Why isn't TCAS required for all aircraft?
11-18-2009, 10:30 AM
#31
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
ADS-B is coming. I think it will be the "cheaper" alternative.
Senior Skipper:
The second post concerning this is not ADS-B, that is a TIS system. You must be in a service area for TIS, so when you leave it, you get the "Traffic Unavailable" message. Usually at lower altitudes, and sparse areas you'll lose the signal fast. It works through your transponder and delivers that info to your GPS/MFD pending the set-up.
You said we can't apply this analogy to the Traffic signal as an everyday occurance. Well it is and it's true. You can protect yourself only as much as you limit yourself to exposure.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time agreeing with your idea, as are many many other people here. It's not cost effective for the risk involved by applying these to the existing fleet.
You want cheap insurance, I highly recommend Flight Following. Ground radar hits more Transponders than TCAS. Basic TCAS still isn't 100%(your antenna location vs. theirs, signal strength,etc). At least ground radar can get primary targets in most locations(which means that guy without a Xpndr or an electrical system)
Speaking of Slant-X. What about gliders? They are out there. You just have to be vigilant. Yes it's 2009(So what right?) You can fly what you want, you can do it with or without radio's if you want. You can go home and have an adult beverage if you want(well lets' assume your 21+) I'm just saying live and let live. We can tear into every accident and say "Oh yes, this is what caused it," etc..etc.. The thing here is learn to apply those lessons and others mistakes(usually what happens) to how you handle your flying.
I know my post is all over the place, but point is, I don't agree with your point. I will get an actual cost estimate of a TCAS system from our Avionics shop when I get a chance and justify my response.
Senior Skipper:
The second post concerning this is not ADS-B, that is a TIS system. You must be in a service area for TIS, so when you leave it, you get the "Traffic Unavailable" message. Usually at lower altitudes, and sparse areas you'll lose the signal fast. It works through your transponder and delivers that info to your GPS/MFD pending the set-up.
You said we can't apply this analogy to the Traffic signal as an everyday occurance. Well it is and it's true. You can protect yourself only as much as you limit yourself to exposure.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time agreeing with your idea, as are many many other people here. It's not cost effective for the risk involved by applying these to the existing fleet.
You want cheap insurance, I highly recommend Flight Following. Ground radar hits more Transponders than TCAS. Basic TCAS still isn't 100%(your antenna location vs. theirs, signal strength,etc). At least ground radar can get primary targets in most locations(which means that guy without a Xpndr or an electrical system)
Speaking of Slant-X. What about gliders? They are out there. You just have to be vigilant. Yes it's 2009(So what right?) You can fly what you want, you can do it with or without radio's if you want. You can go home and have an adult beverage if you want(well lets' assume your 21+) I'm just saying live and let live. We can tear into every accident and say "Oh yes, this is what caused it," etc..etc.. The thing here is learn to apply those lessons and others mistakes(usually what happens) to how you handle your flying.
I know my post is all over the place, but point is, I don't agree with your point. I will get an actual cost estimate of a TCAS system from our Avionics shop when I get a chance and justify my response.
Last edited by Ewfflyer; 11-18-2009 at 10:54 AM.
11-18-2009, 01:45 PM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
Yes, I agree that VFR has it's place.
...(But)
I do not agree that that sort of flying (/X) has any place in the modern world. The technology already exists. Why not use it? In those remote parts of the country, if you wish to maintain your /X plane, you shouldn't be allowed to veer more than a set distance from home- restrict those few aircraft to a confined area. Of course, we'd then have to prohibit all the other aircraft with TCAS from flying there, since TCAS can't see /X aircraft. The safer option is to make everybody carry TCAS.
...(But)
I do not agree that that sort of flying (/X) has any place in the modern world. The technology already exists. Why not use it? In those remote parts of the country, if you wish to maintain your /X plane, you shouldn't be allowed to veer more than a set distance from home- restrict those few aircraft to a confined area. Of course, we'd then have to prohibit all the other aircraft with TCAS from flying there, since TCAS can't see /X aircraft. The safer option is to make everybody carry TCAS.
How about the threat posed by those dangerous single engine aircraft to innocent civilians on the ground? How often do you hear stories of light airplanes "crash landing" on to highways and schoolyards because of engine failure? Much more often than stories of midair collisions I believe. The technology exists - should we allow only those aircraft meeting transport category engine-out climb requirements to fly? Or at least restrict those dangerous singles and light twins to "a set distance from home- restrict those few aircraft to a confined area."
The technology already exists. Why not use it?
Originally Posted by 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.
11-18-2009, 03:36 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by Ewfflyer
The second post concerning this is not ADS-B, that is a TIS system. You must be in a service area for TIS, so when you leave it, you get the "Traffic Unavailable" message.
I'm sorry, btu for some reason I'm nor getting what you're saying here? Are ADS-B and TIS separate technologies? Just curious, I honestly don't know the difference between the two.
You want cheap insurance, I highly recommend Flight Following. Ground radar hits more Transponders than TCAS. Basic TCAS still isn't 100%(your antenna location vs. theirs, signal strength,etc). At least ground radar can get primary targets in most locations(which means that guy without a Xpndr or an electrical system)
I'm a firm believer in flight following. I'll soon be a CFI, and I plan to encourage my students to use the service for all their cross country flights. Flight following isn't always available though, and the DHL collision in Europe a few years ago reminds us that controllers can make mistakes too.
Speaking of Slant-X. What about gliders? They are out there. You just have to be vigilant.
My knowledge of gliders ends at the wing aspect ratio. I haven't a clue how much they weigh, and how a TCAS with a battery would affect their performance. I'm sure some workable solution would come up though.
I'm sorry, btu for some reason I'm nor getting what you're saying here? Are ADS-B and TIS separate technologies? Just curious, I honestly don't know the difference between the two.
You want cheap insurance, I highly recommend Flight Following. Ground radar hits more Transponders than TCAS. Basic TCAS still isn't 100%(your antenna location vs. theirs, signal strength,etc). At least ground radar can get primary targets in most locations(which means that guy without a Xpndr or an electrical system)
I'm a firm believer in flight following. I'll soon be a CFI, and I plan to encourage my students to use the service for all their cross country flights. Flight following isn't always available though, and the DHL collision in Europe a few years ago reminds us that controllers can make mistakes too.
Speaking of Slant-X. What about gliders? They are out there. You just have to be vigilant.
My knowledge of gliders ends at the wing aspect ratio. I haven't a clue how much they weigh, and how a TCAS with a battery would affect their performance. I'm sure some workable solution would come up though.
Another reason I'd favor TCAS is that ADS-B may not be available elsewhere. If you fly to Grand Cayman for example, there's no terminal radar, so ADS-B wouldn't work.
11-18-2009, 03:53 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by flyingchicken
Can you justify as to why you feel the "line in the sand" should be drawn at TCAS, but not IFR under total radar control? The technology exists there too. And statistically there are many more incidents resulting from airspace incursions and continued flight into IMC compared to midair collisions. IFR would solve all those problems, including traffic seperation.
I'll agree that if everybody was instrument rated and proficient, maybe we could give the IFR thing a try, but that won't happen. And like I said in my reply to Ewfflyer above, controllers make mistakes too. If you want to justify TCAS vs IFR, I'd say:
-IFR requires constant practice to remain proficient
-IFR would probably mean re-organizing the entire airspace system if all but training flights would be IFR
-Flying under IFR requires significant training and the pilot's full attention, whereas TCAS is an automated system, that requires minimal training, and only passive pilot attention
-TCAS would work internationally, with every aircraft having a transponder
-Again, controllers do make mistakes, and planes have collided under IFR
How about the threat posed by those dangerous single engine aircraft to innocent civilians on the ground? How often do you hear stories of light airplanes "crash landing" on to highways and schoolyards because of engine failure? Much more often than stories of midair collisions I believe. The technology exists - should we allow only those aircraft meeting transport category engine-out climb requirements to fly? Or at least restrict those dangerous singles and light twins to "a set distance from home- restrict those few aircraft to a confined area."
