mjg407
Well-Known Member
Well said Mike.
Scrutiny of Gulfstream Intensifies
- Thread starter tonyw
- Start date
LoadMasterC141
Well-Known Member
If TCAS were used, I am CERTAIN that I would not have watched 349 people perish in 1996. As a result, it is now mandatory in Delhi and I believe all of India....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Charkhi_Dadri_mid-air_collision
Not saying the old head on a swivel thing isn't great, but it is kinda hard when you put your faith in an ATC controller who clears you and another aircraft to meet inside a big puffy cloud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Charkhi_Dadri_mid-air_collision
Not saying the old head on a swivel thing isn't great, but it is kinda hard when you put your faith in an ATC controller who clears you and another aircraft to meet inside a big puffy cloud.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Were you on the USAF crew that saw it?
As a result of the C-141/German AF midair in '96 off the coast of Africa, the USAF got the TCAS they were long wanting. It may have made the difference, but there were multiple failures already in progress there with the ATC system in that accident. It's almost two different operations entirely when you consider the situations: IFR control in a PCA/Class A under ATC vs VFR low-level intermixed with GA. Hell, I doubt the 141 crew (or the TU-154 crew) was even really doing traffic scans at that altitude...most crews don't.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Whatever happened to "safety is the priority"? The eyes are good but TCAS is much more effective at finding other aircraft. While it may be "safe" to operate without TCAS what is the safest way to complete the flight? Is your margin of safety increased significantly by the use of TCAS? Depending on the area and airspace I would say yes. Operating in the NE environment without TCAS can be downright scary IMO.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Simply not having TCAS working is one thing, but also having a deferred pressurization system and flying in S Florida at low altitude through heavy-use alert areas is like chumming the waters and them jumping in the ocean. Sure, 9 out of 10 times nothing is going to happen but it is still stupid.
LoadMasterC141
Well-Known Member
Yes I was and it sucked. I actually told this story once on JC and posted some pics and a copy of the Indian Visa stamped that day. Not sure if it is still around in the archives.
September 13th 1997 actually. How do I know? I can never forget. It was a day before my DOS. It was also a mission I regularly flew and may well have been on had I not gotten out. One of my closest friends was a Loadmaster on that crew, not to mention all the rest from my squadron.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Most of our company aircraft don't have TCAS. I don't believe any of the metros have TCAS.
With that being said, I don't like the fact of limiting the ability of the PIC to act as the final authority by the threat or act of firing the captain. The FAA would be asking the captain why he took the plane with an inop TCAS if he had a mid air and managed to survive.
There are a few things that I wouldn't fly the current aircraft I'm in if I wasn't at the top of my game or I felt would effect the safety of the flight. Luckily, the carpet dance is only a slight jig at my company instead of the beat box break dance.
With that being said, I don't like the fact of limiting the ability of the PIC to act as the final authority by the threat or act of firing the captain. The FAA would be asking the captain why he took the plane with an inop TCAS if he had a mid air and managed to survive.
There are a few things that I wouldn't fly the current aircraft I'm in if I wasn't at the top of my game or I felt would effect the safety of the flight. Luckily, the carpet dance is only a slight jig at my company instead of the beat box break dance.
floridaCFII
Well-Known Member
I hate uncontrolled airports... especially on the weekends. Too many morons!
Sure safety is the priority, but if you want maximum safety, then leave the planes parked on the ramp 24/7. There's risk for everything, especially in flying. There's risk taxiing out, there's risk taking off, etc, etc, etc. Operating in the NE minus a TCAS maybe scary, but that risk can be mitigated in other ways if the TCAS is out, again depending what the MEL allows or doesn't allow. What I'm saying is that if you go out everyday expecting 100% protection from all the "aerial bogeymen", you're fooling yourself.
Using this logic, we never should've flown planes in the NE USA pre-TCAS era. And TCAS is only as good as the other guy squawking, as previously mentioned in this thread. I'm just somewhat amazed at the number of TCAS-dependent pilots there seems to be here. It's a useful tool, not a crutch.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Maybe the traffic levels were significantly lower during the pre-TCAS era - so much so that the risk is far greater now than ever before. I fly the airspace this guy was in and would, as a passenger, stand by his decision.
If we were talking about an intra-Montana route, that's one thing. But S. Florida is full of Indian kids playing with the radio, trying to figure out why no one is answering them (because they have the volume down).
I think it's got a lot to do with civilian vs military perspectives.
