US Pilots detained (not arrested) in Brazilian Crash
- Thread starter Skip Miller
- Start date
Dart
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 5,102
- Location
- You wanna retire here.
- Display Name
Display name:
iM a grandpa
Skip Miller said:
Our local paper contained a first person article from a passenger on the Legacy. He clearly stated he visited the cockpit and was told they were at 37K. He returned to his seat and shortly thereafter they were hit.
My, it's gonna be a tough time for all involved.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
There is a lot being posted on other boards. There seems to be speculation in the local news in that country that the bus jet guys weren't where at the altitude they were supposed to be and their transponder was off. Sure hope that's not the case. Guess we'll all just have to wait and see.
Best,
Dave
Best,
Dave
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Once again a lesson to be learned. Jess and others have said it in previous posts. Sadly accidents can teach us so much about what not to do or reinforce what we already know.
Assuming the post from AOPA's board from the guy in Brasil is correct there was once again a CHAIN of events that led to this accident. As I previously posted my brothers friend was on the Legacy Jet. ( not flight crew) My brother asked how this could happen I thought about it and sure enough there was a chain
1) Legacy possibly at wrong alt
2)Legacy TCAS ignored or turned off or OTS
3) 737 TCAS ignored or turned off or OTS
4) Lack of communication between ATC stations
5) Lack of communication between ATC and one or more of the jets.
Break one just one link in this chain and the accident does not happen. Even if the facts as they are trickleing in are not correct rest assured in the end we will still find that it was a chain of events. So Tragic.
Assuming the post from AOPA's board from the guy in Brasil is correct there was once again a CHAIN of events that led to this accident. As I previously posted my brothers friend was on the Legacy Jet. ( not flight crew) My brother asked how this could happen I thought about it and sure enough there was a chain
1) Legacy possibly at wrong alt
2)Legacy TCAS ignored or turned off or OTS
3) 737 TCAS ignored or turned off or OTS
4) Lack of communication between ATC stations
5) Lack of communication between ATC and one or more of the jets.
Break one just one link in this chain and the accident does not happen. Even if the facts as they are trickleing in are not correct rest assured in the end we will still find that it was a chain of events. So Tragic.
I saw the reporter who survived on the Today show this morning.
One thought that hit me is this didn't happen in America. Other countries have been known to file multiple criminal murder or manslaughter charges for airliner accidents, even against controllers. I have the Zagreb(?) mid-air in mind.
Now. You have a Latin American government who can admit their controllers screwed up or can blame some handy detained American pilots.
I wouldn't bet a lot on them choosing the first option.
One thought that hit me is this didn't happen in America. Other countries have been known to file multiple criminal murder or manslaughter charges for airliner accidents, even against controllers. I have the Zagreb(?) mid-air in mind.
Now. You have a Latin American government who can admit their controllers screwed up or can blame some handy detained American pilots.
I wouldn't bet a lot on them choosing the first option.
Last edited:
Greebo
N9017H - C172M (1976)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,976
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- Display Name
Display name:
Retired Evil Overlord
Yeah, I had the same thought. The cockpit recorder would presumably indicate whether any "descend to 36k" order was received, but can we be sure the Brazilian gov't will play square with that?mikea said:
Eamon
Line Up and Wait
I find it hard to believe that 2 pilots would "screw around" with a reporter & airplane manu execs on board. Now if it were a ferry flight with just 2 pilots, I could believe it.
I guess I won't be seeing those two pilots at Islip anytime soon.
I guess I won't be seeing those two pilots at Islip anytime soon.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wonder if the bizjet had a voice recorder, some require it. That might help solve the mystery for the investigators.
I would add one thing to your chain, Adam: One or both crews set aside their see and be seen skills (assuming it was imc at 37K)
I would add one thing to your chain, Adam: One or both crews set aside their see and be seen skills (assuming it was imc at 37K)
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
Speculation as to facts
Of the options available, I would say that this is the most likely set. If both transponders are on, TCAS will work in either airplane alone. As you know, Dave, there can be infant problems with a brand new aircraft. What is the liklihood of the Legacy making a departure without some radar controller along the way remarking on their lack of transponder? It will be difficult for anyone, including the Brazilian govt. or investigators, to cover up the key facts in this accident. And unlike in the US, we may learn the probable cause fairly quickly. It would be nice if the speculation was transponder "inop", rather than "off".
