TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN

[gaunty]

Ahh dear this is really becoming quite tedious, but necessary to keep the actual truth up there.

I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747.

Really?

Might be a a confusion of terms BUT the Dash 8 and B747 400 are required to meet exactly the same FAR 25 certification standards, the ONLY differences being those that relate to the method of propulsion and maybe number of seats but the intent and basis remains the same.

I haven't got the time to ge right into it but the Dash 8 is up to a later FAR 25 amendment No (72) than the B747/400. the B747 and in fact the new 747-8 are actually grandfathered off the original 1960's B747/100 certification. Go figure.

Ergo the Dash 8 and any aircraft >5700kg share the same certification standards.

The regulations may be a different matter but only in relation to operation and maybe seat capapcity.

It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved.

and they know their airspace arcgitecture, geography, mining industry and population densities are quite fundamentally different to Australias UNIQUE AIRSPACE. US almost wall to wall radar, Europe, wall to wall cities.

Oh and so you allege Mr

Scurvy.D.Dog

is an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, so what, here, his views are at least as valid as yours and as far as ATC matters are concerned certainly more qualified.

This is PPRuNe you live and die by the quality of your argument, not who you are or might profess to be. PPRuNe has defrocked many an imposter, enthusiast, mightbe and wannabe. There is simply too much actual knowledge and real experience around to be able to get away with anything.

I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected – this is really shocking if so.

I quite agree, but from whom do you imagine it might be so, Airservices perhaps? If you do know, surely you have a responsibility to bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities??

No sooner did the requirement come in that certain airline pilots then said, “We are now not going to support Class E airspace and we now want all VFR aircraft to fit transponders in Class G airspace as well.” That is, a one-way ratchet of adding costs to general aviation and therefore reducing participation levels. Look at this graph.

looks pretty clear to me but then I guess my mind is closed. In defence you might play semantics and syntax, I say see above.

And in terms subjective try this statement;

I’m not sure if things have changed since then – perhaps they have. I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change.

and you actually have evidence that proves this to be so, surely you have a responsibility to bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Now I'm going to get back to doing something really useful.

[GaryGnu]

UPS

Capn Bloggs

For a preview at what UPS plans have a look at this http://asas-tn.eurocontrol.fr/tn2wks...sion1_6Bob.ppt

If you cant be bothered going to the link here is a brief description of the presentation from the report of the conference.

UPS in conjunction with the FAA, NASA, DOT, MITRE, ACSS (Aviation Communication and Surveillance Systems), and Boeing plans on implementing Sequencing, Merging, and Spacing next year at the Louisville International airport. Initial implementation will occur in low to medium density traffic involving only UPS aircraft arriving from the west. The airborne Merging and Spacing (M&S) tool will be an implementation of the EUROCONTROL CoSpace algorithm. The ground based Sequencing tool is being developed by NASA and MITRE and is called Airline Based Enroute Sequencing and Spacing or ABESS. ABESS will be operated from the UPS Global Operations Center until it is mature enough be implemented by the FAA.

Constant Descent Arrivals (RNAV arrivals connected to the approach for each runway) have been built from the west. These can be flown with very low power settings by the various aircraft types involved. ABESS builds a sequence of aircraft and assigns airspeeds to the aircraft to obtain approximately the required spacing until the aircraft are within ADS-B range. ABESS then assigns each participant the aircraft to follow and the appropriate spacing to be set in their M&S system. The aircraft use M&S to follow that aircraft to the runway within a much more constant manner. Using time-based wake turbulence separation standards and moving the responsibility of wake turbulence separation to the aircraft enables further capacity gains in almost all weather conditions.

This system will increase capacity and efficiency while reducing noise and emissions. Future phases of the implementation will include high-density operations from all directions during the main UPS hub operation. The M&S system will be upgraded with a combination of the CoSpace algorithm and a NASA developed algorithm which will allow multiple merges on the arrivals and more flexibility in allowing aircraft to pick their own top of descent for the arrival.

I would be very concerned if ICAO are looking at Oceanic In Trail Climb Procedures using TCAS. The FAA tried introducing them years ago and got very little utilisation. I believe it was abandoned in 2004.

The FAA have reprised the In Trail Climb concept using ADS-B and ADS-C though, based on the separation standards used in the TCAS version.

tobzalp,

I think you might be getting to the heart of the matter here. Methinks that Dick's sudden interest in wider TCAS installation is to pave the way for a push to (re)expand the use of Class E airspace.

[Capn Bloggs]

Gary,

Don't get me wrong. And yes, I am bothered and I will look at the link.

As I have said before here, I think ADS-B is terrific. I am just pointing out that just putting ADS-B IN to our cockpits will not be the end of all problems traffic-wise. As you point out, there is now a massive amount of support technology that is now only just being trialled eg the M and S gear to make this "I'll just follow his ADS-B paint myself and all will be hunky-dory" actually work safely. As UPS found out a few years ago, unless you have all of that, things can go pear-shaped quickly.

[gaunty]

Bloggs 'n all

Just in

Proposed Canadian ADS-B Network Detailed
More details about Canada’s proposed ADS-B network have been disclosed. As reported last week, Sensis of Syracuse, N.Y., won a Nav Canada contract covering up to 200 ADS-B stations for selective deployment across the country. Six dual installations are planned around Hudson Bay, currently non-radar airspace. The Sensis units support either ADS-B or multilateration, an alternative technique that accurately positions aircraft by triangulating their transponder responses. An eight-station multilateration network will cover Fort St. John, in northern British Columbia, and 11 stations will serve Vancouver’s Inner Harbor and its approaches. Both locations lose radar coverage at lower altitudes, due to intervening mountains and, at Vancouver, downtown high-rise buildings. Fort St. John is an oil drilling center, with increasing low-level fixed-wing and helicopter operations, while Vancouver has extensive private and commercial seaplane and helicopter operations that cross the approach and departure paths of its international airport.

I'm sure I posted the UPS article recently just cant find it and yes it was

Constant Descent Arrivals (RNAV arrivals connected to the approach for each runway) have been built from the west

that was responsible for the remarkable fuel savings and the view that applied airline fleet wide would have the single biggest fuel saving effect ever.

Bring it on.

I'll keep looking as I cant remeber my password into the source.

[Wizofoz]

I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS – and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders – you head off in a direction of saying, “Let’s add even more costs to GA.”

So, the idea of improving saftey with increased cost to GA operators (such as yourself and the bulk of your support base) is taboo, whilst increasing the cost to regional airlines (who actually employ people) is fine as they are a bottemless money pit....

Oh yes, and everyone has a vested interest except you.....

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, you state:

you just have to listen to the shamozzle over the Pilbara every day.

Can you explain this further? I presume you mean that using our 1950s system of radio arranged separation it becomes a shemozzle? If not, please explain what you mean. Do you believe the only way of solving it is to go to ADS-B, or do you think that there may be other ways of preventing this shemozzle?

By the way, does the shemozzle mean that there are times when a radio announcement cannot be made because others are talking? I look forward to your advice.

[gaunty]

Bloggs 'n all

This is the quote that leapt out of the Nov 2006 UPS article

On this night, UPS was not running any trial of its future goal--en route merging and spacing of its freighters so they arrive in the Louisville area single-file and ready to begin continuous-descent approaches in sequence.

"Consistency is one thing that gets you [more] capacity," said Bob Hilb, UPS's advanced flight systems manager. In an earlier discussion, he said the aim is to drive in much closer to the big UPS hub before pulling the throttles to near idle and coming down fairly quickly to touch down within seconds of the expected arrival time.

This tactic avoids the problem of descending to low altitude and being vectored around by ATC as controllers work to line up aircraft with the right spacing for landing. "All of that low-attitude vectoring is pure cost and no benefit at all," Hilb said, adding that if just 10% of the low-altitude maneuvers that are now occurring in the U.S. were eliminated, most airlines would be making a profit.

here is the link
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/searc...aw110606p1.xml

Just imagine that applied to the airways system as a whole. The internet is barely ten years old who knows where next.

[Quokka]

I think Capn Bloggs might be refering to Procedural Control (no RADAR surveillance) in controlled airspace as well as high traffic in Class G Airspace in the mining areas... and remember, WA is one big minesite.

