PPRuNe Radar

Nothing to stop anyone starting a condolences thread, which is the usual form if people want somewhere free from debate to record their rememberances and tributes.

No one has ... yet.

vanHorck

why the annoyance? I d never heard of FLARM and although it seems a one brand affair, if thousands have used it successfully in gliding, why should we not consider it?

Condolences is not what this forum is (only) about. It is about exchanging views in normal manner in the hope we can all learn from it.

I didn t know any of the crew(s), and i think it s sad. I feel for their families, but it seems pretty hollow to say that here. If i knew them i d have started a condolence register on an appropriate website.

To get back on subject: Any powered GA planes that use FLARM? Experiences?

IO540

Pprune Radar - that ICAO reference is again in CAT context, not GA.

Also nobody is suggesting making TCAS mandatory; for GA that would be silly. The only bit which could be mandatory is transponder usage, unless technically impossible.

Rod1

FLARM was pushed very hard by the BGA in the 1st Mode S consultation. The CAA’s response to the consultation formally rejects it as an acceptable solution for a number of reasons.

I know some of you would love to a nice black box which will guarantee your collision avoidance with no pilot effort but it just is not going to happen. The CAA has stated that it will not mandate any form of transponder and most flying machines do not and probably never will have one. The CAA took its current position because it became convinced that it was not technically feasible to fit a transponder to most flying machines. No transponder = no warning = work on your look out. The same is also true of radios, most do not have one.

Next time you are in good VMC make a note every time you spot another flying machine and make a guess as to weather it has a transponder or not. I assume traditional group a has, LAA types 25%, and micros, gliders, hang gliders etc 0%. I think you will find that a very large % of the things out there have no transponder and are not likely ever to have.

Rod1

modelman

Took a 45 min local flight out of Cov on Sat ( was due to go last Sun just before the tragic event).I have to say my lookout was keener than ever (sure my head rotated a full 360) and although Cov was giving it's usual excellent FIS I still never got visual with traffic mentioned.The most worrying aspect for me was the amount of 'heights unknown' I was getting about traffic.
I took matters into my own hands and gave regular position/height reports more for the benefit of other pilots than ATC.

Guess if this sad incident has provoked people into thinking harder about their flying ( me included) then their loss has not been totally in vain.

MM

PPRuNe Radar

Sorry, but you're wrong. The ICAO standards don't specify that they only apply to CAT, otherwise as a GA pilot you could ignore all the airspace classifications, rules of the air, RT phraseology, equipment specifications, international licencing rules, etc, etc. The standards are published so that States may meet an international standard and so that industries throughout the world can provide equipment which meets a common standard and not one which operates in isolation. States may file differences to ICAO reccomendations, but they should then appear in their AIP. I can't find one which says that Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) standards only apply to CAT in the UK ... but then that's because they don't.

Bear in mind ICAO does not say that TCAS is the only show in town for collision avoidance systems (generically known as ACAS). Any company could produce a collision avoidance system which is not TCAS, but if they want it certificated for airworthiness purposes, then they'll almost certainly have to meet the ICAO Standards since this is what most States in the world base their requirements on.

TCAS standards take the generic ICAO ones and apply more detail to specify a common standard for people who build the TCAS equipment and operate collision avoidance systems using TCAS as their tool. A group called the RTCA publish those but they will still meet the ICAO specifications as a minimum, and do. These standards don't say they apply to CAT only. Why would they ??

As others have said, there are other systems out there such as FLARM and TCAD. Others are on the way too, like ADS-B. They still all find their specifications coming down from ICAO, and then being further detailed in RTCA or EUROCAE documentation, regardless of what type of aircraft they will be fitted in.

I don't believe anyone here did say make TCAS mandatory ... or maybe I missed it.

Mandatory Mode S is currently the European administrators answer to everything. Many are still to be convinced, me included.

IO540

Rod, you keep banging on about this, but when you say "most" you are obviously counting all those parachutists with a lawn mower strapped on their back.

The vast majority of "flying machines" which actually pose a risk to what I would call a normal GA pilot (flying a powered plane at normal non kerb crawling levels, making proper use of available vertical space) can most certainly be transponder equipped.

Gliders pose a risk to normal GA but statistics suggest it is extremely small - even smaller than then very tiny risk of a GA-on-GA midair.

robin

IO540

Ever flown near to the Malverns on a thermic day? or try flying west to east when Popham or Sandown have a microlight day?

For my type of flying, these are the big risks - that and pilots who don't look out the window. This summer I've lost count of the times I have had right of way and have had to change course and put on my landing lights to avoid a dozy pilot who never made the slightest attempt to change course as required under the Rules of the Air.