Valid point, and one could make that argument, but cost would be an even bigger factor, so methinks the average SE owner would rather pay for TCAS than a multi-engine.
Fair enough. But again please elaborate as to why TCAS should be "the next logical step", and not other measures, such as airspace restructuring or changes in comm requirement in congested corridors?
I'll agree that if everybody was instrument rated and proficient, maybe we could give the IFR thing a try, but that won't happen. And like I said in my reply to Ewfflyer above, controllers make mistakes too. If you want to justify TCAS vs IFR, I'd say:
-IFR requires constant practice to remain proficient
-IFR would probably mean re-organizing the entire airspace system if all but training flights would be IFR
-Flying under IFR requires significant training and the pilot's full attention, whereas TCAS is an automated system, that requires minimal training, and only passive pilot attention
-TCAS would work internationally, with every aircraft having a transponder
-Again, controllers do make mistakes, and planes have collided under IFR
How about the threat posed by those dangerous single engine aircraft to innocent civilians on the ground? How often do you hear stories of light airplanes "crash landing" on to highways and schoolyards because of engine failure? Much more often than stories of midair collisions I believe. The technology exists - should we allow only those aircraft meeting transport category engine-out climb requirements to fly? Or at least restrict those dangerous singles and light twins to "a set distance from home- restrict those few aircraft to a confined area."
Valid point, and one could make that argument, but cost would be an even bigger factor, so methinks the average SE owner would rather pay for TCAS than a multi-engine.
Fair enough. But again please elaborate as to why TCAS should be "the next logical step", and not other measures, such as airspace restructuring or changes in comm requirement in congested corridors?
11-18-2009, 04:06 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Spartan
Posts: 3,652
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
Airspace restructuring would be lengthy and costly. In terms of changing communication requirements, there are still people who zoom through my local alert area without making any announcements on the frequency. I will assume it's because they don't realize where they are, or simply can't be bothered to look up the frequency and make reports etc. With TCAS as "the next step", it's literally as easy as turning a knob to activate the system. TCAS is simple, easy and proven effective.
11-18-2009, 04:13 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Spartan
Posts: 3,652
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
If, as you suggest ADS-B will be cheaper, and can be proven sufficiently reliable, I'd have no problem with using this technology. However, if that's what drives the current TIS installations, I'll say no to it because the service isn't available elsewhere.
Another reason I'd favor TCAS is that ADS-B may not be available elsewhere. If you fly to Grand Cayman for example, there's no terminal radar, so ADS-B wouldn't work.
Another reason I'd favor TCAS is that ADS-B may not be available elsewhere. If you fly to Grand Cayman for example, there's no terminal radar, so ADS-B wouldn't work.
11-18-2009, 04:31 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Slice,
Long time no see.
I've never used TCAS, but from what I'm told by those who do use it, it's pretty useful. I'm aware that it has it's disadvantages; some have been mentioned here. If most or all airliners already have it, why not use that same technology instead of re-inventing the wheel?
Thanks for that tidbit on the ADS-B. I'll go do some homework on the pros and cons of ADS-B / TIS and see if that is a better idea, but I think that people would just as quickly oppose mandatory ADS-B / TIS.
Long time no see.
I've never used TCAS, but from what I'm told by those who do use it, it's pretty useful. I'm aware that it has it's disadvantages; some have been mentioned here. If most or all airliners already have it, why not use that same technology instead of re-inventing the wheel?
Thanks for that tidbit on the ADS-B. I'll go do some homework on the pros and cons of ADS-B / TIS and see if that is a better idea, but I think that people would just as quickly oppose mandatory ADS-B / TIS.
11-18-2009, 04:55 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Some quick reading has led me to understand the following. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ADS-B is GPS based. The target's GPS position is somehow transmitted to your aircraft. I assume that under this system, bearing information would be far more accurate than TCAS.
TIS is a technology based on Mode S. A suitably equipped "Mode S" radar site is involved in the data transmission.
Am I correct thus far? If so, here's where I'd still favor TCAS, but will be content if ADS-B used in lieu of TCAS:
TIS uses Mode S technology. I assume most new transponders are mode S capable, but it is still not the standard worldwide, or in the US. I *believe* that mode S is the standard in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, according to this link, the FAA is discontinuing the TIS program. Possibly in favor of ADS-B?
ADS-B is satellite based, and so is not an independent system. It didn't explicitly say GPS, but if it's anything similar to GPS, then they can pull the plug whenever they wish, and it may well have serviceability issues (think RAIM).
Notwithstanding, I'd still be fine with everybody having ADS-B. But I wonder if the responses would be different if the thread title had ADS-B instead of TCAS.
ADS-B is GPS based. The target's GPS position is somehow transmitted to your aircraft. I assume that under this system, bearing information would be far more accurate than TCAS.
TIS is a technology based on Mode S. A suitably equipped "Mode S" radar site is involved in the data transmission.
Am I correct thus far? If so, here's where I'd still favor TCAS, but will be content if ADS-B used in lieu of TCAS:
TIS uses Mode S technology. I assume most new transponders are mode S capable, but it is still not the standard worldwide, or in the US. I *believe* that mode S is the standard in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, according to this link, the FAA is discontinuing the TIS program. Possibly in favor of ADS-B?
ADS-B is satellite based, and so is not an independent system. It didn't explicitly say GPS, but if it's anything similar to GPS, then they can pull the plug whenever they wish, and it may well have serviceability issues (think RAIM).
Notwithstanding, I'd still be fine with everybody having ADS-B. But I wonder if the responses would be different if the thread title had ADS-B instead of TCAS.
11-18-2009, 04:59 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Spartan
Posts: 3,652
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
Slice,
Long time no see.
I've never used TCAS, but from what I'm told by those who do use it, it's pretty useful. I'm aware that it has it's disadvantages; some have been mentioned here. If most or all airliners already have it, why not use that same technology instead of re-inventing the wheel?
Thanks for that tidbit on the ADS-B. I'll go do some homework on the pros and cons of ADS-B / TIS and see if that is a better idea, but I think that people would just as quickly oppose mandatory ADS-B / TIS.
Long time no see.
I've never used TCAS, but from what I'm told by those who do use it, it's pretty useful. I'm aware that it has it's disadvantages; some have been mentioned here. If most or all airliners already have it, why not use that same technology instead of re-inventing the wheel?
Thanks for that tidbit on the ADS-B. I'll go do some homework on the pros and cons of ADS-B / TIS and see if that is a better idea, but I think that people would just as quickly oppose mandatory ADS-B / TIS.
11-18-2009, 06:43 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Going Mach Chicken
Posts: 324
Sorry for the late reply. Ok, to clear up some misunderstandings....
I can't answer that, but I suspect that your receiving a lot of resistance because of your preceived obliviance to the disadvantages of TCAS and it's inability to be one large bandaid. IMO, advances system wide (including communication, RADAR coverage, GPS integrations, satellite utilization, etc.) are needed to make our work/play space more safe. But I must admit, I truely enjoy flying my favorite 1946 Champ, with no electrical system, over the wooded areas of northern MN. Just the rumble of the engine and the sound of air to keep me company. That is truely freedom.
G'day
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
Some quick reading has led me to understand the following. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ADS-B is GPS based. The target's GPS position is somehow transmitted to your aircraft. I assume that under this system, bearing information would be far more accurate than TCAS.
TIS is a technology based on Mode S. A suitably equipped "Mode S" radar site is involved in the data transmission.
Am I correct thus far?
Yes, almost correct. ADS-B is GPS, ground station, and air-to-air based. Your ADS-B comunicates with other ADS-B's via satellite as well as ADS-B to ADS-B if you're within line of sight. It also receives the x-ponder signals of non-ADS-B aircraft via the ground based RADAR array. This greatly increases usability over TIS. TIS, as you stated, only can be used by YOU if you have a Mode S x-ponder.
If so, here's where I'd still favor TCAS, but will be content if ADS-B used in lieu of TCAS:
TIS uses Mode S technology. I assume most new transponders are mode S capable, but it is still not the standard worldwide, or in the US. I *believe* that mode S is the standard in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, according to this link, the FAA is discontinuing the TIS program. Possibly in favor of ADS-B?
Again, ADS-B allows you to see non-ADS-B (Mode C) aircraft. The information is limited though. Usually only altitude and "general" bearing information. If the aircraft has ADS-B, I can select it on the traffic display on my MFD and see it's altitude, heading, and ground speed (very helpful in determining if I'm over-taking).
ADS-B is satellite based, and so is not an independent system. It didn't explicitly say GPS, but if it's anything similar to GPS, then they can pull the plug whenever they wish, and it may well have serviceability issues (think RAIM).
Don't think of RAIM as the plug, but as the quality of the plug. ADS-B uses GPS for position information but it does not use the RAIM signal to transmit it's data. Therefore the ADS-B system wouldn't completely be dead if the gov't decided to employ selective availability again. The military uses it's own encrypted puesdo-random code that is FAR more accurate than the civilian code.
Notwithstanding, I'd still be fine with everybody having ADS-B. But I wonder if the responses would be different if the thread title had ADS-B instead of TCAS.
ADS-B is GPS based. The target's GPS position is somehow transmitted to your aircraft. I assume that under this system, bearing information would be far more accurate than TCAS.
TIS is a technology based on Mode S. A suitably equipped "Mode S" radar site is involved in the data transmission.
Am I correct thus far?
Yes, almost correct. ADS-B is GPS, ground station, and air-to-air based. Your ADS-B comunicates with other ADS-B's via satellite as well as ADS-B to ADS-B if you're within line of sight. It also receives the x-ponder signals of non-ADS-B aircraft via the ground based RADAR array. This greatly increases usability over TIS. TIS, as you stated, only can be used by YOU if you have a Mode S x-ponder.
If so, here's where I'd still favor TCAS, but will be content if ADS-B used in lieu of TCAS:
TIS uses Mode S technology. I assume most new transponders are mode S capable, but it is still not the standard worldwide, or in the US. I *believe* that mode S is the standard in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, according to this link, the FAA is discontinuing the TIS program. Possibly in favor of ADS-B?
Again, ADS-B allows you to see non-ADS-B (Mode C) aircraft. The information is limited though. Usually only altitude and "general" bearing information. If the aircraft has ADS-B, I can select it on the traffic display on my MFD and see it's altitude, heading, and ground speed (very helpful in determining if I'm over-taking).
ADS-B is satellite based, and so is not an independent system. It didn't explicitly say GPS, but if it's anything similar to GPS, then they can pull the plug whenever they wish, and it may well have serviceability issues (think RAIM).
Don't think of RAIM as the plug, but as the quality of the plug. ADS-B uses GPS for position information but it does not use the RAIM signal to transmit it's data. Therefore the ADS-B system wouldn't completely be dead if the gov't decided to employ selective availability again. The military uses it's own encrypted puesdo-random code that is FAR more accurate than the civilian code.
Notwithstanding, I'd still be fine with everybody having ADS-B. But I wonder if the responses would be different if the thread title had ADS-B instead of TCAS.
G'day
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
