Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

ACAS 10 bulletin, new R/T

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

ACAS 10 bulletin, new R/T

Old 16th Jan 2008, 09:06
  #21 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Groucho asks

Originally Posted by Groucho
Does anyone know HOW this sort of thing is resolved - with an 'effective date' in November and not yet in place?
Yes, I know. The regulator of the airspace is informed about changes (here to ICAO PANS-ATM 4444). There are internal procedures to decide what will be done; that is decided; it is then implemented procedurally in the usual way.

In the UK, the CAA SRG is aware of the changes. There are a number of departments at the CAA to which this change is relevant, who need to analyse and coordinate before issuing the change through the usual procedures (if it goes through Flight Ops, then one way would be a FODCOM followed by a change to CAP 493). The CAA is aware that this has to go through pretty quickly.

So please don't go saying things differently in UK airspace until that has happened. For other countries, I haven't checked (and probably won't because I don't have the time).

FlightDetent,

sorry for the misunderstanding,and glad you agree about Überlingen. I can't say anything about Congonhas because we are under contract concerning that accident.

Originally Posted by FlightDetent
it is my responsibility as a pilot is to follow published procedures invented by people far more clever than me.
Well, I think it is a pilot's responsibility to follow applicable air law, and ICAO procedures are not air law. The process of incorporating ICAO procedures into the air law of signatory countries takes a while. That is why I checked with the CAA.

If one uses "new" phraseology in airspace in which it is not yet law and the incident is serious enough to be investigated, and then somebody thinks the phraseology played a causal role, then one could get into some serious trouble. That would be my worry.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2008, 09:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
all pilots MUST adhere to published company procedures and cannot 'change' procedures on the basis of an internet post.
- good advice from 'Groucho' there. Certainly ask your company, but you are on very thin ice if you operate outside SOPs.
flt_lt_w_mitty is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2008, 09:48
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Right here
Age: 57
Posts: 79
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Detent

80% of RAs are nuisance 1000 ft level-off situations, what are you going to say on R/T when "adjust V/S, adjust" is issued? TCAS climb? TCAS descent?
First of all, I was refering to the information on the link, the way it is communicated is a piece of junk! NEVER, NEVER tell people what NOT to do in an instruction or information.

NOWHERE, did I say that I would not follow the new procedure, I simply stated that, for a pilot, it would be easier to say TCAS Climb/descend. But I guess maybe they don't wan't people to transmit descend and climb on the frequency, as this may confuse the other aircraft doing the RA.

As to adjust V/S, I never have said a thing, as you so clearly state, it's all been nuisance warnings and I haven't gone astray from ATC-clearence, so nothing needs to be said.

Flight Detent chear up
Miraculix is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2008, 15:29
  #24 (permalink)  
Transparency International
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 747
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PBL, you write that "...ICAO procedures are not air law."

I can't quite follow you on that one because the AIPs I've checked all state somewhere in GEN under "National Regulations and International Agreements / Conventions in force" that the Convention on International Civil Aviation is a part of "National Regulations".

Then surely, Article 12 (Rules of the air)
<zipped> Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
must implicate that the contracting state is obliged to publish the desired differences, if these differences shall take preference to those established under the convention. Or?
dusk2dawn is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2008, 17:24
  #25 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dusk2dawn
you write that "...ICAO procedures are not air law."

I can't quite follow you on that one because the AIPs I've checked all state somewhere in GEN under "National Regulations and International Agreements / Conventions in force" that the Convention on International Civil Aviation is a part of "National Regulations".
You won't find it in 14 CFR (US) or the ANO (UK). I haven't checked the LVO (D).

Article 12 might say that signatories are obliged to keep their regs uniform, but it doesn't specify how or in what time frame they have to do it. And some signatories, such as the US, have regulations and procedures that conflict with ICAO procedures, and that's that.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 00:02
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Just in case anyone feels that this is an accurate statement(which of course is important in analyzing an accident)....

I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying.
Here is an exact quote from the report....

The TU-154 AOM stated that manouvering opposite to the RA is PROHIBITED.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 00:13
  #27 (permalink)  
Ohcirrej
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are pilot thoughts on ATC passing radar observed traffic information rather than simply "ROGER"?

