WalkOfShame

ADS-B is the answer for "most" of the GA world. I say most because there are just some aircraft applications that just don't need it (ie.- cropdusters, aerobatic aircraft). I fly with ADS-B on a daily basis and have flown with it into many types of airspace (class B through G) and have found it extremely useful in VISUALLY acquiring a target, just the same as TCAS. Argue all you want, but saying that visual scanning is unreliable is saying we don't need eyes in the cockpit at all. "I know, lets make the aircraft completely automated so pilots aren't needed at all, those auto-land systems are getting pretty advanced" (sound familiar). The human brain's capacity for problem solving and decision making still makes it better than any computer, IMO.

A quick google search brought up these links about ADS-B for those interested.

Wiki
FAA
FAA Fact Sheet

I'd also be happy to answer any questions on my experiences. The only thing I'm not familiar with is cost.

As far as the argument that someone could descend or climb into you and that's a good reason for TCAS.... well, the AIM does specify techniques for visually clearing an area prior to climbing, descending, or turning, as well as making shallow turns every once in a while when in cruise.

G'day.

Senior Skipper

The skies would be ten times safer. However, since your proposal probably won't happen, I'll just stick to wishing everybody had TCAS to assist in the cockpit.

Obviously there are parts of the country where you are the only airplane for niles and miles. Where I fly (Florida), there are tons of bug smashers (myself included) all over the place. Would you not see the benefit of TCAS then?

Senior Skipper

I do have a question actually. Is ADS-B the same technology used to power the Traffic Information System on newer Garmin and Bendix/King installations? If so, I have indeed used it, and quite agree that it's worth the weight in gold. The problem is that coverage is not available everywhere, so you eventually get the "TFC UNAVAILABLE" message.

As far as pilotless cockpits, I'm not setting foot inside an airplane without a pilot.

The AIM has excellent recommendations for traffic avoidance, but if see and avoid worked all the time, we would never have any mid air collisions in VMC right?

I'm not suggesting TCAS become the official separation method, but rather a tool used to assist the pilot.

Many modern jets are equipped with systems designed to warn the pilots of unsafe conditions. Takeoff and landing configuration warnings, GPWS, etc. Why add cost and complexity to the jet by including these features? After all, two pilots in the cockpit should always be aware of what the aircraft is doing right? There's no reason to warn a pilot if he's trying to take off with flaps up...Are we saying that there's no need for those warning systems in those airplanes?

Senior Skipper

A C-40 is a 737 right? I don't believe TCAS was designed with military applications in mind. How do you fighter guys avoid bumping into each other? Is it strictly see and avoid, or do you also use radar?

USMCFLYR

Yes - a C-40 is a B-737. The aircraft was a Navy VR flight operating out of NAS North Island to KNUC.

We use see and avoid a majority of the time. We have specific responsibilities in flight whether you are a wingman or a flight lead. We use radar when beyond visual range for situational awareness and when within visual rnge for bearing and closure information. Increased situational awareness is our biggest risk management tool. Lose SA and it is possible to have a mid-air no matter what systems are on your aircraft or if you are flying with both eyes shut tight.

There was a good thread in the military forum a while ago about the applicability of TCAS in military aircraft. Some applications would be beneficial - but we would ned to ability to tailor it for our use - even to the point of turning it off at certain points/during certain phases of missions.

USMCFLYR

flyingchicken

Regardless of its feasibility, would this be something you want? (abolishing all VFR flying that is)

The question in this case isn't about the benefits of TCAS. I'd wager that 99% of us would agree it is a useful piece of equipment that provides good information.

What about the benefits of an autopilot, or weather radar, or multiple engines? I have many colleagues who will refuse to step into anything equipped with any less than the above. What sort of equipment do you fly?

There are various levels of inherent risk when you take part in aviation, from ultralights to airline flying. The ability to choose your level of acceptable risk under the current, and relatively generous FAA rules, is what makes the American aviation scene the vibrant environment that it is now.

For you, as long as you choose keep your TCAS equipped aircraft within mode C required airspace, you'll be "safe".

Senior Skipper

I agree that it is generally good that you can choose the level of risk you take. But at some point the govt has to step in. Say one guy accepted the risk of night flying without nav lights. Or another guy who accepts the risk of doing aerial tours with a broken altimeter. What about the guy who chooses to fly through the JFK Bravo (and mode C veil) without a transponder? The immediate risk to each of those pilots may be very low. But by making those choices, each pilot puts others at risk. Freedom to do as you please is good, but everybody can't have unlimited freedom. Chaos would result- hence we have rules to protect the individual and the public.

flyingchicken

I'm that guy, so thank you for humoring me.

I brought up VFR flying as an analogy. Would you agree that VFR, while perhaps less "safe" than full on IFR under radar, has its place in the american skyscape? The training environment, 100 dollar burger runs and many other facades of GA would not be the same without it.

In much the same way, flying without TCAS, transponder, or even a radio has its place in the sky also, for many of the reasons pointed out in previous posts. In your own words: "there are parts of the country where you are the only airplane for niles and miles."

My point is, just because an initiative (mandatory TCAS or IFR) can bring about increased safety, one needs to consider its context within the whole aviation environment and not just the segment you currently operate in.

As for the remainder of your reply, please make a distinction between legislating new rules and respecting current rules.

Airbum

Far more are killed by loss of control and then impacting the ground.

Auto pilot systems limiting AOA on all aircraft, gps monitoring of alt and airspeed auto linked to the FAA , making visual approaches illegal requiring all to fly ILS's to landings on runways greater then 10,000 are all feasible technological changes that would save lives. If it saves one life it is worth it.





couldn't help myself sorry!




addendum: perhaps a laser system to measure distance from clouds to insure legal VFR distances are maintained. Any violations could be recorded and uplinked to FAA. I mean if the looking out of the cockpit to see a cloud during the day was sufficient there would never be an VFR pilots flying into wx.

Senior Skipper

That last point I was making was that at some time, it was perfectly legal to fly without nav lights etc. As the sky became more more crowded, the govt realized that certain safety measures had to be taken, and thus they mandated the use of certain equipment. I think that TCAS is the next logical step in that direction. It's not like they have to go develop new technology, just implement what we currently have.