TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... no answers 
... 
... thankyou for confirming the theory!
.
.... even without EGPWS, are you telling us that TCAS and presumably RADAR installations is safer and more cost effective than ADS-B and fitment subsidy! .... just a yes or no and supporting evidence (no I believe's thanks)
... ... thankyou for confirming the theory!.
.... even without EGPWS, are you telling us that TCAS and presumably RADAR installations is safer and more cost effective than ADS-B and fitment subsidy! .... just a yes or no and supporting evidence (no I believe's thanks)
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, you state:
No, I am not. The fact is that TCAS and radar presently exist, whereas ADS-B ‘in’ does not exist in any certified form. I’m sure ADS-B is the way to go in the long term, however I believe that is up to a decade away.
Why not harmonise with the rest of the world? Let’s have the advantages of TCAS now.
I agree that TCAS is not perfect, but it is certainly better than no TCAS. If it were not, the United States and other leading aviation countries would not have the requirement.
I wonder if the “fitment subsidy” is nothing but a pipe dream. As stated many times on this site, the airlines (namely, Qantas) refuse to have a bar of it. They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft. The Qantas pilots may have thought it was a good idea, but their bosses did not – and I’m sure you know who has the maximum sway at the moment.
even without EGPWS, are you telling us that TCAS and presumably RADAR installations is safer and more cost effective than ADS-B and fitment subsidy!
Why not harmonise with the rest of the world? Let’s have the advantages of TCAS now.
I agree that TCAS is not perfect, but it is certainly better than no TCAS. If it were not, the United States and other leading aviation countries would not have the requirement.
I wonder if the “fitment subsidy” is nothing but a pipe dream. As stated many times on this site, the airlines (namely, Qantas) refuse to have a bar of it. They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft. The Qantas pilots may have thought it was a good idea, but their bosses did not – and I’m sure you know who has the maximum sway at the moment.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that TCAS and radar presently exist,
whereas ADS-B ‘in’ does not exist in any certified form.
I’m sure ADS-B is the way to go in the long term, however I believe that is up to a decade away.
Why not harmonise with the rest of the world? Let’s have the advantages of TCAS now.
I agree that TCAS is not perfect, but it is certainly better than no TCAS.
If it were not, the United States and other leading aviation countries would not have the requirement.
I wonder if the “fitment subsidy” is nothing but a pipe dream.
As stated many times on this site, the airlines (namely, Qantas) refuse to have a bar of it.
They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft.
The Qantas pilots may have thought it was a good idea, but their bosses did not
– and I’m sure you know who has the maximum sway at the moment.
…. but I shall refrain! 
Thread Starter
Scurvy.D.Dog, have you ever heard of the expression, “slowly slowly catchy monkey?”
You may wonder why, in over a five year period with over $100 million expended, that CASA has got virtually nowhere with the Regulatory Reform Program. This is because those involved keep asking for the ultimate and then it is rejected – this delays the whole program.
You state:
Scurvy.D.Dog, you do not seem to understand. No RPTs have ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. a display of ADS-B ‘paints’ in the aircraft cockpit. As the greatest chance of a collision is close to the circuit area – quite often below radar coverage for aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, and quite often below ADS-B ‘back to base coverage’ at many airports for similar sized aircraft – it is obviously more sensible to concentrate on TCAS.
Remember, TCAS works without any radar coverage at all. Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working as two aircraft in the circuit area at Sydney airport.
You state:
Yes, I have always supported ADS-B, as long as it is properly certified and designed – and most importantly, has some thought about the problem of ‘spoofing’ by terrorists or amateur disrupters.
The FAA has now said that when they issue a tender for ADS-B, the system will be required to be protected against simple spoofing. The Airservices high level system that is currently being installed has no real ‘spoofing’ rejection capability. I’ve offered to demonstrate this to them.
You state:
We already have the most restrictive mandatory transponder requirements in the world. I know – I introduced them. However, we are way behind the rest of the world in TCAS requirements for airline aircraft. Surely we should at least step forward slowly where we have a chance of success. As I said, “slowly slowly catchy monkey.”
The fact that the “fitment subsidy is nothing but a pipe dream” is no one’s fault – it is just a fact of life. The powerful airlines will not cross-subsidise $100 million worth of equipment for the GA industry unless they see a real advantage in this. Their experts do not.
