Crew ignored TCAS RA
You cannot compare flying an F-16 with a bubble canopy in airspace cleared of other traffic apart from yourself and a few other mavericks, with flying a large metal tube filled with 200 human lives in busy airspace.
I had an RA going into Madrid a few days ago. The business jet pilot was descending quickly without looking outside his cockpit, hence he didn't see the 737 in front and below him, leading to an RA. We continued to descend and his RA presumably told him to climb. ATC finally caught up with the dangerous situation they had created and told the business jet to level off.
The point is that there is no way we could have known about the business jet because he was trying to land on us from behind and I suspect his view of us was obscured by his lobster thermidor. So, TCASII saved the day.
Follow the farking TCAS RA. It's got nothing to do with Magenta lines.
I had an RA going into Madrid a few days ago. The business jet pilot was descending quickly without looking outside his cockpit, hence he didn't see the 737 in front and below him, leading to an RA. We continued to descend and his RA presumably told him to climb. ATC finally caught up with the dangerous situation they had created and told the business jet to level off.
The point is that there is no way we could have known about the business jet because he was trying to land on us from behind and I suspect his view of us was obscured by his lobster thermidor. So, TCASII saved the day.
Follow the farking TCAS RA. It's got nothing to do with Magenta lines.
I have never seen any GA aircraft without transponders at FL360...
...but then again, it could surely happen.
Airmanship and SA goes hand in hand. No SA, outside controlled airspace and with more than one target on TCAS, sure I will follow it, but if only one target at FL360 in controlled airspace and visual (since 80 miles in the contrails) plus maybe SA from ATC communication, I will assume the responsibility and ensure positiv separation by creating line of sight to the other aircraft.
...but then again, it could surely happen.
Airmanship and SA goes hand in hand. No SA, outside controlled airspace and with more than one target on TCAS, sure I will follow it, but if only one target at FL360 in controlled airspace and visual (since 80 miles in the contrails) plus maybe SA from ATC communication, I will assume the responsibility and ensure positiv separation by creating line of sight to the other aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
angryrat,
Not all rules and regs are black and white. They leave room for common sense. In western Air forces we learn that "Flexibility is the key to Airpower". Civilian pilots can translate that to "Flexibility is the key to efficiency". Using common sense and being flexible within the confines of the rules is what separates the exceptional pilots from the average ones.
Mikehotel152,
Of course you can't compare flying the F-16 in segregated airspace while GCI controllers try to vector you towards your opponent (total opposite ATC controllers who vector you away), with flying a widebody liner in busy terminal airspace, with all the bells and whistles doing the flying for you while the guy/gal next to you work the radio, FMS etc. for you, and even monitors you to ensure you dont make any mistakes. It must be the most challenging job in the world, especially having to know which protections are lost in alternate law and how the TOGA switch works and interacts with the auto throttle if pressed on the ground....
Irony Off!
As Sidestick_n_Rudder noted, I to would follow the RA in most circumstances and definitely in a situation as the one you describe. But if met with a situation like the one I described earlier, and if in possession of full SA on the only traffic within miles, I would use common sense and be an effective pilot.
Not all rules and regs are black and white. They leave room for common sense. In western Air forces we learn that "Flexibility is the key to Airpower". Civilian pilots can translate that to "Flexibility is the key to efficiency". Using common sense and being flexible within the confines of the rules is what separates the exceptional pilots from the average ones.
Mikehotel152,
Of course you can't compare flying the F-16 in segregated airspace while GCI controllers try to vector you towards your opponent (total opposite ATC controllers who vector you away), with flying a widebody liner in busy terminal airspace, with all the bells and whistles doing the flying for you while the guy/gal next to you work the radio, FMS etc. for you, and even monitors you to ensure you dont make any mistakes. It must be the most challenging job in the world, especially having to know which protections are lost in alternate law and how the TOGA switch works and interacts with the auto throttle if pressed on the ground....
Irony Off!
As Sidestick_n_Rudder noted, I to would follow the RA in most circumstances and definitely in a situation as the one you describe. But if met with a situation like the one I described earlier, and if in possession of full SA on the only traffic within miles, I would use common sense and be an effective pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it funny that so many here actually perceive this issue as 100% black and white. Aviation in general is by far back and white.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to would follow the RA in most circumstances and definitely in a situation as the one you describe. But if met with a situation like the one I described earlier, and if in possession of full SA on the only traffic within miles, I would use common sense and be an effective pilot.