Dave Siciliano said:
Of the options available, I would say that this is the most likely set. If both transponders are on, TCAS will work in either airplane alone. As you know, Dave, there can be infant problems with a brand new aircraft. What is the liklihood of the Legacy making a departure without some radar controller along the way remarking on their lack of transponder? It will be difficult for anyone, including the Brazilian govt. or investigators, to cover up the key facts in this accident. And unlike in the US, we may learn the probable cause fairly quickly. It would be nice if the speculation was transponder "inop", rather than "off".
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Re: Speculation as to facts
I am wondering if the so called 'off' transponder was in fact just not received by ATC due to poor radar coverage in the area. That would go along with the poor radio coverage potentially.
Also we really do not yet know what the TCAS capabilities were for either aircraft. I have nto read anything about that part of the accident at all.
Dick Madding said:
I am wondering if the so called 'off' transponder was in fact just not received by ATC due to poor radar coverage in the area. That would go along with the poor radio coverage potentially.
Also we really do not yet know what the TCAS capabilities were for either aircraft. I have nto read anything about that part of the accident at all.
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
Re: Speculation as to facts
TCAS is required for both aircraft. Working TCAS on either aircraft would issue a conflict alert and eventually a Resolution Advisory if the conflicting aircraft had a working transponder, regardless of that transponder's code. [Google and read up on TCAS for details] Radar coverage in that area has nothing to do with my question regarding the probablility of ATC remarking on "no transponder" when the Legacy departed and climbed to altitude. Of course, if it was always in a non-radar environment during these phases, that would account for the pilots not being advised by ATC that their transponder was inop.
Typically business jets are set up with an avionics master switch which turns on everything required for normal operations, including the transponder and TCAS. Whether the pilots noticed the inop transponder is another question left to the CVR. As to the correctness of their altitude, that is the second link in this short chain to disaster.
If TCAS & transponder were inoperative on the Legacy, the 737 would have no indication that the Legacy was there, and would not have seen it in time to avoid the collision at the closure rate of about 1000mph. When on a collision course, the conflicting object appears stationary, and with an angle of approach sufficient for the 737 to impact both the wingtip and tail of the Legacy, the liklihood of the Legacy crew seeing the head-on cross section of the 737 fuselage or engines is vanishingly small, and again, probably not in time to avoid colliding.
smigaldi said:
TCAS is required for both aircraft. Working TCAS on either aircraft would issue a conflict alert and eventually a Resolution Advisory if the conflicting aircraft had a working transponder, regardless of that transponder's code. [Google and read up on TCAS for details] Radar coverage in that area has nothing to do with my question regarding the probablility of ATC remarking on "no transponder" when the Legacy departed and climbed to altitude. Of course, if it was always in a non-radar environment during these phases, that would account for the pilots not being advised by ATC that their transponder was inop.
Typically business jets are set up with an avionics master switch which turns on everything required for normal operations, including the transponder and TCAS. Whether the pilots noticed the inop transponder is another question left to the CVR. As to the correctness of their altitude, that is the second link in this short chain to disaster.
If TCAS & transponder were inoperative on the Legacy, the 737 would have no indication that the Legacy was there, and would not have seen it in time to avoid the collision at the closure rate of about 1000mph. When on a collision course, the conflicting object appears stationary, and with an angle of approach sufficient for the 737 to impact both the wingtip and tail of the Legacy, the liklihood of the Legacy crew seeing the head-on cross section of the 737 fuselage or engines is vanishingly small, and again, probably not in time to avoid colliding.
wesleyj
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 303
- Location
- Beautiful Downtown Bristol, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
wesleyj
Aw cmon guys, the brazilian government has two yankee pilots to fry, great PR, and a deep pockets american corporation that employes them and owns the airplane, who do you think will get blamed no matter how much they have to rearrange the evidence.
BTW in case you missed it both airplanes were brand new, so that could explain the TCAS and xponder thing.
BTW in case you missed it both airplanes were brand new, so that could explain the TCAS and xponder thing.
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
seeing other aircraft at 37000 ft.
I was there once head-on with a G-IV CAVU him at 10K, me at 9500 [right where I should have been] and me not in contact with ATC. I was alert and looking, and I did push the wheel when I saw him, but by that time he was behind me. Also while in contact with ATC I have had similar traffic called under similar weather conditions passing within a mile of me which I or my passengers never saw, despite being given a quadrant in which to look and with the other aircraft having apparent motion relative to us.
Having had more than my share of near collisions of the aluminium and fabric kind in 40 years of flying, I use every resource available to avoid other aircraft. But once out of the traffic pattern, I find the eyeball has a lot less value than several other techniques.
See & be seen is nearly impossible when: aircraft are non-IMC with no clouds or contrails at/above their 37000 ft. altitude, and 2. each appears stationary to the other due to their intersecting courses. As I recall, the fuselage diameter of the large business jets is in the range of 8 ft. Add in the angle of intersection, sufficient for the 737 to impact both the wingtip and tail of the Legacy, and see & avoid would be impossible given the approx. 1000 mph closure rate, 'avoid' being the operative word.Let'sgoflying! said:
I was there once head-on with a G-IV CAVU him at 10K, me at 9500 [right where I should have been] and me not in contact with ATC. I was alert and looking, and I did push the wheel when I saw him, but by that time he was behind me. Also while in contact with ATC I have had similar traffic called under similar weather conditions passing within a mile of me which I or my passengers never saw, despite being given a quadrant in which to look and with the other aircraft having apparent motion relative to us.
Having had more than my share of near collisions of the aluminium and fabric kind in 40 years of flying, I use every resource available to avoid other aircraft. But once out of the traffic pattern, I find the eyeball has a lot less value than several other techniques.
Last edited:
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Greebo said:
Since there are US reps from the NTSB and FAA (and Boeing) involved, it's gonna be hard to play fast and loose with the data recorders. However, I don't know if the Legacy has a voice recorder, or if it was required to be turned on for this particular flight.
And Brazil is not a third world country. Their aircraft manufacturing industry depends heavily on US airlines. So I don't foresee any diplomatic incidents coming.
Missa
En-Route
TMetzinger said:
Been there and I don't agree with that statement.
wesleyj
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 303
- Location
- Beautiful Downtown Bristol, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
wesleyj
Brazil, is a third world country pretending to be a lot more than it is, it is riddled with corruption and the same Anti-americanism as most of the third world countrys, if they can make political hay with this mess, they will and in spades.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I agree with you Dick on the difficulty of sabs (seeandbeseen) in these conditions but I don't think it means we should quit trying, and stop looking outside. Thus; I think it remains as a link in the chain.
I see lots of a/c when I am above 300 but I admit I have never had one head on.
BTW we can turn our tcas to 'standby' which is a functional equivalent to 'off'. They can see us but we cannot see them. I discovered this once when preparing to depart; someone had turned it to stby, we normally don't touch it. Couldn't see the aircraft on final & thought it was broken.
I see lots of a/c when I am above 300 but I admit I have never had one head on.
BTW we can turn our tcas to 'standby' which is a functional equivalent to 'off'. They can see us but we cannot see them. I discovered this once when preparing to depart; someone had turned it to stby, we normally don't touch it. Couldn't see the aircraft on final & thought it was broken.
TMetzinger said:
Oh man,sniff, that was funny! I've worked Brazil quite a few times ove the past decade and a half. They most definitely are a third world country. What else would you call them?
They have some decent industry, but sociopolitically, they are third world all the way. Want great proof, go to the big mines around Sao Paolo and see how they operate, or go to Rio for a vacation. Travel around there for a bit on busses with chickens and pigs.
Last edited:
Missa
En-Route
Henning said:
Good thing you said decient! I've been in some of their plants and whoa... labor is cheeper then machines there. Have a problem? throw more people at it!
Missa
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
Keep looking
I experienced one situation where a potential collision was detected. Cruising at 6,400 ft.[one of my mid air avoidance techniques-never right on altitude] in the T210 and monitoring ATC, heard a Beech 18 jump plane out of Xenia, OH, come on Approach Control climbing to 5,500 ft. to drop jumpers. It was 6pm on a September day with significant ground haze, clear above, and the sun low & in our eyes making details on the ground difficult to see. I got on ATC and he gave each of us the other's position, warning the B-18 not to climb above 5500. In the back of my mind this registered that the controller evaluated a potential conflict.
