I used to fly gliders in Switzerland and most gliders there have an anti-collision system invented by a swiss-boffin. Like FJs, gliders are often flying in close proximity in thermals and so TCAS is useless. I can't remember how the little magic box worked - but it was very effective. It only cost a couple of hundred Francs - I'm sure the MOD could knock up something similar for a few million quid a piece.

plus £50M for integration, £50M for clearances and £150M to BAES for sundry expenses.

Ah yes.....

Those hot weather trials in Death Valley (conveniently close to Vegas), cold weather trials in Norway on rates, or maybe Alaska?

Testing to 20g.....

It just goes on and on......

Trim Stab,

It's called "FLARM" and an increasing proportion of the UK glider fleet is thus equipped. It has its limitations, but the kit is definitely an aid to flight safety.

However, if can be a distraction when you are tugging at a competition and there are 50+ gliders in the vicinity of the airfield.

Like any bit of kit, if you use it sensibly and don't become a slave to its indications, it can make you safer.

Optional according to recent pronouncements by DE&S and Min(AF)



Optional if you are an RAF VSO



I'll give you that one, especially since Walmsley retired. Before that it was 50/50 with Thales!

more on this subject in today's press

RAF fighter jets almost crash mid-air every TWO WEEKS: New figures show 361 near misses since MoD pledged to install new safety gear in 1998... but never did | Mail Online

Aaahh, but we're encouraged to report "everything" (it's a reporting culture we're trying to establish, don't you know). Was that another aircraft I just saw? That ATC hadn't mentioned to me? AIRPROX! That, at least, would appear to be the mentality applied by some operating communities in both civ and mil. The fitment of TCAS to fast jets will probably increase the number of AIRPROX reports further due to a likely requirement for mandatory reporting of RAs, which will be somewhat more frequent in uncontrolled airspace than they are inside CAS.

Focussing on total volume of reporting is a mistake - it's the frequency of the serious ones that matters and I don't see that kind of detailed analysis being conducted in this article :hmm:

Can they not simply do it off the transponder?

Need an integrator for those to work, Nutloose, Don't think GR4's have them as part of the avionics fit.

Or as some of us keep saying, just look out of the window.

This probably explains why it's taken 15 years since endorsement NOT to fit a CWS. One school says it's needed, another doesn't, and the procurers at Shabbeywood sit twiddling their thumbs while London bats it back and forth.

I've never operated with TCAS or CWS but understand that it can be annoying and de-sensitising as well as helpful.

Are there any statistics as to how many actual 'saves' the equipment gives when compared to false alarms or preventions of 'getting close' as opposed to 'actually hitting'?

Also, can anyone offer an opinion on whether CWS if/when fitted to GR4 and/or a Typhoon would be a Go/ No Go system? One assumes it would have to be, but at the same time that seems a bit OTT.

Plenty of other Class G airspace users have TCAS, or a version thereof fitted, so I guess there should be evidence of how useful it is. Whether or not that info translates into 400knots+ (600knot+ closing speeds) I'm not sure. I remain to be convinced that FLARM has any use on a fast jet, bearing in mind the range vs closing speeds.

What do you think the guys were doing during the 46 Class "A" misses, between 2000 and 2012?

It's comments like that that gave the "bean counters" an excuse to drop, initially, CWS for Tornado in PR11.

DV

Orca

Interesting question, given a non functioning IFF system was regarded as "Go" even after a GR4A being shot down because of it.

I think a good point was made above. A CWS was endorsed for Tornado in 1998, yet is still not fitted. SOMEONE assessed the pros and cons discussed here and endorsed it - in 1998 that would need to be pretty senior in OR.

Getting back to the July 2012 crash, Hammond has recently claimed this endorsement only dates from 2008, stating that is not sufficient time for it to be fitted in July 2012, so MoD can't be blamed.

At best, Hammond knowingly misled. But given MoD's form in such matters, it is a probably a deliberate lie. As usual, one must follow the lies to uncover the truth. The lie is about the endorsement and funding dates, tests and trials.

Exactly the same happened after the Patriot shootdown of 2003. ACM Sir Brian Burridge's direction that the IFF be made safe was ignored, for more than 6 years. He is also content the Board of Inquiry was grossly misled. Yet he is sanguine about this, meaning (presumably) he was over-ruled from on high. Which, again, must be pretty senior.

Similarly, one must ask WHO these over-rules and lies protect. Who decided that Tornado GR4 (in this case) need not be functionally safe? Again, the perpetrators have form. Sir Brian was ONLY a 3 Star at the time, whereas the people who, in the period 1998-2002, ruled that the aircraft need not be safe were led by a 4 star. Just a little above our pay grade, but that doesn't absolve one of the legal obligation to report the Organisational Failing. Only one person in PE did, as well as Boscombe Down. Both were told to shut up. Boscombe did.

There is MUCH more to this than just the CWS/TCAS question. The same basic policy decision, that aircraft need not be functionally safe, permeates umpteen fatal accidents, and MoD simply does not want this link publicised. But the Nimrod, Tornado/Patriot and Chinook cases, especially, have raised the profile and made the policy public, so it will be interesting what direction the Procurator Fiscal issues in this case.

Not looking out of the window hard enough or well enough. Them's the breaks.

Yet another thread devoted to making an aircraft "safe" without thinking about the combat implications of such action. The aircrew's role is to find and destroy another aircraft (or to prevent them doing the same to you), ideally BVR, if necessary eyeball to eyeball; if they can't do that in peacetime, when will they be able to do that?

ATG, I've no idea what you are on about as the GR4 has no BVR capability or indeed any reliable way to detect aircraft BVR. Stuff like JTIDS (coming), IRST (not coming), PD Radar/IFF interrogator (not coming), Distributed Aperture (not coming) would all add value for detecting other aircraft in peace and war. Terrain masking at high speed reduces the ability to see and avoid. Have you ever experienced 1000kts closure in less than perfect vis?

Adding a CWS may just stops us thwacking each other without a war - we just need to make sure it works and does not compromise anything or get in the way.

JTO - ALARP would indicate that CWS can't be added without

If the way to beat GR4 is to drive at it really quickly, then we've got bigger problems frankly.

So we should leave the collision risk as it is to punish crews for not spotting each other - WTF???

I think you should leave the sherry alone.

Tucumseh,

In your mind then, GR4 is not functionally safe. Do you mean totally safe? (Not trying to be clever just unversed in degrees of safety)

If CWS was fitted would we need an upgrade to an automatic system which warned and took action so as to prevent a de-sensitised crew ignoring 'the big one'?

A bit like the Auto GCAS does.