Posts about: "TCAS (All)" [Posts: 152 Page: 8 of 8]¶

What load of codswallop. Now we'll have every dogsbody pilot peering at their ADS-B In screens and asking ATC "is that return going to miss us?". TCAS does not require ADS-B, only a transponder (Mode S best). ADS-B In in busy CTAs/zones will be a distracting nightmare for crews.

Every pax jet is separated by SIDs and STARs, with either lateral and/or vertical separation. That is what is required here with the choppers. Playing TCAS dodgem-cars below 1000ft when you're trying to land is not the way to go.

Point 3 is the only one that makes any real sense. The rest sound good only to the great-unwashed.

As a non-technical poster on this forum I sure as shucks won't comment on the ADS-B content of the proposed legislation. But point 4 of the summary:
"Directs the Army OIG to initiate a safety coordination audit. The Army Inspector General has declined to voluntarily review the Army's aviation safety practices. The Inspector General would conduct an independent review of the Army's approach to safety."

Why does this not make real sense?

The NTSB will very likely (undoubtedly, I think) include, in its report, quite extensive findings about the Army's operations. It was at least very unusual, if not unprecedented, for the NTSB to issue urgent recommendations to FAA in the immediate aftermath of January 29 with regard to use of the helicopter routes. On these facts, why is it not sensible to require the Army to undergo an IG review?

Although without a service record, I do generally understand the idea that the Army's task and purpose is lethality, at least in the meaning of that term before the assemblage at Quantico earlier this fall. Surely operating in domestic airspace doesn't make safety irrelevant "becasue lethality", does it?

One other aspect of this tragic and from many perspectives senseless midair collision is that very dedicated professional people in the aviation field are going to have their respective actions and failures to act in the events of January 29 scrutinized in the most harshly critical light in a courtroom. Bluntly, their performance will be trashed - the Army pilots, one or more controllers, and as discussed recently on this thread, the airline aviators too. On these facts, and hoping that reasonable minds may differ, I think the IG review isn't just a sensible idea, it's a necessity. It is something owed to those people, who are not going to speak up in their defense, or in their eternal regrets, from the great beyond. The least the United States can do is to find out what to do better. I'll work for the IG project, gratis, .... if they'd take me.

Having had ADS-B traffic displayed in my cockpit for over the last decade, I beg to report it has vastly reduced the urgency of necessary avoidance of conflicting CAT since I can now deal with them several miles away.

For one example before ADS-B display, ATC once dumped me in front of CAT that required a 90\xb1\xb0 bank to avoid. There were other interesting encounters with CAT in Class E - no longer.
​​​
As we saw here, ATC can fall short and altitudes can be missed. An ADS-B display is a valuable backstop - for a small fraction of the cost of TCAS.

Recall that the accident Blackhawk flight crew likely had a Stratus 2S onboard that could have provided ADS-B traffic info via the flight crew\x92s Army-issued EFBs loaded with ForeFlight. There is no evidence from the Blackhawk CVR (or the aircraft\x92s flight path) that this feature was used.

As I recall from the interviews, there was no Army aviation policy about how this technology was to be used during DC area flights. Some crews used it, but most did not.

I 100% disagree. ADS-B, among other things, lets YOU see who is going to come close to you without asking ATC what they think about it.

I personally do not think ADS-B on the helicopter would have changed anything , From what I understand , if it had it could have been spotted earlier by ATC , the conflict alert might have sounded a couple of seconds earlier , etc .. pure speculation .

It would not have changed much for the AA CRJ either , the TA would have been more precise and maybe a second or two earlier , but he had already 2 TAs and most certainly so short from landing the PF was focusing on the PAPI not his TA display

It might have changed something if the Heli was equipped with a CDTI ( ADS-B in display) as it is a powerful tool to help identify traffic visually. But not separate yourself from another aircraft . One thing people in offices making such statements forget is that to provide separations maneuvers ATC needs a stable radar picture , with antennas firmly on the ground facing North . Inside an aircraft constantly moving the picture moves with it , (as you can see on your TCAS display ) Extremely complex to separate yourself using that kind of picture when both you and the target are moving. AWACS operators are trained to do this , but not your average pilot .

So I think this ADS-B on the Military Helis is a red herring made by politicians wanting to appear to \x93do something \x93 and perhaps distract the public from the FAA and regulator failures on both the design of the airspace / routes and the lack of action after numerous previous serious incidents reports ,

I disagree. The operating theory was that the helicopter crew was looking at a plane that was farther out and not the one they hit. If they had had the presence of mind to look at an ADS-B display they would have seen two airplanes, not one, and seen the one they THOUGHT was #1 was really #2.
Can I add some sympathy for the AA crew - A night over water runway change on final combined with dodging traffic is a LOT to ask of anyone. I can't say for sure what they would have done with ADS-B on the chopper, they said they would miss us, not by how much and we are 30 seconds from landing. The benefit here is the helo crew realizing they are dodging the wrong airplane.
* full disclosure, I have had a close call with the helo traffic there more than once, back in the day they did some crazy stuff. I would have LOVED to have seen them coming on a screen if such a thing had existed.

Big speculation . Have you experience with an ADS-B-in CDTI display ? I have one in my glider . It is not a TCAS display , TCAS ( or FLARM in my case) display the altitude relative to you ( e,g + 13 ot - 5 ) while ADS-B gives the barometric altitude . (e.g 05 ) not that easy to differentiate and it takes a second or 2 make the mental calculations and ADS-B also does not give alerts , ( at least on the CDTIs I saw ) it is just displaying traffic , and in our case here all pilots in both aircrfat were looking outside at this point , not focusing on displays inside the cockpit ..My guess at least. So yes maybe it would have helped but am not so sure it would have made a difference in here .
Absolutely ! .and even more so at night

They had TCAS in the RJ. I am not sure what additional aid ADSB would have provided. ADSB would however have provided extremely valuable data to the Helo if the RJ had ADSB out. It still may have provided data even without ADSB out if the RJ was still painting on the approach radars depending on altitude. A radar rebroadcast is not quite as accurate but at least as good as TCAS.

The overall issue is that NONE of those systems or combinations thereof were ever designed for close quarters airshow-like margins of separation, they'll keep you a mile or two apart, not 200 feet apart. While I think they might maybe have saved the day, relying on that in the middle of the Class B on freaking final is NOT what anyone would ever expect.
(the same thing happens with boat transponders, once you get close enough to throw a beer at the other boat they can be on the opposite side of you as the traffic display shows)

For myself, I get to look at the pretty colors. If I was the AA plane the helo would have been red, but it was close enough to be red even if it was going behind me.

NTSB:
It is true that if the -only- change was using ADS-B Out on the helicopter, this accident would still have happened.

The CRJ was equipped with TCAS, which may or may not have been applicable at this low altitude as it is suppressed at 400 ft. The preliminary report does not indicate the helicopter having a TCAS or having an operating one. It did have the ability to produce ADS-B Out. Neither aircraft is reported to have had ADS-B In.

Since many operators seem to loath spending money on ADS-B In, the recommendation from the NTSB was to (1) stop simultaneous flight path use and (2) go elsewhere when the approaches were in use. The FAA agreed.

Per https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-pub...tails/A-25-001 the FAA did what was recommended about simultaneous use.
Per https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-pub...tails/A-25-002 the FAA made a satisfactory response concerning planning the alternate route(s)

This legislation is the exact opposite of that recommendation.

No doubt the anger isn't just that the NTSB has yet again been ignored, it's that the FAA agreements to safety measures are targeted for destruction in a way that recreates the circumstance of the tragic event.

I said at first, on seeing this collision a few hours after the event, that I felt rage that so many safety measures are available and yet none of them was actually used.

This section, 373, is what I consider an intentional sabotage of the safe operations around DCA.

The FAA literally had advertising videos showing the use of ADS-B In on helicopters for this exact purpose, to give situational awareness to the pilots long before there would be a need to deconflict with other traffic (see end) . No sudden swerves as TCAS attempts to make a last moment save of a terrible situation. TCAS alone cannot be the solution as TCAS gets shut off to avoid nuisance complaints about the terrain the plane is intentionally going to run into or other proximate planes waiting for takeoff.

ADS-B In is for noting where everyone else is in the neighborhood of the aircraft. Had the helicopter been equipped with ADS-B In they would have known the speed and direction of the CRJ and seen it was on a collision course.

As usual it appears there is no name attached nor meeting notes about who submitted what became Section 373. There is certainly no justification paper that will see the light of day.

If those exist, please, someone, prove me wrong.


duplicate:

I cannot find it on YouTube.

An actual user who avoided a mid-air using ADS-B In (Trent Palmer, if anyone wants to avoid him; not everyone is liked):

As a non-lawyer and non-American, can I just clarify my understanding of this situation:

• Following the accident, the NTSB recommended that military helo flights not fly that route while 15/33 was in use;
• The FAA concurred, and this was implemented on a temporary basis;
• Section 373 of a bill that has already passed the House would allow military helo flights to resume, as prior to the accident, with 'waivers' to let them fly there as they like;
• The waivers could be granted by many military personnel at different levels of seniority, meaning the waivers would be effectively permanent;
• The NTSB had recommended that military flights in DCA airspace should use ADS-B Out, so that military flights could be detected above 900ft in a busy airspace. The FAA and DoD agreed.
• Section 373 takes away the requirement for ADS-B Out, reducing safety.
• Section 373 gets round the ADS-B Out requirement by specifying that military aircraft should only be required to be able to trigger to TCAS alerts.
• TCAS does not activate at low altitudes, such as when landing, so is useless on the route the helos use to pass DCA.
• Therefore the only reasonable safety measure is not to let military flights onto that route while 15/33 is in use. Section 373 reverses that safety measure.
• 'Someone' sneaked Section 373 into the bill, and nobody knows who or when.
• The bill passed without anybody noticing Section 373.
• So unless the Senate challenges, this legislation will go through
• The legislation would make it harder for families to blame the military/government for the DCA accident, by confirming the correctness of protocols at the time
• Chair Homendy is furious.

If I've got this wrong, can you correct me?

I'm absolutely staggered that something this important could have been 'slipped' into a major piece of legislation, without a final read-through of changes since the last version. Surely there's an audit trail of changes and who submitted or entered them?