Family along, and we had just passed over 2 FedEx DC-10s on approach to Columbus. This led to a mid air discussion, and the Greenwood, IN, MU-2, PA-32 collision that had recently occurred [9/11/1992- ironic now]. Center left seat son asked how one knew a real threat with so many aircraft around. I gave the "not moving" answer, and he said "like that one out there?". I ducked my head and looked under the left wing and there was that B-18 about 200ft. above and half a mile, same direction & steady as a rock. I announced on the ATC channel an immediate descent for traffic and asked the B-18 not to drop jumpers. Apparently he had trimmed for a climb and lost situational awareness while looking for his grass strip drop point in the hazy farm fields SE of Xenia. We were indeed converging on a near collision course, and when he heard my call and saw me, he turned right at me in a descending dive, passing about 50 ft. over and a couple of hundred feet behind. While this follows the rule of never losing sight of the threat, I certainly wasn't happy with the way he showed his displeasure at screwing up, and at me for pointing it out to ATC. The controller apologized, the other pilot said it wasn't even close, and I never heard any more about it. I will say this: it happened very, very quickly, and from then on I have made it a point to stay well away from other aircraft unless they have verified having me in sight and we are aware of each other's intentions.
So at whatever altitude, if aircraft are on a converging course and they look and can see about 90 degrees to the side, a silhouette view would likely be seen, but then what pilot looks there for conflicts, and what few [big] airplanes allow such a view?
I have heard high altitude airliners get the call from ATC when meeting head on with 2000 ft. [now 1000, and that's got to be scary meeting a heavy] separation. It's more than just a nice gesture, and causes pilots to verify their altitude and alert them to what they should see on TCAS. Most of the time I never hear the call from either pilot "traffic in sight".
But by all means keep looking, because Murphy can behave in strange ways.
Let'sgoflying! said:
I experienced one situation where a potential collision was detected. Cruising at 6,400 ft.[one of my mid air avoidance techniques-never right on altitude] in the T210 and monitoring ATC, heard a Beech 18 jump plane out of Xenia, OH, come on Approach Control climbing to 5,500 ft. to drop jumpers. It was 6pm on a September day with significant ground haze, clear above, and the sun low & in our eyes making details on the ground difficult to see. I got on ATC and he gave each of us the other's position, warning the B-18 not to climb above 5500. In the back of my mind this registered that the controller evaluated a potential conflict.
Family along, and we had just passed over 2 FedEx DC-10s on approach to Columbus. This led to a mid air discussion, and the Greenwood, IN, MU-2, PA-32 collision that had recently occurred [9/11/1992- ironic now]. Center left seat son asked how one knew a real threat with so many aircraft around. I gave the "not moving" answer, and he said "like that one out there?". I ducked my head and looked under the left wing and there was that B-18 about 200ft. above and half a mile, same direction & steady as a rock. I announced on the ATC channel an immediate descent for traffic and asked the B-18 not to drop jumpers. Apparently he had trimmed for a climb and lost situational awareness while looking for his grass strip drop point in the hazy farm fields SE of Xenia. We were indeed converging on a near collision course, and when he heard my call and saw me, he turned right at me in a descending dive, passing about 50 ft. over and a couple of hundred feet behind. While this follows the rule of never losing sight of the threat, I certainly wasn't happy with the way he showed his displeasure at screwing up, and at me for pointing it out to ATC. The controller apologized, the other pilot said it wasn't even close, and I never heard any more about it. I will say this: it happened very, very quickly, and from then on I have made it a point to stay well away from other aircraft unless they have verified having me in sight and we are aware of each other's intentions.
So at whatever altitude, if aircraft are on a converging course and they look and can see about 90 degrees to the side, a silhouette view would likely be seen, but then what pilot looks there for conflicts, and what few [big] airplanes allow such a view?
I have heard high altitude airliners get the call from ATC when meeting head on with 2000 ft. [now 1000, and that's got to be scary meeting a heavy] separation. It's more than just a nice gesture, and causes pilots to verify their altitude and alert them to what they should see on TCAS. Most of the time I never hear the call from either pilot "traffic in sight".
But by all means keep looking, because Murphy can behave in strange ways.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Missa said:
Then you should try Colombia, Peru, Bogota, Venezuela, various places in the Congo, or Afghanistan.
Perhaps I have the "worlds" wrong, but Brazil is much better, sociopolitically.
