TCAS

[LockheedFix]

They're probably required to react to a TCAS RA by company regulation. Airliners full of pax are a lot less comfortable getting that close to other aircraft than military guys on a training line.

[Fuzz]

1st Heli in the news...

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/27/us/reagn-airport-close-call/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

not being TCAS equiped, a question for the masses: if both aircraft had each other in sight and were maintaining visual separation, why did the crew respond to the TCAS RA?

Probably because of this

The controller told the helicopter pilot to pass below and behind the passenger jet, which the helicopter confirmed he would do, Brown said.

The pilot of the helicopter had "briefly climbed" to the altitude of 400 feet at the same time the passenger aircraft passed that altitude on descent, Brown said.

I probably would have gone around too, then continue to descend with the helicopter not doing what it was told and I don't know why (regardless of the reason I.e. bird avoidance)

[Royal]

So they maintained visual separation and didn't collide? What's the issue? The only reason this made the news is because the media outlets got bent out of shape over the fact that there wasn't a tragic loss of life; what a bunch of leaches.

[HiFlyer]

So they maintained visual separation and didn't collide? What's the issue? The only reason this made the news is because the media outlets got bent out of shape over the fact that there wasn't a tragic loss of life; what a bunch of leaches.

Seems to me it's an issue because the helicopter did not follow ATC instructions in very congested and politically sensitive airspace. Just because you maintain visual separation doesn't relieve you of responsibility to follow ATC instructions unless they specifically relieve you of that requirement (in this case, to stay below and pass behind...at least one of which he did not do).

As for your last sentance, no arguement on this end!

[ThreeHoler]

Most TCAS systems inhibit RAs below 900-1200' AGL. If they were at 400' AGL, then the Embraer shouldn't have received an RA...and if they maneuvered in response to a TA...ugh.

[Royal]

Seems to me it's an issue because the helicopter did not follow ATC instructions in very congested and politically sensitive airspace. Just because you maintain visual separation doesn't relieve you of responsibility to follow ATC instructions unless they specifically relieve you of that requirement (in this case, to stay below and pass behind...at least one of which he did not do).

As for your last sentance, no arguement on this end!

I agree with that; I'm just saying the point of the entire newscast was to try to spread fear about how dangerous it is to fly into Reagan. Who knows what was actually happening inside the cockpit of the Huey? Just more sensationalism by the media. Glad there wasn't an accident.

[pawnman]

We don't have TCAS. I do have plenty of stories about guys reacting to us based on TCAS indications, after we tell them we are visual and explicitly state our intentions, though...

[Prozac]

We don't have TCAS. I do have plenty of stories about guys reacting to us based on TCAS indications, after we tell them we are visual and explicitly state our intentions, though...

Yeah....'cause we trust you 100%. Look, if I've got co-altitude helo traffic on 1 mile final who isn't complying with ATC instructions, you're damned right I'm going to react. Interested to hear the mil side of this one though.

[KState_Poke22]

I don't know how prevalent this is in the civilian world but when I was at Flight Safety getting the King Air type rating they told us to honor the RA even if the traffic is in sight because you don't know what the other aircraft's RA (assuming it is even capable of generating one) is telling it. And also that the RA may not be for the traffic you have in sight. Not saying I do that in the real world, just passing on what (some at least) civilians are taught.

[DEVIL]

without the media blowing this thing out of proportion, if I'm the guy flying the Embraer in that airspace, full of pax, with helicopters all over the place, and there is any doubt about who is doing what, who cares if I go around? Easy to justify to the boss cause it's safety, and hell you get some more hand flying out of it, which might still matter to the civilian types. I'm going around.

edit cause i don't spell good.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GoCanes7

[Azimuth]

We don't have TCAS. I do have plenty of stories about guys reacting to us based on TCAS indications, after we tell them we are visual and explicitly state our intentions, though...

And I have B-1 stories of the WSO's in the back directing the rendezvous, even after being told that we're visual and have them on TCAS.

[Butters]

Point you guys are missing is the fact that there are usually more than 2 aircraft in the air around the world at any given time. Therefore, the aircraft you have in sight might not be the one causing the RA. it is the aicrft you don't see that kills you sometimes. This is why the invented TCAS. It is not perfect, but better than the alternative.

[pawnman]

And I have B-1 stories of the WSO's in the back directing the rendezvous, even after being told that we're visual and have them on TCAS.

That's because we hate when the tanker drags us out of the track, out of the country, or through an active ROZ.

Yeah....'cause we trust you 100%. Look, if I've got co-altitude helo traffic on 1 mile final who isn't complying with ATC instructions, you're damned right I'm going to react. Interested to hear the mil side of this one though.

Agreed with that one. The one that sticks in my mind is when we followed a C-17 down the boulevard. Visual and radar contact the whole time. Told them we were visual and radar contact the whole time. They made the turn off the boulevard, which led to increased closure, which generated an RA...even though we were going to follow them through the turn.

[Breckey]

I think the other issue is one of what was considered safe separation. If i see an aspect change on the aircraft and i will pass behind/below him, <1k ft is plenty of room especially if he is on final approach/not very maneuverable. To an RJ it might be a little close.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Breckey

[TreeA10]

I've executed two TCAS directed avoidance manuevers. Had a twin prop of some sort go under the right wing on base leg into Newark and went under a Cessna just after takeoff out of John Wayne. Did not see the first one but did see second one prior to starting the manuever.

Edited May 29, 2013 by TreeA10

[Homestar]

If you're not in my formation then you don't belong in my RA envelope. Want to join up? Just let me know ... then turn your TCAS to TA only.

(edit: spellin')

Edited May 29, 2013 by Homestar

[contraildash]

Can't speak for Republic's operating procedures, but I've been in a similar situation. Working underneath the approach to SFO and even with separation, both aircraft eyes on and non-converging, the Airbus went around and stated that they had to honor the RA.

I agree with Butters...honor it since ya don't know exactly who is causing it. No need to disregard it or do something different and end up like the 757/Tupelov over Switzerland.

[cryoglobin]

If you're not in my formation then you don't belong in my RA envelope. Want to join up? Just let me know ... then turn your TCAS to TA only.

(edit: spellin')

Not really true all the time. You do realize that the size of the envelope is based on a closure vector right? Any of us who have flown in an air stack a few times have had and RA generated by a fast mover due to the excessively large "envelope" caused by the closure vector. In that case, those guys did belong in my RA envelope and were not doing anything wrong, unsafe, or intending to fly formation with me. The truth is that RA envelopes were not designed for use in a military air stack, and it only takes once before you figure that out and use TA only.

[LockheedFix]

Not really true all the time. You do realize that the size of the envelope is based on a closure vector right? Any of us who have flown in an air stack a few times have had and RA generated by a fast mover due to the excessively large "envelope" caused by the closure vector. In that case, those guys did belong in my RA envelope and were not doing anything wrong, unsafe, or intending to fly formation with me. The truth is that RA envelopes were not designed for use in a military air stack, and it only takes once before you figure that out and use TA only.

You don't even have to be in a stack. Just be on the boulevard when a B-1 has too much gas heading back to the 'Deid. I swear I got an RA one night 30 seconds after a Bone checked in at a waypoint that was 75 miles behind me.

[pawnman]

If you're not in my formation then you don't belong in my RA envelope. Want to join up? Just let me know ... then turn your TCAS to TA only.

(edit: spellin')

If I don't have TCAS, what do equipment do I turn off?

You don't even have to be in a stack. Just be on the boulevard when a B-1 has too much gas heading back to the 'Deid. I swear I got an RA one night 30 seconds after a Bone checked in at a waypoint that was 75 miles behind me.

Every damn time. And then we get to tell our story when a HATR is filed, even though no one is forced to deviate from an IFR flight plan or ATC instructions.