Dick,

I would suggest that ADS-B in WA would provide an instant solution to the significant restrictions that are currently placed on IFR aircraft in controlled airspace due to airspace saturation. There are two fundamental problems in this airspace:

1. Too many aircraft.

2. No surveillance (ie. no RADAR).

There is an immediate solution and the solution is ADS-B.

The excellant service that is currently being provided by overworked, understaffed and under-resourced Air Traffic Controllers on West Procedural Group in the Melbourne Centre (WA sectors within YMMM) would be improved instantly if the Low-Level phase of the ADS-B project was implemented this year, both in Controlled Airspace and in Class G.

You won't find a charter company or anyone in the RFDS who would disagree. They know that there will be savings in operating costs and a significant improvement in safety that would flow through to the companies immediately... optimum cruising levels, unrestricted descent to destination, more room to divert around weather and traffic, surveillance-based traffic information on IFR and VFR in Class G and E airspace instead of Procedural control and traffic information on IFR only.

But the biggest benefit of all... improved traffic management when the charter flights to the mines depart on their return to Perth and mix it with airline traffic jostling for position in the landing sequence that can only currently be calculated and adjusted after all inbound aircraft are within RADAR coverage.

More information through increased surveillance + earlier intervention = less restriction = cost savings to the industry.

Please Dick, ask the industry in WA what effect years of being denied increased surveillance coverage has had on their operating costs and safety.

[Capn Bloggs]

Thank you Quokka. The only thing I will add is that if it was all non-radar or non-ADS-B Class E to the ground, the whole state would stop.

Dick if you really need to be filled in on what goes on in the real world, I suggest you remove yourself from the airspace debate because you are unqualified to comment, especially in public.

Gotta go flying...to PBO. I hope that lighty there has a transponder...

[gaunty]

Quokka exactly touche and thanks

Yes and all with 1950's radio technology operated by professionals AND wait for it, yes TCAS does give us part of the story but without everything that's flying nearby operating a transponder for the full picture we must rely on the good 'ol 1950's radio technology to enable the "unseen" to make the "recommended" call. Unlike the 1950's in the modern world see and avoid is now only one of the tools.

Nah unless you spend some actual time in it you really have no credibility in a discussion on it.

I believe the standing invitation to jump seat for a period of time throughout the region still stands.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

It gets funnier

Scurvy.D.Dog, as an air traffic controller from a Class D tower, you certainly can become very angry.

…. you clearly wish I was angry ... no cigar I’m afraid! .. I’m tickled pink that the mainstream know exactly what is going on with aviation policy and why!
.
... The arguments are made. The ever growing number of people and professionals aware of and participating in this place (and others) will ensure communication and exchange of ideas/information continues into the future unabated! ..that can only assist with the transparency of aviation policy decisions made in future! .. you and I cannot change that from here on in (to my great relief)! ..... a peer review pool without parallel if you will! .... the horse has indeed bolted
.
..back to ‘whack-a-mole’ .. come to think of it, this is the way it always ends eh!... no retort, resort to playing the man …. who cares … seems pretty obvious who is cross right now …

I can sort of understand why – you have been bashing along at this for years and you find that you cannot even put your real name to your beliefs.

not putting names on things .. a bit like using sacrificial ‘officers’ to take the 'post farkup' blame for ideological follies past! … you know the type I mean, that class of people (‘the 5 minute millionaires’) that are heard to cry “ …it was not my decision, it is not my name on that piece of paper … I have no recollection of that” .. don’t you think?!

I would imagine you feel that your career would be affected – this is really shocking if so.

… my views, in my name on these and related issues are recorded over many years and in official correspondence .... but that ain't the rule of PPRuNe is it? ..... you just hate people being able to tell it how it is ... in any event, no one is threatening me!
.
… desperate times call for desperate measures though eh! …. as far as I am aware, you are the only person imagining my career would be affected ….. yes … I can well imagine why you might think that! … how shocking for you! … your imagination really does need a ‘major’! ... in fact, its timely you raised the issue of careers … much to my pleasure, my lot in life is about to get a whole lot better. This all despite it being apparent to most that I am not terribly concerned about the consequences of blowing fire instead of sunshine up the food chain! … nor with humouring sleazy political ideologues! ... strangely wishes do often come true (more on that later).. I digress!
.
.. back to ‘whack-a-mole’

You may be interested in knowing that at the time the decision was made to bring in the mandatory transponder requirement in Class E airspace, there was no requirement for a regulatory impact statement or for a safety study.

.. could you point to a basis in law that supports this?! …. and whilst at it, you might also mention the process used and the competencies of those that took that decision?!

Plain commonsense said that safety would be improved.

does that same common sense of yours include considering cost to industry, the lack of ATS surveillance, the number of aircraft at the time that were not TCAS equipped?? … did that common sense extend to considering the reduction in safety the removal of ATS IFR – VFR separation services in ‘C’ (replaced with ‘E’)?

I’m not sure if things have changed since then – perhaps they have.

.. and perhaps they have not?! … oh dear!

I know there has been a move to bring in the most prescriptive requirements for subjective safety studies which seem to be primarily there to stop any change.

… you really have nothing do you? … stop any change? … stop any ‘less safe’ changes perhaps!

For others who have open minds,

… phhhf ..yeh OK

I can assure you that the resultant regulatory standards for turboprops like DHC8s and SF34s are different to the resultant certification standard for a Boeing 747.

… cheers Gary!

I realise there is a group of people who constantly deny this fact – because to accept the premise means that the law of affordable safety applies.

…. Nurse … yer not required this evening … there is a classic comedy re-running on PPRuNe ….

That is, if you have 30 people in an aircraft they cannot pay for the same level of safety that 400 people can. This is the only reason we have different certification standards for aircraft of different sizes.

… really … those 30 paying passengers are paying for less safety are they …. Rubbish, All RPT operators are contracted (by the pax) to get their arses to the destination intact rather than in a petri dish! From an aircraft design safety point of view (your argument), they must all meet the same basic cert tests as Gary has pointed out!

Remember the primary amount of money for safety in any aircraft comes from the passenger ticket money – the higher number of passengers means that more ticket money available for safety improvements.

… cccurrap …. The ‘more money’ is spent on the higher costs to operate the bigger aircraft, as well as things such as returns to exec’s and shareholders, insurance, fuel, airport fees (for infrastructure to handle the big aircraft), staff, etc … the money is generated by scale and networks!

Of course, our regulatory system reflects this quite different level in safety standards between large and small aircraft.

.. a reference thanks!

Nowhere have I suggested that the downturn in general aviation is primarily because of our different transponder requirements.

….. no, you would not would you?!

What I am showing is that if we now add an additional expensive transponder requirement for all aircraft in Class G, that there will be a further downturn in general aviation participation rates.

…. transponders you mandated did not hurt GA yet … transponders in G would??

The prime reason for the downturn in GA flying (especially when you see the boating market, with boat sales of up to $1 million booming) is the gradual increase of costs and complexity for GA flying.

.. why do you suppose that is?

This has forced flyers into lighter aircraft which do not meet the certification standards that we have been able to afford in previous decades.

…. you know (as do all of us) why this has happened .. confirm for us that you acknowledge that complexity and costs are responsible!

I am amazed that instead of supporting the idea of airline aircraft having TCAS – and thus improving safety even with the existing level of transponders – you head off in a direction of saying, “Let’s add even more costs to GA.”

… tell the truth Dick, ADS-B (if subsidised) will reduce significantly the costs for GA, ATS and create an unprecedented opportunity to make huge leaps in safety and efficiency!

Other countries in the world have mandatory TCAS requirements for airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers, yet they do not have mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E and G airspace. Why is this so?

… explained soooooo many times that you could not possibly misunderstand why the compared countries have effectively 100% transponder carriage due their airspace density, and do not need to mandate it in E and G as they all carry it!
.
….. compared to the great Australian expanse?? …. you know it is apples and turnips!

It is because they know that safety improvements are incremental

… the speed in to service, costs and advantage gained are the increments at issue!

and that by having more TCAS, which will operate with the existing transponders, that safety is improved.

