A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Riddle me this, pilots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 21st 03, 06:13 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
That is exactly what a TCAS RA does, and it relies on "unverified" Mode C.


As I mentioned, this is not as safe as people (i.e. you) would like to
think.

But, a merging target vector should not include an altitude change unless

the
controller has the altitude available, and then only as a last resort to

an
avoidance vector.


Your original question was regarding why vectoring is not part of the ATC
standard procedures for dealing with a VFR target. I'm simply answering
that. You are correct that one could limit the vector to no altitude
changes. But that's simply not how the handbook is written.

As far as I know, the language used in the controller's handbook allows
altitude changes any time a controller is supposed to vector an airplane.
It would be a significant change, and would add even more complexity to the
handbook, to call out this particular case as a situation where the
controller is permitted to providing heading guidance but not altitude.

I'm not interested in a debate, and I don't see why you seem to be itching
for one. If you really want to debate the matter, call up the FAA and
discuss it with them. They wrote the controller's handbook, not I.

I guess that's a matter of debate. A faulty Mode C readout could cause

a
TCAS unit to cause an accident, rather than avoid one.


Well, so far it has only prevented accidents. Had it been used properly

on the
Swiss border, a lot of folks would still be alive today..


I have a friend who would never wear a seatbelt, because she had a relative
who had been thrown from a car in an accident and walked away unscathed.
The logic she was using is similar to your use of a single example to
justify the use of TCAS.

I assure you that if controllers started using unverified Mode C returns to
provide altitude changes for traffic avoidance on a regular basis,
eventually someone would wind up at the same altitude of traffic that ATC
thought they were moving them away from.

The main reason that TCAS doesn't cause accidents today is that it's used in
a way that is unlikely to cause accidents. Airplanes that are in IMC are
being positively controlled by ATC, and the TCAS should only provide a
warning when ATC has made an egregious error. That doesn't happen very
often. Furthermore, the airplanes involved are both under radar control, so
even though the TCAS doesn't know it, the Mode C *has* been verified.
Airplanes that are in VMC, whether under positive control by ATC or not,
have the ability to use the TCAS to help them *spot traffic*, rather than
just blindly trust the TCAS to tell them what to do. The pilots can then
make a course adjustment as appropriate, based on *what they see*.

The controller rules are not written to allow things that are "mostly safe".
They are written to try to make sure that the controller's actions are 100%
safe in ALL situations. In cases where the controller is unable to know for
certain that they are able to separate traffic, the controller is simply not
allowed to attempt it. As such, an unconfirmed Mode C readout is simply not
a piece of information that a controller is allowed to use for positive
control of another aircraft.

It's sort of the Hippocratic Oath of air traffic control. Whatever else
they do, a controller should not make the situation worse.

Pete


  #2  
Old August 21st 03, 09:11 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Duniho wrote:


As far as I know, the language used in the controller's handbook allows
altitude changes any time a controller is supposed to vector an airplane.
It would be a significant change, and would add even more complexity to the
handbook, to call out this particular case as a situation where the
controller is permitted to providing heading guidance but not altitude.


A controller owns a chunk of airspace. As long as I meet the separation
standards I can do whatever I need to with you.



The main reason that TCAS doesn't cause accidents today is that it's used in
a way that is unlikely to cause accidents. Airplanes that are in IMC are
being positively controlled by ATC, and the TCAS should only provide a
warning when ATC has made an egregious error. That doesn't happen very
often. Furthermore, the airplanes involved are both under radar control, so
even though the TCAS doesn't know it, the Mode C *has* been verified.
Airplanes that are in VMC, whether under positive control by ATC or not,
have the ability to use the TCAS to help them *spot traffic*, rather than
just blindly trust the TCAS to tell them what to do. The pilots can then
make a course adjustment as appropriate, based on *what they see*.


TCAS is most useful in class D type tower situations. These are where
you are most likely to have the spam cans flying around with unverified
mode C. If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested. Places like Orange County and Pontiac come to mind. Lots
and lots of VFR targets

  #3  
Old August 22nd 03, 12:18 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message
news:cI91b.218085$Ho3.28456@sccrnsc03...

A controller owns a chunk of airspace. As long as I meet the separation
standards I can do whatever I need to with you.


The controller can do only what is consistent with FAAO 7110.65.


  #4  
Old August 22nd 03, 01:30 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps wrote:

If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested.


Do TCAS RA's take terrain into account?
  #5  
Old August 22nd 03, 04:05 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested.


Do TCAS RA's take terrain into account?


TCAS units do not contain terrain databases.

--
Bob Noel
  #6  
Old August 22nd 03, 04:13 AM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Roy Smith wrote:
Newps wrote:


If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested.



Do TCAS RA's take terrain into account?


Yes, the airplane knows how high it is. It will not drive it self into
the ground.

  #7  
Old August 22nd 03, 01:01 PM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps wrote in message news:dTf1b.167931$cF.58574@rwcrnsc53...
Roy Smith wrote:
Newps wrote:


If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested.



Do TCAS RA's take terrain into account?


Yes, the airplane knows how high it is. It will not drive it self into
the ground.


Knowing how high it is, is only part of what's needed -- does it
know where it is, and how high the terrain is nearby?

Cheers,
Sydney
  #8  
Old August 22nd 03, 08:48 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Snowbird wrote:

Newps wrote in message news:dTf1b.167931$cF.58574@rwcrnsc53...

Roy Smith wrote:

Newps wrote:



If the TCAS gives an RA the airliner must take the action
suggested.


Do TCAS RA's take terrain into account?


Yes, the airplane knows how high it is. It will not drive it self into
the ground.



Knowing how high it is, is only part of what's needed -- does it
know where it is, and how high the terrain is nearby?


Doesn't need to know where it is. Only how far above the ground it is
or will be in a few seconds. The TCAS will only tell you to go either
up or down, not right or left.

  #9  
Old August 22nd 03, 12:41 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Peter Duniho wrote:

wrote in message ...
That is exactly what a TCAS RA does, and it relies on "unverified" Mode C.


As I mentioned, this is not as safe as people (i.e. you) would like to
think.


It has already saved a few friends of mine, in one case IFR vs. IFR in the
flight levels. Perhaps it is not as safe as it could be, but it's a lot safer
than not having it at all. Same goes for GPWS and EGPWS.

  #10  
Old August 22nd 03, 02:12 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
It has already saved a few friends of mine, in one case IFR vs. IFR in the
flight levels. Perhaps it is not as safe as it could be, but it's a lot

safer
than not having it at all.


Again, you are mistaking a technology that helps increase overall safety
statistics with one that can be counted on in every situation to improve
safety.

There's a difference.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
Any Pitts S-1 pilots in this group? Kai Glaesner Aerobatics 4 April 12th 04 12:10 AM
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot Wings Of Fury Aerobatics 0 February 26th 04 05:59 PM
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently Badwater Bill Home Built 3 August 22nd 03 04:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.