The fact that Airservices Australia is spending a lot of money in installing a multilateration transponder system in Tasmania shows that they are not totally convinced that ADS-B is the way to go for low level in the short term. This sounds sensible to me.
If you look at all of my postings over the years, I have always supported ADS-B. I simply do not want Australia to go it alone as we did with the unique AWA DME, or the microwave landing system. I’m a businessman and I know how to make sensible business decisions. One of the success forces in business is to be conservative when it comes to risk taking. That is what I always follow.
You may wonder why, in over a five year period with over $100 million expended, that CASA has got virtually nowhere with the Regulatory Reform Program. This is because those involved keep asking for the ultimate and then it is rejected – this delays the whole program.
You state:
… many RPT’s already have ADS-B
Remember, TCAS works without any radar coverage at all. Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working as two aircraft in the circuit area at Sydney airport.
You state:
… you support ADS-B?
The FAA has now said that when they issue a tender for ADS-B, the system will be required to be protected against simple spoofing. The Airservices high level system that is currently being installed has no real ‘spoofing’ rejection capability. I’ve offered to demonstrate this to them.
You state:
.. so why not mandate mode A/C transponders???
The fact that the “fitment subsidy is nothing but a pipe dream” is no one’s fault – it is just a fact of life. The powerful airlines will not cross-subsidise $100 million worth of equipment for the GA industry unless they see a real advantage in this. Their experts do not.
The fact that Airservices Australia is spending a lot of money in installing a multilateration transponder system in Tasmania shows that they are not totally convinced that ADS-B is the way to go for low level in the short term. This sounds sensible to me.
If you look at all of my postings over the years, I have always supported ADS-B. I simply do not want Australia to go it alone as we did with the unique AWA DME, or the microwave landing system. I’m a businessman and I know how to make sensible business decisions. One of the success forces in business is to be conservative when it comes to risk taking. That is what I always follow.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this argument being taken round in circles?
OK so lets all agree that ALL public transport aircraft (and that includes Air Taxi/On Demand and Charter) regardless of seat numbers, size or number of engines should be fitted with TCAS. Social equity demands the same level of safety for ALL.
Whether you set the seat limit at 10 or more is irrelevant when close to if not 100% of these flights are going to a regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend some time during flight in "G".?? If its Public transport its Public transport, see above.
Ergo ALL Public transport aircraft MUST ALSO carry and operate a transponder to be able to see each other.
Given that leaves, oh I dont know, maybe another 9,000 aircraft that MAY or MAY NOT be able to be seen by them. How many of those have serviceable and accurate, or regularly checked, transponders? Dunno, but it only takes one who hasn't or who does and does not have it turned on, or hasn't been in a radar environment requiring it for yonks, to spoil your day. Anecdotal it may be, but in my experience it is probably 60% of the total, and close to 100% of those live and operate in and around the aforementioned regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend close to ALL of the time during flight in "G". This is the unique Australian airspace. It is like no other, anywhere.
Ergo for TCAS to be "fully effective" for ALL Public transport aircraft equipped so, ALL (= every) aircraft must be equipped with serviceable and operating transponder, hard wired to the master switch.
Or do we simply revert to what is merely a modern version of the "old fashioned calling in the blind" technique for Public transport operations .
Unless I'm missing something here TCAS doesn't work with out its mate the transponder also working.
And the thought just occured to me that given universal mandatory equipment of TCAS and transponder in ALL aircraft, for the moment, you could probably give anything not A, C and D airspace back to G. Then we would be "ready" conceptually and in mindset for ADSB, in whatever form it arrives. ????
Cost, well you already know my feelings about that. You are either going to have a seamless safety Public transport safety system or not, you cant have it both ways.
As for the "BIG airlines not wishing to subsidise" GA hogwash, that may well be true but only because they have been persuaded by someone that it is so. IMHO there is a COMPELLING argument why in this country anyway they should revisit this concept and quickly. One may well ask who "sold" or at the least "were not sufficiently competent to be able to defend it" to them in the first place and why. The entry of Tiger and others into the regional marketplaces raises the stakes alarmingly.
OK so lets all agree that ALL public transport aircraft (and that includes Air Taxi/On Demand and Charter) regardless of seat numbers, size or number of engines should be fitted with TCAS. Social equity demands the same level of safety for ALL.
