Congratulations to the RAAA – TCAS cost savings
Dick,
Your thrust in this post is, as it has been in many things, that the burden of cost for air safety should be almost entirely borne by airlines.
As I have mentioned before, TCAS is most effective when BOTH aircraft are equipped, and BOTH pilots are trained to react to RAs.
Therefore, to achieve the level of safety your desire, ALL aircraft capable of powering a transponder should ALSO be equipped with TCAS, and all pilots initially and recurrently trained in its use. Please bear in mind I say this in order to protect the traveling public. A light aircraft so equipped is less likely to cause an accident with the RPT aircraft YOU suggest should be the only one with the costly equipment.
The only case against this would be on the basis of cost- and it's obviously a good case. You were something of a pioneer in publicizing the fact that cost vs safety MUST be a primary consideration.
Therefore, would you please publish the factual information (and not just "They do so we should, I mean actual studies)that shows that equipping 10-30 seat RPTs with TCAS, whilst they mix with VFR aircraft flown by PPLs and with no such equipment, will reduce the incident of mid-air collisions in Australia(which, currently, is zero to my knowledge)
Your thrust in this post is, as it has been in many things, that the burden of cost for air safety should be almost entirely borne by airlines.
As I have mentioned before, TCAS is most effective when BOTH aircraft are equipped, and BOTH pilots are trained to react to RAs.
Therefore, to achieve the level of safety your desire, ALL aircraft capable of powering a transponder should ALSO be equipped with TCAS, and all pilots initially and recurrently trained in its use. Please bear in mind I say this in order to protect the traveling public. A light aircraft so equipped is less likely to cause an accident with the RPT aircraft YOU suggest should be the only one with the costly equipment.
The only case against this would be on the basis of cost- and it's obviously a good case. You were something of a pioneer in publicizing the fact that cost vs safety MUST be a primary consideration.
Therefore, would you please publish the factual information (and not just "They do so we should, I mean actual studies)that shows that equipping 10-30 seat RPTs with TCAS, whilst they mix with VFR aircraft flown by PPLs and with no such equipment, will reduce the incident of mid-air collisions in Australia(which, currently, is zero to my knowledge)
Thread Starter
Wizofoz, no, I have never said:
In fact, it is completely the opposite. As I explained, I introduced the mandatory transponder requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E. This is not a requirement (as far as I know) anywhere else in the world. This clearly means that wherever we upgrade to Class E airspace, we also ensure that all aircraft are transponder equipped. This is logical.
However in Australia we have 10 to 30 passenger airline aircraft without TCAS. This means that in a non-radar environment (which many of our airports are) the advantage of the costly transponder (which VFR owners have agreed to install) is completely negated.
If you constantly come back and say that there must be a one-way ratchet which increases costs to VFR aircraft owners, but airline owners should not even have to comply with existing accepted world standards, this is ridiculous.
In relation to factual information about TCAS improving safety, you simply need common sense. At the present time, most aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger aircraft in the circuit area are equipped with transponders. Therefore it is logical that safety will be improved if the RPT aircraft are TCAS equipped. You can do 10 years of study if you want to, but even if one conflict is resolved because the airline aircraft has TCAS, it is better than not having TCAS in the first place.
that the burden of cost for air safety should be almost entirely borne by airlines.
However in Australia we have 10 to 30 passenger airline aircraft without TCAS. This means that in a non-radar environment (which many of our airports are) the advantage of the costly transponder (which VFR owners have agreed to install) is completely negated.
If you constantly come back and say that there must be a one-way ratchet which increases costs to VFR aircraft owners, but airline owners should not even have to comply with existing accepted world standards, this is ridiculous.
In relation to factual information about TCAS improving safety, you simply need common sense. At the present time, most aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger aircraft in the circuit area are equipped with transponders. Therefore it is logical that safety will be improved if the RPT aircraft are TCAS equipped. You can do 10 years of study if you want to, but even if one conflict is resolved because the airline aircraft has TCAS, it is better than not having TCAS in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, your points are valid however, to have that extra service of class E you describe you have to have the radar coverage in the first place.
I understand that at Benalla its not all the way to the ground nor is it at Bundaberg either. So this is a classic reason for introducing ADSB accross the fleet (you need 100% because you will not have any primary returns in this system) so why not support the coverage first then push for the ATC service.
