TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Changes in Latitudes · Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:25 am

For release - July 4, 2012

OTTAWA — The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, today announced new regulations to improve aviation safety in Canada. The new regulations require private turbine-powered and commercial airplanes with six or more passenger seats to be equipped with an alert system known as the “terrain awareness and warning system” (TAWS).

“While Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world, we are committed to the continuous improvement of aviation safety,” said Minister Lebel. “Terrain awareness and warning systems will help save lives.”

The system provides acoustic and visual alerts to flight crews when the path of their aircraft is likely to collide with terrain, water or obstacles — a situation that can happen when visibility is low or the weather is poor. This gives the flight crew enough time to take evasive action.

The new regulations will also significantly increase safety for small aircraft, which fly into remote wilderness or mountainous areas where the danger of flying into terrain is highest.

Under the new regulations, operators will have two years to equip their airplanes with TAWS.

The regulations comply with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standards and bring Canadian regulations closer to those of other aviation authorities, including the United States and European Union. Canada’s Transportation Safety Board also recommends the wider use of TAWS to help pilots assess their proximity to terrain.

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:06 am

I'd like to know what makes piston aircraft of the same size safer than turbine aircraft. If we can figure that out then implement that system on turbine aircraft we'd be sooooo much safer. No?

ETTW

fish4life · Post by **fish4life** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:29 am

Agreed so a caravan is now req'd to have it but a navijo won't be? Also by the year 2025 the empty weight of these small aircraft will end up almost at max take off with all the systems transport wants companies to keep installing in aircraft

Changes in Latitudes · Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:29 am

Ground the whole turbine fleet and run Navajos. It's cheaper than installing TAWS.

fish4life · Post by **fish4life** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:42 am

looks like some otters and beavers are going to get the ol turbine to piston conversion... what an increase in safety....

Meatservo · Post by **Meatservo** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:44 pm

There might be more of a price shock for some operators out there than just the TAWS box itself. It probably requires a certain type of GPS, a radar altimeter, a heading indicator capable of generating a signal for the box to pick up, and an encoding altimeter. Everybody probably already has an encoding altimeter, but I bet there are still some planes operating out in the boonies somewhere without one.

Does this mean it will be illegal to fly if the GPS is unserviceable? I admit that hardly ever happens, but I have seen it before.

av8ts · Post by **av8ts** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:05 pm

If you have an MEL and the GPS or TAWS is In it then you can still fly under the provisions of the MEL.

loopy · Post by **loopy** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:41 pm

This TAWS requirement + traffic has been required in the states for a few years. I remember a circular from a number of years ago that we were supposed to implement at the same time. We are finally catching up on the terrain side. I don't understand why they aren't pusuing the traffic system requirement.

I also don't understand why the piston aircraft able to carry that many pax aren't also aren't supposed to meet a similar requirement.

Some of the easier ways to meet the TAWS B standard is to add a Garmin 750 or 650. Now you are equiped with a WAAS capable GPS as well. Another easily added option is a Sandel 3500 TAWS B system. Simply replaces an RMI and requires GPS input.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:45 pm

It's really very simple. According to the dweebs in government, the more $$$$$$$$$ you throw at a problem (if there even IS a problem) the more likely it will go away. This is a Kool Aide I don't happen to drink.

Merov · Post by **Merov** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:54 pm

Isn't it just me or I read a different news? It says "The new regulations require private turbine-powered and commercial airplanes with six or more passenger seats". Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding is that ALL commercial airplanes with 6 passenger seats or more will require this system, no information is given about its engine type.

CpnCrunch · Post by **CpnCrunch** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:01 pm

Lets get rid of those useless seatbelts too - what a ridiculous waste of money!

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:42 pm

While TAWS might be a useful tool I can't see such sweeping prejudicial changes -- so while the minister might be making these statements in reality he as a minister really has very little knowledge of what is going on -- If the deputy minister made such a statement then I would give it more credence.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:09 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:Lets get rid of those useless seatbelts too - what a ridiculous waste of money!

