TCAS alert vs Airprox
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: UK
TCAS alert vs Airprox
Read the other day about the Captain who "had" to file an airprox because he followed an RA.
Whatever happened to the Captain's assessment of risk of his aircraft being endangered ?
Whatever happened to the Captain's assessment of risk of his aircraft being endangered ?
Joined: Aug 1998
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 847
From: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
I think that you'll find that TCAS Resolution Advisories are classified as incidents in the AIP, and as such you are required to submit an incident reporting form to CASA (regardless of how close or unsafe the incident was).
Guest
Posts: n/a
As was said before when this was first brought up, the pilot says "airprox" the controller is suspended pending investigation, regardless of whether or not separation was compromised. End of story.
We (ATCOs) have a separate report form for TCAS reports that avoids use of the "A" word and so keeps us in our seats talking to you not filling out report forms waiting for the all clear from licensing.
Please think carefully. Was the safety of my aircraft endangered by the proximity of another? An RA can be triggered by high rates of climb/descent when the two aircraft concerned are approaching each other vertically, cleared to safe levels. Unless there is a level bust (a mandatory report required) then an airprox cannot occur in this case.
So, if you receive an RA and respond to it, do not say airprox unless it is an airprox. Tell us you are responding to an RA, we'll sort out the traffic as required, you fill out what forms you require, we'll fill out ours and everyone goes home happy.
Thanks
[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 09 October 2000).]
We (ATCOs) have a separate report form for TCAS reports that avoids use of the "A" word and so keeps us in our seats talking to you not filling out report forms waiting for the all clear from licensing.
Please think carefully. Was the safety of my aircraft endangered by the proximity of another? An RA can be triggered by high rates of climb/descent when the two aircraft concerned are approaching each other vertically, cleared to safe levels. Unless there is a level bust (a mandatory report required) then an airprox cannot occur in this case.
So, if you receive an RA and respond to it, do not say airprox unless it is an airprox. Tell us you are responding to an RA, we'll sort out the traffic as required, you fill out what forms you require, we'll fill out ours and everyone goes home happy.
Thanks
[This message has been edited by cossack (edited 09 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
An excellent point made here.
Please, colleagues, use VS mode to ensure that you do not scream up or down to your cleared level in busy (any?) skies. I usually ensure that my rate does not exceed the height to go; for example if climbing in Flight Level or Level Change, and the rate is greater than 2000fpm, I will select VS at 2000 feet to go at 2000fpm, then reduce to 1500fpm at 1500 feet to go, and then to 1000fpm.... you get the picture...
There are exceptions. If you know the usual level you are cleared to prior to exchange of control (frequency change) and it's quiet, then be less careful, if you wish. However, some parts of some TMAs are getting to be so busy that using LVLCH for the entire time climbing or descending must be questioned.
One point above which I must take issue with is that which suggests that sometimes not reporting can be a good thing. This is clearly a dangerous path down which to tread, and again it is preferable to have a little too much paperwork than one too few aircraft on the ramp at the end of the day.
Finally, KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT!!!
Edited for typo.
[This message has been edited by Portly (edited 11 October 2000).]
Please, colleagues, use VS mode to ensure that you do not scream up or down to your cleared level in busy (any?) skies. I usually ensure that my rate does not exceed the height to go; for example if climbing in Flight Level or Level Change, and the rate is greater than 2000fpm, I will select VS at 2000 feet to go at 2000fpm, then reduce to 1500fpm at 1500 feet to go, and then to 1000fpm.... you get the picture...
There are exceptions. If you know the usual level you are cleared to prior to exchange of control (frequency change) and it's quiet, then be less careful, if you wish. However, some parts of some TMAs are getting to be so busy that using LVLCH for the entire time climbing or descending must be questioned.
One point above which I must take issue with is that which suggests that sometimes not reporting can be a good thing. This is clearly a dangerous path down which to tread, and again it is preferable to have a little too much paperwork than one too few aircraft on the ramp at the end of the day.
Finally, KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT!!!
Edited for typo.
[This message has been edited by Portly (edited 11 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here here.
I teach TCAS at my company and one of the first teaching points on the course is to emphasise that RAs and Airproxs are different entities which just happen to overlap in some circumstances.
I.E. you can have an RA without a loss of separation. You can also have an airprox without an RA.
Both require reporting, and at our company its the same form, but they should be reported as one or the other unless it actually was both.
Having said that, one is always aware of the need to cover one backside as far as paperwork is concerned.
E.G. I recently had an encounter with a light aircraft which had strayed into the zone and wandered across my approach path. There was no danger, but I did think that technically separation might have been compromised.
ATC said they were filing a report. I thought about whether I should file an airprox or not. In the end I decided to call it an airprox on the principle that the investigators, with access to the radar data, could always decide that it wasn't. However, if I didn't report it, a possible bollocking would come my way.
I didn't realise that this would cause particular problems for the controllers involved, so I must apologise. With the benefit of hindsight I would have called it 'Go around caused by lost light aircraft' or some such.
I will circulate, to the rest of our crews, the importance of not filing as an airprox unless warranted.
CPB.
[This message has been edited by Capt Pit Bull (edited 15 October 2000).]
I teach TCAS at my company and one of the first teaching points on the course is to emphasise that RAs and Airproxs are different entities which just happen to overlap in some circumstances.
I.E. you can have an RA without a loss of separation. You can also have an airprox without an RA.
Both require reporting, and at our company its the same form, but they should be reported as one or the other unless it actually was both.
Having said that, one is always aware of the need to cover one backside as far as paperwork is concerned.
E.G. I recently had an encounter with a light aircraft which had strayed into the zone and wandered across my approach path. There was no danger, but I did think that technically separation might have been compromised.
ATC said they were filing a report. I thought about whether I should file an airprox or not. In the end I decided to call it an airprox on the principle that the investigators, with access to the radar data, could always decide that it wasn't. However, if I didn't report it, a possible bollocking would come my way.
I didn't realise that this would cause particular problems for the controllers involved, so I must apologise. With the benefit of hindsight I would have called it 'Go around caused by lost light aircraft' or some such.
I will circulate, to the rest of our crews, the importance of not filing as an airprox unless warranted.
CPB.
[This message has been edited by Capt Pit Bull (edited 15 October 2000).]
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Joined: Jun 1997
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 2
From: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Nobody should ever worry about having to file a report if they think it's warranted. It's the classification of the report which is the important thing, especially for ATC who have a mandatory 'removal from duty' for most types of incident.
In other words, if in your opinion there was no collision risk or the safety of your aircraft was not compromised, then don't file an AIRPROX. Use an alternative such as an ACAS report, which is available from the CAA.
Of course none of this should override what company procedures require, but it may stimulate companies to look at using various levels of reporting to acheive the same data collection requirements.
Capt Pit Bull
The only people who can decide if it was an AIRPROX or not are the pilot or controller who file it. What the investigators will do is decide on the risk classification. Although I have heard anecdotal tales of people being asked to reconsider filing an AIRPROX, at the end of the day it is the filers decision, 100%.
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
In other words, if in your opinion there was no collision risk or the safety of your aircraft was not compromised, then don't file an AIRPROX. Use an alternative such as an ACAS report, which is available from the CAA.
Of course none of this should override what company procedures require, but it may stimulate companies to look at using various levels of reporting to acheive the same data collection requirements.
Capt Pit Bull
The only people who can decide if it was an AIRPROX or not are the pilot or controller who file it. What the investigators will do is decide on the risk classification. Although I have heard anecdotal tales of people being asked to reconsider filing an AIRPROX, at the end of the day it is the filers decision, 100%.
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