… but not nearly as effectively as ADS-B fleet wide! not only to the commuters raised in the initial question but all ….. think of comparative cost effectiveness!
.
.
.. being the benevolent fellow I am, I would not want this to end with you being the only kid in class to have left without a ‘chocolate smile’! …. so here is yours for the road:-
.
…. we may in the end be thanking the Avionics Ginger Beers that ADS-B got up! …. your ‘old tech’ love affair rubbish is merely a convenient side show distraction to the real safety threat ahead. Just yesterday the seeds were sown atop the single straw on the camels back !
.
Cryptic I know, but be sure of this ….. either by error or design, the policy makers have delivered many of us recalcitrant air traffic controllers a delicious choice!
.
… the wagon train is headed in a new direction don’t you know, somewhere down near AWA …. I heard that down there they have 4 weeks notice, self managed fatigue, no rest/duty minimums and maximums! ….. ****e me says, it is hard enough doing the job with both legs and one arm tied behind yer back, let alone doing it with a bomb strapped to your arse as well! ... nah, I’m not particularly enamoured with leading a wagon to that destination!
.
… ah the bliss ...... days off being just that, uninterrupted by the job! ….. family time meaning just that family time! ……. they grow so quickly, I ain’t gunna miss out on that!
.
… no more 24/7 contact about every dam’d thing!
.
… doing what I enjoy most … operating on the line without distraction!
.
.. no financial hit! … what’s not to like!
.
.. so there you are …… you and I may sleep well tonight sound in the knowledge that I will not be re-applying for a chalis of poison! …. although ... it would also mean more nocturnal time available to swim around in the happenings in this place! …. I just love a game of ‘whack-a-mole’
.
… how much time you got??
.
… nite all!

[Dick Smith]

Quokka, what is to stop the Royal Flying Doctor Service, charter operators or airlines fitting ADS-B now? I understand Airservices is installing ADS-B base stations for the higher levels. These will obviously work with line of sight at low levels.

I would love to get your answer to this. It is almost as if someone is preventing your bosses from fitting ADS-B, when it is most likely economics – i.e. affordable safety that is preventing the fitment.

Surely if there was a genuine safety risk that ADS-B could solve, you would have convinced those who make the decision to go ahead and fit ADS-B in your aircraft. Airbuses that fly across Australia have ADS-B ‘out’. Why not get one of those units and fit it in your own aircraft?

What I am saying is that there is nothing that I am doing which prevents your company from fitting ADS-B right now. Surely you should explain why they are not.

[gaunty]

Mr Smith sir

Just for the record, to be fair and so we will not be guilty of shooting at the wrong person/s, did you have any involvement or influence, direct or indirect in the stopping of the Airservices low level ADSB implementation and tender process for airborne ADSB equipment. For one bright shining moment there it looked like Australia was going to do another first for the unique Australian aviation landscape like the DME.

A yes or no will be just fine thank you.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Gosh gaunty...,,,, you are hopefull !

[Quokka]

Dick,

Both the Safety Case and the cost/benefit analysis left no doubt as to the necessity and viability of ADS-B in Australia.

With respect, I was on the ADS-B project team and the last conversation with the Project Manager left us both at a loss as to why the project was not proceeding.

Did you influence the decision not to proceed with the Low-Level ADS-B project?

[Dick Smith]

Gaunty, what a strange question! You ask:

did you have any involvement or influence, direct or indirect in the stopping of the Airservices low level ADSB implementation and tender process for airborne ADSB equipment

I suggest that you look at my Dick Smith Flyer website under ADS-B here and then ask yourself the question again. The answer is pretty obvious. If you are actually asking if there was something going on that was hidden – no there wasn’t.

Quokka, you state:

Both the Safety Case and the cost/benefit analysis left no doubt as to the necessity and viability of ADS-B in Australia.

The problem is that the safety case was flawed. See here.

If you were on the ADS-B team, why the secrecy, and why didn’t you suggest to the Project Manager that he either answer the postings on my website, or give me a phone call? Was it that he agreed with what I was stating?

I will say it again. If people who genuinely believe that we should be leading the world with a unique form of ADS-B want to be heard, they should be open and use their own names. Otherwise they have little credibility and people will judge that there is something to hide or something not quite honest going on.

I agree that there are many times when anonymity is necessary for PPRuNE – especially in the case of whistle blowing for important safety issues. However when it comes to something as rational and technical as ADS-B, there is no need for secrecy at all – it just takes away from credibility.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
You really do get wound up about not knowing who you are talking to don't you? As has been said to you many times before: it doesn't matter where the argument comes from, it's the quality of the argument that counts. In fact, it is probably best NOT to know names, because even though they may be in positions of power, popular, or with lots of clout, they may be raving lunatics.

