham when an ADC was available. A KAL 747 with the early Honeywell TCAS nearly collided with another jumbo, as it was reporting 10,000 feet, while really at 7,000, or v-v.

Replying wrong altitude is highly unlikely with Mode S wired to a well monitored air data computer like the VLJ will have.

Remember, TCAS is the backup collision avoidance. Mode S provides much more info to ATC than Mode A/C.
And then, there's the latest, enhanced Mode S, which the VLJ will have.

GB

[funfly]

It's not only in airspace, fly at less than 1000' in the area I know well (N Wales) and experience the thrill :ooh: of military jets screaming under you at god knows what speed or, as I have had, three Herculese a couple of hundred feet above!

[CDN_ATC]

It's still quite amusing to listen to the amount of confidence people have in TCAS of any version.

It's a last ditch save, which hopefully works correctly. I've seen TCAS cause more incidents than it's ever saved.

[greywings]

As someone who has had his bacon saved more than once by TCAS, yes, I do have a lot of confidence in it. I think we should all remember what led to the push to have TCAS developed - an awful accident involving a public transport aircraft and a light trainer, in, I think, the Los Angeles TCA (or at least very close to it).

Most of the many midairs that have occured in recent times have been in 'controlled' airspace, where normal ATC procedures should have prevented them. One, unbelievably, happened in the middle of thousands of square miles of empty airspace, over the Indian Ocean. To the best of my knowledge, in none of the accidents were both aircraft TCAS-equipped. Had they been, it is almost certain - in my humble opinion - that the accidents would not have happened.

TCAS not only provides accurate and timely avoidance guidance to prevent a collision but also enhances situational awareness in a way that no other single piece of equipment can do so.

Whilst it is impossible to put all VLJ's neatly into one performance category (some are faster, higher than others), all will be mixing in with other traffic in already congested airspace. It makes no sense to permit them do so without TCAS, regardless of what a certain CEO (who should be ashamed of himself for making such a fatuous comment), has said.

I have found (most of) the preceding posts on this subject to be sensible and constructive, and the common thread seems to be that TCAS should be required.

Some of you may be interested to know that the Royal Aeronautical Society will be holding a two-day conference on the introduction of VLJ's into Europe, on the 26th and 27th March. There is an impressive line-up of speakers, representing, manufacturers, users, regulators, ATC, and, of course, pilots.

There should be some interesting discussions.

GW

[PBL]

greywings,

you will already find plenty of discussion on TCAS in the thread TCAS Philosophies (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=291507)

Participants in that thread included people such as myself who have published analyses of TCAS, and people who are on the TCAS committees. It was also followed by some TCAS experts whose positions preclude them from contributing. Unfortunately, it became moribund due to the inability of one contributor to adhere to appropriate standards of discussion. This issue might not arise again; I suggest that anyone wishing to discuss TCAS consider starting that thread up.

As someone who has had his bacon saved more than once by TCAS, yes, I do have a lot of confidence in it.

The number of people who claim to have had their bacon saved by TCAS is surprisingly large; indeed, it is far larger than the number of midair collisions one might have expected in the same time frame. So it cannot be the case that all TCAS "saves" would have been collisions. And on the other hand, one must also consider the near-accidents caused by the operation of TCAS, including one mid-air collision in which the use of TCAS was demonstrably a causal factor.

There are many aspects of TCAS which are not understood. For example, the algorithms (the pilot procedures) have been shown to be adequate for two-aircraft conflicts. However, it is not known whether they will suffice for three-aircraft conflicts or higher. And there have been, say, four-aircraft incidents caused by responses to RAs, which resulted in an airmiss filing.

The safety analysis of the system is to my mind (as I have published) also inadequate. The hazards in the system have not been adequately addressed; in particular the hazard of erroneous information coming from a source "outside" the immediate TCAS environment affecting the behavior of one participant (as happened in the midair to which I referred above), and the decision problems faced by RA participants, which can present them with quandaries which no one to date has been able to resolve.

None of this is to say whether TCAS is a "good thing" or a "bad thing". It is to say that it seems to be the case that because the introduction of TCAS was a political and not a technical decision, various necessary safety analyses that would ordinarily have been performed before a system such as this could be mandated seem to have fallen by the wayside over the last 18 years, and the associated problems reoccur without anybody necessarily being able to do much about them (TCAS is regarded as a "done thing").