Obviously I can't know why they didn't see me, but lit up like a Christmas tree I would guess looking out wasn't their prime concern.

Fuji Abound

I cant help feeling there is some lack of understanding of TCAS in light aircraft.

I would like to set out my experience.

The last few days round trip was to and from the west country - a couple of hundred miles in each direction.

About 80% of the flight was with a RIS, 100% with TCAS on the MFD. The outbound route was all low level - not above 3,500 feet and coming back about half above FL75 and half low level.

TCAS was set to display all traffic - the options are above and below with or without a height buffer and unlimited. The traffic appears as the usual diamond on the moving map with altitude if the traffic is transponding mode C or S and an arrow to indicate the altitude trend.

Over the total route there was one primary contact identified by AT which was not transponding but presented a "threat". Of course it was not displayed by TCAS. The position and altitude of all other traffic, and there was a lot outbound, coincided with that reported by AT.

At GA speeds, (and in this case a cruising speed of around 175 knots) even with the traffic closing from ahead, it is simple to adjust the track and height to "ensure" separation. Moreover in almost every case it is reasonably straightforward to "work out" if the traffic is en route or manoeuvring.

The system may not be perfect but with the autopilot engaged and TCAS turned on your situational awareness of other aircraft and your ability to give them a wide berth is a million miles apart from working the same task visually. Moreover it enables your eyes to be outside hoping to pick up anything the "automatics" have missed.

What’s my point. Well TCAS is not a panacea anymore than FLARM. However both systems provide a very significant improvement on the mark 1 eyeball. Most en route traffic above 3,000 or 4,000 (on this trip at any rate) would seem to have been transponding and TCAS appeared to identify the traffic accurately 100% of the time. For me I am a great deal more comfortable having TCAS in the cockpit. I realise it is not a guarantee that I wont have a close encounter but it stacks the odds by another significant margin in my favour.

I felt I should make this post because I am not sure from some of the other posters whether they write from the perspective of having used TCAS in the cockpit. I recognise that I am privileged to fly an aircraft fitted with this system however as the price of modern avionics is driven down, glass cockpits become more common and less expensive alternatives become available (such as PCAS which I have found to be very reliable and already with the ability to link to a moving map display) I think we should not under estimate the safety enhancement these systems bring to general aviation. I made the decision some while back never to fly without a least a PCAS - it cost me a few hours flying but I reckon it was one of my best buys.

Finally, as I said before, I sense there is that brigade who are all too ready to chip away at TCAS or PCAS by inferring it is yet another excuse to fly the aircraft on instruments in VMC. If you allow it to be, then I guess they would be right. However, I flown with plenty of pilots who have a cockpit of steam gauges without a GPS in sight that fly on instruments in VMC. TCAS and PCAS do not encourage you to be head down any more than any other instrument and used properly they free up time to maintain an effective scan.

Sure, as another poster commented, there are plenty of aircraft not transponding but look at it this way, if I can identify all those that are, at least I have narrowed the odds in my favour. Maybe by a bigger margin that you might think because if it is fast its probably transponding and I reckon anything I am closing at 400 knots or more I am not going to do a very good job of spotting.

robin

Ahh - so that was why the b*st*rds didn't try to avoid me - they were probably on autopilot. Thanks

IO540

Objectively, how close did they actually get?

I don't take avoiding action unless required. Some pilots get nervous of a contact passing one mile away - pointless.

NigelOnDraft

Fuji...

Just to check, are you describing a full ICAO standard "TCAS" system?

Please assure me you do not adjust your track based on the TCAS display, but only after you acquire the traffic visually? And if you fail to acquire the traffic visually, you maintain track and height (or V/S) as and until you get an RA? Please

NoD

robin

Objectively? Difficult to say but in one case I saw the approaching aircraft about 30 seconds away and watched it closing on me. It was clear he hadn't seen me even though I'd switched all the lights on and my aircraft is quite brightly coloured. Being a coward I'd started to move out of his way and there wasn't a problem in the end. However, if I had taken the view, that some express, that I had right of way, then who knows.

My general view now is that I don't trust anyone to see me - be it on TCAS or using Mk1 eyeball - so will move out of their way.

Fuji Abound

NigelOnDraft

Skywatch has some limitations.

It will issue a traffic alert but it will not provide an RA.

The operating manual warns that the sytem should be used to visually acquire the traffic and then adjust track and height to ensure seperation.

AOPA conclude that pilots are far more likely to be able to acquire traffic with TCAS, than without.

You raise an interesting question.

