• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    I believe you are getting pedantic - when they got conflicting info they didn’t follow the TCAS. Point remains, they didn’t follow the TCAS.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      The call was ambiguous at the time and they ended up settling out of court. I guess it is only pedantic if you consider that detail to be irrelevant to the broader discussion of air safety. Otherwise, zeroing the fact they didn’t follow he TCAS could be considered pedantic.

      Only one thing is sure, I am currently being pedantic about the usage of the word pedantic. But really, I think the relevancy of this detail depends on who we’re putting the blame on. If it was a human error, then, point remains. If it wasn’t, then it ain’t just a matter of if the TCAS was followed.

      I am aware nowadays this would be considered a human error though, not listening to the TCAS I mean.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Im going to chat with you as you provide a much more balanced arguement than personal-attack-know-it-all i have been talking with.

        Yes, the call was ambiguous and easily debatable at the time - no disaster is ever one mistake and unfortunately in this case everyone paid for it with their life, including the ATC controller.

        The TCAS was designed and taught as a last resort option, and was to be followed instantly and overruled everything, including ATC. Unfortunately it only works if everyone follows it - one did, one followed atc and they dived into eachother. The system failed because it wasn’t followed, and at the end of the day the pilots knew that TCAS took priority. The pilots are in final command and responsible for their aircraft, and cant blame anyone else who gave instructions anymore than the holder of a firearm, captain of a ship or driver of a vehicle.

        Modern understanding adds a number if factors into play, namely peoples reaction to authority in an emergency. Pilot error caused the crash, but there are multiple factors that went into their error - external authority (who pilots are used to listening to), sudden need to react in an uneventful flight, cant remember if there were training, equipment and fatigue issues or not, and a pile of others. No one reacted recklessly (don’t know why other poster thought I said that), just instantly with no chance to second guess their choice.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      no i am not and no, the point definitely does not remain.

      first, phrasing it like “they didn’t follow TCAS” make them sound like some reckless cowboys, which is simply not the case. they did exactly what they were told by tcas and when they got contradicting order from ATC the did exactly what they were told by him.

      second, the statatement “was a result of the one crew not following the TCAS instruction” is simply not true. the accident was a result of ATC (as in the organization, not the specific people having the shift that night) fucked up". reading that linked wiki article may be good place to start to learn about the accident.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Had both aircraft followed those automated instructions, the collision would not have occurred.

        That is right from the wiki.

        I never claimed the pilots were “cowboys”, you made that up in your head. I simply said the accident was a result of not following TCAS, which at its core is correct. Of course there are multiple contributing factors, ATC being the largest, but my post was already getting long winded.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and had all the pilots overslept that day the incident might not have happen as well and in spite of that, we don’t list them getting out of the bed in the morning as a reason of the accident.

          them obeying the atc command was reasonable and expected course of action.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            them obeying the atc command was reasonable and expected course of action.

            That’s incorrect, and is exactly why we train to ignore ATC commands and follow TCAS advisories. We don’t even tell ATC if we’re climbing or descending, simply “Aircraft XYZ, TCAS RA”

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                According to the wiki…

                TCAS was a relatively new technology at the time of the accident, having been mandatory[Note 2] in Europe since 2000.

                Two years prior to the accident, in Europe, where the accident happened.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yours wasn’t a question, it was a statement, and a wrong one. TCAS adherence wasn’t fundamentally changed after the accident in question, but it brought to light it’s importance.

                    So let’s come back to the original argument: following the erroneous instructions of atc over the TCAS resulted in the accident - if they had followed TCAS, like the DHL crew, they’d be alive.

                    Edit: posted two answers by accident. Deleted one