Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld,
#8 (permalink)
Quote:
Germany
Posts: 559
T
Originally Posted by airmen, referring to TCAS
they saved already my live once at least!
here is a phenomenon here worth thinking about.
When I voiced some of my concerns about TCAS on a
pilot's mailing list some years ago, I was deluged
with affidavits from pilots who claimed that TCAS had
saved their lives. If all of these claims had been true,
that would have amounted to some 20 or so midair
collisions in a sample of a few hundred pilots (the
members of the mailing list) over the course of, say,
ten years. Let's assume 10 "life-savers", that is,
otherwise-midairs, for 500 pilots in 10 years. That is
an average of one "midair collision" per 500 pilots
per year.
There are about 15,000 aircraft from Airbus, Boeing,
MD, Lockheed still in service (calculated from figures
in Flight International, 24-30 October 2006). So
that's not counting the "commuters", or the
Tupolevs. Those aircraft are in service, let's say, 14
hours per day, for a total of 210,000 hours per day,
or 5,880,000 hours in 28 days. Duty rosters take 100
flight hours for a pilot in 28 days to be relatively
high, but let's use this figure, since it will lead to a
conservative estimate. It means there are about
59,000 captains needed to fly those 5,900,000 hours
every 28 days. With one "midair" per 500 captains
per year, and accounting for the fact that it takes 2
captains to have a "midair", we come to a figure of
59 "midairs" per year.
Compare this with actual midairs amongst airline
transport aircraft. 1959 Grand Canyon, 1976 Zagreb,
1978 San Diego, 1985 Cerritos. And then, since the
advent of TCAS, 1995 Namibia (involving a German
military machine which I do not believe was TCASequipped), 1996 New Delhi, 2002 berlingen and
2006 Amazonas. That is 4 before the advent of TCAS
(mandated 1991, I believe) and 4 since (16 years).
Those crediting TCAS with all these "saves" need to
explain why, before the advent of TCAS, there were a
statistically-negligible number of collisions in the
history of airline flying, and upon the introduction of
TCAS there are suddenly almost 60 per year. Even
considering the growth of air travel, that is an
unbelievable jump.
The obvious answer is, of course, that most of those
"saves" would not have resulted in collisions, despite
what their pilots thought or think.
Consider the following, as a thought experiment. Up
to the Congressional mandate for TCAS, there were
airmen
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: planet hearth
Posts: 110
Quote:
I
The obvious answer is, of course, that most of
those "saves" would not have resulted in
collisions, despite what their pilots thought or
think.
saw the conflicting aircraft (a Beech Baron) at the
last minute (sun in the back) during the escape
manoeuver, he was very close and was flying
opposite course at the same altitude (controller
error) and I can tell you that the controller went by
himself to meet us after landing, he told us that he
saw nothing and as such gave us no instructions. Off
course we followed the TCAS but I can not tell you
what the other pilot did...
ATC Watcher
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 1,052
#19 (permalink)
The " value of X "
Quote:
I
One of the main issues with
TCAS, for me, is that no one
knows what the value of X is.
ndeed , and that debate is hindering
the obvious solution to our
problems : making the RA a
command, i.e. an obligation to
follow in all circumstances.
In the US, at its conception ,the
MITRE/FAA Lawyers prevented this
and insisted we call the TCAS
avoidance resolutions ' Advisories "
and not " Commands" therefore it is
called an RA.
But besides this " value of X "
technical issue , there are other
aspects as well.
I always refer to the " German
glider " one , following a
presentation by a famous German
747 Capt in ICAO : to explain why
he will never agree that following
RA a should be re mandatory in all
cases he said :
,I am in IFR in class G airspace and
I get a climb RA , but just above me
are gliders without transponders ,
my first duty as Captain is to
maintain the safe operation of my
aircraft and stay below the gliders ,
therefore I will elect not to follow
the RA in this case.
And he is right. So an advisory it
remains.
Quote:
I
TCAS is designed to work
according manufacturer manual,
it is stipulated here that pilots
have to follow orders to escape,
so why argue with that and
prefer to follow ATC orders?
ndeed why argue ? Mainly for 2
reasons : one is human : people
react differently to automation that
others and culture also plays a role.
PPRuNe is full of discussions on this
issue . Studies shows that even as
we speak today 30 to 40% of the "
Adjust vertical speed " RAs are not
followed by pilots. ( it used to be
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 559
#20 (permalink)
Quote:
Pl
Originally Posted by airmen
TCAS is designed to work
according manufacturer manual,
it is stipulated here that pilots
have to follow orders to escape,
so why argue with that and
prefer to follow ATC orders?
ease read my analysis of the
decision problem presented to the
Bakshirian crew at berlingen. They
were faced with an "intruder" at 10
o'clock which they saw, and an
unknown conflict at 2 o'clock which
they didn't see, and for which they
had an advisory to descend (that is,
he was at or above their altitude).