Not sure where this is aimed? Must assume you feel that throwing money at problems, solves them? BTW, several Russian airlines only installed seatbelts after pressure from western business interests.

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm

Merov wrote:Isn't it just me or I read a different news? It says "The new regulations require private turbine-powered and commercial airplanes with six or more passenger seats". Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding is that ALL commercial airplanes with 6 passenger seats or more will require this system, no information is given about its engine type.

Hmmmm, I think he's onto something. Crazy what happens when you read the bold print. Lol.

ETTW

onspeed · Post by **onspeed** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:19 pm

You only consider it "throwing money" at TAWS until the time you need it. I wish they had also gone forward with the TCAS requirement as a previous poster had mentioned.

I wonder if this is in reaction to the resolute accident?

StudentPilot · Post by **StudentPilot** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:55 pm

I read it as written, all commercial aircraft with six or more passenger seats require TAWS.

I wonder if companies will be able to restrict their 207s to five passengers and keep flying them without TAWS?

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:15 pm

10 years ago I was involved in a start up of a DHC6 operation. I was asked by the president of the airline to cost out a new avionics installation. One of the items I put in there was the EGPWS (similar to present TAWS). Once I had all the numbers I presented them to the president and the other directors. One of them pointed out the cost of the EGPWS and questioned my substantiation of such an expense. I replied that I felt our operations would be safer. His response? "But we're not unsafe without it"

We left the panels the way they were......

ETTW

Lost Lake · Post by **Lost Lake** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:05 pm

I understand the requirement for wheeled aircraft who fly from nice airports to nice airports. Off strip, floats is another thing. i was flying the other day, 9 plus miles vis, 500 ft ceilings. Our garmin 530, instead of showing our routing, kept going off, telling us we were low for terrain. Very distracting. Now put a TAWS in the same situation and I'm sure circuit breakers are going to pop. Why does government continue to legislate against stupidity or mistakes. Bosater's licenses because of jet ski accidents, seat belts, helmets, airport security. The list goes on.

I appreciate the help such a system would do on a normal approach to an airport. I just don't see it working in the bush flying industry.

Tiger Moth · Post by **Tiger Moth** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:13 pm

Here's the advisory circular, it's a long one so just providing the link, pay particular attention to Appendix A for:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 3-1347.htm

Rudy · Post by **Rudy** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:43 am

Provision for relief from TAWS for Day VFR operations.

So float/bush planes won't be affected. Unpressurized IFR operators will just .. run.

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:20 am

Lost Lake,

Can you not inhibit the terrain on the 530? We have dual 430s in out twin otters and I configure number 1 to inhibit because as you pointed out, it's distracting.

I only suggest inhibiting it if you are always VFR.

Cheers

ETTW

midwingcrisis · Post by **midwingcrisis** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:12 am

The Canada TAWS rule was published yesterday, July 4th, in Canada Gazette II

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/ ... 6-eng.html

The Weasel · Post by **The Weasel** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:24 am

For release - July 4, 2012
The system provides acoustic and visual alerts to flight crews when the path of their aircraft is likely to collide with terrain, water or obstacles — a situation that can happen when visibility is low or the weather is poor. This gives the flight crew enough time to take evasive action.

I can see that it would be nice to have this when getting into unexpected poor weather, but surely some will take advantage of it and use it to push weather limits even further, or create a falls sense of security: "Who cares if the weather is marginal. TAWS will save us!"

The Weasel · Post by **The Weasel** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:28 am

(2) The operator may operate the aeroplane without its being equipped with an operative TAWS if

(a) the aeroplane is operated in day VFR only;

So how much of a difference will this actually make?

x-wind · Post by **x-wind** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:03 am

Prevent the Pasco crashes?

It's come into force, CARS are ammended.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/ ... 6-eng.html

TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft

Re: TAWS required for 6+ pax turbine aircraft