In the US , and almost all global FIRs, you are required to follow all TCAS RA's. End of.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that so? Please present to me the evidence in form of the regulations that states "The pilot shall" and not "the pilot should".
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Doc. 8168, Vol. 1, Chapter 3.2:
c) in the event of an RA, pilots shall:
1) respond immediately by following the RA as indicated, unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the
aeroplane;
Note 1. Stall warning, wind shear, and ground proximity warning system alerts have precedence over
ACAS.
Note 2. Visually acquired traffic may not be the same traffic causing an RA. Visual perception of an
encounter may be misleading, particularly at night.
2) follow the RA even if there is a conflict between the RA and an air traffic control (ATC) instruction to
manoeuvre;
3) not manoeuvre in the opposite sense to an RA;
Note. In the case of an ACAS-ACAS coordinated encounter, the RAs complement each other in order
to reduce the potential for collision. Manoeuvres, or lack of manoeuvres, that result in vertical rates
opposite to the sense of an RA could result in a collision with the intruder aircraft.
1) respond immediately by following the RA as indicated, unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the
aeroplane;
Note 1. Stall warning, wind shear, and ground proximity warning system alerts have precedence over
ACAS.
Note 2. Visually acquired traffic may not be the same traffic causing an RA. Visual perception of an
encounter may be misleading, particularly at night.
2) follow the RA even if there is a conflict between the RA and an air traffic control (ATC) instruction to
manoeuvre;
3) not manoeuvre in the opposite sense to an RA;
Note. In the case of an ACAS-ACAS coordinated encounter, the RAs complement each other in order
to reduce the potential for collision. Manoeuvres, or lack of manoeuvres, that result in vertical rates
opposite to the sense of an RA could result in a collision with the intruder aircraft.
Of course you can't compare flying the F-16 in segregated airspace while GCI controllers try to vector you towards your opponent (total opposite ATC controllers who vector you away), with flying a widebody liner in busy terminal airspace, with all the bells and whistles doing the flying for you while the guy/gal next to you work the radio, FMS etc. for you, and even monitors you to ensure you dont make any mistakes. It must be the most challenging job in the world, especially having to know which protections are lost in alternate law and how the TOGA switch works and interacts with the auto throttle if pressed on the ground....
Back to the topic please.
He is talking about how easy it is to fly an airliner compared to flying an F-16 on tactical ops, the reason for talking about it at every opportunity is to reinforcie his/ her long held and promoted belief that he/she is better than most. If you keep peeling back the layers bit by bit ( it usually takes a few weeks) the root of this sort of behaviour is normally fear.
Indeed, stating "callsign123 TCAS RA/Climb/Descent" is extremely important for me as an ATCO because it tells me to shut the eff up and leave you to it.
Forgive my ignorance but my training has always taught me that TCAS RAs MUST be complied with. As has been stated already there have been fatal incidents in the past where crews acquired visual with what they perceived to be the conflicting traffic only to hit someone else.
There have been crews who have refused avoiding action because the turn was towards the traffic, not realising turning one aircraft to pass behind the other is the quickest and safest resolution (unless using totally parallel tracks, but that's rarely practical ....I mean eventually you need to reach destination....).
What's the worst that happens if you follow an RA at altitude? You set off a domino RA on traffic above/below you, maybe get a reversal. From ignoring one? You kill hundreds of people you absolute w***er....the fact we are even having this debate is frightening. It's all well and good having the discretion to ignore one but for God sake unless you KNOW the system is malfunctioning (IE below 1,000 ft) then stop measuring your d*** and just play it safe.
This is by far the most frightening thread I have ever read on this site.
Forgive my ignorance but my training has always taught me that TCAS RAs MUST be complied with. As has been stated already there have been fatal incidents in the past where crews acquired visual with what they perceived to be the conflicting traffic only to hit someone else.
There have been crews who have refused avoiding action because the turn was towards the traffic, not realising turning one aircraft to pass behind the other is the quickest and safest resolution (unless using totally parallel tracks, but that's rarely practical ....I mean eventually you need to reach destination....).
