That was easy:
Note that the report concludes: Airline pilots are generally better at compliance with the RA than other operations (cargo, military, and business jets).
This is a more general Eurocontrol assessment of ACAS:
This is the IATA assessment report:
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
TCAS response on SFO-bound UA 757-200 caused "serious" injury
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
I should try what, the research or the easy part? Or to spin narratives (that's your job)? I don't suppose you have the link to the study, I'd love to read it.
if I can find a link to the Eurocontrol study I will post it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
I have never been so disrespected by another fly boy. Disappointed is all I can say.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
Narrative. There's a word for the times. Any science or properly conducted study is reduced to a 'narrative'. That's a sure sign of societal decline.
I said THEY did the hard research. I did the easy part. You should try it.
Also, this comes from TWO articles in Airbus Safety First.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
Well...where I come from that's called getting off on a technicality (even then only barely). I wonder, Evan, if perhaps there might be an AD that would rectify this. And/or perhaps a TCAS guarded switch somewhere. In fact, I seem to recall BoeingBobby telling us about how he once got an RA off a Twin Otter when he was taking his 747 (on which he has 68,314 hours) into Lukla (he landed on Rwy 24, too). He leveled off manually, so all was well.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
ONE article in Airbus Safety First and ONE Eurocontrol study is "Hard Research"? But perhaps you feel any research that fits your narrative of the week is "hard research". That wouldn't surprise me.
I said THEY did the hard research. I did the easy part. You should try it.
Also, this comes from TWO articles in Airbus Safety First.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
What I said was that level-offs were a common cause of RA's, and that ICAO and FAA recommendations for level-off technique to avoid RA's are not often followed (their words: 'rarely followed').
Actually, Airbus and Eurocontrol made that determination through hard research. I'm just stating are facts as they have reported them.
But perhaps you feel that you know better than them. That wouldn't surprise me.
Leave a comment:
-
Doesn’t everyone have a good, real-time traffic depiction so that a black acronym-box should not_be screaming “oh shit”…that pilots should recognize convergence nice and early and understand how it will be resolved and if they need to think about doing their own thing?
I agree with ATL, we need a guarded switch!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
Well...where I come from that's called getting off on a technicality (even then only barely). I wonder, Evan, if perhaps there might be an AD that would rectify this. And/or perhaps a TCAS guarded switch somewhere. In fact, I seem to recall BoeingBobby telling us about how he once got an RA off a Twin Otter when he was taking his 747 (on which he has 68,314 hours) into Lukla (he landed on Rwy 24, too). He leveled off manually, so all was well.
I didn't say anything of the sort. If RA's were common during all level-offs, we would have hundreds of them daily. Is that what I said?
Level-off RA's require an excessive vertical speed in the final 1000-2000ft before level-off AND another airplane in TCAS proximity on a conflicting flightpath at that moment. Does that scenario happen with every level-off?
What I said was that level-offs were a common cause of RA's, and that ICAO and FAA recommendations for level-off technique to avoid RA's are not often followed (their words: 'rarely followed').
Actually, Airbus and Eurocontrol made that determination through hard research. I'm just stating are facts as they have reported them.
But perhaps you feel that you know better than them. That wouldn't surprise me.
Another 'nothing to see here' attitude towards a real problem, one that the industry takes quite seriously,
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
I said that “a fairly common cause of RA’s” are level-offs.
I said nothing about RA’s being common during level offs
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bstolle View PostYour stupidity is truly amazing.
You wrote ..... the aircraft nears the level off altitude, enough to avoid triggering an RA. Of course, this can also be done manually on any aircraft, but it is not often done.
And that's what I replied to. I not going to to waste my time replying to you ever again, that's for sure.
Denigrate you? Sorry, but that's impossible. ROFL.
Originally posted by Airbus Safety FirstICAO ( PANS-OPS Doc. 8168 )recommend to adopt a vertical speed below 1500ft/min throughout the last 1000ft of climb or descent to the assigned altitude [the FAA recommends 500-1000ft/min]. As a matter of fact, these recommendations are rarely applied. Several airlines do not have them incorporated in their operational recommendations. Even when they are, some pilots confess they are not always applied. As a result there is still a significant number of undesired RAs observed during 1000ft level-off manoeuvres.
We don't have the facts on this incident yet, but based on the statistics, it is probable that it was caused by an excessive vertical convergence rate before a level off.
Leave a comment:
-
Yesterday the airline reported that the UAL 757 was descending toward another aircraft when the RA occurred.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI said that “a fairly common cause of RA’s” are level-offs. You called that nonsense. I just schooled you otherwise. Admit it.
You wrote ..... the aircraft nears the level off altitude, enough to avoid triggering an RA. Of course, this can also be done manually on any aircraft, but it is not often done.
And that's what I replied to. I not going to to waste my time replying to you ever again, that's for sure.
Denigrate you? Sorry, but that's impossible. ROFL.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bstolle View PostThat's what I'm always asking myself. In case others are wondering why I'm not replying to your nonsense, this is a classic example and I'm making an exception.
If you would compare the number of level offs with the number of level offs triggering an RA, you would realize that 99.9% or even 99.99% of level offs are correctly done according to procedure.
You provided zero numbers for actual level offs, so the fact that 65% of the RAs or due to a too high/low climb rate, doesn't mean anything.
You are again drawing wrong conclusion...as usual.
If you would be even remotely correct, we would have a lot more level off RAs every day.
I said nothing about RA’s being common during level offs. Admit that too.
And maybe do your research before you denigrate others on this forum. Believe it or not, there are things you don’t learn it the cockpit.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: