Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid Collison

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



TCAS doesn't communicate with ground ATC.  It's essentially a last line
of defence type of device which goes into action when planes start
getting seriously close. If a TCAS RA is issued the acft are already in
conflict by the ATC definition of the term.

And yes, procedural control (which uses flight progress strips) is
designed to highlight potential conflicts although I think this conflict
occurred in a radar sector.

Grant
SYD
QF

allan9 wrote:

> John,
> Unless they have made some radical improvements since I retired TCAS doesn't
> communicate with the controllers.  Don't they use flight progress strips?
> It would seem as though the strip postings would have shown a potential
> conflict before the controler even worked the aircraft. DoDo just doesn't
> happen.
>
> Al
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kurtzke" <kurtzke@up.edu>
> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid Collison
>
>
>
>>Does TCAS communicate with ATC? If not, this crash makes it look like it
>>should. What is the sense of a system figuring out what the two planes
>>should do, tell each other, and not tell ATC automatically.
>>
>>john
>>
>>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Grant McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Scotty,
>>>
>>>Long time no natter.
>>>
>>>It's sounding more and more like the Swiss ATC guy screwed up. Or, more
>>>accurately, the system screwed up and the poor sod up the sharp end was
>>>left wearing it.  A mate of mine who was over in Geneva for a ATC
>>>conference a couple of years back and was taken to the ATC simulator
>>>which also takes a live feed from Eurocontrol, including the sector in
>>>question and he said it is a hellishly complicated piece of airspace.
>>>
>>>
>>>Grant
>>>SYD
>>>QF
>>>
>>>Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Grant McKenzie" <grantmckenzie@optushome.com.au>
>>>>To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 11:55 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid
>>>>
> Collison
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When I worked in ATC, a command from the ground was supposed to have
>>>>>priority.  I would imagine Bashkirian Airlines (if their chief
>>>>>pilot/regulatory overseer were doing their job properly and, with all
>>>>>due respect to Scotty's passions on the subject of all things Russian,
>>>>>I'm not convinced was a given) would have a compliance instruction
>>>>>written into their operations manuals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It is written into their manual from what I was told by a Tu-154
>>>>
> navigator.
>
>>>>KrasAir has it written into their ops manual, and he told me that it
>>>>
> appears
>
>>>>that BAL has it written into theirs as well. This is why I stated that
>>>>Russian officials were 100% correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>--
>>John F. Kurtzke, C.S.C.
>>Department of Mathematics
>>278 Buckley Center
>>University of Portland
>>Portland, OR  97203
>>503-943-7377
>>kurtzke@up.edu
>>
>>
>

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]