What's the worst that happens if you follow an RA at altitude? You set off a domino RA on traffic above/below you, maybe get a reversal. From ignoring one? You kill hundreds of people you absolute w***er....the fact we are even having this debate is frightening. It's all well and good having the discretion to ignore one but for God sake unless you KNOW the system is malfunctioning (IE below 1,000 ft) then stop measuring your d*** and just play it safe.
This is by far the most frightening thread I have ever read on this site.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More or less all over the place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like some in here are not adequately trained, not 'active', not 'current', or not 'up to date' on TCAS procedures, which are constantly analysed and updated/altered after lessons learnt.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Flying Stone,
Since you're quoting ICAO DOC 8168, please find the following passage from the same document:
That's basically the point I'm trying to make.
Since you're quoting ICAO DOC 8168, please find the following passage from the same document:
3.1.3 Nothing in the procedures specified in 3.2 hereunder shall prevent pilots-in-command from exercising their best judgment and full authority in the choice of the best course of action to resolve a traffic conflict or avert a potential collision.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admitted, the ICAO document uses the phrase "shall" in chapter 3.2
But it also has the following "disclaimer" to the wording in said chapter:
"3.1.2 Nothing in the procedures specified in 3.2, “Use of ACAS indicators”, shall prevent pilots-in-command from exercising their best judgement and full authority in the choice of the best course of action to resolve a traffic conflict or avert a potential collision."
In other words, the pilot in command can use his judgement (common sense) to resolve any issue.
Same goes for the pilot of the Emirates 777. Obviously it would have helped to know how the TOGA switch works, but using good judgement and landing a bit long on a looooong runway, instead of following the SOP blindly, might have put him in a more favorable situation.
Here is a TCAS story from real life. There I was....
Flying a Close Air Support training mission as a singleton, in Class E airspace, in an area that was notamed "Increased Military Flying Activity", I was orbiting in a right hand 5nm wheel around the practice target at FL125 with 450KTS.
Only other traffic in the vicinity is a 737 on the same frequency on its way to a nearby airfield 40nm away. The controller calls him out when he is 30nm away. I see him on the surveillance picture, my interrogator shows him, and when within the search volume of the FCR I see him on the radarscope. I acquire him visually at 12-15nm and call it out to the controller.
The 737 pilot gets the traffic call as well. His replay is that he has me on TCAS, and at 10 miles or so he also calls visual the F-16, no conflict.
If I continue my turn and if he continues with his present heading and altitude there will be no conflict and I will pass him on his left side (with my left side) at a range of 3-4nm.
Then, as my vector crosses his vector during my turn, I see him starting to maneuver and hear him call RA to the controller. I am puzzled and so is the controller who asks him "didn't you say you were visual, no conflict?".
Afterwards I got words, that during his "by the book" reaction, he managed to injure one of his flight attendants who was not strapped in and scare the living crap out of his passangers.
How would any of you TCAS users have reacted in the same situation? Remember, only 2 aircraft within miles (you and the F-16), both visual, the F-16 flying VFR, you flying IFR in VMC conditions.
framer and MikeHotel152,
That was my take at being sarcastic. Apparently your sense of humor is different from mine. You can not compare flying fighters with flying jetliners. Both things have different challenges and different procedures. One thing that is the same though is the requirement for all pilots to exhibit good airmanship, common sense and judgement. Because sometimes pilots will face situations that are not described in the manuals and where following regulations blindly (be it SOP's, government or international regulations) is not the safest and best course of action. I know plenty of civilian and military pilots who exhibits good airmanship, common sense and good judgement, and most of them, my self included, have learned valuable lessons from situations where one or all three things could have been better.
Thats it for me, I will knock this discussion off and return to homeplate. SeeYa
Edit: Sidestick_n_Rudder beat me to it
But it also has the following "disclaimer" to the wording in said chapter:
"3.1.2 Nothing in the procedures specified in 3.2, “Use of ACAS indicators”, shall prevent pilots-in-command from exercising their best judgement and full authority in the choice of the best course of action to resolve a traffic conflict or avert a potential collision."
In other words, the pilot in command can use his judgement (common sense) to resolve any issue.
