Congratulations to the RAAA – TCAS cost savings
 

Most people know that we in Australia have the most onerous transponder requirements in the world for VFR aircraft. I am proud of this because I introduced them at the time I was CASA Chairman and Mark Vaile was the Minister for Transport.

This was introduced with the agreement of the general aviation associations even though a cost benefit study would have most likely shown that the criteria was not met. Of course, if the industry agrees to a more onerous and safer requirement that is allowed by the legislation this is ok.

Now look at the regional airlines – their organisation the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) has been incredibly successful in preventing the introduction of TCAS requirements, which are mandatory in every other modern aviation country in the world. That is the requirement that air transport aircraft between 10 and 30 passengers have TCAS.

The situation at the present time is that there are airline aircraft operating in Australia that could not be operated in any other modern aviation country in the world.

I also find it interesting that the chief pilots of these regional airlines that have fought so strongly against the introduction of the North American NAS with more Class E controlled airspace remain silent about this major safety deficiency.

We all know the history of TCAS – if a professional pilot has the TCAS actually turned on and complies with the resolution advisory there has never ever been a collision – ie 100% safety record.

Of course, TCAS in regional airlines would work even better in Australia because we have the mandatory requirement for transponders in Class E. For example in the USA, there is no mandatory requirement for transponders below 10,000 feet in the E airspace above Class D.

It is an extraordinary compliment to the lobbying powers and the political influence that the RAAA has with the regulator that has prevented this safety requirement from being introduced in Australia. And it is all just to save a few dollars.

It seems strange to me that an organisation that purports itself to be there promoting safety for regional airline passengers can be so powerful in preventing the introduction of a basic safety requirement – that would cost no more than 60 cents per passenger per flight.

Which reminds me, 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.

Responsibilities
 

Dick, et al,

These same people, that are quietly lobbying their perceived interest in cost savings without TCAS, are also the ones vociferously complaining about the traffic conflicts that are becoming a more regular event around the regional airports of Australia.

The RAAA and its member airlines have demonstrated their willingness to be out of step with the aviation environment in Australia, and for that matter the rest of the developed world, on the issue of TCAS. They appear to be motivated by issues of cost to their business operations. In my book, that’s profit before safety. Neither the regulator nor the rest of the Australian aviation community should accept such a position. We all have a safety responsibility within the aviation system and we don’t have the latitude to “cherry pick” the areas in which we are prepared to meet our responsibilities.

Providing and operating a TCAS system does come with a cost, as does operating a transponder, but it’s a small cost in comparison with the vast majority of other aircraft costs.

I recently purchased a small format transponder for fitment to my recreational aircraft. The difference in price to obtain Modes-S now was about AUD $1,300 over and above Modes-A, C. The unit is already ADS-B compliant and I’ve made a decision to go ahead with Modes-S now. The responsibility toward an improved safety outcome requires it.

Arguments against transponder fitment on the basis of costs and power requirements have been largely mitigated in the past five years. The available options have increased significantly in this period. What’s happened to TCAS cost over this same period?

Frankly, waiting for the ADS-B process to be finalised in Australia before addressing the Mode-S side or TCAS side (interim) of the equipment requirements means the waste of a considerable opportunity to improve the safety of operation in an environment that has amply demonstrated a growing potential for incident or worse. It’s going to be an interesting incident investigation when the regional airliner without TCAS meets the Mode-S equipped conflict; an incident or worse when there could have been a progressive deconflicted resoltion advisory for at least one party. That’s a compelling case for all parties that cannot be ignored.

The other side of the equation that must be upheld is the reporting of traffic conflict incidents. This data is continuously required now to decide which elements of the debate are fact and which elements are fiction.

Not quite - my underlining:http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/orders/095.htm

Look at parts 95.8 / 95.10 / 95.12 / 95.14 / 95.32 / 95.54 / 95.55. You will see these types are permitted to operate in class E in VMC, and clearly most if not all do not have electrical systems capable of powering a transponder. So the AIP reference backed by CAR (174A?) means to me they don't need to operate a transponder in class E.

Which brings us to the safety of class E airspace debate .......

TCAS not 100% but better than nothing!
 

Hello Dick

I totally agree with you that TCAS is a REQUIREMENT in modern aviation even if it only adds another important safety element in our complex aviation environment....it gives the crew a realtime picture and I am sure in a few years it will be superseded with something more magical.

It saved my bacon overseas under procedural control and a limited english environment!

Just on a point though, the tragic B757 DHL-TU154 midair over Europe a few years ago, TCAS worked perfectly in both aircraft, unfortunately the B757 crew complied with the RA and the TU154 Capt. wanted to but then decided to follow a fatal ATC instruction. Not a perfect system due to the human interface ie. not a 100% record.

by the way still in the heart of Europe displaying my COMPANY ISSUED ID. CARD.........sorry Dick just another chapter that should have been in your book.....have you thought about a sequel!!!

Emu

Well yes, but. Without TCAS in that specific event, the "fatal ATC instruction" would have been a life saving instruction... "There but for the grace of god go I".

If TCAS is mandatory what about radios at IFR airports
 

I agree that TCAS is a great "last line of defense" and I hope you also agree that it should be used as such?

With a fairly small fleet of aircraft in the 10 to 30 seat field it may be a good idea to fit them all with TCAS, but why not make it all turbine aircraft or all passenger carrying commercial aircraft? After all the pax in the back of a Baron is entitled to the same level of safety as that of a pax in a metro II or 23, etc.

We have numerous odd "lines in the sand" in our curent regs and so maybe getting that sorted out is a good starting point.

There is one major safety improvement that we can make and wouldn't cost much. Lets lobby CASA to make it mandatory for all airports with an instrument approach to be a CTAF-R! Oh and get everyone to turn their radios on and talk when they get there!

I know that a great deal of regional aircraft operators would be able stop using their TCAS as a sudo radar systems to dodge VFR traffic not required to talk at an airport.

Dick,

Only because we flatly refused to accept E airspace without mandatory transponders! You were all for "free in E and G", which, if you had your way, would have allowed NO RADIO aircraft to mix it with RPT jets, for goodness sake.

Who, in their right mind, would allow a non-transponder lighty to swan around through the airspace over a busy airport, requiring A380s to take avoiding action after the A380 pilots had finally spotted the lighty? Dick Smith. :yuk:

Otherwise, I agree that TCAS should be mandated in every commercial turbine aircraft, provided transponders are mandated in aircraft that operate into CTAF Rs (if they can power them). :ok:

CaptainMidnight,

What you have to look at is the “mix” of VFR aircraft with regional airlines. It is obvious that over 95% would have a proper engine-driven electrical system. If you capture 95% of the traffic with a transponder, that is a hell of a lot better than zero.

Anything that is capable of aerodynamic or aerostatic flight in any airspace anywhere SHOULD have a transponder.

....the end

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. As far as I am aware, no-one is arguing for zero transponders in class E.

What I'm saying is that if you are pushing the point that class E has a high degree of safety because of the 'mandatory" transponder fitment then that is incorrect, because my interpretation of the regs is that many sports aviation types can now operate in class E in VMC without a transponder [if they have no electrical system capable of powering one] and no communication with ATC.

From the exemptions list, in addition to gliders these sports aviation types include hang-gliders, some types of ultralights, trikes and gyrocopters. I have no idea, but the number of these in the country might equal the number of light aircraft.

So your assertion that 95% of the aircraft operating in class E will have a transponder is debatable, particularly over time [and in the vicinity of places like Albury], and where class E corridors are extended down to the circuit area of aerodromes.

I suggest that regional aircraft mixing with such types, largely invisible and nil communications isn't an acceptable situation.

Atlas Shrugged:ok::ok:
And I'll raise you.........an ADSB transponder combining both Mode A/C and ADSB, all in one! That way any RPT with TCAS and any ATC (with proper low level coverage) will see you, long before they see you!

It aint hard.....just hard to get the knockers to listen:ugh:.

J:ok:

And billions
 

And billions of dollars for all the fancy electronics.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::sad:

OK Bushy and Gaunty......its the Billions of dollars you are worried about now is it? Well lets just swith off ALL the radar heads, might as well turn of the terminal areas as well, and ditch a CTA requirement for mode C then shall we?

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::sad:

We are wasting so much on this stuff now, why continue with it when for the same buck you can have much better?

To many flat earthers on here!

J:ok:

:D:D
I agree completely with the above statements. On another matter anything thing that flies should have a radio. This is the 21st century for :mad: sake.

Can some one tell me why we need E airspace? Is there a cost saving to IFR movements, does it allow more IFR movements in a given area. Does it require less attention from ATC, there fore less controller hours? What are the benefits?

I have two question.
Has there ever been a mid air collision between air transport aircraft between 10 and 30 passengers in Australia?

Do that have a 100% safety record regarding mid air collisions?.

Near misses don't count as a TCAS RA could be considered a near miss.

RENURPP

Whats your point? As you say a TCAS RA is avoiding what might have been. I think the chances of two Dash 8's at Emerald coming together is pretty slim, one operator, one service at a time. They might see a competitor in a Metro if they are extremely lucky.

However around those 10-30 RPT's is a much higher volume of AG planes, GA planes and RAA and GFA's members, so TCAS and a transponder is a damn fine idea. And while we are at it as technology now permits.......get the lot in one box, refer my post above.

Capt_SNAFU
Thanks, PM me if you wish to join the push for common sense!

J:ok:

Dog One, you have made 256 posts on PPRuNe, yet you do not know the benefits of Class E airspace. Could it be that the situation which existed in Bundaberg could be avoided? This was a situation where an airline aircraft and another IFR aircraft with a professional pilot were performing the same instrument approach at the same time in IMC. Unfortunately one aircraft was on the wrong radio frequency - a pretty simple mistake.

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.

Class E means that when you are in cloud, you get a proper radar or procedural separation from air traffic control. Surely that is better than a do it yourself “no standard” system.

More importantly, when in radar Class E, the air traffic controller will not let you go below the legal minimum altitude until you have reported that you are in VMC or the controller can see that you are on the correct approach. Both of these would add to safety. Just look at what happened with the professional pilot at Benalla – six people died.

Atlas Shrugged, you say that anything capable of “aerodynamic or aerostatic flight” should have a transponder – but this thread is about the fact that at the present time we don’t even have TCAS in 10 to 30 passenger aircraft. 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?

I look forward to your advice.

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)

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.

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:ok:

Dick,
can you advise what benefit TCAS is in the circuit area with high density traffic??

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.”

And why SHOULD we say that? Oh, that's right! Dick says so, so it MUST be true!!

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.

Dick,
If you can assure me, please do so.

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 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.

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 :confused:

Well said Puece. :ok:

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?

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.

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 :ok::ok::ok: Well put.

Dick,

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.

:mad:

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.

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.

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!

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. :ok:

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