TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN
Thread Starter
GaryGnu, you state:
I think you are getting mixed up with ICAO recommendations. The 5700kg one sounds like ICAO – where they do not realise that it is the number of passengers that pay for the higher level of safety, not the weight of the aircraft.
Anyway, which ever way you look at it, Australia is lagging behind what leading aviation countries are mandating.
By the way, why is there no comment from the AIPA, AFAP or GAPAN? Is it all too obvious and simple?
The world is mandating TCAS II for 19 + pax and 5700kg + aircraft.
Anyway, which ever way you look at it, Australia is lagging behind what leading aviation countries are mandating.
By the way, why is there no comment from the AIPA, AFAP or GAPAN? Is it all too obvious and simple?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I completely agree with your request for tried and proven technologies to close a safety gap.
I also agree that a retrofitting of Australian aircraft should include the apllications of ADS, because, firstly, Australia should be leading the world..not following and secondly, your own background in mass produced electronics allows us all to use your experience in this field to know that by forcing larger unit production, you are making the individual units cheaper anyway.
By shying away from ADS-B you are kind of telling us all that the world is still flat. We need to embrace these new technologies as we look for proven ones to solve our airspace problems and inherent risks of mid-air collision in non-radar environments between VFR and IFR aircraft.
By the way..I salute your efforts to allow the David Hicks issue to be resolved in Australian courts.
I completely agree with your request for tried and proven technologies to close a safety gap.
I also agree that a retrofitting of Australian aircraft should include the apllications of ADS, because, firstly, Australia should be leading the world..not following and secondly, your own background in mass produced electronics allows us all to use your experience in this field to know that by forcing larger unit production, you are making the individual units cheaper anyway.
By shying away from ADS-B you are kind of telling us all that the world is still flat. We need to embrace these new technologies as we look for proven ones to solve our airspace problems and inherent risks of mid-air collision in non-radar environments between VFR and IFR aircraft.
By the way..I salute your efforts to allow the David Hicks issue to be resolved in Australian courts.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 19th Feb 2007 at 01:40.
Thread Starter
Chris, where is the evidence that ADS-B is better for solving the “inherent risks of mid-air collision in non-radar environments between VFR and IFR aircraft” compared to TCAS? None of the ADS-B units that have been made can give a Resolution Advisory – TCAS can, and it has saved many lives.
I don’t think the world is flat, I just know that we already have a very workable TCAS/transponder system for reducing the risk of midair collisions, whereas at the present time we do not have an existing ADS-B system.
I think we have to be very careful in allowing the boffins to design something which is technically superior, but in practice is no safer.
As I’ve said again and again, I support ADS-B, but only when it is properly designed and certified. I’m told this is at least a decade away, whereas at the present time we have a very workable TCAS approved system which will work with both Mode C and Mode S transponders.
I have TCAS in two of my aircraft and it is fantastic. It picks up most aircraft in a non-radar environment as most aircraft are transponder equipped. No, it is not perfect, just as ADS-B will not be perfect, but it is available now - so surely we should encourage as many aircraft to be fitted as possible.
I don’t think the world is flat, I just know that we already have a very workable TCAS/transponder system for reducing the risk of midair collisions, whereas at the present time we do not have an existing ADS-B system.
I think we have to be very careful in allowing the boffins to design something which is technically superior, but in practice is no safer.
As I’ve said again and again, I support ADS-B, but only when it is properly designed and certified. I’m told this is at least a decade away, whereas at the present time we have a very workable TCAS approved system which will work with both Mode C and Mode S transponders.
I have TCAS in two of my aircraft and it is fantastic. It picks up most aircraft in a non-radar environment as most aircraft are transponder equipped. No, it is not perfect, just as ADS-B will not be perfect, but it is available now - so surely we should encourage as many aircraft to be fitted as possible.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are getting mixed up with ICAO recommendations
It is not a recommendation, it is a Standard. See ICAO Annex 6 Vol I Paragraph 6.18.2. It requires that turbine aircraft over 5700kgs or authorised to carry more than 19 pax shall have ACAS (TCAS) II. The number of passengers is covered and it additionally covers large aircraft that do not carry passengers.
You are correct that Australia is lagging behind that ICAO standard. I do not know why.
None the less TCAS, shall not be a determining factor in deciding on Air Traffic Service (ATS) levels.
It picks up most aircraft in a non-radar environment as most aircraft are transponder equipped.
See Dick, there you go again. How do you know most aircraft are transponder equipped? You could approach Temora and see two TA's but not see the other three non transponder equipped aircraft. If they do not have a transponder you cannot know that they are not there. CLEAR?
Which funnily enough is an argument I heard used on the hugely successful John & Martha King Roadshow TM, people rely on the radio and therefore stop "looking" for the non radio traffic.
Same, same.
Then again most doesn't really help does it. One mid air is enough
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 108 Likes
on
61 Posts
most aircraft are transponder equipped
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you're absolutely correct that TCAS II with change 7, is a wonderful device that gives excellent, accurate results in todays working environment.
Nobody disputes this, and your responses are leaving me slightly bewildered.