In the event it has not proved possible to acquire the traffic what should the pilot do? With a system that initiates an audible RA is it not the case the pilot is expected to recognise and enact the RA within 5 seconds whether or not he has acquired the traffic? Response to a further RA is expected within 2.5 seconds. Of course TCAS have been developed primarily around the needs of commercial operators in a CAS. Examples outside CAS therefore seem to be rare. I have read the report of the incident between a Boeing 737 and a Tobago outside CAS in 2003. In this case the Boeing had the advantage of dual crew. The co-pilot was the handling pilot. The commander was solely concerned with "see and avoid". TCAS indicated traffic below and the descent was arrested (although the traffic had not at that time been visually acquired). Subsequently TCAS issued an RA to climb. The commander took over and complied. At no time did either crew members visually acquire the traffic. The Tobago pilot saw the traffic which he said appeared to be crossing his track but he thought this was probably an illusion and did not take further action.

So given the limitations of the Skywatch system a fast contact is approaching you from directly behind. (you might just as well be descending with traffic below as in the example above). The only way you are going to visually acquire the traffic is to turn away from the traffic. What action would you suggest? If you do nothing at best a few seconds before the collision you will get "traffic, traffic, traffic" - you will never get an RA. If you turn away from the traffic you acted before visual acquisition. If you turned away and climbed or descended you have also acted without visually acquiring the traffic as did the boeing crew.

We can debate the risks involved in operating light aircraft in IMC outside CAS. The fact of the matter is that pilots do, and the law permits such operations. Often no RIS is available. Once again the pilot is never going to visually acquire the traffic but Skywatch will for sure paint the traffic on the MFD. As the risk of a collision increases in the event no avoiding action is taken no RA will be issued other than "traffic, traffic traffic". Please assure me in such circumstances you will do something to avoid the traffic before you visually acquire the traffic.

Systems such as Skywatch are being used in a far less controlled enviroment than I suspect their manufacturers in the States may have envisaged. It maybe I need to give a deal of thought to how such sytems are best used. In these examples I find it difficult to rationalise the traditional wisdom that no action should be taken until the target is visually acquired or an RA is issued when the sytem is incapable of providing an RA.

englishal

I don't know why anyone would argue against traffic info in the cockpit. The world would be a safer place if everyone had a transponder / some method of broadcasting their position, and then those that wanted to could have a system to display conflicting traffic?

The TIS systems I have used in the USA are NOT TCAS but they have brought to my attention numerous targets which I wouldn't have otherwise seen - as displayed here. If nothing else as long as your altitude is different, a collision won't occur. You can also see altitude trends so if they are climbing or descending.....

I believe FLARM costs aout £500. If everyone in the UK or indeed Euroland decided to fit FLARM the cost would probably drop by half. They already offer discounts of 20% I think to 15 units or more, which I'm sure could be negotiable if someone decided to order several hundred or thousand.....

VFE

Hear hear Al.

You would think that your average PPL'r would be able to afford a £500 investment in flight safety, never mind a snip at £250 if more followed suit. But then again, we still see rich PPL'rs arriving at Guernsey on almost dry tanks just to save £30 on a fill up!

VFE.

gasax

If the CAA were to give a real (non political, rational, sensible) recommendation to something like FLARM then we would see a real take up. And largely from the traffic types who need it. The problem is that these people (CAA) are part of the 'system' and unless it has a serious price tag and industry lobbying and all the expensive things which provide the gravvy train they have no interest.

I'd buy FLARM if 40% of other aircraft were likely to have it. I have Mode C - and the only real benefit I get is easier transits - which is a bit marginal.

Mode S - a complete and utter waste of money unless if comes with TIS. Mode C - well hopefully nothing over 5750 kgs will bump into me, something of an investment. Could I get something similar to alert the gray pointy things? Unfortunately not but maybe coming.

And yet tomorrow we could all go and buy FLARM - and with a bit of promotion I'm sure many of us would. But it offers no international conferences, no expenses paid jaunts and so the people who are supposed to have a real, rational view of risk management ignore it.........

IO540

My guess is that one problem with FLARM is that it is not available in a certified form, and there is a limit to how much velcro-attached electronics, powered from the cigar lighter, the owner of a nice plane is going to put in.

Even fitting proper aircraft power connectors for portable devices is a bit of a grey area...

The £1000+ ZAON unit which gives you some kind of directional information is a pretty tacky installation, with the cigar lighter lead running right across your instrument panel.

A saleable FLARM unit would need to interface to panel mounted MFDs or whatever. And then it wouldn't be £500 but £5000, plus aerials, plus installation, plus certification.........

vanHorck

i hope the CAA read this forum

Robin400

This site is well worth looking at.
Flarm - Product