I think we should all remember what led to the push to have TCAS developed - an awful accident involving a public transport aircraft and a light trainer, in, I think, the Los Angeles TCA (or at least very close to it).

That is incorrect. TCAS had been under development for a very long time before the Cerritos accident. Furthermore, it would not have helped avoid the collision as the Warrior was not squawking Mode C. However, Congress reacted to the Cerritos accident by mandating TCAS introduction for commercial airplanes. One can wonder about the wisdom involved in mandating a measure that would not even have avoided the accident which triggered the political process.

PBL

[greywings]

PBL, I have now read through the 'TCAS Philiosophies' that you referred to and have found nothing in any of the posts to even remotely change my mind. Without a doubt, there are flaws in the system (TCAS), but, to the average pilot, it makes no difference if the kit is 6.04 or any other version. What he / she needs is a piece of equipment that enhances situational awareness and provides an escape route if things get really messy.

I found nothing enlightening in your 'statistics' regarding the number of pilots who implied that TCAS had saved their bacon. We all know that if an event were allowed to run it's course, maybe an actual collision would not have happened, but may instead have resulted in a near miss. Frankly, that is immaterial when one is trawling 400+ pax around the sky. A near-miss should be investigated diligently, and any lessons learned circulated as widely as possible, in the same way that we study incidents that may have become accidents..

There are certainly inadequacies that need to be addressed, amongst them the standard of training given to pilots. Some are fortunate enough to have excellent training in the classroom and simulator and feel well-prepared for use of the equipment - under any circumstances. Others are not, and we are all familiar with the consequences of incorrect actions at critical times.

Rather than engage in technical one-upmanship, I would like to see us leave the design of equipment to the engineers while we, the pilot body, make sure that we understand the euipment - flaws and all - and use it correctly.

GW

[fendant]

Here are some price indications ( from a year 2001 spec sheet ) for mid size corporate aircraft:

a) TCAS I Bendix/King US$ 83.200

b) TCAS II Bendix King US$ 149.700

c) TCAS II Honeywell US$ 149.700

Assume that TCAS II is now closer to 100.000 US$, which is more than affordable for a 2.5 Mio $ fly away price VLJ. ( Especially if you convert it to Euros nowadays ).

Frank

[FerrypilotDK]

There seems to be one item of understanding that is missing. All these aircraft have a possibility of having a traffic system easily installed. Infact, most of the Cessna 182s, Piper Senecas, etc HAVE this when they leave the factories! But these are not TCAS, in that they give you no command. They simply display the traffic on the screen and give you the relative position, changing colour if a danger, and then an aural warning as the final step. That final step of ordering me about, I can frankly do without. So if the box is telling me where the traffic is, showing it to me and yelling at me, if I don´t react to the visuals.....cannot the pilots take some reasonable responsibilty to avoid? This takes care of 2,3,4 aircraft, whereas the commands are uncertain in a true TCAS II installation...

Sometimes technology is a tool, sometimes it is allowed to become a crutch.

[Shunter]

Very Light Jets with no TCAS in commercial airspaceExcuse me? Commercial airspace? Did you mean Class A airspace, frequently used by commercial traffic?

[old-timer]

It's a no-brainer, get TCAS fitted, these are not cheap old spam cans, these are high cost a/c $$$$$$$$$$$$:ugh::ugh:

[MainDude]

It's amusing to me that the cost of these systems are more than a whole german luxury sedan!

Given the number of existing & potential customers, the justification for these prices is getting thinner. Could it be that manufacture is limited to ICAO just 3 suppliers?

For a reasonable price, operators & owners wouldn't think twice about it.

[fendant]

The number of potential manufacturers of VLJ's is melting like snow in spring sun. Adams closed doors some weeks ago, the survival of Eclipse is in jeopardy in the current lending climate. They need urgently another cash injection to stay afloat. This leaves the Cessna Mustang and the Embraer Phenom as the most likely survivors offering VLJ's. Both are pricing their products in the +/- 3 Mio US$ range, so making a TCAS mandatory should not really be an issue for the operators.

The current real backlog for VLJ's is estimated to be only 1500 planes and not the 10.000 to 15.000 reported (and believed ) by some whacky Wall Street guys or dubious private equity houses. Gone are also the Eclipse fairy tales of selling an eclipse for 1 Mio US$. I think that the "VLJ's darkening the sky" is no longer an issue.

Frank