Your background as both an innovator, inventor, businessman and entrepreneur, together with your time in public service as CASA Chairman, would have left me to believe that you would be "pushing" the next big thing. You may or may not believe that ADS-B is "it", but we need to think about the doubling of air traffic in the next 15 years or so.
There have been many PPruners on these boards that have been critical of me in the support I have had for you, but like I keep saying to them...as well as to you; the answer is in the middle.
If such an electronic system could be built that accomodates both present and future technologies there would be beneficiaries to such a policy that would make regulators, controllers, aircraft owners and pilots all quite happy with the outcome.
Nobody disputes this, and your responses are leaving me slightly bewildered.
Your background as both an innovator, inventor, businessman and entrepreneur, together with your time in public service as CASA Chairman, would have left me to believe that you would be "pushing" the next big thing. You may or may not believe that ADS-B is "it", but we need to think about the doubling of air traffic in the next 15 years or so.
There have been many PPruners on these boards that have been critical of me in the support I have had for you, but like I keep saying to them...as well as to you; the answer is in the middle.
If such an electronic system could be built that accomodates both present and future technologies there would be beneficiaries to such a policy that would make regulators, controllers, aircraft owners and pilots all quite happy with the outcome.
Thread Starter
Icarus2001, you appear to be a classic fundamentalist. Unfortunately there is no such thing as 100% safety, or 100% compliance of anything. Are you really suggesting that if we mandate everything we will have 100% safety?
I can assure you that most aircraft that mix with my aircraft in a non-radar environment are transponder equipped. However, even if it was only 5% of aircraft, that is 5% extra safety I can obtain. I would never take for granted that all aircraft were transponder equipped – that is why I remain as visually alert as I can at all times.
You state:
You are completely wrong. “Most” does help – even if it is only a 5% improvement, it is certainly a help. This means that there is less chance of having a midair collision.
I can see why you remain anonymous and don’t put your real name to the posts.
I can assure you that every additional aircraft that is fitted with TCAS in this country slightly improves safety. Many airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers are not TCAS equipped. This is not so in other leading aviation countries.
You can go on with every bit of obfuscation that you want to, however the facts are simple. If we followed the mandatory requirements that existed in the USA, we would improve safety.
Just as every aircraft (including airline aircraft) were not always on the correct radio frequency in an MBZ, the same situation exists in a CTAF. As I have stated above, safety is not absolute, but anything we do which is additional, and is affordable without reducing participation, is surely worthwhile.
I can assure you that most aircraft that mix with my aircraft in a non-radar environment are transponder equipped. However, even if it was only 5% of aircraft, that is 5% extra safety I can obtain. I would never take for granted that all aircraft were transponder equipped – that is why I remain as visually alert as I can at all times.
You state:
Then again most doesn't really help does it. One mid air is enough
I can see why you remain anonymous and don’t put your real name to the posts.
I can assure you that every additional aircraft that is fitted with TCAS in this country slightly improves safety. Many airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers are not TCAS equipped. This is not so in other leading aviation countries.
You can go on with every bit of obfuscation that you want to, however the facts are simple. If we followed the mandatory requirements that existed in the USA, we would improve safety.
Just as every aircraft (including airline aircraft) were not always on the correct radio frequency in an MBZ, the same situation exists in a CTAF. As I have stated above, safety is not absolute, but anything we do which is additional, and is affordable without reducing participation, is surely worthwhile.
Dick for pointing out the inconsistency of your position you label me a classic fundamentalist. What does that mean?
Can you show me where I suggested that please?
...and why is that?
Are you really suggesting that if we mandate everything we will have 100% safety?
[I can see why you remain anonymous and don’t put your real name to the posts.
"I have never yet seen a Pawnee being used as a glider tug that had a transponder fitted. Would'nt be a bad idea if they did have but it would have to be hard wired to the master switch!"
Good idea. In this day and age there is no reason why every aircraft that flys above 500' should not be transponder equiped.
In its simplist form - fixed to squak 1200 only, surge protected and hard wired to the master. Modern electronic wizardry - couple of hundred bucks - subsidised by our air services charges - heavily weighted so that the airlines (especially those of record profits) who stand to loose the most from a mid-air with a bug smasher carry most of the financial burden.
FTDK
Good idea. In this day and age there is no reason why every aircraft that flys above 500' should not be transponder equiped.
In its simplist form - fixed to squak 1200 only, surge protected and hard wired to the master. Modern electronic wizardry - couple of hundred bucks - subsidised by our air services charges - heavily weighted so that the airlines (especially those of record profits) who stand to loose the most from a mid-air with a bug smasher carry most of the financial burden.
FTDK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another believer!!
FTDK
Mate...we should start a "group" here......the Everything that flies SHALL have a transponder and ADSB association...........
Its not hard, its not expensive, and if the big end of town used some common sense, it would all be a Eutopia......well almost!
Now how do we get the ear of those who need convincing?
J
Mate...we should start a "group" here......the Everything that flies SHALL have a transponder and ADSB association...........
Its not hard, its not expensive, and if the big end of town used some common sense, it would all be a Eutopia......well almost!
