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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
EBME, eye ball measuring equipment is the most important instrument you have
in the cockpit. ALL THE OTHER AIDS ARE ONLY AIDS! Hope this helps, Peter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Ramapriya" wrote in message oups.com... Don Hammer wrote: On 1 Jan 2005 15:17:49 -0800, "george" wrotD: Also, since TCAS has been mandated, there has been only one mid-air with equipped aircraft and it was because one crew ignored the warning. (UPS and Aeroflot in Switzerland) ????? You mean the TCAS only gives a warning, with the pilots having a say on whether or not to take action?? I was under the impression that the TCAS sytems talk to each other and take automatic action to avoid a collision!! To leave it to the pilots doesn't appear to be too much of an advantage, with a relative speed of two planes being about 1000 mph towards each other. Also, given the small reaction time, there's also a chance, howsoever small, that the pilots could both take action that'll precipitate a collision instead of avoiding one; both diving, for example. If it isn't automatic, I think the TCAS should be. For sure. Ramapriya TCAS alerts and instructions are what the pilot is supposed to follow. If ATC and the TCAS conflict then the pilot is required to follow TCAS. In the case over Germany the Russian obeyed ATC when they should have followed the TCAS. The DHL plane obeyed TCAS but still ended up wrecked because the Russian plane had not taken the action it was supposed to follow. As with all accidents measures taken earlier could have eliminated the need for conflict resolution. There was only one controller on duty that night covering a couple of sectors and he missed the problem as it was building up. when he tried to raise the Russian plane he had difficulty and so it all went on. In the end the controller was murdered by, its claimed, avenging parents of the 86 kids killed on the Russian plane. Every regulation brought in is written in someone's blood. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"Ramapriya" wrote: To leave it to the pilots doesn't appear to be too much of an advantage, with a relative speed of two planes being about 1000 mph towards each other. Also, given the small reaction time, there's also a chance, howsoever small, that the pilots could both take action that'll precipitate a collision instead of avoiding one; both diving, for example. 1) Reaction times are less of an issue with TCAS because normally the system will advise the crew of traffic (called a traffic advisory or TA) when the conflicting aircraft is (iirc) 40 seconds out. This allows the crew to begin scanning for the potential conflict. 2) If the two aircraft involved in a potential conflict are both TCAS II equipped, the systems will coordinate. That is, generally the higher aircraft will get a "Resolution Advisory" or RA to climb (or possibly not descend) while the lower aircraft will get a descent (or possibly not climb). If it isn't automatic, I think the TCAS should be. For sure. you have far more faith in automation than I. btw - since TCAS can only see transponder-equipped aircraft, it wouldn't be real smart to make the system automatic beause you wouldn't want the system to fly the aircraft into conflict with a non-transponder aircraft. -- Bob Noel looking for a sig the lawyers will like |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Noel wrote:
-- Bob Noel looking for a sig the lawyers will like ok, how about "A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chris wrote:
TCAS alerts and instructions are what the pilot is supposed to follow. If ATC and the TCAS conflict then the pilot is required to follow TCAS. Of interest, here was the Russian view of the priorities at the time: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news053.htm I believe they have since changed their instructions to encourage the pilots to follow TCAS recommendations. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Noel wrote:
1) Reaction times are less of an issue with TCAS because normally the system will advise the crew of traffic (called a traffic advisory or TA) when the conflicting aircraft is (iirc) 40 seconds out. This allows the crew to begin scanning for the potential conflict. You know I'm not an aviator, but 40 secs don't appear that much. A few secs to initially notice a warning and a few more till it properly registers would take away much of the 40 secs. Moreover, the pilots could easily be doing other things at the time - a loo break, chatting up passengers while on autopilot, munching a snack, even flirting with a hostess (hope I don't get flamed for suggesting that )... If it isn't automatic, I think the TCAS should be. For sure. you have far more faith in automation than I. and why is it that you don't have faith in automation, Bob? Not having to use brains, and doing something by rote instead, isn't necessarily a disadvantage always. The chances of a well-programmed software consistently doing a collision avoidance routine correctly are better than two pilots doing so, I'd imagine. Ramapriya |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ramapriya wrote:
