TCAS

[189Herk]

Got grief from Tampa approach today for following a TCAS resolution advisory even though we had the traffic in sight. Vol 3 talks about it being "imperative" to follow any resolution advisories, but there is no must/shall wording I could find. My feeling is that we did the right thing, especially considering the RA could have been for some other airplane we might not of had in sight. (ie. we could have had eyeballs on the wrong plane) Third RA for me in 2 weeks...should be done with them for now I guess. Anyway, you guys have any thoughts?

Edit...looking further 202-v3 pretty much says you have to follow an RA. The more my gears spin on this one the more I think the controller was an idiot.

5.29.1.1. Pilots shall respond to all RAs as directed by the TCAS system, unless doing so would

jeopardize the safe operation of the aircraft (e.g., descent into obstacles).

Edit 2:

From 217v3 pretty much black and white:

6.9.4.3. Traffic acquired visually may not be the traffic causing the RA, or it may not be the only

aircraft to which TCAS is responding.

Nice one man thread here...

Edited April 16, 2009 by Herkguy

[skibum]

You are correct. The rules say you follow the RA. However, once you call traffic in sight the responsibility of traffic separation shifts from the controller to you. In this case some diplomatic radio chatter might be the best option. In other words, follow the RA but make an immediate radio call informing the controller of your action and reason.

[TreeA10]

It is usually the threat that you don't see that kills you. Better to move the jet and land in one piece than blow off the RA, miss identify the threat, and try to land the many pieces resulting from the midair.

[PirateAF]

It is usually the threat that you don't see that kills you. Better to move the jet and land in one piece than blow off the RA, miss identify the threat, and try to land the many pieces resulting from the midair.

I'll second that - always follow TCAS, especially over ATC instructions.

Google the DHL - SwissAir crash over Germany in 2002 if you need more convincing.

[BQZip01]

I'll second that - always follow TCAS, especially over ATC instructions.

Google the DHL - SwissAir crash over Germany in 2002 if you need more convincing.

TCAS>ATC

[60 driver]

Got grief from Tampa approach today for following a TCAS resolution advisory even though we had the traffic in sight.

You have to follow the RA.

What did the guy say?

[Guest Safe&Clear]

99% of Air Force pilots have NO idea what you're talking about, because we're still waiting for the "system" to install the already-ten-year-old-technology known as TCAS on our airplanes. (And of course at a cost 10 times greater than what charters/ airlines pay for it....)

You should probably move your topic to "airlinepilotcentral" or "climbto350" so folks will understand the topic!

Edited April 16, 2009 by Safe&Clear

[slacker]

Follow the RA-

So there I was….flying along around 3k IFR controlled. I get an RA for a climb, I see no traffic. I start the climb and I see traffic above, now I get an RA to maintain vertical speed, prompting a descent. I think TCAS is out to lunch, but I follow the new RA to descend, and now I get and RA to climb again. Now, I’m nearly certain my TCAS is out to lunch, but I follow it anyway.

Once the RAs cease, we talk to ATC to see what’s going on. I turns out 3 T-34’s not talking to anyone split around me, causing the multiple RA’s. I only saw one.

A rule to live by- “follow the box.”

[Guest Bender]

"A rule to live by- “follow the box.”"

Understand the point; poorly put.

If you see the traffic that might be causing it, that's great. Follow the RA and visually aviod that traffic. you can't not follow the RA just becuase you think you see what is causing it. Well, you can...if you want to.

As for S&C's comment...totally true. My 130 H models all have it. I can't say all the pilots even use it (at least not well.)

This is a non-isue to stop worrying about. F_ck the ATC controller. You get an RA, if you act, he has s_it to say about it.

If you didn't tell him you were, that he could complain about.

BENDY

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

I'd call the controller in question and query his sanity...speak w/ his supervisor. They keep all tape recordings for approx 3 weeks.

He is on the ground, you are in the air. It doesn't get more black and white than that.

[slacker]

"A rule to live by- “follow the box.”"

Understand the point; poorly put.

Bendy- I have a hard time believing that you a calling someone out for a "poorly put" point.

I always have to read your posts 3 or 10 times to even come close to understanding your meaning and then I've got a 50-50 shot at comprehension.

All I’m saying is pot-kettle or glass houses and stones, whichever fits here.

[TreeA10]

I've only had one RA. Base leg flying into Newark, we get an RA, I see nothing in front of me but follow the commands and start the jet climbing. A twin prop of some sort goes a couple hundred feet under the right wing. ATC sees nothing on their radar.

[lj35driver]

I'd call the controller in question and query his sanity...speak w/ his supervisor. They keep all tape recordings for approx 3 weeks.

