TCAS RA between two DH8 at Sudbury

[trey kule]

"Climbing through 4000 feet about 8nm south of Sudbury the crew received a TCAS resolution advisory, the Porter Dash 8 also received a TCAS resolution advisory, both crews complied with their TCAS resolution advisories".

Now maybe I am not current on the safety culture, but it seems it worked exactly like it was supposed to work...warning, advisory, resolution.

If no one ever made a mistake we would not need TCAS...

So i am a bit confused as to why so many are making this such a big deal...guess maybe its fun to point fingers by asking questions...

Great to suggest it should be in every aircraft. A typical cockpit solution that ignores the realities of the way the world works. But lets press TC to do it. Get rid of even more GA aircraft...

[timel]

Great to sugest it should be in every aircraft. A typical cockpit solution that ignores the realities of the way the world works. But lets press TC to do it. Get rid of even more GA aircraft...

"...it should be in every commercial aircraft..."

Nobody wants to put a TCAS in a C172M and no one wants a medevac PC12 to collide with a C172M.

Personally, I wouldn't include the commercial operated single piston aircraft, but looks like from a post on this thread that some operators have taken on themselves to go beyond regulations.

[goingnowherefast]

The only change I'd like to see is to make it a requirement for any commercial operator conducting IFR operations in uncontrolled airspace.
Maybe not even full blown TCAS, but some method of traffic display, could be TA only system.

[rxl]

ADS-B?

[arctic_slim]

The Q400 has ability to be selected to TA mode only, and automatically is in TA only below approximately 1000' AGL.

There is no requirement to select TA only during engine-out ops. I would say based on the METARS showing above, high pressure and a cool temperature, combined with lighter fuel loads to/from YSB, aircraft performance would have been a non-issue.

The DH8 100/300 operate the same except TA only is selected for engine-out ops.

Maybe your company is different but for us we definitely set the TCAS to TA Only for single engine ops as per the QRH on the Q400.

Sounds like the TCAS did exactly what it was supposed to do. Well done.

[BTD]

Tcas should go to ta only during engine out times. We do it on the jet I fly. It wouldn't be good for the tcas to command an RA with a climb that is beyond the performance of your aircraft.

[Lotro]

TSB Report issued on this one:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6o0149.asp

[Donald]

If you are descending into an uncontrolled airport, and you are told there is VFR traffic at your 12 o clock, opposite direction, level at 4000.....why would you descend below 5000 or even 4500 without visual confirmation or radar confirmation of passing that traffic?

If you are departing VFR, and there is an inbound on the reciprocal, why would you not attempt to contact them ASAP? Make a plan to expedite your lateral or vertical departure of their arrival path?

IMO, I hope the North Bay controller didn't get too much flack for coordinating IFR arrivals with VFR departures. This is exactly the sort of scenario we use on a daily basis, and it's much appreciated.

[Victory]

Probably because they're southern boys that never flew in much uncontrolled airspace before and had to resolve their own conflicts.

[Heliian]

Maybe they should revisit having a tower in ysb. Ya Ya, money, but how much is air safety worth?

[schnitzel2k3]

Not to stomp on a good suggestion Helian, but in all my time buzzing in and out of YSB I've never once thought it needed a tower.

The MF works great if the crews flying in and out of there have the ability to maintain situational awareness. The more flexible the SOPs with regards to canceling IFR on a good day, the more efficient it becomes.

Granted a tower would shave 10 mins off the odd hold when weather is at mins but that doesn't happen at all up there right?...



S.

[ahramin]

What a total shit show.

The North Bay controllers' practice of clearing instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft for an approach without regard to the active runway at Sudbury Airport, Ontario

The visual-approach clearance issued by the North Bay controller and accepted by the Porter Airlines Inc. flight 533 (POE533) flight crew while the aircraft was in instrument meteorological conditions

Following the TCAS resolution advisory (RA), the JZA604 captain manoeuvred the aircraft contrary to the RA instructions.

As long as our Chief Pilots and ATC supervisors accept these practices we are in danger of killing people. In this day and age there's no excuse for killing people. None. It's just not good enough. It's almost like we need a safety stand down and everyone just stops flying for a week and thinks about where we are at. Maybe that would help to put into perspective how important it is to provide proper training, guidance, and leadership to our pilots and controllers. Either that or a fatal accident. Personally at my airline I'm seeing way too much emphasis on making sure that everyone has their hat on correctly while our TCAS training continues to be useless at best, and often counterproductive. We recently started flying to an uncontrolled airport in mountainous terrain with no useable approach for the prevalent runway. No training provided or guidance provided, but I've got a 12 page document I can refer to if I want to know what color socks or nail polish I'm allowed to wear. Experience levels are down and training is stuck in the 80s, leaving enormous gaps that used to be filled by airplane crazy astronaut wannabies studying endless hours on their own. Todays current crowd of junior pilots are simply not going to stay at home on a Friday night in order to read the AIM and PPrune in order to become the proficient, knowledgeable, and competent pilots that their training departments are failing to turn them into. Pilots should be experts, and in Canada we're starting to resemble the regional airline bumblers south of the border. If you are in a position of leadership in your company, think about where your pilot group is at compared to where they should be at, realize it's your fault, and start fixing it. I know you're busy, I know you have deadlines and shortages and budgets and problems and pain in the ass pilots like me to deal with. I don't care, it's your job. Take 10 minutes a day and stop and think about what needs to be fixed, then fight to fix it. Fight hard before someone gets killed.

[Victory]

Something had to be done about the socks. It was getting ridiculous.

[aviatrixfss]

schnitzel2k3: How exactly would having a tower at YSB reduce holds when the weather is at minimums??

[schnitzel2k3]

With the FSS, the approach is limited to one aircraft at a time until complete or positive handoff to center versus lining up the arrivals 5 miles apart and sending them down the chute.

If Jazz doesn't cancel and you want to do the approach you have to wait until they are down and clear which could take 7-10 minutes on the crew.

Same goes for departures. IFR inbound forces crews to take VFR or wait.

Tower would fix that - but again only when weather is below vfr.

S.

[hydro]

A tower at a place like YSB is not taking control at 200-400 ft (minimums). Certainly there can be efficiency with a tower at ceilings of 1000 ft, and significant ones if the vis/ceilings are high enough to allow auto transfer of control but low enough that a crew doesn't want to depart VFR. (e.g. 3000 ft AGL ceilings) I don't have an FSS MF airport in my area anymore, but I thought the down and off requirement was removed? I'd have to look that one up.

[bobcaygeon]

With the FSS, the approach is limited to one aircraft at a time until complete or positive handoff to center versus lining up the arrivals 5 miles apart and sending them down the chute.

If Jazz doesn't cancel and you want to do the approach you have to wait until they are down and clear which could take 7-10 minutes on the crew.

Same goes for departures. IFR inbound forces crews to take VFR or wait.

Tower would fix that - but again only when weather is below vfr.

S.

Sudbury doesn't have radar coverage below 2000' AGL. They use North Bay's radar. How much of a difference would a tower make with that limitation?

[schnitzel2k3]

I don't know why I am arguing for a tower - because I made a joke that it might help but I don't think Sudbury has any need or budget for a tower.

I can't imagine a tower without some form of low level radar so that would likely be part of the package.

S.