On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:48:37 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Do you consider the fact that tactical aircraft regularly and
routinely fly with other aircraft. It is part of the mission
requirements. We fly in formations (not Thunderbird fingertip) that
mean we are inside TCAS thresholds. We rendezvous with other aircraft
both tactical and tanker. We intercept threats. We fly air combat
maneuvers. All require flight at short ranges and transiting
co-altitudes. TCAS would be impractical in terms of continual warnings
and (heaven forbid) uncommanded fly-up/fly-down commands.

There is a huge fraction of our taxes going to the military. Take a
little of that money and modify the military version of TCAS to exclude
a programmable set of aircraft.

Jose

Actually the "huge fraction" is at the lowest percentage of GDP that
it has been since WW II.

You imply that a "little money" is all that is necessary. You also
need a "little space" in the airframe. A "little frontage on the
instrument panel". A "little interface with the stab-aug/autopilot". A
"little programming" each day to tell it who you'll be working with.

Start by recognizing that tactical jets always operate in formations
of 2 or 4 aircraft. That their mission involves approaching, not
avoiding, other aircraft. That their maneuvering is not straight/level
cruise to and from the terminal. And, that no one I can think of wants
some additional noise in the head-set, lights flashing on the panel,
or uncommanded inputs to the flight controls trying to do what the
computer thinks best for you.

TCAS is a solution to a particular problem. It isn't a substitute for
situational awareness and electronics isn't the answer to avoiding
mid-airs. It can help but it isn't perfect.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com