ferris
Just as you mentioned ,let northbound one turn right ,the large turn radious may let northbound aircraft head on with westbound one ,do you think so ???If I turn northbound one left and turn westbound one right at the same time, I think it is better than a head on.:confused:

Ferris
Your comment: "Sure. My need to explain it shows you have no ATC experience and hence have been telling porkies" raises an attitude problem.

Why not help as opposed to being a negative git. Give the benefit of your worldwide experience to educate all.
The poster obviously has ATC experience but is perhaps limited to exposure to western ways of working.
Cut some slack and get off your high horse/donkey.

Cauatc, the CAP 717 document is the best that it available.
Good luck with your work.

Cheers:ok:

Vercingetorix
Thanks so much , it seems that there is really a difference in the way that we work and western ways of working,but I will thinking aobut that.:ok:
Cheers
Jack

Hi Cauc,
Having read 6.13.7, I can see how turning both aircraft in the same direction may be less than optimal, however if (in the example diagram given) plane01 turned right 90 degrees and then plane02 did the same, the following criteria would be kept to a minimum:
- Reduction of separation (they wouldn't come close to each other)
- Duration of conflict (they would head away from each other fastest)

It seems counter-intuitive at first. I had to think about it. My initial reaction was to tell plane01 to turn right and plane02 to turn left. However, at the apex of these turns, the two aircraft would get very close.

I suggest drawing a diagram of the scenario as they have depicted in 6.13, then plot the routes the two planes would take.

HTH

Caucatc: You may also wish to consider that there are many pilots who will ignore ATC during a TCAS RA. After all, it was probably an oversight/foul-up in that ATC system the caused the RA in the first place. It is also my understanding that once I'm instructed to perform a TCAS manoeuvre, the system expects that I'll maintain my existing heading. I'll also wager that it would be a bugger for ATC to give any sensible headings to traffic involved in TCAS RA's.

PM

Ok, I will, you sad old git. Perhaps in your haste to put $hit on me, you missed the body of my post, which was an explanation for the guy. It probably hasn't occurred to you, but if you look thru the posters history, he is more likely a software developer writing code for a video game or an add-on for Flightsim (or some such thing).
Do you seriously think that a person in the position of writing regulations or instructing in a college (as he/she has variously claimed) would have the knowledge base demonstrated here? Would seek answers on Pprune? Basic vectoring questions etc? Exactly how stupid are you? This is the internet, ffs, people can make all sorts of claims. I would prefer he just came out and told the truth. You, however, may continue to post your stupidity for all the world to see.

Welliewanger is correct. Given the disposition of the a/c in that diagram, if you turn the northbound left and the westbound right I don't believe the apex of the turns would occur until after they had passed (the first time). They would then be pointing at each other again (if they survived the first pass). Very high performance a/c such as fighters might be able to make the turns the poster suggests. Not airliners.

ferris
Ok ,let me tell you the truth ,I am not any computer game writer ,I am a controller in BeiJing,China,maybe I do not know as much as you do ,it's ok ,but anybody was started from nothing,don't think you are the only one that knows a lot !!!!!!!!!!!

I seriously doubt any controller in his right mind would turn two perpendically crossing aircraft in different directions to delay the cross unless one is supposed change level. That would put them parallelish so when and how are you going to resume them without changing level???

I think ferris is quite right, maybe a bit too harsh. How many of you actually bothered looking at what cauatc is suggesting and claiming he is a controller?

Either way caucatc, turning them left and right simply delays the cross but does not solve the problem. By turning them the same way, you push the one behind further behind and one in front further front. Draw it on a paper and you will understand.

ATC maybe handled different in different countries, but you cannot change the basic rules of physics.

Thanks tolgab:ok:

Why have you not tried ICAO documentation, cauatc? Your country is signed up to them as are most in the world, and they provide invaluable advice as to what to do in an "unfortunate situation". They provide exactly the advice necessary that you are required to give if an aircraft states that they are following an RA. You should be able to easily obtain this from your employer as they will have access to it, and if they do not wish to give you this internationally renowned information, then email them (ICAO) and get it yourself, they are very understanding.

Ferris, as ever, you over estimate your importance, i.e. there is no haste to put $hit on you. It is a leisurely and ongoing experience.
MontBlanc1, excellent advice but perhaps caucatc may not be able to access all ICAO documentation, otherwise why scribble on here?

Ferris, someone, somewhere must love you but I think that it is time to rename you Ferret and put you back into the wild with your Weazel chum.

To infinity and beyond and, hopefully, back in time for a pint of Guinness.

CÉAD MÍLE FÁILTE (as opposed to my normal latin) to all readers with the exception of the Mild Bunch aka Ferret & Weazel

:ok: