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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Raisler wrote:
TCAS installed on all transport category aircraft can "read" mode "c" or "s" and determine if a climb or descent is needed to avoid the other aircraft. The glider does not need to have TCAS installed, only a transponder, in order for the other aircafts TCAS system alert for an avoidance manuever. Ok, but the advice emitted by the TCAS in the other aircraft is based on the assumption that the glider will keep its flying level and this is not true. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Ehrlich" wrote:
Mike Raisler wrote: TCAS installed on all transport category aircraft can "read" mode "c" or "s" and determine if a climb or descent is needed to avoid the other aircraft. The glider does not need to have TCAS installed, only a transponder, in order for the other aircafts TCAS system alert for an avoidance manuever. Ok, but the advice emitted by the TCAS in the other aircraft is based on the assumption that the glider will keep its flying level and this is not true. It is far better than no warning at all. The pilots of the TCAS equipped aircraft will at least get their heads out of the cockpit and take a look out of the windows. Marc |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
TCAS installed on all transport category aircraft can "read" mode "c" or "s" and determine if a climb or descent is needed to avoid the other aircraft. The glider does not need to have TCAS installed, only a transponder, in order for the other aircafts TCAS system alert for an avoidance manuever. Ok, but the advice emitted by the TCAS in the other aircraft is based on the assumption that the glider will keep its flying level and this is not true. It's my understanding that the conflict resolution algorithm is based on much more realistic assumptions, so that climbing and turning flight of the potential threats is included. The simple assumption of straight flight might have been used in the very beginning, but no longer. If you have a recent reference that suggests otherwise, I'd like to know about it. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell skrev den Tue, 03 Feb 2004
12:15:57 -0800: It's my understanding that the conflict resolution algorithm is based on much more realistic assumptions, so that climbing and turning flight of the potential threats is included. The simple assumption of straight flight might have been used in the very beginning, but no longer. If you have a recent reference that suggests otherwise, I'd like to know about it. The algorithm is to look at a number of consecutive returns to determine a rate of closure and then divide the distance with this rate to give a 'tau' value, of time to impact should there be a collision. When this value goes below an [altitude dependant] threshold, you have a traffic advisory. Another lower [also altitude dependant] threshold, and the TCAS begins working on a resolution advisory. In other words, more or less straight but not level flight is assumed. Cheers, Fred |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Fredrik Thörnell wrote:
Eric Greenwell skrev den Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:15:57 -0800: It's my understanding that the conflict resolution algorithm is based on much more realistic assumptions, so that climbing and turning flight of the potential threats is included. The simple assumption of straight flight might have been used in the very beginning, but no longer. If you have a recent reference that suggests otherwise, I'd like to know about it. The algorithm is to look at a number of consecutive returns to determine a rate of closure and then divide the distance with this rate to give a 'tau' value, of time to impact should there be a collision. When this value goes below an [altitude dependant] threshold, you have a traffic advisory. Another lower [also altitude dependant] threshold, and the TCAS begins working on a resolution advisory. After looking at an "Introduction to TCAS II version 7" more closely, I have to agree that Fred's description is a good one. It says (page 7): "In particular, it is dependent on the accuracy of the threat aircraft's reported altitude and on the expectation that the threat aircraft will not make an abrupt maneuver that defeats the TCAS RA." I'm guessing the relatively slow speeds (compared to the airliner) and low G turns of a glider (compared to a fighter, for example) would still allow the TCAS to sort things out to the benefit of all concerned. At the least, the TCAS is providing range, bearing, and altitude to the glider, a big improvement over a pair of eyeballs looking out a window going 300 knots. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote:
... I'm guessing the relatively slow speeds (compared to the airliner) and low G turns of a glider (compared to a fighter, for example) would still allow the TCAS to sort things out to the benefit of all concerned. At the least, the TCAS is providing bearing, and altitude to the glider, a big improvement over a pair of eyeballs looking out a window going 300 knots. I understand clearly how the TCAS can determine range and altitude (by timing the return and decoding the encoded altitude), but how can it determine the bearing? directional antennas coupled with compass information? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich skrev den Wed, 04 Feb 2004
18:21:08 +0000: I understand clearly how the TCAS can determine range and altitude (by timing the return and decoding the encoded altitude), but how can it determine the bearing? directional antennas coupled with compass information? Directional receiving antenna was correct, compass information was not. You con't care about the bearing, only the direction. Which won't be too exact anyway. Cheers, Fred |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: ... I'm guessing the relatively slow speeds (compared to the airliner) and low G turns of a glider (compared to a fighter, for example) would still allow the TCAS to sort things out to the benefit of all concerned. At the least, the TCAS is providing bearing, and altitude to the glider, a big improvement over a pair of eyeballs looking out a window going 300 knots. I understand clearly how the TCAS can determine range and altitude (by timing the return and decoding the encoded altitude), but how can it determine the bearing? directional antennas coupled with compass information? I'm not sure, either. Here's a quote from "Introduction to TCAS II version 7": "TCAS interrogates ICAO-compliant transponders of all aircraft in the vicinity and based on the replies received, tracks the slant range, altitude (when it is included in the reply message), and bearing of surrounding traffic." It also uses the term "relative bearing" about half the time, so it's not clear to me which they mean. I suspect it's actually relative bearing. In any case, the bearing info appears to be determined by using two or more antennas. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote:
... In any case, the bearing info appears to be determined by using two or more antennas. ... More than 2 are necessary. With 2 antennas, you can only measure the time difference between the 2 received signals. This time difference can be translated into a distance difference. The points from where a given difference is observed are on an hyperbola, which can be considered as the same as its 2 asymptotes, as the distance to the antennas is high compared to their mutual distance. But to determine which of the both asymptotes is the correct one, you need some more information, i.e. another antenna. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote: ... In any case, the bearing info appears to be determined by using two or more antennas. ... More than 2 are necessary. With 2 antennas, you can only measure the time difference between the 2 received signals. This time difference can be translated into a distance difference. The points from where a given difference is observed are on an hyperbola, which can be considered as the same as its 2 asymptotes, as the distance to the antennas is high compared to their mutual distance. But to determine which of the both asymptotes is the correct one, you need some more information, i.e. another antenna. A more careful reading of the document shows only two antennas are used: one bottom mounted omni-directional and one top mounted directional. It also shows the omni-directional antenna can optionally be a directional antenna. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Non-radar transponder codes | Michael | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | February 13th 04 01:15 PM |
Dual Transponders? | Scott Aron Bloom | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | December 14th 03 05:54 AM |
Mode S Transponders - Can ATC tell the difference? | Doodybutch | Owning | 2 | August 10th 03 06:21 AM |
Transponders, Radios and other avionics procurement questions | Corky Scott | Home Built | 5 | July 2nd 03 11:27 PM |