Cheers
J
I understand that at Benalla its not all the way to the ground nor is it at Bundaberg either. So this is a classic reason for introducing ADSB accross the fleet (you need 100% because you will not have any primary returns in this system) so why not support the coverage first then push for the ATC service.
Cheers
J
Dick,
can you advise what benefit TCAS is in the circuit area with high density traffic??
At the present time, most aircraft that mix with 10 to 30 passenger aircraft in the circuit area are equipped with transponders. Therefore it is logical that safety will be improved if the RPT aircraft are TCAS equipped.
Thread Starter
Jabawocky, you state:
Gad, you are stubborn! The US has 50% of its IFR approaches in Class E airspace without radar coverage. They use the advantage of radar where they have it, and the advantages of procedural separation where they don’t.
A Class E procedural separation service would have reduced the chance of the two incidents I gave as examples in an earlier post – where two IFR aircraft were in cloud at the same time and nearly collided.
We have excellent radar coverage between Hobart and Cairns. Why not use it there?
In the case of Benalla, there was excellent radar coverage down to the start of the approach. That is how the ATSB report showed the actual position of the aircraft.
As stated previously, in the case of Bundaberg both aircraft were in cloud attempting the same approach at the same time. In fact, the captain of one aircraft asked the co-pilot to turn off the strobe lights, and then found out later that it was the strobe lights of the other aircraft. In this situation at Bundaberg, Class E would have reduced the chance of a horrendous accident.
The more you resist change, the greater the chance that we will have an accident. Isn’t it interesting that after 15 years of work by myself, we still don’t have one bit of Class E terminal airspace. I have heard a story that Airservices are going to “try” it at Ballina. Well, when they do it will be 15 years too late and you will find that everyone will say, “This is fantastic. This improves safety. It does not unduly delay aircraft. Why weren’t we doing this 20 years ago?”
RENURPP, I can assure you that TCAS has a benefit even in high density traffic areas, but obviously a greater benefit where the traffic density is low – which it is at most Australian non-tower airports. Why do you come up with every single furphy to try to stop a proven safety feature? Why not simply say, “Yes, it would be a good idea if the RAAA was responsible and did not constantly campaign to prevent CASA from bringing in a safety requirement that all other leading aviation countries have accepted for years.”
to have that extra service of class E you describe you have to have the radar coverage in the first place.
A Class E procedural separation service would have reduced the chance of the two incidents I gave as examples in an earlier post – where two IFR aircraft were in cloud at the same time and nearly collided.
We have excellent radar coverage between Hobart and Cairns. Why not use it there?
In the case of Benalla, there was excellent radar coverage down to the start of the approach. That is how the ATSB report showed the actual position of the aircraft.
As stated previously, in the case of Bundaberg both aircraft were in cloud attempting the same approach at the same time. In fact, the captain of one aircraft asked the co-pilot to turn off the strobe lights, and then found out later that it was the strobe lights of the other aircraft. In this situation at Bundaberg, Class E would have reduced the chance of a horrendous accident.
The more you resist change, the greater the chance that we will have an accident. Isn’t it interesting that after 15 years of work by myself, we still don’t have one bit of Class E terminal airspace. I have heard a story that Airservices are going to “try” it at Ballina. Well, when they do it will be 15 years too late and you will find that everyone will say, “This is fantastic. This improves safety. It does not unduly delay aircraft. Why weren’t we doing this 20 years ago?”
RENURPP, I can assure you that TCAS has a benefit even in high density traffic areas, but obviously a greater benefit where the traffic density is low – which it is at most Australian non-tower airports. Why do you come up with every single furphy to try to stop a proven safety feature? Why not simply say, “Yes, it would be a good idea if the RAAA was responsible and did not constantly campaign to prevent CASA from bringing in a safety requirement that all other leading aviation countries have accepted for years.”
Why not simply say, “Yes, it would be a good idea if the RAAA was responsible and did not constantly campaign to prevent CASA from bringing in a safety requirement that all other leading aviation countries have accepted for years.”
