Why isn't TCAS required for all aircraft?
11-18-2009, 07:15 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 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, 08:43 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 51
IFR requires constant practice to remain proficient
Flying under IFR requires significant training and the pilot's full attention,
TCAS is an automated system, that requires minimal training, and only passive pilot attention
If all VFR aircraft are required to be equipped with and respond to TCAS, the amount of RAs issued would result in utter chaos.
me thinks the average SE owner would rather pay for TCAS than a multi-engine.
I'd offer the following excerpt from an old Flying magazine article
And that’s the key to all of general aviation safety, or lack thereof. If safety means flying with the lowest risk possible, then only transport category airplanes flown by crews of two to the highest standards of major airlines and large corporate flight departments qualify. If you compromise from that level of conservative operation, you are by definition unsafe.
But general aviation at all levels can only exist because participants trade away some amount of safety potential for the reward of convenience, affordability and even the challenge of taking on a unforgiving hobby. Making a general aviation airplane truly safe eliminates it in the same way that making a motorcycle as safe as we know how to make a vehicle turns it into a large car with airbags and rollover protection.
But general aviation at all levels can only exist because participants trade away some amount of safety potential for the reward of convenience, affordability and even the challenge of taking on a unforgiving hobby. Making a general aviation airplane truly safe eliminates it in the same way that making a motorcycle as safe as we know how to make a vehicle turns it into a large car with airbags and rollover protection.
Last edited by flyingchicken; 11-18-2009 at 09:15 PM.
11-18-2009, 11:48 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by flyingchicken
TCAS does not relieve you of the responsibility of traffic lookout and avoidance planning. It is not a "fully automated system" by any means, and was never intended to provide primary separation, but as a "last line of defense" under IFR.
I'm not saying we should switch to TCAS or any other electronic gadget for primary separation. But these systems do provide a pretty good safety net when we make mistakes.
If all VFR aircraft are required to be equipped with and respond to TCAS, the amount of RAs issued would result in utter chaos.
I'll admit that I did not consider VFR separation. I'm sure VFR aircraft currently fly by each other with less that the required separation under IFR, and so whatever technology would have to be tweaked to avoid nuisance warnings.
Totally seperate argument. I must say though that I'm flabbergasted at your reactions to my "proposals".
Your ME proposal has merit, and in an ideal world, would eliminate a significant number of GA crashes, but I chose to bring up cost, since so many people mentioned that the cost of TCAS would be prohibitive. Likewise, an IFR only environment would likely be safer, but would be unlikely to happen. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just providing counter-arguments.
I'm not saying we should switch to TCAS or any other electronic gadget for primary separation. But these systems do provide a pretty good safety net when we make mistakes.
If all VFR aircraft are required to be equipped with and respond to TCAS, the amount of RAs issued would result in utter chaos.
I'll admit that I did not consider VFR separation. I'm sure VFR aircraft currently fly by each other with less that the required separation under IFR, and so whatever technology would have to be tweaked to avoid nuisance warnings.
Totally seperate argument. I must say though that I'm flabbergasted at your reactions to my "proposals".
Your ME proposal has merit, and in an ideal world, would eliminate a significant number of GA crashes, but I chose to bring up cost, since so many people mentioned that the cost of TCAS would be prohibitive. Likewise, an IFR only environment would likely be safer, but would be unlikely to happen. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just providing counter-arguments.
Thanks to all who have responded. I've learned a bit more about the electronic separation tools that are in use today, and hopefully, I'll get to pass on the knowledge one day.
11-19-2009, 05:14 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Spartan
Posts: 3,652
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
You highlighted that TCAS isn't a "fully automated system". For my edification, what pilot actions are required for TCAS to work?
Thanks to all who have responded. I've learned a bit more about the electronic separation tools that are in use today, and hopefully, I'll get to pass on the knowledge one day.
Thanks to all who have responded. I've learned a bit more about the electronic separation tools that are in use today, and hopefully, I'll get to pass on the knowledge one day.
11-19-2009, 07:27 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by Slice
Autopilot off, climb or dive, pray.
Tangentially related to our discussion, perhaps the A380 has a "fully automated" system
LOLhttp://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...mode_a380.html
"Moreover, with this new AP/FD TCAS mode activated, when a TCAS "Resolution Advisory" (RA) is received, the pilot no longer needs to disengage the autopilot or Flight Director before conducting the TCAS manoeuvres. Rather, the autopilot can now automatically conduct the correct TCAS manoeuvre, to position the aircraft clear of any potential traffic conflict."
11-19-2009, 11:21 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Posts: 349
I think the long term FAA vision is for free flight, with all involved separating each other from all other involved, yes?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if you have a G-1000 or similar panel in your light plane, you should be required to be instrument rated. Not saying you have to operate under IFR at all times, but you should be at least instrument rated, given the capabilities of the system.
I also wouldn't mind seeing the airspace around LAX (The Big Bravo in my backyard) being turned into a Class A TMA - all flights IFR and instrument rating required. Ditto for JFK/LGA/EWR. Everyone flying on the same rules would eliminate surprises. AOPA will never go for it, but it would also make the system safer, in my view. One level of safety
Originally Posted by ppilot
So now you want all flying to be IFR? Geez.
I also wouldn't mind seeing the airspace around LAX (The Big Bravo in my backyard) being turned into a Class A TMA - all flights IFR and instrument rating required. Ditto for JFK/LGA/EWR. Everyone flying on the same rules would eliminate surprises. AOPA will never go for it, but it would also make the system safer, in my view. One level of safety
11-19-2009, 03:02 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: the correct seat
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by SomedayRJ
I also wouldn't mind seeing the airspace around LAX (The Big Bravo in my backyard) being turned into a Class A TMA - all flights IFR and instrument rating required.
11-19-2009, 03:49 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Posts: 349
Originally Posted by Senior Skipper
I'm told that the airspace around Heathrow is class A to the surface.
It won't happen anytime soon, but I think it'd be a lot safer and more efficient or LAX and JFK/EWR/LGA.
11-19-2009, 06:40 PM
#50
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Our old Citation *gasp* didn't have any TCAS/TIS/Skywatch system, and yet somehow we didn't hit anybody or anything flying it.
Technology is grand, but it is NO substitute for the ole Mark I eyeball.
And with everybody throwing ideas around for technology to be a replacement for basic visual traffic avoidance without regard to cost, the upgrade from TCAS I (traffic advisory only) to TCAS II (offering resolution advisory) in our CJ2+ was $130,000.
So, flying our brand new airplane around, we don't get RAs.
Again, no replacement for the Mark I eyeball.
Technology is grand, but it is NO substitute for the ole Mark I eyeball.
And with everybody throwing ideas around for technology to be a replacement for basic visual traffic avoidance without regard to cost, the upgrade from TCAS I (traffic advisory only) to TCAS II (offering resolution advisory) in our CJ2+ was $130,000.
So, flying our brand new airplane around, we don't get RAs.
Again, no replacement for the Mark I eyeball.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
