Narrative:

Cruise altitude FL360; mach .80; received TCAS traffic alert. Attempted to analyze target location on evsi; reached for microphone button on console to challenge traffic with hcf; TCAS RA activated before conversation with hcf initiated. Advised descent to hcf at which time the intruding aircraft was discovered to be at wrong altitude. The rate at which both aircraft closed on each other was staggering. The traffic alert was followed by an RA within seconds (less than 3) leaving no time to question ATC. A system that provides a better forward look would improve safety. Please consider upgrading our current TCAS system to one that allows crews to view aircraft that could be a conflict and still allow time to resolve issue before receiving TCAS RA's. In my opinion; our current system is less than adequate with 2 aircraft head on doing mach .80. TCAS RA; I don't know what altitude intruding aircraft was assigned. Both aircraft on different frequencys with same controller. Could only hear hcf controller. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the conflicting aircraft was opposite direction; also level at FL360. The TCAS equipment on this aircraft incorporates the symbology as well as TCAS 'commands' on the evsi. This display has limited range for the target symbology; and in this case did not allow time for assessment before receiving the 'RA.' the reporter is not satisfied with this TCAS system and would prefer a horizontal display with a greater range selection for target acquisition.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 FLT CREW RESPONDED TO TCAS RA WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC AT CRUISE ALT.

Narrative: CRUISE ALT FL360; MACH .80; RECEIVED TCAS TFC ALERT. ATTEMPTED TO ANALYZE TARGET LOCATION ON EVSI; REACHED FOR MIKE BUTTON ON CONSOLE TO CHALLENGE TFC WITH HCF; TCAS RA ACTIVATED BEFORE CONVERSATION WITH HCF INITIATED. ADVISED DSCNT TO HCF AT WHICH TIME THE INTRUDING ACFT WAS DISCOVERED TO BE AT WRONG ALT. THE RATE AT WHICH BOTH ACFT CLOSED ON EACH OTHER WAS STAGGERING. THE TFC ALERT WAS FOLLOWED BY AN RA WITHIN SECONDS (LESS THAN 3) LEAVING NO TIME TO QUESTION ATC. A SYS THAT PROVIDES A BETTER FORWARD LOOK WOULD IMPROVE SAFETY. PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING OUR CURRENT TCAS SYS TO ONE THAT ALLOWS CREWS TO VIEW ACFT THAT COULD BE A CONFLICT AND STILL ALLOW TIME TO RESOLVE ISSUE BEFORE RECEIVING TCAS RA'S. IN MY OPINION; OUR CURRENT SYS IS LESS THAN ADEQUATE WITH 2 ACFT HEAD ON DOING MACH .80. TCAS RA; I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALT INTRUDING ACFT WAS ASSIGNED. BOTH ACFT ON DIFFERENT FREQS WITH SAME CTLR. COULD ONLY HEAR HCF CTLR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER STATED THAT THE CONFLICTING ACFT WAS OPPOSITE DIRECTION; ALSO LEVEL AT FL360. THE TCAS EQUIPMENT ON THIS ACFT INCORPORATES THE SYMBOLOGY AS WELL AS TCAS 'COMMANDS' ON THE EVSI. THIS DISPLAY HAS LIMITED RANGE FOR THE TARGET SYMBOLOGY; AND IN THIS CASE DID NOT ALLOW TIME FOR ASSESSMENT BEFORE RECEIVING THE 'RA.' THE REPORTER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS TCAS SYSTEM AND WOULD PREFER A HORIZONTAL DISPLAY WITH A GREATER RANGE SELECTION FOR TARGET ACQUISITION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.