What would you do? Climb towards
another conflicting aircraft that you
don't see but ATC does? Or avoid
him, descend towards an aircraft
that you do see, and hope to avoid
him using visual means?
Please give some good reasons for
your answer that will also be good
reasons for any other pilot in this
situation.
Quote:
That's very interesting and I agree
with you that it counts as a save
(but of course it doesn't contradict
my observations on claimed
"saves"). I have a number of
observations.
First, Beech Barons don't have TCAS
(I don't know that the avionics are
approved for installation in a Baron,
#22 (permalink)
Peter,
Quote:
That might be stretching it a bit.
You can have EGPWS warnings
when the aircraft is physically in the
correct part of the sky. A good
example is a that map shift on final
approach can easily lead to an
escape manoeuvre. We had a spate
of this on one type I flew. Now,
flying a go around from that point in
the sky shouldn't (in theory) unduly
tax ATC but at a busy multi runway
international airport..... well, you
get the picture.
alf5071h
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island
Province
Posts: 649
#37 (permalink)
Peter, the GPWS situation is more complex if you
consider EGPWS which uses a database and
navigation position in its computation. You may
have meant this but your response related to
GPWS; as you realise, it is important to distinguish
between the two. This is particularly so for the crew
as the later system (EGPWS/TAWS) is more
capable and reliable than previous systems, but
then opens greater opportunity for error due to the
range of alerting and warning modes and the
terrain display, e.g. during an approach a pilot may
pull up in response to a warning and incorrectly
level at MDA, but due to a (gross) error in range,
MDA is not safe.
Also note that some versions of EGPWS use GPS
altitude as a gross error check of altitude, mainly
incorrect pressure setting. GPS (geometric) altitude
does not replace the rad alt (there are exceptions)
as its accuracy is less than that of normal altimetry,
and therefore at this time it would not be a
candidate for ACAS altitude as suggested earlier in
the thread.
As for the solution to the three aircraft ACAS
problem, this is done reasonably successfully by
combat pilots in 1 vs 2 situations. My experiences
and existence today is relevant, but based on the
same experiences I would be less confident for
situations involving 4 vs 4, due to the human
limitations in continuously computing a 4D (space
time) solution, thats assuming that you can see
everyone!
Your ACAS problem relates to a similar 4D situation
and thus might be modelled in the form the 4th
power.
Considering three aircraft avoidance, x, y and z,
then a solution could be in the form of x^4 = y^4
+ z^4.
This form of equation for powers greater than 2 has
been proven to have no solution (Fermats
conjecture). With appropriate deductive logic, no
solution relates to a collision condition, thus I claim
my PhD !
ATC Watcher
#38 (permalink)
Quote:
I
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 1,052
#39 (permalink)
FullWings
PBL,
Quote:
I agree with 1. to 3. but would you agree that 4. is
likely to happen near an airport (you have to
approach the ground when landing and get near it
when taking off) and airports are well known as
places where aeroplanes like to congregate... Anyway,
Quote:
I assume that is the berlingen scenario? I say that it
was the worst possible because it led to a collision;
almost by definition any other action would have
produced a "miss". I know this is slightly simplistic but
if you think about it in reverse, to generate a "hit"
both aircraft have to occupy the same small space
over the same very small time period. Any changes to
the trajectories of either will quickly disrupt this
meeting. Finally, it's because the manual says:
"NEVER MANOUVER AGAINST AN RA".
Quote:
F
Those are not the only two options. Another arises
when you have an advisory to manoeuvre to avoid
a conflict from same-level or higher, and you have
an aircraft below you in sight. What would your
decision be and why?
ollow the RA. The danger in aviation comes mostly
from the aircraft you can't/haven't seen or aren't
aware of. I would posit that you are unlikely to hit an
aircraft that you have in plain sight as you can tell if it
is on a constant relative bearing or not; also you have
the option of a lateral manoeuvre to de-conflict. If the
a/c below has TCAS, there might be coordination
going on that you are unaware of. If it doesn't, then
they'll (like you) probably follow the rules of the air to
avoid a collision (if they've seen you!)
I find detailed technical discussions about most things
to do with aviation absolutely fascinating... but the job
has shown me that for some scenarios, you have to
have a fairly rote response prepared for immediate
use. I applaud scientific examination of the limits of
#40 (permalink)
mono
Dynamite,
Notso Fantastic
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,814
#3 (permalink)
Interesting questions! Maybe the EPR does change.
Never been looking at it to notice. On the Boeings I've
flown, autothrottle sets the required thrust and i
haven't been aware of it modulating the thrust levers
to maintain constant thrust. I think any change on big
fan engines must be very minor.
Question 5- back in the 70s I was dragged out on
standby to copilot a Certificate of Airworthiness test
on a VC10 fitted with an AoA meter. Following the
incidents of superstalls on Tridents and BAC 1-11s
(always fatal), I was not altogether happy to find
myself doing stick pushes at 15,000' over Anglia.
