Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TCAS response on SFO-bound UA 757-200 caused "serious" injury

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evan
    replied
    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:

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    if I can find a link to the Eurocontrol study I will post it.
    Much appreciation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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.
    The easy part. Airbus puts this stuff out for Airbus pilots, to keep them aware and informed. I’d feel a lot better knowing that they actually read it.

    if I can find a link to the Eurocontrol study I will post it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    I have never been so disrespected by another fly boy. Disappointed is all I can say.
    Me too, pops, me too. I had you set up perfect for "hell yeah, buddy, we delivered MRAPs to Lukla for The Duke of Edinburgh's Own 363rd Gurkha Fusiliers. They needed them MRAPs to help hunt mountain sheep. The lamb biryani they made for us the next day was to die for!" Alas, you missed it. I guess after a certain total time one loses all sense of self-deprecation and self-irony. I can only pray that doesn't happen to me, I doubt it will since I will never come close to your awesomeness.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    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 have never been so disrespected by another fly boy. Disappointed is all I can say.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    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.
    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:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    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:


  • Evan
    replied
    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.
    The usual vitriol aside, how is that 'getting off on a technicality?"
    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:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    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​
    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:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by bstolle View Post
    Your 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.
    Feel free to be amazed and not reply but these are the facts:

    Originally posted by Airbus Safety First
    ICAO ( 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.
    The autopilot issue was significant enough to prompt Airbus to alter their ALT* altitude capture law to ALT*TCAP, which they claim has the operational benefit of avoiding more than 95% of all previous Level-Off RA's.

    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:


  • Evan
    replied
    Yesterday the airline reported that the UAL 757 was descending toward another aircraft when the RA occurred.

    Leave a comment:


  • bstolle
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I said that “a fairly common cause of RA’s” are level-offs. You called that nonsense. I just schooled you otherwise. Admit it.
    Your 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by bstolle View Post
    That'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 that “a fairly common cause of RA’s” are level-offs. You called that nonsense. I just schooled you otherwise. Admit it.

    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:

Working...
X