Are you aware, for example, that most VFR aircraft in Europe have Mode A TXP only, rendering the TCAS that IS fitted to RPT aircraft much less useful (and in my opinion actually counter productive as you get a great many spurious TAs).
Dick, one point I've made more than once( and you've ignored) is that TCAS is much more effective if BOTH aircraft are equipped and BOTH pilots are trained in it's use.
Why do you not propose fitment of TCAS to ALL aircraft? Cost? If so, why isn't cost a reasonable reason NOT to fit them to small RPT aircraft? Oh that's right! Because you've had a good think about it, and as your common sense is better than everyone else's, it must be the right thing to do.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the source
Dick,
I am curios as to what prompted this latest tirade.
I cannot find any comment about TCAS by the RAAA on their website.
Would you care to illuminate us with your reasons for the latest outburst?
I am curios as to what prompted this latest tirade.
I cannot find any comment about TCAS by the RAAA on their website.
Would you care to illuminate us with your reasons for the latest outburst?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask again.
Which stage of NAS will the requirement for transponders below 10,000 feet in the E airspace above Class D be removed? I couldn't find it in the documentation.
Which stage of NAS will the requirement for transponders below 10,000 feet in the E airspace above Class D be removed? I couldn't find it in the documentation.
Dick, you said:
"we still don’t have one bit of Class E terminal airspace. I have heard a story that Airservices are going to “try” it at Ballina."
Call me a fundmentalist luddite, but I can't see how vectoring 2 IFRs at Ballina ... while there are 13 bugsmashers in the same area ... invisible to, and immune from, the Class E Controller .... will be a safer option
"we still don’t have one bit of Class E terminal airspace. I have heard a story that Airservices are going to “try” it at Ballina."
Call me a fundmentalist luddite, but I can't see how vectoring 2 IFRs at Ballina ... while there are 13 bugsmashers in the same area ... invisible to, and immune from, the Class E Controller .... will be a safer option
Well said Puece.
The most life-threatening situations I have been in in Dick Smith alphabet soup airspace have been unannounced VFRs popping up in front of me, not IFR. Had they not had [optional] transponders, things could have got very close.
Dick, mandate transponders in all aircraft within 30nm of CTAF Rs and you'll have my support for mandatory TCAS.
Secondly, no comment on the A380 pilots looking out the window for lightys to avoid?? or indeed the whole "VFR operate in a different world and so should be ignored"/Class E thingee? Cat got your tongue old chap?
The most life-threatening situations I have been in in Dick Smith alphabet soup airspace have been unannounced VFRs popping up in front of me, not IFR. Had they not had [optional] transponders, things could have got very close.
Dick, mandate transponders in all aircraft within 30nm of CTAF Rs and you'll have my support for mandatory TCAS.
Secondly, no comment on the A380 pilots looking out the window for lightys to avoid?? or indeed the whole "VFR operate in a different world and so should be ignored"/Class E thingee? Cat got your tongue old chap?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz, you said “Dick, one point I've made more than once( and you've ignored) is that TCAS is much more effective if BOTH aircraft are equipped and BOTH pilots are trained in it's use.”
Yes, you have mentioned this before, and I don’t think there would be too many in this site who would argue about the obvious safety benefits of both aircraft having TCAS, but Dick is attempting to get the RAAA to introduce TCAS into regional airline aircraft as a starting point. I’m sure an intelligent person such as yourself would agree that having one aircraft equipped with TCAS in an environment of other aircraft equipped with transponders, increases safety greatly because then at least one aircraft can take the necessary avoiding action. Your chances of convincing the entire GA fleet that they should all equip with TCAS on the off chance that some of them may end up in the same airspace as a regional airline aircraft is , to put it bluntly, almost zero at the moment. Perhaps later, when regionals set the correct example and do what the rest of the civilized world has already done, the obvious safety benefits will filter down to GA, and they will follow.
Yes, you have mentioned this before, and I don’t think there would be too many in this site who would argue about the obvious safety benefits of both aircraft having TCAS, but Dick is attempting to get the RAAA to introduce TCAS into regional airline aircraft as a starting point. I’m sure an intelligent person such as yourself would agree that having one aircraft equipped with TCAS in an environment of other aircraft equipped with transponders, increases safety greatly because then at least one aircraft can take the necessary avoiding action. Your chances of convincing the entire GA fleet that they should all equip with TCAS on the off chance that some of them may end up in the same airspace as a regional airline aircraft is , to put it bluntly, almost zero at the moment. Perhaps later, when regionals set the correct example and do what the rest of the civilized world has already done, the obvious safety benefits will filter down to GA, and they will follow.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
What is the big deal with class E airspace?
Our class G is unusual in that IFR aircraft are provided with traffic information about other IFR aircraft. It is my understanding that in many other parts of the world, IFR in G get zip, unless in radar coverage where a service may be available.
As I understand for all intents and purposes in Australia the only differences (outside CTAF's) between E & G are:
E - clearance required for IFR, G - reporting required for IFR.
E - separation provided between IFR and IFR, G - traffic information provided between IFR & IFR
E - transponder mandatory all aircraft, G - transponder not required.
Class E is designed to protect IFR from IFR, not IFR from VFR. You will still have the same number of "bugsmashers" flying without ATC / FS input irrespective of whether you are flying in G or E - how can it possibly be less safe?
So I would like someone to explain to me how G is safer than E as I must be missing something (Scurvy are you allowed to play yet / how was the holiday?)
Yes the highest risk of collision is the circuit. If the ADS-B proposal is implemented as proposed in the JCP there will be mandatory transponder carriage in CTAF(R)'s.
vans Well put.
Our class G is unusual in that IFR aircraft are provided with traffic information about other IFR aircraft. It is my understanding that in many other parts of the world, IFR in G get zip, unless in radar coverage where a service may be available.
As I understand for all intents and purposes in Australia the only differences (outside CTAF's) between E & G are:
E - clearance required for IFR, G - reporting required for IFR.
E - separation provided between IFR and IFR, G - traffic information provided between IFR & IFR
E - transponder mandatory all aircraft, G - transponder not required.
Class E is designed to protect IFR from IFR, not IFR from VFR. You will still have the same number of "bugsmashers" flying without ATC / FS input irrespective of whether you are flying in G or E - how can it possibly be less safe?
So I would like someone to explain to me how G is safer than E as I must be missing something (Scurvy are you allowed to play yet / how was the holiday?)
Yes the highest risk of collision is the circuit. If the ADS-B proposal is implemented as proposed in the JCP there will be mandatory transponder carriage in CTAF(R)'s.
vans
Well put.
- For TCAS to work, the target aircraft must have a working transponder. Do all/most target aircraft have working transponders in the airspace that Regional aircraft operate?
- In E Airspace, IFR aircraft are vectored/instructed to manouver. This manouvering takes no account of unknown aircraft in the same airspace. In G Airspace, IFR aircraft, once advised of IFR traffic, make their own determination about when/how/if to manouver
Why are you asking for something that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, yet not supporting a standard requirement which does exist in every other modern aviation country?
Tell me exactly where it was that I asked for, or said anything of the sort!
Take your blinkers off, replace them with your glasses and please go back and re-read what I posted. I simply made a statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without maintenance?
For all these wonderful systems to work, it is necessary to have some effective system of good maintenance, or test and replacement readily available in all parts of the country. It does not exist, and without it you can expect the system to be unreliable.
Heads have been stuck in the sand for decades, and still are.
Heads have been stuck in the sand for decades, and still are.
Werbil, you said:
Our class G is unusual in that IFR aircraft are provided with traffic information about other IFR aircraft. It is my understanding that in many other parts of the world, IFR in G get zip, unless in radar coverage where a service may be available.
You might find it interesting to know that in the U.S. IFRs are separated in G Airspace. According to the FAA, they expect IFRs to comply with clearances and direction in Class G Airspace.
Our class G is unusual in that IFR aircraft are provided with traffic information about other IFR aircraft. It is my understanding that in many other parts of the world, IFR in G get zip, unless in radar coverage where a service may be available.
