Will TCAS avoid colision in the middle of the Pacific?

Peter R. wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

Yes, it is one of the few good things that can be said for
TCAS.

Why does this sound negative to me? Are there major disadvantages of TCAS
that outweigh the advantages (besides the cost)?

It wasn't the best solution at the time the FAA decided on it. It was
a result of heavily political (i.e., graft) influence. Of course, the
FAA has never had a sensible nor consistent story for automatic
collision avoidance (see the TCAS vs. TIS vs. ADS-B debacle).

Emily wrote:

The DHL midair in Europe a few years back comes to mind - although I
think that was more a case of two different schools of though in dealing
with TCAS alerts.

IMO, that accident proved the value of the TCAS, as both aircraft were
given a proper conflict resolution, but as we all know the pilot of the
Russian aircraft ignored the TCAS instruction.

--
Peter

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I wonder if TCAS work away from groud station signal?

Yes, it is one of the few good things that can be said for
TCAS.

Unless...
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw100906p3.xml

(Okay, it was the Amazon, not the Pacific...)

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Why does this sound negative to me? Are there major disadvantages of TCAS
that outweigh the advantages (besides the cost)?

It wasn't the best solution at the time the FAA decided on it. It was
a result of heavily political (i.e., graft) influence. Of course, the
FAA has never had a sensible nor consistent story for automatic
collision avoidance (see the TCAS vs. TIS vs. ADS-B debacle).

to be fair, the FAA was not the only CAA that decided to
utilize TCAS.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Peter R. wrote:
Emily wrote:

The DHL midair in Europe a few years back comes to mind - although I
think that was more a case of two different schools of though in dealing
with TCAS alerts.

IMO, that accident proved the value of the TCAS, as both aircraft were
given a proper conflict resolution, but as we all know the pilot of the
Russian aircraft ignored the TCAS instruction.

Correct....but it's only valuable if it is used consistently, IMO. That
accident proved it's not.

question for the group.

In the case of the Legacy vs GOL, with the closing speeds of those two
planes and given the range of TCAS, exactly how much warning would the
pilots have had if TCAS had been working?

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...


wrote:


I wonder if TCAS work away from groud station signal?



Yes, it is one of the few good things that can be said for
TCAS.



Unless...
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw100906p3.xml

(Okay, it was the Amazon, not the Pacific...)





--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

"**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**" wrote in message
...
question for the group.

In the case of the Legacy vs GOL, with the closing speeds of those two
planes
and given the range of TCAS, exactly how much warning would the pilots have
had if TCAS had been working?

The RA warning is issued based on time (about 30 sec). In a head-on
encounter at 0.8M, that would be 8 to 10 nm.

TCAS range is not a fixed number as it is affected by many factors, but 30
nm minimum is a realistic number under almost all conditions. That would be
1 minute or more before the RA would be issued. It takes TCAS about 5 to 7
sec to build an initial track file on a target. That track file is used to
perform the prediction. So the system had lots of time to work.

TCAS was designed in the '80s when the Concordes were flying. One basic
design requirement was that it had to work on two Concordes closing head on
at Mach 2.

Gerry