Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

TCAS in an Emergency Descent

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

ISaidRightTurns

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Posts
154
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. There is traffic all over because it was fairly early and that line of TS was just to the east of ATL.
So here this guy is at FL340 SB over IRQ heading to AMG (Alma). There is traffic everywhere, including head on at 330. I start turning everyone out the way, coordinate and start getting lower a/c outta the way and giving traffic calls (most were IMC anyway).
During all this, I don't get a mode C read out. If you descend too fast, the computer thinks it's innaccurate, and doesn't display it. My question is this, would the other a/c get an RA?
BTW - He got down to 12k, got situated and continued on his way climbing back to FL220. I dunno what happened after he left our airspace.
 
TCAS should pick him up. It shouldn't discriminate out vertical traffic like that, as it's not part of the logic. However, last week I repeatedly had traffic in the mid thirties passing me visually that never appeared on TCAS.

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.

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.
 
I am miss more FAA guidance on this. When training foreing crew we see that they are used to more detailed procedures because some foreign AIMs (AIPs) have detailed instructions. Example extracts from European AIM (AIP):
  • Initiate a turn away from route/track
  • Advice ATC
  • Squawk 7700
  • Turn on exterior lights
  • Watch for conflicting traffic both visually and by ACAS (TCAS)
 
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.
Yes - I agree 100% avbug
 
80/20 said:
Yes - I agree 100% avbug

I agree as well. I'm a military aviator and we were just told via an FCIF not to say the phrase "Got 'em on TCAS" when we received a traffic call. My personal pet peeve..."Got 'em on the fish finder". Last time I checked, it didn't find fish...
 
I guess my question pertains more to refresh rate. This guy went from 34k to 12k in probably less than 2 minutes. Thats 2k feet every 10 seconds (which our radar updates at). Even if TCAS refreshed twice as often as ours, and we presume saw him, it wouldn't even recognize it as traffic until about 5 seconds before we blows by your altitude.
 
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.
 
No question that TCAS will occasionally miss other A/C. Regarding the original post, I have my doubts whether TCAS would give sufficient warning to targets of potential conflict when decent rates approach or exceed 10,000 fpm, as was likely the case here.
 
I'm no engineer, but...

ISaidRightTurns said:
I guess my question pertains more to refresh rate. This guy went from 34k to 12k in probably less than 2 minutes. Thats 2k feet every 10 seconds (which our radar updates at). Even if TCAS refreshed twice as often as ours, and we presume saw him, it wouldn't even recognize it as traffic until about 5 seconds before we blows by your altitude.

...I think the data sent between two TCAS units is exchanged pretty much at the speed of light. ;)

Sort of like DME, which is basically a transponder.

Throw in a *little* delay for the processor and we pretty much have real time info on the display. That is to say, you can watch a plane manuever in the pattern on your display.

But I have to admit I've never observed a descent like the one you described on my TCAS.

I remember hearing about the Dallas Bump where AA MD80 were climbing to their initial altitudes on the order of something like 3-4000 fpm. And even though they were leveling they'd set off the TCAS of overflying aircraft....

...but I digress. I realize you're talking about much higher descent rates. I just wanted to chime in.

I can't stand, "Got 'im on TCAS" either. :cool:
 
TCAS generates RAs based on the concept of "theta." Theta being the mathematical equation that takes into account time, distance, and rate of closure. It computes the theta to a CPA (Closest Point of Approach,) and issues a TA or RA based upon this calculation. I think (emphasis on THINK) that TCAS should be able to keep up with the high decent rates mentioned above. I'm interested to hear other replies...
BTW, that fishfinder thing is DORKY!!!! Just say NO!!
 
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 ??
 
slowto250 said:
No question that TCAS will occasionally miss other A/C. Regarding the original post, I have my doubts whether TCAS would give sufficient warning to targets of potential conflict when decent rates approach or exceed 10,000 fpm, as was likely the case here.

TCAS should pick up an aircraft if it's resolution presents a conflict. TCAS looks up/down something like 2500' when in "normal" Above/Below is 9900'. When it doesn't appear on the screen the TCAS determines no conflict exsist and won't show the target. However, if the aircraft is 1100 +/- your altitude and goes back and forth 1000-1100, it will appear because TCAS is seeing a climb/descend. Same holds true if it's 900' +/- your altitude. Even though it's not climbing or descending, it's still in your protected cone so it's trying to give you a head up.

I'd have to get the books out and ask some questions regarding a high rate of descent. I don't think TCAS will give you a resolution requiring you to meet or exceed your conflicts descent rate when execisive.

I've seen TCAS TA/RA when a military a/c is climbing near vertical below me, even though it leveled off 5000' below me.