Of course, maybe it's not the traffic that's causing the RA.
Jerricho is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 06:01
  #28 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by punkalouver
Just in case anyone feels that this is an accurate statement(which of course is important in analyzing an accident)....

Quote:
I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying.
Here is an exact quote from the report....

The TU-154 AOM stated that manouvering opposite to the RA is PROHIBITED.
Young man, I do not want to have to deal with your misleading and provocative comments about TCAS any more. You have managed to shut down productive discussion amongst TCAS experts on one thread already. You have called my expertise and that of my colleagues into question with a series of rhetorical tricks, and this may mislead others into taking what you say seriously. It wastes mine and everyone else's time and patience. I ask you to stop stalking me.

For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p53 of the English edition of the report. I quote:
Originally Posted by BFU Report
TU154M Flight Operations Manual

The TU154M Flight Operations Manual [title given in Russian] chapter 8.18.3.4, dated 6 December 1999, describes the significance of TCAS with the following passage:
(1)...
(2) For the avoidance of in flight collisions is the visual control of the situation in the airspace by the crew and the correct execution of all instructions issued by ATC to be viewed as the most important tool. TCAS is an additional instrument which .....
PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 07:08
  #29 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Jerricho
What are pilot thoughts on ATC passing radar observed traffic information rather than simply "ROGER"?

Of course, maybe it's not the traffic that's causing the RA.
Unless it is a nuisance warning, during an RA let's admit it, ATC have failed understand and reslove a conflicting situation. Any information during the manouvre is superfluous, possibly incorrect, and may introduce yet another distracting factor onto flightdeck. As examples in the bulletin show (scary ones if you ask me!) the need to reiterate correct procedures cannot be underestimated. If a had a koruna for every time I hear pilot reply "we have it on TCAS" I would be a happy airline mogul - pretty much a same thing.

The new R/T nicely solve problems with nuisance warnings, removes ambiguity and is shorter. More time for ATCOs to manage the 4D model once RA is completed. I like it.

FD (the un-real)

PS: I just received a flight safety message with the new R/T from company FS dept. Job well done.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 07:11
  #30 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Miraculix
As to adjust V/S, I never have said a thing, as you so clearly state, it's all been nuisance warnings and I haven't gone astray from ATC-clearence, so nothing needs to be said.
That sounds as a very sensible thing to do, however it is a clear contradiction of the previous procedures. Now, it is the published thing to do. Good for us.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2008, 23:35
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p53 of the English edition of the report. I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFU Report
TU154M Flight Operations Manual

The TU154M Flight Operations Manual [title given in Russian] chapter 8.18.3.4, dated 6 December 1999, describes the significance of TCAS with the following passage:
(1)...
(2) For the avoidance of in flight collisions is the visual control of the situation in the airspace by the crew and the correct execution of all instructions issued by ATC to be viewed as the most important tool. TCAS is an additional instrument which .....
For the record, just this once, the proof of the correctness of what I said is on p103 of the english edition report. I quote:

Originally Posted by BFU Report
TU154 AOM


The TU154M AOM(para. 8.18.3.2 (4) dated 6 December 1999) stated that manouvering opposite to a TCAS RA is prohibited.

This would seem to contradict the first part of your statement...

"I think if you read the accident report, you will find that he was following
procedures published in the flight manual of the aircraft he was flying."


There were lots of applicable "published procedures", including those in the airplane flight manual, the regulations of the airspace in which he was flying, ICAO, and Eurocontrol advisory documents, and they were all different.

The second part of your statement is of course very accurate. In reality he was not following most of the procedures, rules and regulations and recommendations concerning response to TCAS including a very clear one in his AOM. There was conflicting statements on how to react to an RA. Seeing as you said earlier...."Well, I think it is a pilot's responsibility to follow applicable air law", I would assume that it includes this case where the air law of Germany would provide a final answer on the poorly written AOM of this company. It says to NEVER go against an RA. We saw the result of breaking this applicable air law.

Last edited by punkalouver; 25th Jan 2008 at 22:53.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2008, 06:42
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I once represented the UK at the Roselawn Phase 3 Icing Conference in Washington and raised some points directly with the FAA and got absolutley nowhere.
As you should have been aware, the FAA has published exceptions to standard ICAO procedures, just as many other countries do....certainly not a surprise I would expect of someone with extensive international experience, as claimed...
411A is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.