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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
You'd have proof that he was in IMC only if he had collided with the guy at 7000 in IMC. How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC? Are you asking how the collision occuring in IMC would prove that the collision took place in IMC? Sounds like a "if a tree falls in the forest with no one near enough to hear it" sort of question... |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote: I totally agree, but it requires that you recognize the situation and have time to deal with it. In my airspace I simply don't have the time to vector every IFR around potential VFR traffic because I am too busy slinging IFR's around IFR's or providing other IFR services. The avoidance of the alert to begin with is indeed better for all concerned IMO, but it is not always possible because of workload. Lucky for me I've got nothing but time. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
The problem is you spent $200 on an encoder 10 years ago and expect it
to work for a lifetime. You very rarely if ever see a bad mode C on an airliner. Roy Smith wrote: wrote: "unverified" Mode C. When a Mode C readout is wrong, where is the problem? Is the encoder producing bad data? Is the data path between the encoder and the xponder corrupting the data? Is the xpdonder corrupting the data? Is the RF pulse from the xponder being corrupted? Is the receiver not decoding it right? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... That's your opinion. That's my observation. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC? Because the guy at 7000 stated he was in IMC. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Maule Driver" wrote:
Yep, this kind of Mode C anomoly happens in ZTL airspace too. That's one reason we always go with pilot reported altitude over Mode C readout. First time I was called on an inaccurate Mode C by ATL, I took it to the shop. They said it was OK and serviced it anyway. ATL called me on it again but it's fine everywhere else, almost.... I used to have this trouble westbound through Gulfport's airspace all the time. It never happened anywhere else and two trips to the shop didn't help.When I replaced the xponder and encoder with more modern stuff, the problem disappeared. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote: The problem is you spent $200 on an encoder 10 years ago and expect it to work for a lifetime. You very rarely if ever see a bad mode C on an airliner. The implication is that airliners use better transponders and/or associated equipment. What are they using? George Patterson Brute force has an elegance all its own. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |