I like it better as it is, I don’t like the TAS to interrupt the radio. Also it will only be supressed after i turn base and set the flaps. … which i can do a bit later too, before turning final.
TA’s at aircraft with retractable gear and non radio altimeter, will always go from SLB (sensitivity enroute) to SLA (sensitivity approach/depart) when lowering the gear.
At SLA no aural TA’s are available, this is true for L3 Skywatch, Garmin GTS and Avidyne TAS systems.
But where does SA come from?
Good question. I have only used FLARM, and my experience is that it will indeed increase SA. It will give you a direction to look, and aircraft above, below and behind you suddenly are “visible”. At the same time, the FLARM is no substitute for “Mk 1 eyeball” and well defined procedures in a crowded circuit. A systems that starts screaming when an aircraft is within 1 mile, I would consider useless.
With see and avoid, it is very difficult to spot general aviation traffic when it is more than 2 NM distant. If I see a traffic indication on my ADS-B system, I don’t start to look for it until it is 3 NM from me. I am not worried about airline or turbine aircraft, as they will have TCAS and larger aircraft are easier to spot.. Assuming a closure rate of 240 knots, 1 NM is 15 seconds.
With so many “targets” a TAS would only help if it showed a map display with precise position and distance. Otherwise it only results in a flurry of nuisance warnings only adding to the confusion with ATCgiving traffic info as well. I can see why all systems go into a “mute” mode in the circuit.
There is a reason why we have a standard traffic pattern! Which provides separation between traffic of various speeds (helo’s, fixed wing, high performance).
Looks like one of the two did not follow the standard traffic pattern. Whether it was to their own decisions, or whether ATC instructed them to, we’ll have to wait and see.
Very sad and may very well have been avoidable.
I can see why all systems go into a “mute” mode in the circuit.
There is a funny thing in aviation, and probably other areas of life, whereby when you don’t have something, you come up with reasons for not having it 
Sometimes the belief is correct (good reasons etc) but sometimes it is just a justification for not having something because of some other reason (e.g. money).
For years, I used to say that TAS is no good in the circuit because, I thought, it would light up like an xmas tree.
But when I flew with a few people who had it (SR22, Cessna 400 (the SEP)) I didn’t see any xmas tree. In fact it was clear that many targets were not showing – because a good % of people don’t have a transponder (or turn it off, etc).
I have had the TAS605 for nearly 2 years now and I think it is great in the circuit. You get useful awareness of other traffic and can look out for it better. I have definitely avoided a good number of very close encounters.
It cost me GBP 12k and that’s a lot of money, but pilots spend that much on avionics routinely and mostly spend it on boxes which don’t give them anything other than a “nicer” user interface for something.
Sadly, the “top UK shop” that installed it did a right hash of it and now I would not recommend any UK shop for this job. The reason I delayed so long was simply because I had seen the “standard” of the work of many shops, and TAS/TCAS is a major installation – not because it is intellectually hard (it is actually simple once you read the manual) but because the whole cockpit has to be taken apart (trim removed etc) and it is difficult for a monkey to put things back without damage. The outfit I used stripped most of the screws (those they had to undo) on the aircraft. We changed many of them on a subsequent Annual but only a couple of days ago I found two more which the bastards stripped, which hold the front of the ceiling trim. I had to remove the trim because I had a water leak and wanted to check that no water accumulated inside the trim. So it was the risk of cosmetic bodging which stopped me installing it for about 10 years. And as I say that risk remains.
One big problem we have here in the UK is that many pilots mis-report their position. Many do it deliberately so they can get an earlier clearance to join the circuit or whatever. Where I am based there are several who do this all the time. ATC are aware of them however, because they mostly have VDF, and especially now that most of them have the little laptop-linked boxes which show traffic position.
I find TAS very valuable in the circuit and would always use it to avoid conflicting traffic – usually by a rapid climb.
I find TAS very valuable in the circuit and would always use it to avoid conflicting traffic – usually by a rapid climb.
I agree. When the TAS reports traffic within 2NM and I’m unable to spot it visually, I go for vertical separation. Provided the target has working mode C of course…
There is a funny thing in aviation, and probably other areas of life, whereby when you don’t have something, you come up with reasons for not having it
But that’s notthe case here, Peter. I do have it installed. And there’s good reason for not having TAS systems scream in the pattern and interrupt the radio. Also the picture the is not as black and white as you paint it – all of the TAS systems will stay active (audio too) as long as you don’t lower the gear/flaps.
Why would turning off the audio in the pattern be the standard in TAS systems if it made no sense?
And, again, if you really need the audio in the pattern – simply don’t lower the flaps and/or gear on downwind! I do it on base lage anyway, a short time before I turn final and that’s a point where the ATC audio is more important than the TAS audio.
So, the system is fully active on crosswind and downwind and will switch off the audio on base leg. I think that’s a compromise that makes sense in most situations.
Yes I am aware you have TAS, Flyer59. I think most newer Cirruses have – including the accident aircraft.
IME, TAS doesn’t “scream” unless you are really about to hit somebody (within seconds). I don’t recall the threshold on mine but it is something like 1 mile or less.
In the circuit one would not be close enough to somebody to trigger an audio warning on traffic in front of one IF one is actually going to land.
And if somebody is coming up your 6 o’clock then they probably haven’t seen you and they are not going to be able to land (because they are going too fast to slot into the pattern behind you).
If you are getting an audio warning then you need to do something about it pronto because in most cases it will result in a conflict later – usually a go-around because somebody got too close to the one in front. In most cases in GA there isn’t enough differential speed (or you can’t fly slowly enough yourself) to create separation where there isn’t any by the time you are downwind, especially since you are supposed to follow the one in front (even if they are flying a B52 circuit).
The only time a loss of separation can be “noted and ignored later” is if one is arriving and the other is departing. If both are arriving then a loss of separation will just propagate. if both are departing then a loss of separation will propagate if they are similar types and going in the same direction.
the system is fully active on crosswind and downwind and will switch off the audio on base leg
That’s not bad, but no good for a Class G IAP. Statistically (and yes the data is very thin, thankfully) that’s not a good place to be (Coventry 4x fatal).
I wonder if your gear switch is hooked op to your TAS system Peter, it doesn’t seem to?
For your information, the sensitivity levels on all these systems are equal, as that is part of the certification. Just like the recommondation to have the gear the switch installed and have it automatically switching from SLB to SLA.
All these levels, visual presentation, audio call outs etc. are all standardized