Speed was reduced to below 100kts and AoA hovered
at 15 degrees, then twitched, then jumped to 17
degrees. The stick push horns cut in and the stick was
pushed forward and suddenly there was a nice view of
farmland. Nice to be alive and enjoy it, but Notso
couldn't help thinking 'very good theory, but what if it
doesn't work?- I'd really rather be home reading the
Sundays!' Back to your question- I assume if you
stalled in a bank situation (increased 'g'), I think the
AoA would be different?
To expand slightly on INS & True North, systems
cannot sense the direction too near the Poles, so INS
sets, although they can fly over the Poles, cannot be
aligned preflight near the Poles. I forget the
limitations, but I think if a 747 started out within
None
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 345
#8 (permalink)
I am going to training this week, so I thought I
would look into this question. Below is from the US
Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 4.
4-4-11. SPEED ADJUSTMENTS
a. ATC will issue speed adjustments to pilots of
radar-controlled aircraft to achieve or maintain
required or desire spacing.
b. ATC will express all speed adjustments in terms
of knots based on indicated airspeed (IAS) in 10
knot increments except that at or above FL 240
speeds may be expressed in terms of Mach numbers
in 0.01 increments. The use of Mach numbers is
restricted to turbojet aircraft with Mach meters.
c. Pilots complying with speed adjustments are
expected to maintain a speed within plus or minus
10 knots or 0.02 Mach number of the specified
speed.
I'm uncertain of its applicability outside of the USA.
cwatters
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 927
#3 (permalink)
Wings with a lot of sweep need less dihedral because
the sweep contributes to roll stability (don't as me
how, I don't know). If you have too much roll stability
the plane can't turn fast so they reduce stability to a
satisfactory level by giving swept wings anhedral.
Paragliders have anhedral for a different reason - to
help keep the wing open I believe.
erikv
#4 (permalink)
cwatters,
Swept wings improve directional stability.
#5 (permalink)
Keith.Williams.
Parapunter
#6 (permalink)
John Farley
Keith
Do a Hover - it
avoids G
30th August
2002, 12:45
Mark 1
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Warwicks, UK
Posts: 652
#7 (permalink)
As far as
Rolls-Royce
go, this
seems a
very
confused
subject.
From what I
understand
the RB
series were
originated in
Bristol,
although
their is no
RD series for
Derby. The
211 was just
a sequential
model
number,
most of
which never
saw the light
of day. The
-524
followed
from the
-22, I think
the 5
indicated it
was 50,000
lb thrust
class,
although the
-535 was
only
(originally)
35000lb
class. The
other letters
referred to
throttlepush or
growth
variants of
the same
engine.
As to why
the RB211
didn't get
named after
a major
river (as in
Spey, Dart,
Tyne, Trent
etc.), I've
never heard
an
explanation.
#4 (permalink)
Babi Melayu
Posts: 13
BlueEagle
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,252
#5 (permalink)
On a clear day a visual approach to R/W13 was
possible and the CX pilots often did it, they being very
familiar with the place.
For the rest of us it was usual to do an IGS,
(Instrument Guidance System), approach which gave
you Localiser and GP information down to a height of
approx. 650' but on a track 45degrees to the R/W
QDM, by which time you should be visual with the
runway and able to complete the turn on and landing
visually.
#7 (permalink)
ShyTorque
Avoid imitations
SuperTed,
It has got
nothng to do
with static
pressure or
the capsule.
A vibrator in
an altimeter
is there to
overcome
stiction /
friction
within the
mechanism,
i.e. cogs and
a suitable
system of
levers and
pulleys etc
between the
capsule and
the
indicating
needles.
Without it
an altimeter
needle may
lag / jump
and operate
in "steps". A
vibrator just
smooths out
the
movement
of the
needle. Note
that it isn't
often
necessary to
fit one to
helicopters
or piston
engine
aircraft that
vibrate
through
other
means.
14th
January
2002, 12:06
#7 (permalink)
Shore Guy
Join Date:
Jul 2000
Location:
U.S.A.
Posts: 407
#5 (permalink)
BOING
Posts: n/a
9th February
2001, 05:16
#7 (permalink)
TOGA_Party
Posts: n/a
Smurfjet,
Not so much a formula as a 'rule of thumb'. Works when
conditions are close to ISA and at altitudes not flight levels.
The TAS and IAS will vary by 1.8 kts/1000'.
eg. If we're cruising at 10'000 and indicating 145kts then
TAS will be 163kts.
ie 1.8(kts/1000')X 10(lots of 1000')= 18kts
145kts (IAS)
+
18kts = 163kts (TAS)
Also works just as well the other way around!!
10th February
2001, 18:08
#8 (permalink)
fart
Posts: n/a
This will give you a quick answer that comes faily close to
the real deal:
#3 (permalink)
Tinstaafl
Posts: n/a
#7 (permalink)
Dan Winterland
Posts: n/a
#3 (permalink)
shakespeare
Posts: n/a
#8 (permalink)
Yoeman
Posts: n/a