Now how do we get the ear of those who need convincing?
J
J430 - yes, but I want it all!
I want to be able to cancel Sarwatch in the YLHR circuit on VHF.
If that's too hard, I want to at least be able to call Flightwatch on VHF enroute YBTL-YROM.
and I would really like to be able to upload realtime weather onto my GNS430, rather than having to connect to the BOM site via my CDMA phone.
FTDK
I want to be able to cancel Sarwatch in the YLHR circuit on VHF.
If that's too hard, I want to at least be able to call Flightwatch on VHF enroute YBTL-YROM.
and I would really like to be able to upload realtime weather onto my GNS430, rather than having to connect to the BOM site via my CDMA phone.
FTDK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the?????
FTDK....Mate...who are flightwatch anyway....I see 'em on me charts, but can never get em anywhere I try......so poor old BNE CEN gets my call, and even when they dont like it.
Sad, but it makes you want to swithch the radio off altogether and "phone a friend"
J
Sad, but it makes you want to swithch the radio off altogether and "phone a friend"
J
Overhead YEML at A010, dodging CBs enroute YROM - YBTL in the Bo
ME - Center, XXX request the lastest Townsville weather
CENTRE - XXX call Flightwatch
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, you should be able to raise them from your position and altitude, suggest you try them again
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, not at this time
ME (Thinks!) - CENTRE, XXX, thanks for nothing
FTDK
ME - Center, XXX request the lastest Townsville weather
CENTRE - XXX call Flightwatch
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, you should be able to raise them from your position and altitude, suggest you try them again
a few minutes later
ME - Center, XXX, nothing heard from Flightwatch. Can you give me the latest Townsville
CENTRE - XXX, not at this time
ME (Thinks!) - CENTRE, XXX, thanks for nothing
FTDK
FTDK, in theory, they won't be able to put you off for much longer. The Flightwatch responsibilities are being relocated to the ATC Consoles.
However, notice I said "in theory". Even though ATC will be the only ones able to give you the WX/Notams/Briefing that you are after ... separation services take priority ... so, conceivably, if the ATCs are busy doing separation work (as they should).. they will knock you back and there will be no one else to give it to you.
Ah! That is, unless they create standalone ATC positions to provide Flightwatch services.
It's groundhog day !!!
However, notice I said "in theory". Even though ATC will be the only ones able to give you the WX/Notams/Briefing that you are after ... separation services take priority ... so, conceivably, if the ATCs are busy doing separation work (as they should).. they will knock you back and there will be no one else to give it to you.
Ah! That is, unless they create standalone ATC positions to provide Flightwatch services.
It's groundhog day !!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got an idea!
How about starting up Flight Service Stations that give detailed weather information and prognosis from qualified meteoroligists in a face-to-face briefing style.
Like we used to have?
How about starting up Flight Service Stations that give detailed weather information and prognosis from qualified meteoroligists in a face-to-face briefing style.
Like we used to have?
Thread Starter
Chris, it is a good idea. The original plan introduced with AMATS, when I was the Chairman of the CAA in the early 1990s, was to have two automated flight service stations in the US style. One was to be in Melbourne and one in Brisbane. The officers were to be trained in giving detailed weather information – as you receive in the USA. Unfortunately this seems to have been stopped.
Having said that, how are you suggesting we pay for flight service stations? Do you believe that it should be lumped on to normal Airservices costs – i.e. to be paid 95% by the airlines? Do you think the general taxpayer should pay for them, or do you think general aviation should pay? How do you think we will get the Government to agree with each of these scenarios?
Having said that, how are you suggesting we pay for flight service stations? Do you believe that it should be lumped on to normal Airservices costs – i.e. to be paid 95% by the airlines? Do you think the general taxpayer should pay for them, or do you think general aviation should pay? How do you think we will get the Government to agree with each of these scenarios?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched an interesting documentary on PBS called Innovations and it talked about airline crashes and about NTSB recommendations that were acted upon or not by the FAA.
A number that interested me was the number $2.5 million per passenger-deaths when calculating break even of when safety recommendations are implemented or not. This number was uttered by a US government aviation official (FAA or NTSB).
In other words if the new technology costs cannot overcome this number then it doesn't have to be implemented by industry.
I've seen a similar documentary years ago but I can't remember the $$$ break even number for safety improvements.
A number that interested me was the number $2.5 million per passenger-deaths when calculating break even of when safety recommendations are implemented or not. This number was uttered by a US government aviation official (FAA or NTSB).
In other words if the new technology costs cannot overcome this number then it doesn't have to be implemented by industry.
I've seen a similar documentary years ago but I can't remember the $$$ break even number for safety improvements.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I finally found the 2003 info from another PBS show interviewing FAA and NTSB officials.
The FAA has assigned a cost to losing a passenger at approximately $3 million so that not ALL design changes HAVE to be incorporated. Otherwise each plane would cost in excess of $ 1 billion.
.
The FAA has assigned a cost to losing a passenger at approximately $3 million so that not ALL design changes HAVE to be incorporated. Otherwise each plane would cost in excess of $ 1 billion.
.