Whether you set the seat limit at 10 or more is irrelevant when close to if not 100% of these flights are going to a regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend some time during flight in "G".?? If its Public transport its Public transport, see above.
Ergo ALL Public transport aircraft MUST ALSO carry and operate a transponder to be able to see each other.
Given that leaves, oh I dont know, maybe another 9,000 aircraft that MAY or MAY NOT be able to be seen by them. How many of those have serviceable and accurate, or regularly checked, transponders? Dunno, but it only takes one who hasn't or who does and does not have it turned on, or hasn't been in a radar environment requiring it for yonks, to spoil your day. Anecdotal it may be, but in my experience it is probably 60% of the total, and close to 100% of those live and operate in and around the aforementioned regional/remote/non radar/uncontrolled strips/private mining strips and spend close to ALL of the time during flight in "G". This is the unique Australian airspace. It is like no other, anywhere.
Ergo for TCAS to be "fully effective" for ALL Public transport aircraft equipped so, ALL (= every) aircraft must be equipped with serviceable and operating transponder, hard wired to the master switch.
Or do we simply revert to what is merely a modern version of the "old fashioned calling in the blind" technique for Public transport operations .
Unless I'm missing something here TCAS doesn't work with out its mate the transponder also working.
And the thought just occured to me that given universal mandatory equipment of TCAS and transponder in ALL aircraft, for the moment, you could probably give anything not A, C and D airspace back to G. Then we would be "ready" conceptually and in mindset for ADSB, in whatever form it arrives. ????
Cost, well you already know my feelings about that. You are either going to have a seamless safety Public transport safety system or not, you cant have it both ways.
As for the "BIG airlines not wishing to subsidise" GA hogwash, that may well be true but only because they have been persuaded by someone that it is so. IMHO there is a COMPELLING argument why in this country anyway they should revisit this concept and quickly. One may well ask who "sold" or at the least "were not sufficiently competent to be able to defend it" to them in the first place and why. The entry of Tiger and others into the regional marketplaces raises the stakes alarmingly.
Gaunty, I'm glad someone stated the bleeding obvious.
TCAS will not work unless there is a corresponding Transponder.
Mandating TCAS without mandating Transponders (especially for the likely conflict suspects ... bugsmashers) is like mandating that all aircraft flying into Timbucktoo must have an ADF (as it's safer) ... although there is no NDB at Timbucktoo.
TCAS will not work unless there is a corresponding Transponder.
Mandating TCAS without mandating Transponders (especially for the likely conflict suspects ... bugsmashers) is like mandating that all aircraft flying into Timbucktoo must have an ADF (as it's safer) ... although there is no NDB at Timbucktoo.
Well said, Gaunty.
And so one organisation significantly affected by the proposal and missing from the thread title is obviously AOPA.
Wonder what they think of mandatory fitment of mode C transponders for all GA aircraft
And so one organisation significantly affected by the proposal and missing from the thread title is obviously AOPA.
Wonder what they think of mandatory fitment of mode C transponders for all GA aircraft
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate since the days of regulatory dismemberment its all been backwards.
In the good 'ol US of A the airlines (pax) have paid for the WHOLE system with GA (inc corporate) riding along on the basis that their "load" on the system compared to the airlines, is in the scheme of things, irrelevant.
There is a movement by the US Govt to go GA user pays which is causing a bit of angst as the GA/airline "load" ratio has not significantly changed. It is also based on a review of the whole airline passenger taxation revenue system that has been supporting the FAA forever.
Go here for the full drama: http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/
AOPA US who now have way over 400,000 members, 400 staff, a seriously big bank balance and seriously respected clout are not going down easy neither is the equally powerful NBAA.
Lil Johnny must have been comparing notes with his mate George Dubya.
In any event the whole regulatory system exists for the airlines, that GA could ride off it should never have been an issue in Australia nor become one in the US.
I seem to recall a GA mantra that was sung from the rafters which went something like "pay your own way, have your own say" ?? which is fine and beaut, but you shouldn't complain when you do have to pay. Now as a businessman I hardly ever look a gift horse in the mouth, one can only wonder why those responsible for that concept thought it was a good idea.
I digress, the cat was out of the bag when the DCA was split up, and Airservices became, well, a service provider, required to operate at a profit. It will not go back in the bag easily.
The airlines dont run Airservices and if you look at the GA portion of thier revenue its hardly worth the costs of collecting it.
