TR4A
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Posts
- 437
I quess you wouldn't like "got'em on the fish finder" either.avbug said:"we got him on TCAS."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I quess you wouldn't like "got'em on the fish finder" either.avbug said:"we got him on TCAS."
Mr. Irrelevant said:I always understood "traffic in sight" or "negative contact". Just a pet peeve.
Mr. Irrelevant said:or "yeah, we're lookin". Looking at what? The hot stew? I always understood "traffic in sight" or "negative contact". Just a pet peeve. Not a big deal I suppose.
Mr. I.
(d) the word "Over" if required.LJ-ABX said:I was starting to think that I was the only one who used the AIM phraseology.
The hell you don't. Tell me, Mr. King$hit know-it-all, how many times when traffic has been called to you, and it DOES happen to show up on the TCAS, and you have YET to see it visually, that you relied on your eyeballs (that happen to be superior to any electronic device known to man) without once looking back down at the TCAS to help guide your visual scan to pick up that traffic? If you say never, then you are full of $hit. If you are honest and say "usually", then you have something to work with in assisting you in acquiring visual contact sooner than you would have otherwise. Oh yeah, what was it that alerted you to the traffic when it was 12 miles out to begin with? A radio? Say it isn't so. See and avoid is great. See and avoid with a little help from technology is even better. Rant complete.avbug said:I'm sick to death of hearing folks respond to traffic alerts by saying "we got him on TCAS." Nobody cares. Got him visually? No? Then you haven't "got" him at all.
Along those same lines how about the guys who call "Talley Ho"? I'Mr. Irrelevant said:or "yeah, we're lookin". Looking at what? The hot stew? I always understood "traffic in sight" or "negative contact". Just a pet peeve.
First, you had a DC9 lose pressurization, then they had the nerve, telling you about it first?ISaidRightTurns said:Here is a question for you guys. Today I had a NWA DC9 lose pressurization over IRQ (Colliers) at FL340. The first sign I get of it is him telling me.
extrapolates? sounds like the mall rat has been doing his homework.ISaidRightTurns said:My understanding is that it extrapolates data based on the 3A transponder, which is what we use for civilians in ATC. Is that not right? Is there a different box, antenna, whole set-up for TCAS? Where does it get its altitude information and is it accurate to the foot, 10 feet, 100 feet ??
No you said an aircraft has to equipped with a Mode S transponder to appear on TCAS. That is not true.avbug said:Aircraft squawking don't always appear on TCAS...I stated that a week or so ago here on another thread, and folks tried to say it isn't so...it is so. Traffic doesn't always appear, and folks sometimes become a little too complacent.
FN FAL said:First, you had a DC9 lose pressurization, then they had the nerve, telling you about it first?
You had them lose the pressurization...you had them do this? Then you get mad about them telling you about what you had them do? Gawd...you guys are confusing. Is this a gay thing or am I just missing out on the new hip lingo you kids are using these days?
No you said an aircraft has to equipped with a Mode S transponder to appear on TCAS. That is not true.
TCAS looks up/down something like 2500' when in "normal" Above/Below is 9900'.
The hell you don't. Tell me, Mr. King$hit know-it-all, how many times when traffic has been called to you, and it DOES happen to show up on the TCAS, and you have YET to see it visually, that you relied on your eyeballs (that happen to be superior to any electronic device known to man) without once looking back down at the TCAS to help guide your visual scan to pick up that traffic? If you say never, then you are full of $hit. If you are honest and say "usually", then you have something to work with in assisting you in acquiring visual contact sooner than you would have otherwise. Oh yeah, what was it that alerted you to the traffic when it was 12 miles out to begin with? A radio? Say it isn't so. See and avoid is great. See and avoid with a little help from technology is even better. Rant complete.
There you have it folks. We're all ignorant if we don't see perfectly eye-to-eye with bukkake-breath here. I don't think anyone would agree that saying you have a contact on TCAS means you see them and are done looking to ensure separation. I bet it's great to sit next to you and watch you fester and seeth everytime you hear that call. Or is it more like seeing you puff up your chest as you are confirmed in your conviction that you sit atop a perch of knowledge and wisdom akin to that of the Dalai Lama? I think probably the latter.avbug said:I don't spout out ignorant statements like "Got him on TCAS," .
It doesn't take even the dimmest one any more time to see an "in" for a personal attack on you than you spend on your non-contributory personal attacks. I spend more time picking out toilet paper than trying to find a reason to toss a slight your way, so don't flatter yourself.avbug said:virtually all agreed...except you...you who spends much more time finding little ways to invent an in for a personal attack than contributing to any conversation.
http://members.fortunecity.com/wavjunky/swl-a/admirer.wavavbug said:Not worth spit on a pig,
TR4A said:(d) the word "Over" if required.
You don't hear this phraseology very often.![]()