He is on the ground, you are in the air. It doesn't get more black and white than that.

"2". Fly your jet and sort it out on the ground. The controllers in our local training area give us grief as well for following RA's on traffic they claim they called out. I've had 2 in the last month while sitting in a much used holding pattern as VFR traffic that was in contact with approach control proceeded to descend through said holding pattern. The controller had a fit and then gave me their number so I could "explain" my actions when I landed. I avoid that airfield as much as possible now.

Keep doing what the reg says and file a NASA safety report anytime they question what you did, especially if they tell you to give them a call. Just make sure you CYA by getting the report in before you talk to a controller, though.

[Guest Brewdog]

"However, once you call traffic in sight the responsibility of traffic separation shifts from the controller to you."

False statement. The responsibility only shifts if told to maintain visual separation, or you state you have it in sight and will maintain visual sep. and the controller approves it.

I'm suprised you got grief over responding to an RA. Most controllers understand that it's mandatory. Time permiting it would be good to hear from the pilot that they are deviating due to an RA and what direction they are going to deviate in. This could allow the controller to inform you if you are actually turning/climbing/decending into any known traffic or obstruction.

[XL0901]

"However, once you call traffic in sight the responsibility of traffic separation shifts from the controller to you."

False statement. The responsibility only shifts if told to maintain visual separation, or you state you have it in sight and will maintain visual sep. and the controller approves it.

I'm suprised you got grief over responding to an RA. Most controllers understand that it's mandatory. Time permiting it would be good to hear from the pilot that they are deviating due to an RA and what direction they are going to deviate in. This could allow the controller to inform you if you are actually turning/climbing/decending into any known traffic or obstruction.

*Directed toward anyone*

Agree...if you think you will hear something about it then fill out a NASA form (After you fill out a HATR). If the controller gives you a number to call be sure to ask him if it was him whose life was on the line. If that doesn't clear it up, then see above and get your boss on your side.

[skibum]

"However, once you call traffic in sight the responsibility of traffic separation shifts from the controller to you."

False statement. The responsibility only shifts if told to maintain visual separation, or you state you have it in sight and will maintain visual sep. and the controller approves it.

There's no "if" involved here. ATC rules REQUIRE the controller to utter the next statement that you are directed to maintain visual separation (https://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html).

The lesson here is not to be so quick to call the traffic in sight. We all seem trigger happy to please ATC by calling traffic in sight, but don't feel like you have to. You should be absolutely sure the traffic in question is the correct one and that you can maintian separation and visual contact.

In the case being discussed, you had the responsibility, so it was your call to manuever even if you didn't have TCAS. The dude (or perhaps hot, sultry chick...) handed off the separation responsibility to you, so fvck him if he doesn't like your reaction. Of course, dimplomacy/humility on the radio is always the best call. You can get out of just about any trouble with ATC by bowing to their superior intelect for all on the radio to hear.

[Guest JL]

There's no "if" involved here. ATC rules REQUIRE the controller to utter the next statement that you are directed to maintain visual separation (https://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html).

The lesson here is not to be so quick to call the traffic in sight. We all seem trigger happy to please ATC by calling traffic in sight, but don't feel like you have to. You should be absolutely sure the traffic in question is the correct one and that you can maintian separation and visual contact.

In the case being discussed, you had the responsibility, so it was your call to manuever even if you didn't have TCAS. The dude (or perhaps hot, sultry chick...) handed off the separation responsibility to you, so fvck him if he doesn't like your reaction. Of course, dimplomacy/humility on the radio is always the best call. You can get out of just about any trouble with ATC by bowing to their superior intelect for all on the radio to hear.

I'm a little late to the party but I spent 6 years as an air traffic controller and thought I'd chime in. Once you tell ATC your responding to a TCAS advisory they are not suppose to say anything else and they are basically waiting for the pilot to say they are done with the advisory before they start providing separation again. It dosnt matter if you call the aircraft in sight or not. If you say "I'm responding to a TCAS advisory" they are no longer trying to separate you (Regardless of if they were failing at it or not).

Like skibum said about visual separation; if you call an aircraft in sight, the only way you become responsible for separation is if the controller says "maintain visual separation from that traffic" and that will typically be followed by a call to the traffic letting them know whats going on. If you call it in sight and the controller says roger, they are still responsible.

In regards to the T-34s splitting around someone. I saw the same thing happen in the AOR a few years back (wasn't working at the time; saw the report). A couple of pilots flying "VFR," not talking to anyone, decided to split around a commercial airliner. One went above while one went below. TCAS told the airliner to pull up and then it saw the aircraft above and said dive. Not fun for anyone involved.

Edited April 17, 2009 by JL

[Guest Bender]

Bendy- I have a hard time believing that you a calling someone out for a "poorly put" point.