IMHO the "airlines wont cop it routine" is empty rhetoric and polemic. If ADSB is going to save Airservices therefore the users, GA heaps, it must be saving the airlines squillions. Lets see the data before we fall for that one shall we.
Like your "Timbuktu" isn't it obvious our betters
new better.
Stampede/frighten the proletariate on to the guns shall we, then we can "save" them. Works every time.
In the good 'ol US of A the airlines (pax) have paid for the WHOLE system with GA (inc corporate) riding along on the basis that their "load" on the system compared to the airlines, is in the scheme of things, irrelevant.
There is a movement by the US Govt to go GA user pays which is causing a bit of angst as the GA/airline "load" ratio has not significantly changed. It is also based on a review of the whole airline passenger taxation revenue system that has been supporting the FAA forever.
Go here for the full drama: http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/
AOPA US who now have way over 400,000 members, 400 staff, a seriously big bank balance and seriously respected clout are not going down easy neither is the equally powerful NBAA.
Lil Johnny must have been comparing notes with his mate George Dubya.
In any event the whole regulatory system exists for the airlines, that GA could ride off it should never have been an issue in Australia nor become one in the US.
I seem to recall a GA mantra that was sung from the rafters which went something like "pay your own way, have your own say" ?? which is fine and beaut, but you shouldn't complain when you do have to pay. Now as a businessman I hardly ever look a gift horse in the mouth, one can only wonder why those responsible for that concept thought it was a good idea.
I digress, the cat was out of the bag when the DCA was split up, and Airservices became, well, a service provider, required to operate at a profit. It will not go back in the bag easily.
The airlines dont run Airservices and if you look at the GA portion of thier revenue its hardly worth the costs of collecting it.
IMHO the "airlines wont cop it routine" is empty rhetoric and polemic. If ADSB is going to save Airservices therefore the users, GA heaps, it must be saving the airlines squillions. Lets see the data before we fall for that one shall we.
Like your "Timbuktu" isn't it obvious our betters
new better. Stampede/frighten the proletariate on to the guns shall we, then we can "save" them. Works every time.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be picky.....when you say all GA, some might think to exclude all the RAA and glider folk.
If you can afford to fly, you can afford a transponder, and to have it check every two years.\
And if ADSB ever gets going, the Microair system would have both in one small box.....so no excuses then! Its small light and not that expensive, and if it was "dontaed" who cares, fit it and maintain it. Cheapest safety ever invented. Apart from your eyes
J
If you can afford to fly, you can afford a transponder, and to have it check every two years.\
And if ADSB ever gets going, the Microair system would have both in one small box.....so no excuses then! Its small light and not that expensive, and if it was "dontaed" who cares, fit it and maintain it. Cheapest safety ever invented. Apart from your eyes
J
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Midnight
I know what is used to be and suspect it has not changed, which is why I was a bit puzzled but not surprised when Mr Smith did not include them in his call to the alphabet soup lot.
Perhaps he just forgot?? Mr Smith can you help us out here please.??
J340
I hate it when that happens
If the RAA and gliders want to fly in G and if you genuinely want to complete the safety circle for ALL then YES.
I expect you've got a small but statistically finite chance of surviving an impact with a biggie in a VH aircraft, even it seems a glider recently but I reckon zero to none in most RAA types.
And that l'ill Microair thingy was a real whizbang.
I know what is used to be and suspect it has not changed, which is why I was a bit puzzled but not surprised when Mr Smith did not include them in his call to the alphabet soup lot.
Perhaps he just forgot?? Mr Smith can you help us out here please.??
J340
I hate it when that happens
If the RAA and gliders want to fly in G and if you genuinely want to complete the safety circle for ALL then YES.
I expect you've got a small but statistically finite chance of surviving an impact with a biggie in a VH aircraft, even it seems a glider recently but I reckon zero to none in most RAA types.
And that l'ill Microair thingy was a real whizbang.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen .. Bravo!
.
I’m doubling up a little, but I typed the damd thing so here it is!
…. Dick, you are going to have to explain this to me, could you cite an example of the ‘ultimate’ that has been rejected?
… I understand fully, the ‘plug in’ costs … what do you suppose a new TCAS install (without ADS-B) costs for small commuters when compared with new TCAS with ADS-B ‘in’ functionality also??
.. exxxackery … and how many in those airspace areas have TXPDRS let alone accurate ones?