If you don't know who they are, you have only their arguments to judge them on. If the argument's lunacy, then it gets disregarded. If the argument's sound, then does it matter that they are a 500hr C150 pilot or a 20,000hr Chief Pilot of a jet operation? NO. Of course, to judge whether the argument's sound or not requires as significant level of expertise, experience and knowledge in the field being discussed. And as has been done before, some here play the man and not the ball when they find out who people are.

As has been demonstrated with ****su Tonka, there are some nasty people/bosses in the world who can't take either a joke or any criticism and will do anything to jump on the people who dare to challenge. No wonder people stay anonymous.

The answer is pretty obvious.

To save us all the pain of having to trawl through your website (I don't want to catch anything...) how about you just answer the question: Yes or No?

Now, please get back on thread.

WILL YOU OR WILL YOU NOT DEMAND THAT TRANSPONDERS BE FITTED IN ALL AIRCRAFT THAT OPERATE IN AREAS WHERE COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FITTED WITH TCAS OPERATE?

[gaunty]

[tobzalp]

Will You Or Will You Not Demand That Transponders Be Fitted In All Aircraft That Operate In Areas Where Commercial Aircraft Fitted With Tcas Operate?

[Bob Murphie]

The ASTRA "Cross Industry Business Case" for ADS-B was haplessly (and hopelessly) flawed, and effectively disowned by the new management of Airservices.

It seems more than likely that the present ASTRA long term plan will go the same way.CASA did two Cost/Benefit cases for ADS-B back in '05, as I recall.The first showed wonderful savings for airlines, so GA was going to have to lump it on costs, with maybe a subsidy.


Then the decimal point in the wrong place was discovered, and the airline benefits evaporated.The second CASA study was equally inept, suddenly discovering all sorts of GA benefits that had been mysteriously missed the first time around.

None of the newly discovered benefit accrued to those who had to spend the money, they were all indirect benefits, as I recall saving 1.8 (?) or something similar statistical lives per year from starting searches closer to where "ADS-B" last detected the aircraft, all assuming nationwide low level coverage and every ADS-B return recorded by Airservices -- neither of which was going to be the case.

Very fuzzy costs were quoted for ADS-B OUT ONLY, then benefits for ADS-B IN were quoted as benefits, and so it went on. Quoting C145/146 GNSS benefits as ADS-B benefits, when you get those benefits right now, with a C145/146 GPS in your preferred aerial locomotion device.In fact, both CASA studies were more about the benefits of C145/146 GPS, not ADS-B at all, [ as was/is the CAPSTONE case] but those responsible (I am told they no longer work for CASA) simply didn't understand the difference, or alternatively, "why let the facts spoil a good story", when " Ye' got 'ol time religion" about ADS-B, with such faith, who need facts.The "left no doubt" case had costs of (again from memory ) for the program study period, $110m-200m v. highly dodgy indirect benefits of $22m -- with zero for those who would spend the money in fitting and maintenance.

Don't kid yourself about the benefits of the "5 mile separation standard" back of Black Stump, even the ASTRA 2025 projected traffic won't need "5m" to handle the traffic without delays outside the terminal areas. At no stage was there a defined hazard/risk to which ADS-B was the/an answer, let alone the cost/benefit justified answer, just a raft of un-quantified assertions.The savings claimed originally for not replacing some of the remote SSR head, and other "Airservices" benefits of the ADS-B program resulted in a 0.8% savings on the Airservices bottom line, is/was 0.8% going to produce big service fees savings for the big airlines.Hardly.

All this is public information.

Finally, would somebody please list all the 1090ES ADS-B IN equipment available NOW, for retrofit to, say, Regional aircraft (hint-have a look at the published program for QF Regional -8's, and what it produces in $$$ terms) and GA aircraft, and cost. Unless you are suggesting that retrofitting Collins TDR-94D transponders and new Universal navigators comes cheap. Crikey!

PS The ONLY RTCA standard that exists for using ADS-B/C 1090ES signals in TCAS 11 produces exactly the same readout/display/warnings as would a transponder Mode S input.