I always have to read your posts 3 or 10 times to even come close to understanding your meaning and then I've got a 50-50 shot at comprehension.

All I’m saying is pot-kettle or glass houses and stones, whichever fits here.

Touche. I'm certainly not throwing stones at your glass house or anything of the such.

What I am saying is that saying to a young guy, "Always follow the box..." is not something that you should ever say. It fights directly against developing good airmanship and thinking for yourself. It's the exact same thing as "Always follow the reg."

Sometimes doing that will kill you. I know what you meant; I just think it was a poor way to put it.

If you have to disregard a RA, reg or even defensive system warning because following it will touch your airplane with rock...it's okay not to "follow the box."

Young guys are impressionable and some of them to a fault, especially when being told something by someone they feel has vast experience. Halo effect and all that shit...

Calling me out on my drunken grammar is all fine and hillarious...not my point at all. Guess your percentage went down...hope you're still above the Mendoza line.

I'm sure you get it right in the plane more than you do with my post, so I'm not overly concerned about it.

Peace, brother.

BENDY

[slacker]

What I am saying is that saying to a young guy, "Always follow the box..." is not something that you should ever say. It fights directly against developing good airmanship and thinking for yourself. It's the exact same thing as "Always follow the reg."

BENDY

True. All good points. I was going for the double entendre, apparently failed. When I said "always follow the box," I wasn't necessarily talking about aircraft equipment.

cheers.

[slacker]

"2". Fly your jet and sort it out on the ground. The controllers in our local training area give us grief as well for following RA's on traffic they claim they called out. I've had 2 in the last month while sitting in a much used holding pattern as VFR traffic that was in contact with approach control proceeded to descend through said holding pattern. The controller had a fit and then gave me their number so I could "explain" my actions when I landed. I avoid that airfield as much as possible now.

Are these GPT controllers or BIX controllers? GPT guys are usually pretty good during "heavy traffic," BIX on the other hand... on more than one occassion, I've had a three-way conversation- Hobby, Teal, and Fame and then "told" the BIX controller what we're doing. If it's not on the script, those guys have a hard time.

[60 driver]

The controllers in our local training area give us grief as well for following RA's on traffic they claim they called out. I've had 2 in the last month while sitting in a much used holding pattern as VFR traffic that was in contact with approach control proceeded to descend through said holding pattern. The controller had a fit and then gave me their number so I could "explain" my actions when I landed.

If I were you, I'd make sure that number made its way to your OG so he can have a directive conversation with whoever answers the phone. Unless there's more to the story, that controller needs his bag smashed in a big way.

The 11-202v3 TCAS guidance is the same as the rest of the world's, and it's unequivocal. If you have an RA, even if it conflicts with ATC guidance, you are required to follow it, period. As everyone else pointed out, if your controllers are telling you different, they are mistaken.

P.S.:

What I am saying is that saying to a young guy, "Always follow the box..." is not something that you should ever say. It fights directly against developing good airmanship and thinking for yourself. It's the exact same thing as "Always follow the reg."

Sometimes doing that will kill you. I know what you meant; I just think it was a poor way to put it.

If you have to disregard a RA, reg or even defensive system warning because following it will touch your airplane with rock...it's okay not to "follow the box."

I had this same opinion about TCAS before I actually flew with it. As an old single seat guy, it was beat into our skulls over and over never to have blind trust in any one sensor. It took me a long time to get used to the idea of "just follow the guidance". I myself have beaten young guys about the head and neck for basing their SA solely on one INS, moving map, etc. However - given situations like the story above about the T-34s and at least one documented midair as a result of guys blowing off TCAS guidance, it's been pretty well established that given the loss of separation required to produce an RA, it's a lot riskier to disregard the RA than it is to comply. No one is saying sacrifice your SA to fly the box - continue to evaluate the situation, but do it while you're flying the guidance.

Edited April 17, 2009 by 60 driver

[latidah]

Had a similar situation happen... also with Tampa control (huh). Traffic was called out departing a civil airfield, we didn't have him in sight (and say so). We get the target on TCAS, other plane reports us in sight and dumbass promptly attempts to rejoin on us via lead pursuit and 100' altitude separation. Tampa got pissed first when we responded to the RA and then gets further pissed when we politely ask them for their phone # for the HATR. Whatevs.

[PirateAF]

Just out of curiousity, what mil planes DON'T have TCAS?

I'm guessing only 130 E/H, A-10, U-2, B-2...?

[stract]

helicopters.

[PirateAF]

helicopters.

Right...

Again the question was what mil PLANES don't have TCAS.

edited for readability/politeness

Edited April 18, 2009 by PirateAF