You might find it interesting to know that in the U.S. IFRs are separated in G Airspace. According to the FAA, they expect IFRs to comply with clearances and direction in Class G Airspace.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce said
“In E Airspace, IFR aircraft are vectored/instructed to manouver. This manouvering takes no account of unknown aircraft in the same airspace. In G Airspace, IFR aircraft, once advised of IFR traffic, make their own determination about when/how/if to manouver”
It is my understanding that there should be no unknown aircraft in E airspace in a radar environment because all aircraft in E must be transponder equipped. In a non radar E airspace environment there also would be no unknown aircraft to an IFR aircraft if the IFR was equipped with TCAS. I realise that TCAS is a last line of defence, but it does increase safety and this is all that I imagine Dick is argueing for with the regionals. The other line of defence that you have as an IFR aircraft in non radar E is that whilst in cloud there should be no unknown aircraft at all. So, to an IFR aircraft the only unknown aircraft in E would be in procedural airspace, in visual conditions, and then only if the IFR didn’t have TCAS. Of course there is also the mark 1 eyeball in visual conditions too!
“In E Airspace, IFR aircraft are vectored/instructed to manouver. This manouvering takes no account of unknown aircraft in the same airspace. In G Airspace, IFR aircraft, once advised of IFR traffic, make their own determination about when/how/if to manouver”
It is my understanding that there should be no unknown aircraft in E airspace in a radar environment because all aircraft in E must be transponder equipped. In a non radar E airspace environment there also would be no unknown aircraft to an IFR aircraft if the IFR was equipped with TCAS. I realise that TCAS is a last line of defence, but it does increase safety and this is all that I imagine Dick is argueing for with the regionals. The other line of defence that you have as an IFR aircraft in non radar E is that whilst in cloud there should be no unknown aircraft at all. So, to an IFR aircraft the only unknown aircraft in E would be in procedural airspace, in visual conditions, and then only if the IFR didn’t have TCAS. Of course there is also the mark 1 eyeball in visual conditions too!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vans
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know. D Rumsfeld
As usual and not unsurprisingly the debate centres around the "regionals" in the J curve. It might surprise Messrs Smith et al that there is a biggish part of Australia west of Bourke.
In my neck of the woods the types and numbers of them used in the FIFO business way outnumber the regionals and high frequency yet to private or unlicensed strips often only separated by tens of miles and in any event surrounded by private operations.
I personally dont care if you mandate transponders in EVERYTHING and REQUIRE passenger carrying aircraft regardless of seat numbers to have TCAS, or, get this 90% ADSB out thing going regardless of its technical eloquence/elegance.
Either way the biggies/fasties at least get to "see" the threat. The "threat" may never ever know how close he came, who cares, as long as it wasn't together.
Bloggs knows of which I speak.
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know. D Rumsfeld
As usual and not unsurprisingly the debate centres around the "regionals" in the J curve. It might surprise Messrs Smith et al that there is a biggish part of Australia west of Bourke.
In my neck of the woods the types and numbers of them used in the FIFO business way outnumber the regionals and high frequency yet to private or unlicensed strips often only separated by tens of miles and in any event surrounded by private operations.
I personally dont care if you mandate transponders in EVERYTHING and REQUIRE passenger carrying aircraft regardless of seat numbers to have TCAS, or, get this 90% ADSB out thing going regardless of its technical eloquence/elegance.
Either way the biggies/fasties at least get to "see" the threat. The "threat" may never ever know how close he came, who cares, as long as it wasn't together.
Bloggs knows of which I speak.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
Excuse me old chap, but I was attempting to not drift off the thread with my posts! If you check Dick’s original post you will see that it was specifically addressed to the RAAA and the regionals, hence I too was addressing this section. Nobody mentioned aircraft west of Bourke unless they happened to be a regional. In any case, if you want complete knowledge of the things we don’t know everywhere, then you best be barracking for controlled airspace over the whole of Australia right to the ground. In the meantime, I’ll settle for a few more TCAS’s in the regionals as a starting point, which is what this thread is supposed to be all about
Excuse me old chap, but I was attempting to not drift off the thread with my posts! If you check Dick’s original post you will see that it was specifically addressed to the RAAA and the regionals, hence I too was addressing this section. Nobody mentioned aircraft west of Bourke unless they happened to be a regional. In any case, if you want complete knowledge of the things we don’t know everywhere, then you best be barracking for controlled airspace over the whole of Australia right to the ground. In the meantime, I’ll settle for a few more TCAS’s in the regionals as a starting point, which is what this thread is supposed to be all about