Don Hammer wrote: On 1 Jan 2005 15:17:49 -0800, "george" wrotD: Also, since TCAS has been mandated, there has been only one mid-air with equipped aircraft and it was because one crew ignored the warning. (UPS and Aeroflot in Switzerland) ????? You mean the TCAS only gives a warning, with the pilots having a say on whether or not to take action?? I was under the impression that the TCAS sytems talk to each other and take automatic action to avoid a collision!! To leave it to the pilots doesn't appear to be too much of an advantage, with a relative speed of two planes being about 1000 mph towards each other. Also, given the small reaction time, there's also a chance, howsoever small, that the pilots could both take action that'll precipitate a collision instead of avoiding one; both diving, for example. If it isn't automatic, I think the TCAS should be. For sure. 20+ years ago I knew one of the early developers of TCAS. She told me about some of the attempts at conflict resolution. For example, they started off with a rule that said if two planes were heading directly at each other, "pass with the other plane on the right". Fortunately, they did simulations: the result is the colliding planes form a decreasing-radius spiral about each other, always with the other plane on the right. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:34:03 -0600, Don Hammer wrote in :: ... it used to be a fairly frequent occurrence for airliners to hit small aircraft. Of course the press always got it the other way around. That's why we have to have transponders is certain airspace in small aircraft. Here's the MAC that lead to mandatory TCAS: http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...13X34444&key=2 Correct Larry, The thing that gets me is that this collision would still have happened because, "N4891F'S X-PONDER WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION." IOW, stand-by mode. Marty |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:31:26 -0600, "Marty"
wrote: The thing that gets me is that this collision would still have happened because, "N4891F'S X-PONDER WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION." IOW, stand-by mode. I read this as a configuration "error" on the controller's display (filtering out VFR targets, or targets above/below a certain altitude). Tobias |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ram, if I recall that incident correctly, ATC had repeatedly requested a
heading change and direction of turn (don't recall actual numbers) but the flight crew repeatedly read back incorrectly. In the end the controller deferred to the "obviously" more experienced and knowledgeable captain - and gave in... With respect to the capability of TCAS - it only interrogates the transponders of nearby airplanes. It then figures out their distance away, bearing and delta altitude (assuming a mode C or S transponder). It will give a Resolution Advisory (Climb or Descend) instruction. It does not give any terrain warning. Anthony Quick "Ramapriya" wrote in message ups.com... Bob, guess I didn't frame the Q properly enough. While I knew about the GPWS and TCAS individually, I wasn't sure whether TCAS was equipped to deal with purely traffic or whether accidental straying into terrain would also be taken care of. I'm asking this because I remember an incident of many years ago where an idiot in the ATC asked an Indonesian aircraft to turn 'left' when he had to say 'right' and the unsuspecting blokes ran into a mountain. I was wondering if that kinduva incident can be avoided with the TCAS... Cheers, Ramapriya Bob Moore wrote: "Ramapriya" wrote Does this get activated only when there's an aircraft in the dangerous vicinity or will it also trigger if the aircraft is hurtling towards some terrain such as a hill? In my generation of aircraft, (B-727) they are two different systems. First came the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) and then some time later came the TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Advoidance System). And does every aircraft have this system these days, regardless of size? No, only passenger jets are required to have them. Bob Moore |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anti collision lights mods for Arrow 1968?? | Frode Berg | Piloting | 3 | May 20th 04 05:42 AM |
Anti collision light mod for Piper Arrow 1968 model? | Frode Berg | Owning | 4 | May 20th 04 05:16 AM |
New anti collision system for aircrafts, helicopters and gliders | Thierry | Owning | 10 | February 14th 04 08:36 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
"China blamed in '01 air collision" | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 2 | September 14th 03 06:08 PM |