• 14th_cylon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 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.

    • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 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.

      • 14th_cylon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        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.

        • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 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”

          • 14th_cylon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And guess since when it is done that way…

            • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 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.

              • 14th_cylon
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                that is not answer to my question. but you knew that, didn’t you? 😜

                • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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

                  • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Hi actual pilot,

                    Has other poster actually provided any evidence of or mentioned any qualifications to you? Because I think you’re arguing with a clueless idiot.

                  • 14th_cylon
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yours wasn’t a question, it was a statement

                    you know what i meant

                    wrong one

                    no

                    TCAS adherence wasn’t fundamentally changed after the accident in question

                    yes it was. fundamentally.

                    at the time of the accident there wasn’t any regulation that would state what to do in case of contradicting instructions from tcas and atc. different pilots may have been and have been told something else, or may have not been told anything at all and left to make split second decision when such event occurs.

                    about a year before uberlingen there was very similar incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident. there were other incidents before and after.

                    So let’s come back to the original argument: following the erroneous instructions of atc over the TCAS resulted in the accident

                    yeah, no. BEING SENT ONTO COLLISION COURSE is what resulted in the accident.

                    yes, had they followed the tcas, the accident might have been avoided. but that is not what caused it. they already were in the shitty situation when they had to decide between tcas and atc.

                    situation is caused by something that creates the situation, not by all of the infinite number of random things that might have been done to avoid it or escape it when you are already in. otherwise we could get into absurd argument like “if someone haven’t got out of the bed in the morning, the situation might have been avoided as well”. which, while technically true, is also absurd nonsense and no one would seriously tried to argue that.