And this is on the extreme for the sake of an example and working at an airline that has a large percentage of former military pilots.
Some military pilots have a 'mission mentality' where they'll look for a reason to go and launch. Something breaks at an outstation, write it up on the way TO a maintenance base to preserve the operation.
Some civilian pilots have a CYA mentality where if they find a reason not to go, they won't because of self-preservation. Something breaks at an outstation, write it up and contact contract maintenance, otherwise if we launch and get a ramp check, we're toast.
Again, that's an extreme over-generalization.
And this is on the extreme for the sake of an example and working at an airline that has a large percentage of former military pilots.
Some military pilots have a 'mission mentality' where they'll look for a reason to go and launch. Something breaks at an outstation, write it up on the way TO a maintenance base to preserve the operation.
Some civilian pilots have a CYA mentality where if they find a reason not to go, they won't because of self-preservation. Something breaks at an outstation, write it up and contact contract maintenance, otherwise if we launch and get a ramp check, we're toast.
Again, that's an extreme over-generalization.
That may be an extreme over-generalization, but you'd be surprised how accurate it is......where/how you "grew up" really does make a difference in the thought process. Even in this thread here, as I sit back for a minute and take in what you wrote Doug, I find that my methods of thought do stem from the majority of my background. Mission mentality vs a CYA mentality. I'm in no way saying a CYA mentality is necessarily bad....especially in light of what many regional pilots have to put up with the "walking on eggshells" feeling placed upon them by management. I understand that. That said, my comments here are my own personal beliefs on the generalization of flying with or without TCAS, not judging the Gulfstream pilot in question....as I don't know all the facts in his case, and he is the Captain of his own ship.
My own personal feelings are that there never will be 100% safety...there can't be, and thats the difference between military and civilian:
Civilian: Try to not do dangerous stuff and be as safe as possible.
Military: Do dangerous stuff (the mission), balancing safety with the need of getting the mission accomplished.
I do feel that today's generation has been spoiled, if you will, by technology. To the point that it's seen to somehow be "unsafe" if you don't have that technology with you.
With GA, I highly doubt traffic levels were much different back then. There's just been more awareness of the congestion, IMHO, since TCAS now "shows" that.
Again, I think TCAS is a great tool and a great innovation in safety. But not having it doesn't magically make an operation unsafe.
And as I stated before, I'm not judging the merits of the Gulfstream pilot's case.....I don't know all the details.
Don't get me wrong, the military... OUR COUNTRY needs mission-oriented military pilots. Think about it during the Fall of Saigon if the evac pilots said, "Area's too hot man! Are you nuts?! Besides, we don't have enough Sandy's to fly CAP in the area!!! I've been on duty all day and..."
But in the civilian sector, there's this constant tug-of-war with managers that would lovingly push you to fly so you don't affect their metrics and harm their ability to move higher up the food chain.
I'll tell you a story about when I started repacking my flight kit and heading towards the jetway in Venice when the skipper wanted to do something "really stupid" to preserve the operation!
But in the civilian sector, there's this constant tug-of-war with managers that would lovingly push you to fly so you don't affect their metrics and harm their ability to move higher up the food chain.
I'll tell you a story about when I started repacking my flight kit and heading towards the jetway in Venice when the skipper wanted to do something "really stupid" to preserve the operation!
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Given the recent history of those airplanes, I'm not surprised.
I already had one try to kill me.
TSA should get a thorough looking over based on the way those airplanes came back.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
A thought- most passenger carrying aircraft are usually somewhat large- TCAS affords a degree of 'vision' in a VFR scenario that pilots may not otherwise have.
Call it a 'third set of eyes', if you will.
Would you expect the same ability to 'see and avoid' of a 747 crew as you would a C-172? Mass, speed, maneuverability, and visibility all may be widely different in different planes.
Call it a 'third set of eyes', if you will.
Would you expect the same ability to 'see and avoid' of a 747 crew as you would a C-172? Mass, speed, maneuverability, and visibility all may be widely different in different planes.
Though I agree that TCAS can make a particular flight more safe; I disagree that simply not having TCAS automatically makes a particular flight less safe.
Again, I think TCAS has spoiled many, and by extension, has made many lazy with the sense of security it affords.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Those two statements are contradictory. Either it's safer to have it or it's not.
ZeroPapaGolf
Well-Known Member
He said it CAN make it more safe. Having it is not an automatic 'boost' in safety level, and not having doesn't automatically decrease your safety.