… well we should do something about that eh!
… argh 
I give up!
. yes and will ony see GA aircraft with TXPDR ON (maybe)
… no not really! … the aircraft in the circuit at Windorah are likely GA and possibly not TXPDR equipped, the aircraft in the circuit at Sydney would likely be big aircraft with digital RVSM encoders (highly accurate) any thing else (helo,s) would most definitely have a TXPDR and it would be checked by ATS nearly every flight! .. see the difference!
… some thought ….OK .... not that I think anybody (of sound mind and capability) would bother .... So make the dam’d thing Licensed equipment i.e. for manufacturers of units for aerial conveyances, operations vehicles and ATS … and huge penalties for breaches … and lets not forget that the Oz ATS surveillance systems will NOT display a non-registered target!
.. can you provide some support for this assertion?
.. in class E particularly … why is that? … what about OCTA in non radar G or CTAF??
… that would be the ever decreasing number of small commuters?
… step forward slowly …. now that is novel!
…. Nice banana!
…. if you are right, opportunity lost is what it amounts to IMHO!!
… or perhaps the WAMLat is being trialled for use to replace the PRM (due to the inherent accuracy)? … it also coincidentally, provides future system options in parallel … I am glad you support it!
… I must have missed something last year then!
… no doubt! ... have you the technical, system and business knowledge to make this decision (for all of us)?
….Ooooooo K!
.
I’m doubling up a little, but I typed the damd thing so here it is!
This is because those involved keep asking for the ultimate and then it is rejected
… you do not seem to understand. No RPTs have ADS-B ‘in’ – i.e. a display of ADS-B ‘paints’ in the aircraft cockpit.
As the greatest chance of a collision is close to the circuit area – quite often below radar coverage for aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers,
and quite often below ADS-B ‘back to base coverage’ at many airports for similar sized aircraft
– it is obviously more sensible to concentrate on TCAS.
I give up!
Remember, TCAS works without any radar coverage at all.
Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working as two aircraft in the circuit area at Sydney airport.
I have always supported ADS-B, as long as it is properly certified and designed – and most importantly, has some thought about the problem of ‘spoofing’ by terrorists or amateur disrupters.
The Airservices high level system that is currently being installed has no real ‘spoofing’ rejection capability.
We already have the most restrictive mandatory transponder requirements in the world. I know – I introduced them.
However, we are way behind the rest of the world in TCAS requirements for airline aircraft.
Surely we should at least step forward slowly where we have a chance of success.
As I said, “slowly slowly catchy monkey.”
The fact that the “fitment subsidy is nothing but a pipe dream” is no one’s fault – it is just a fact of life.
The fact that Airservices Australia is spending a lot of money in installing a multilateration transponder system in Tasmania shows that they are not totally convinced that ADS-B is the way to go for low level in the short term. This sounds sensible to me.
If you look at all of my postings over the years, I have always supported ADS-B.
I simply do not want Australia to go it alone as we did with the unique AWA DME, or the microwave landing system. I’m a businessman and I know how to make sensible business decisions.
One of the success forces in business is to be conservative when it comes to risk taking. That is what I always follow.
Thread Starter
I suggest posters look at my original post again. Isn’t it extraordinary that no one from The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators has made a post in support of Australia harmonising with other modern aviation countries in relation to TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 to 30 passengers?
All we seem to get is a diatribe of comments about mandating transponders in all airspace. As I have stated previously, we are already leading the world in mandatory transponder requirements for VFR GA aircraft. Why can’t we at least catch up to the world with TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 – 30 passengers?
Surely there must be pilots who fly these aircraft which are not TCAS fitted, who would like to have the additional level of safety?
Some midairs around the world occur in controlled airspace, where an air traffic controller has made a human error. That is where TCAS comes into its own. If one of these airline aircraft (of between 10 and 30 passengers) is flying in controlled airspace, say at Sydney or Brisbane, and an air traffic controller or a pilot makes an error, there is no TCAS to give a Resolution Advisory – and possibly save many lives.
Come on AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN, why not make a comment?
All we seem to get is a diatribe of comments about mandating transponders in all airspace. As I have stated previously, we are already leading the world in mandatory transponder requirements for VFR GA aircraft. Why can’t we at least catch up to the world with TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 – 30 passengers?
Surely there must be pilots who fly these aircraft which are not TCAS fitted, who would like to have the additional level of safety?
Some midairs around the world occur in controlled airspace, where an air traffic controller has made a human error. That is where TCAS comes into its own. If one of these airline aircraft (of between 10 and 30 passengers) is flying in controlled airspace, say at Sydney or Brisbane, and an air traffic controller or a pilot makes an error, there is no TCAS to give a Resolution Advisory – and possibly save many lives.
Come on AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN, why not make a comment?
OK, now we are getting to the nitty gritty. Correct me if I am wrong:
It still all comes down to cost-benefit. Is there such a risk in Australian controlled airspace that the cost of fittment is warranted?
It still all comes down to cost-benefit. Is there such a risk in Australian controlled airspace that the cost of fittment is warranted?
Dick Smith said:
Clearly references to GA & class G airspace, but now we're only talking about the benefits of TCAS in controlled airspace??
Clearly the likelihood of a 10-30 pax aircraft (and anything else) having a mid-air is vastly higher in class G (particularly in your oft-quoted "terminal areas") than in controlled airspace.
So using your argument for TCAS to be most effective to those 10-30 pax aircraft, all in class G would have to be transponder equipped.
They were not going to spend $100 million of their “savings” in subsidising GA aircraft.
Two aircraft in the circuit area at Windorah have the same chance of TCAS working
Clearly the likelihood of a 10-30 pax aircraft (and anything else) having a mid-air is vastly higher in class G (particularly in your oft-quoted "terminal areas") than in controlled airspace.
So using your argument for TCAS to be most effective to those 10-30 pax aircraft, all in class G would have to be transponder equipped.
Thread Starter
CaptainMidnight, clearly one of the greatest benefits of TCAS is when air traffic control or pilot error puts two aircraft at the same altitude in the same location at the same time. This is becoming more of a problem because GPS is so accurate, and RVSM is so accurate.
I think if you look at the figures you will find that about 80% of VFR aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger airline aircraft are transponder equipped. By fitting TCAS to these airline aircraft, it is obvious that safety will be improved.
By not supporting the fact that we harmonise our airline rules with that of other leading aviation countries and going off on a track of mandating even more unique transponder requirements for VFR aircraft, you are showing your true colours. That is, delay, delay, delay.
Are you really suggesting that we should mandate transponders for all VFR aircraft? That is, cropdusters?
I believe we should catch up with the rest of the world in relation to airline safety before we move ahead and lead the world.
Having said that, I am certainly supportive of more transponder requirements for VFR aircraft.
I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.
I think if you look at the figures you will find that about 80% of VFR aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger airline aircraft are transponder equipped. By fitting TCAS to these airline aircraft, it is obvious that safety will be improved.
By not supporting the fact that we harmonise our airline rules with that of other leading aviation countries and going off on a track of mandating even more unique transponder requirements for VFR aircraft, you are showing your true colours. That is, delay, delay, delay.
Are you really suggesting that we should mandate transponders for all VFR aircraft? That is, cropdusters?
I believe we should catch up with the rest of the world in relation to airline safety before we move ahead and lead the world.
Having said that, I am certainly supportive of more transponder requirements for VFR aircraft.
I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
You cant please all the people all of the time, so I say any proposals should be put forward, and yes some wont like it.
I think that whoever it was (the big Q and others) that wanted to ditch ADSB subsidy is a bit naive. Many on here have said you think safety is expensive.........
I do think we should work towards 100% ADSB and mode C transponders, and yes even a crop duster, because I am sure at say .....Moree, St George or similar places, they operate right up to the airport boundaries, and at times fly in and out of these airports.
Some could argue that their Drifter thats only ever flown over their own cattle station is not a risk, and thats true, but how do you keep them their? they can fly them anywhere, so you rely on folk doing the right thing if you make exemptions.
Myself I am in favor of everyone having the gear AND doing the right thing.
Have a good weekend evryone!
J
You cant please all the people all of the time, so I say any proposals should be put forward, and yes some wont like it.
I think that whoever it was (the big Q and others) that wanted to ditch ADSB subsidy is a bit naive. Many on here have said you think safety is expensive.........
I do think we should work towards 100% ADSB and mode C transponders, and yes even a crop duster, because I am sure at say .....Moree, St George or similar places, they operate right up to the airport boundaries, and at times fly in and out of these airports.