Maybe Isaidrightturns can clarify, but I don't think ATC gives a rats *** if you have them on TCAS or not. I know they won't clear you to "maintain visual contact" when you only have them on TCAS.
 
Mode C for the altitude information, coming from the same encoder. Another directional antenna is installed to sort out where the replies came from after the TCAS box broadcasts a query. Same box as the transponder for most TCAS II installations, I believe. Our ghetto TCAS I setup utlizes two separate systems. It updates about every 2 seconds. One would presume that altitude accuracy is about the same as for your purposes, coded in 100 foot intervals, since that's how it's displayed.
 
No, I don't care if you see him on TCAS or not. Above FL180, I don't care if you see him at all really, because I can't use visual seperation. The only reason I do it is because I have been up there and seen someone fly over head a 1000 feet above, its a creepy feeling, even if you are seperated. And I'm required to if the targets will merge.

I can use a form of visual seperation above FL180, but the paths must be diverging by more than 135 degrees, then you can report passing and descend someone on the backside.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
I can use a form of visual seperation above FL180, but the paths must be diverging by more than 135 degrees, then you can report passing and descend someone on the backside.

I always wondered why sometimes I get a climb/descend and other times I wouldn't! :D
 
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.

My pet peeve are guys that have pet peeves like this and then say "three" instead of "tree".
Lighten up
 
LJ-ABX said:
I was starting to think that I was the only one who used the AIM phraseology.
(d) the word "Over" if required.

You don't hear this phraseology very often.:D
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Along those same lines how about the guys who call "Talley Ho"? I'
m with Avbug, you've either got them with your eyeballs or you don't.

'Sled
 
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.
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?
 
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 ??
extrapolates? sounds like the mall rat has been doing his homework.
 
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.
No you said an aircraft has to equipped with a Mode S transponder to appear on TCAS. That is not true.

However, I agree aircraft do not always show up. That they do not has nothing to do with their having Mode A or C transponders instead of Mode S. Radio wave propogation is not perfect.

Man you have an ego.
 
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?

Where the hell did that come from? Freak.
 
Now jimmyboy, you quoted me, and then stated that the quote showed I have an ego. I made a statement of fact, and fact is without ego. Can you dispute that fact? You cannot. Wherein then is the ego, in your own self righteous
indignation?

No you said an aircraft has to equipped with a Mode S transponder to appear on TCAS. That is not true.

In that much, you are correct...Mode C as well as mode S. However, the thrust of my comment, which you missed entirely in your response, was that often traffic doesn't appear. I've met far too many pigheaded pilots who let their gagetry do their thinking for them, especially the TCAS. The idea that it will even pick up the majority of the traffic out there is flawed. A handy tool, but a limited one, and it should be treated and thought of in that way. Lots of non-talking, non-sqawking traffic out there, and even the traffic that is squawking frequently doesn't show up.

We tend to think of the TCAS as expanding our circle of awareness...after all, isn't it amazing how much traffic it helps us spot that we would have missed, otherwise? Of course it is. Lots of traffic. Conversely, however, often it leads to complacency when we think in these terms. While it's great that the box picks up traffic, perhaps we would be better served by thinking in terms of everything it isn't seeing.

TCAS looks up/down something like 2500' when in "normal" Above/Below is 9900'.

Now that depends on the installation. Some are 2,000 up and down with 6,000 in above and below. Mine presently is two thousand up and down with eight thousand when assigned "above" and "below." Not that it really matters.

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.

Rant complete, and as always, entirely beside the point, and without significance. At least you're consistant.

At what time have I ever said I don't use the TCAS? Never. At what time have I ever said it's a useless device? Never.

What I did say is that attempting to respond to an ATC announcement of a traffic alert or traffic in general with "gottem' on TCAS" is pointless. ATC cannot base any action on weather or not you see traffic on TCAS, it doesn't help anybody out to tell them that...and you may not even be seeing the correct traffic. Therefore, keep your trap shut until you have visual contact...because for ATC purposes, and AIM purposes, and traffic avoidance in general, you haven't "got traffic" when it's on the fish finder. You've got a dot on the screen with a differential altitude readout (maybe). That's all.

Point of fact: I use TCAS all the time, and it's a regular part of my scan, inside and out. I don't spout out ignorant statements like "Got him on TCAS," however. If you'd bothered to read my comments previously, you'd understand that. Other posters did read my comments, and 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. As I said, at least you're consistant. Not worth spit on a pig, but consistant. Play again.
 
I always felt that saying "have them on tcas...we're looking" let the controller know that at least we were looking in the right direction. To be followed up by "traffic in sight". oh well.
 
avbug said:
I don't spout out ignorant statements like "Got him on TCAS," .
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:
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.
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:
Not worth spit on a pig,
http://members.fortunecity.com/wavjunky/swl-a/admirer.wav
Good one. I'll keep it.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom