Tcas
 

Do Russian aircrafts have same kind of TCAS as Western aircraft

I was wondering whether an aircraft equipped with TCAS I, would communicate with an aircraft equipped with TCAS II. Would the TCAS I aircraft recieve communications from a TCAS II aircraft, and vice versa?

Aviatorpk,

Historically, soviet block aircraft have used different avionics systems and standards in some regards. However, TCAS is a relatively modern specification.

With reference to the recent collision (I presume this is the point of your question), it has been stated on another thread that the aircraft was ACAS equipped.

ACAS is a JAA standard for an Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS). This requirement is only met by the most recent software version (v7) of TCAS 2. It is a requirement, for all but the smallest aircraft, for flight in the European Air traffic System.

So, to answer your question, Yes.


Plane speaker.

Yes, but the systems would only interrogate one anothers traansponders. There would be no coordination between the systems.

i.e. TCAS 1 aircraft would only receive a traffic advisory (thats all TCAS 1 does anyway).

Hence the TCAS 2 aircrafts Resolution Advisory (if required) would be uncoordinated.

TCAS II Training
 

TCAS II has shown itself to be reliable, especially when compatible RAs have been posted: by this I mean when two aeroplanes are converging and the TCAS in one posts 'Climb', the other will post 'Descend'.

What is highly important is that both crews have been trained never to manoeuvre against the sense of the RA that their TCAS posts. In the situation I have described, if my TCAS has posted 'Descend' I should descend, but if I stay level (assuming that is where I was), the other aircraft - by climbing - will still establish sufficient vertical clearance to avoid a collision. Only if I go against the sense and climb will I negate the benefit TCAS is attempting to deliver.

Pilots of UK-registered aeroplanes that have TCAS II would, before the JAA TGL No 11 was published, have been trained according to CAP 579, in which paragraph 6.2.4 states:

Manoeuvres should never be made in a direction opposite to that given in an RA: this is because the sense may have been determined following an exchange of data with the established threat. For this reason:

(a) RAs may be disregarded only when pilots visually identify the potentially conflicting traffic and decide that no deviation from the current flight path is needed.

(b) If pilots receive simultaneously an instruction to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA, and both conflict, the advice given by ACAS (aka TCAS) should be followed.

After TGL No 11 was published, pilots of aeroplanes operated under an air operator certificate based upon JAR-OPS 1 should have received the training this TGL contains. A Note on page 11-8 states:

If a decision is made not to follow an RA, no changes to the existing speed must be made in a direction opposite to the sense of the displayed RA. Pilots should be aware that if the intruder is also ACAS equipped, the decision not to follow an RA may result in a descrease in separation at CPA (closest point of approach) because of the intruder's RA response.

And a note on page 11-9 states:

If pilots simultaneously receive instructions to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA which are in conflict, the pilot should follow the RA.

JAA TGL No 11 was based upon ICAO guidelines and so should represent an international standard that all operators could follow.

Does russian equipment encode in meters or feet for their TCAS? remember readin of a Qantas 747 almost colliding into a TU154 or similar over India as the altitude encoding was different.

My TCAS manual states that a climb of minimum 1500'/min must be possible before a RA "climb" can be issued.

Is that continious climb or does it take into account the possibility of trading speed for climb ?

Are the TCAS "negotiations" recorded on ground ?