Some could argue that their Drifter thats only ever flown over their own cattle station is not a risk, and thats true, but how do you keep them their? they can fly them anywhere, so you rely on folk doing the right thing if you make exemptions.
Myself I am in favor of everyone having the gear AND doing the right thing.
Have a good weekend evryone!
J
Actually, TCAS does NOT provide RAs or TAs below certain pre-determined levels (so is less effective in terminal areas.)
Also, whilst TCAS will provide a one-way RA between a TCAs equipped aircraft and a TXP-C equipped aircraft, it is much more effective between TWO TCAS equipped aircraft as it gives them both complimentery RAs. Indeed, one aircraft manaeuvering in response to an RA whilst another tries to do so visually or in response to an ATC instruction completely negates the effectivness of the system.
Conclusion?
If Mr Smith is true to his ideals, he should be advocating the fittment, use, and training of TCAS to ALL Australian aircraft and ALL Australian pilots.
Or does cost actually play a part in the real world.....
Also, whilst TCAS will provide a one-way RA between a TCAs equipped aircraft and a TXP-C equipped aircraft, it is much more effective between TWO TCAS equipped aircraft as it gives them both complimentery RAs. Indeed, one aircraft manaeuvering in response to an RA whilst another tries to do so visually or in response to an ATC instruction completely negates the effectivness of the system.
Conclusion?
If Mr Smith is true to his ideals, he should be advocating the fittment, use, and training of TCAS to ALL Australian aircraft and ALL Australian pilots.
Or does cost actually play a part in the real world.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J430... you're not wrong about the cropdusters...
I once had an RFDS MED1 priority flight depart an airstrip in Class G airspace. Shortly thereafter he advised me "I nearly got cleaned up by a cropduster on departure" and asked me if I knew of any VFR aircraft operating in that area. We had a lengthy conversation about it and a few issues quickly became apparent:
1. The cropduster was either not transponder equipped, or, had not switched it on (it didn't paint on the RFDS aircrafts TCAS and it didn't paint on my RADAR).
2. The cropduster was operating in the approach path of a country town airport and not monitoring the appropriate frequency or not responding to the calls made by the RFDS aircraft and by myself.
3. See & Avoid was not possible. This was a case of "See as we miss by sheer blind luck".
The RFDS pilot was a very angry man for five apparent reasons:
1. No transponder signal.
2. No radio call.
3. No traffic advice.
4. No See-&-Avoid.
5. My patient, my medical crew and myself nearly died.
I once had an RFDS MED1 priority flight depart an airstrip in Class G airspace. Shortly thereafter he advised me "I nearly got cleaned up by a cropduster on departure" and asked me if I knew of any VFR aircraft operating in that area. We had a lengthy conversation about it and a few issues quickly became apparent:
1. The cropduster was either not transponder equipped, or, had not switched it on (it didn't paint on the RFDS aircrafts TCAS and it didn't paint on my RADAR).
2. The cropduster was operating in the approach path of a country town airport and not monitoring the appropriate frequency or not responding to the calls made by the RFDS aircraft and by myself.
3. See & Avoid was not possible. This was a case of "See as we miss by sheer blind luck".
The RFDS pilot was a very angry man for five apparent reasons:
1. No transponder signal.
2. No radio call.
3. No traffic advice.
4. No See-&-Avoid.
5. My patient, my medical crew and myself nearly died.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can’t we at least catch up to the world with TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of 10 – 30 passengers?
The world is mandating TCAS II for 19 + pax and 5700kg + aircraft.
It is the USA that requires TCAS in aircraft with 10-19 pax (and even then only TCAS I)
If you are going to cite compliance with international standards as the basis for your argument at least do it accurately.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said that, I am certainly supportive of more transponder requirements for VFR aircraft.
I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.
I have a proposal which will allow this to happen with funding coming from saving in other means – but some people won’t like that.
Now the real intentions appear! What proposal one wonders? Another report, Willoughby style - $70M savings somewhere, that will be the basis of new reforms over a 5 year period. From your recent posts, one could assume that savings may be found in the mandatory use of TCAS in certain areas, and then amending the requirements to use TCAS as risk mitigation. This could lead to the removal of the provision of enroute directed traffic information by ATC, and produce a saving of lets say $70M over 5 years (or was that annually).
One wonders whether this "proposal" will be announced around 02 - 03 Jul07 by the newly formed CASA branch of airspace reform??