Same goes for the pilot of the Emirates 777. Obviously it would have helped to know how the TOGA switch works, but using good judgement and landing a bit long on a looooong runway, instead of following the SOP blindly, might have put him in a more favorable situation.
Here is a TCAS story from real life. There I was....
Flying a Close Air Support training mission as a singleton, in Class E airspace, in an area that was notamed "Increased Military Flying Activity", I was orbiting in a right hand 5nm wheel around the practice target at FL125 with 450KTS.
Only other traffic in the vicinity is a 737 on the same frequency on its way to a nearby airfield 40nm away. The controller calls him out when he is 30nm away. I see him on the surveillance picture, my interrogator shows him, and when within the search volume of the FCR I see him on the radarscope. I acquire him visually at 12-15nm and call it out to the controller.
The 737 pilot gets the traffic call as well. His replay is that he has me on TCAS, and at 10 miles or so he also calls visual the F-16, no conflict.
If I continue my turn and if he continues with his present heading and altitude there will be no conflict and I will pass him on his left side (with my left side) at a range of 3-4nm.
Then, as my vector crosses his vector during my turn, I see him starting to maneuver and hear him call RA to the controller. I am puzzled and so is the controller who asks him "didn't you say you were visual, no conflict?".
Afterwards I got words, that during his "by the book" reaction, he managed to injure one of his flight attendants who was not strapped in and scare the living crap out of his passangers.
How would any of you TCAS users have reacted in the same situation? Remember, only 2 aircraft within miles (you and the F-16), both visual, the F-16 flying VFR, you flying IFR in VMC conditions.
framer and MikeHotel152,
That was my take at being sarcastic. Apparently your sense of humor is different from mine. You can not compare flying fighters with flying jetliners. Both things have different challenges and different procedures. One thing that is the same though is the requirement for all pilots to exhibit good airmanship, common sense and judgement. Because sometimes pilots will face situations that are not described in the manuals and where following regulations blindly (be it SOP's, government or international regulations) is not the safest and best course of action. I know plenty of civilian and military pilots who exhibits good airmanship, common sense and good judgement, and most of them, my self included, have learned valuable lessons from situations where one or all three things could have been better.
Thats it for me, I will knock this discussion off and return to homeplate. SeeYa
Edit: Sidestick_n_Rudder beat me to it
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
As I recall, the UK ANO has (or had) the phrase "nothing in this Order shall prevent the pilot-in-command from carrying out any action he considers necessary to protect the aircraft, passengers and crew". This allows you to fly inverted through Tower Bridge, but you'd better be able to justify it to the authorities. How do you justify "I chose to ignore the RA, for the safety of the aircraft etc, and in the process killed 200+ people"?
F16-guy suspect 737 over reacted to RA. At levels around 10000' you only need a pitch change around 4 deg to comply. IMHO the 737 got a shock when the RA triggered making the pilot believe their was another aircraft in the vacinity that he/she had not seen.
However I think he did the right thing in complying no choice really.
However I think he did the right thing in complying no choice really.
B737 was correct in responding to the TCAS, but used incorrect technique. Know what's required to get the vertical speed you need. 1 degree pitch changes is approximately your mach number x 1000 in fpm change. Flying level at M0.8 then you only need two degrees pitch up to achieve a climb rate of 1600 fpm.
And now I think Framer was correct, when you strip the layers away you find fear.
And now I think Framer was correct, when you strip the layers away you find fear.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly if you injure a cabin crew with your maneovring then you have incorrectly responded to the RA. Does that mean he shouldn't have responded? Of course not; he may have the other aircraft in sight, but particularly since he doesn't have accurate information on the military aircraft's pitch and turn rates, he cannot possibly judge whether the RA is in some way invalid.
And of course, all this willy waving by military guys about how they are able to judge situations perfectly with their superpowers has to be read in the context of the thread over on the miltary forum about the recent collision between two F18s, and how the rate of such accidents is causing concern among the military powers-that-be.
And of course, all this willy waving by military guys about how they are able to judge situations perfectly with their superpowers has to be read in the context of the thread over on the miltary forum about the recent collision between two F18s, and how the rate of such accidents is causing concern among the military powers-that-be.