Congratulations to the RAAA – TCAS cost savings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
I have just become aware of this thread, and I have registered in order to respond with the facts.
As the CEO of the RAAA I found the thread interesting reading. I was particularly impressed by dragonflyhkg's comments, especially since the RAAA's position was and remains one of support for TCAS for all IFR passenger transport with 10 seats or more, despite Dick's opening salvo.
For the record, the Regulation Review Task Force of which Dick is a member recently made a recommendation to the SCC that TCAS and GPWS (types not specified) should be mandated for all passenger transport aircraft with 10 or more seats. The SCC asked the RAAA for its position. After an exhaustive consultation process with our members, I posted the formal RAAA response on the SCC website on 15 October.
Dick appears to have posted his initial post on this thread several hours before our position was published, and without any communication with this office on the subject.
For those who are interested in the facts, I will post our response to the SCC in full on our website www.raaa.com.au
We support the use of TCAS, but buying TCAS without universal transponder carriage is a bit like being required to buy an expensive belt without a buckle. TCAS can not work unless conflicting aircraft have transponders, so it is not cost effective expenditure unless there is simultaneous fitment of transponders to all aircraft that can reasonably power them.
We do not want to unnecessarily restrict GA or to impose unnecessary costs. After all, we rely rather heavily on GA for our crews and many of our members are also GA pilots and aircraft owners. However, if the carriage of TCAS is so important to the safety of the travelling public that it should be mandated for all passenger transport aircraft with 10 or more seats, how could there possibly be any argument against the concurrent mandatory fitting of transponders to all potentially conflicting aircraft in the environment in which we operate?
That is the question that we (including the Regulation Review Task Force) as an aviation fraternity have to face.
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
Terry
I have just become aware of this thread, and I have registered in order to respond with the facts.
As the CEO of the RAAA I found the thread interesting reading. I was particularly impressed by dragonflyhkg's comments, especially since the RAAA's position was and remains one of support for TCAS for all IFR passenger transport with 10 seats or more, despite Dick's opening salvo.
For the record, the Regulation Review Task Force of which Dick is a member recently made a recommendation to the SCC that TCAS and GPWS (types not specified) should be mandated for all passenger transport aircraft with 10 or more seats. The SCC asked the RAAA for its position. After an exhaustive consultation process with our members, I posted the formal RAAA response on the SCC website on 15 October.
Dick appears to have posted his initial post on this thread several hours before our position was published, and without any communication with this office on the subject.
For those who are interested in the facts, I will post our response to the SCC in full on our website www.raaa.com.au
We support the use of TCAS, but buying TCAS without universal transponder carriage is a bit like being required to buy an expensive belt without a buckle. TCAS can not work unless conflicting aircraft have transponders, so it is not cost effective expenditure unless there is simultaneous fitment of transponders to all aircraft that can reasonably power them.
We do not want to unnecessarily restrict GA or to impose unnecessary costs. After all, we rely rather heavily on GA for our crews and many of our members are also GA pilots and aircraft owners. However, if the carriage of TCAS is so important to the safety of the travelling public that it should be mandated for all passenger transport aircraft with 10 or more seats, how could there possibly be any argument against the concurrent mandatory fitting of transponders to all potentially conflicting aircraft in the environment in which we operate?
That is the question that we (including the Regulation Review Task Force) as an aviation fraternity have to face.
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
Terry
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Mountains
Or could it be that the incident at Orange could have been avoided? This was the incident where a Rex aircraft was approaching from the east and an IFR Baron with a professional pilot was approaching from the west – both in cloud at the same time. When the Baron needed to do a missed approach it was heading straight into the IFR airline aircraft. The only way it could save the day was by illegally turning off the missed approach. Luckily there were no mountains there.
Dick - have you heard of Mount Canobolas???
Dick - have you heard of Mount Canobolas???
Just for those who don't know Mount Canobolas, is not only the highest mountain in the Central West region of New South Wales, it is he highest point between Australia's Great Dividing Range and Africa (other than Mt. Zeil in the NT) and is an extinct sheild volcano.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terry Wesley-Smith
Dick’s opening post seems to indicate that the RAAA have had a longstanding opposition to the fitment of TCAS to passenger aircraft with 10 seats or greater. You seem to indicate that the RAAA have always supported the fitment.
Quote: “Especially since the RAAA's position was and remains one of support for TCAS for all IFR passenger transport with 10 seats or more”.
You then go on to qualify your remarks by indicating that you only support TCAS fitment provided everyone else capable of doing so, fits transponders.
Quote “We support the use of TCAS, but buying TCAS without universal transponder carriage is a bit like being required to buy an expensive belt without a buckle”.
It would seem to me that you do not support Dick’s position at all, which is for the 10 to 30 seat passenger aircraft to fit TCAS now, regardless of what other aircraft owners do.
Are you saying that the increased safety benefits arising from the fitment of TCAS to 10 and greater seat passenger aircraft, especially in E airspace, but also to a lesser extent in other airspace, is not worth the cost, despite the rest of the western world having already mandated this (according to Dick)?
Surely it is up to the RAAA to set the example here for their own sake, not demand that every aircraft capable of fitting transponders do so concurrently as a condition of you giving your passengers this additional safety benefit.
I hope I never see the day when your present position results in an accident.
Quote: “Especially since the RAAA's position was and remains one of support for TCAS for all IFR passenger transport with 10 seats or more”.
You then go on to qualify your remarks by indicating that you only support TCAS fitment provided everyone else capable of doing so, fits transponders.
Quote “We support the use of TCAS, but buying TCAS without universal transponder carriage is a bit like being required to buy an expensive belt without a buckle”.
It would seem to me that you do not support Dick’s position at all, which is for the 10 to 30 seat passenger aircraft to fit TCAS now, regardless of what other aircraft owners do.
Are you saying that the increased safety benefits arising from the fitment of TCAS to 10 and greater seat passenger aircraft, especially in E airspace, but also to a lesser extent in other airspace, is not worth the cost, despite the rest of the western world having already mandated this (according to Dick)?
Surely it is up to the RAAA to set the example here for their own sake, not demand that every aircraft capable of fitting transponders do so concurrently as a condition of you giving your passengers this additional safety benefit.
I hope I never see the day when your present position results in an accident.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global Mandates
Vans,
You have to be careful when relying on Dick Smith as the basis for your rhetoric when you state
As I posted here the ICAO requirement is for TCAS II in 19+ pax or MTOW 5700kgs + aircraft.
The US requirement is for >15,000kgs turbine powered aircraft to have Mode S and TCAS II (Ver 7). In the US 10-30 pax capacity aircraft require only TCAS I (i.e No Resolution Advisories).
The difference is subtle but it is there.
You have to be careful when relying on Dick Smith as the basis for your rhetoric when you state
despite the rest of the western world having already mandated this (according to Dick)?
The US requirement is for >15,000kgs turbine powered aircraft to have Mode S and TCAS II (Ver 7). In the US 10-30 pax capacity aircraft require only TCAS I (i.e No Resolution Advisories).
The difference is subtle but it is there.