And I think they'll respond to diplomatic pressure (if applied).
For the sake of the pilots, you'd better hope I'm right.
wesleyj
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 303
- Location
- Beautiful Downtown Bristol, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
wesleyj
quite frankly, if they decide that the 2 legacy pilots were at fault, forgone conclusion i suspect, they will probably never see the light of day north of the equator again.
wesleyj said:
In Brazil??? Hell, it wouldn't cost $15,000 for an "escape".
SCCutler said:
SCCutler said:
In my best Sgt Schultz voice: "I know nothink!" and anything I may or may not know has expired its statute of limitations, I think. Captain's always responsible for his crew, no matter how much of an idiot they may be...sigh.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
Re: Keep looking
That in itself is a problem. Remember that altimeter errors can be up to 75 feet and still legal. That can potentially remove 150 feet of separation. Even if your transponder's altitude encoder is right on, it's only got 100 foot resolution. That removes up to 350 feet of separation. You're flying only 400 feet above a legal IFR altitude. Add the fact that unless you and the other guy both maintain altitude to +/- 20 feet you may well collide.
Oh, and if you're talking with ATC (as is the other guy)... Remember that the altitude readout can be off by up to 300 feet and still be legal too. The controller probably assumes that you are at 6500 as you are legally required to be, even though your readout on his screen is at 6400.
By flying 100 feet low, you are actually reducing the safety of the system.
Dick Madding said:
That in itself is a problem. Remember that altimeter errors can be up to 75 feet and still legal. That can potentially remove 150 feet of separation. Even if your transponder's altitude encoder is right on, it's only got 100 foot resolution. That removes up to 350 feet of separation. You're flying only 400 feet above a legal IFR altitude. Add the fact that unless you and the other guy both maintain altitude to +/- 20 feet you may well collide.
Oh, and if you're talking with ATC (as is the other guy)... Remember that the altitude readout can be off by up to 300 feet and still be legal too. The controller probably assumes that you are at 6500 as you are legally required to be, even though your readout on his screen is at 6400.
By flying 100 feet low, you are actually reducing the safety of the system.
Aztec Driver
Line Up and Wait
Re: Keep looking
Legally required VFR? Suggestion, yes. Legally required? No, I don't think so. Yes, you can have altitude errors, but nothing says they all have to be against you. I really don't think you are reducing the safety margin. On the other hand, I don't think you are enlarging it a great deal either. It is not a bad practice, but with all of the errors between multiple aircraft, you really don't know exactly what altitude each other is at, and 100-200 feet of separation still scares the crap out of you.
flyingcheesehead said:
Legally required VFR? Suggestion, yes. Legally required? No, I don't think so. Yes, you can have altitude errors, but nothing says they all have to be against you. I really don't think you are reducing the safety margin. On the other hand, I don't think you are enlarging it a great deal either. It is not a bad practice, but with all of the errors between multiple aircraft, you really don't know exactly what altitude each other is at, and 100-200 feet of separation still scares the crap out of you.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
Re: Keep looking
Yes, it is, between 3,000 AGL and 18,000 MSL:
I wasn't assigning any blame, simply noting that "the system" works best when all users do as they are intended. If two aircraft have errors in opposite directions, they don't even need to be as extreme as is legally allowed to remove the entire 500 feet of separation between aircraft flying below FL180. Potentially removing an extra 100 feet of separation does not enhance safety for anyone.
Aztec Driver said:
Yes, it is, between 3,000 AGL and 18,000 MSL:
14 CFR 91.159 said:
Aztec Driver said:
I wasn't assigning any blame, simply noting that "the system" works best when all users do as they are intended. If two aircraft have errors in opposite directions, they don't even need to be as extreme as is legally allowed to remove the entire 500 feet of separation between aircraft flying below FL180. Potentially removing an extra 100 feet of separation does not enhance safety for anyone.
Re: Keep looking
Now that scares me...
Dick Madding said:
Now that scares me...
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Re: Keep looking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Madding
I experienced one situation where a potential collision was detected. Cruising at 6,400 ft.[one of my mid air avoidance techniques-never right on altitude] .
I was riding out in the toolies with a "Good Ol' Boy" in SW Texas whose driving skills left me speechless. Every time he came to a four way stop he'd floor the gas and run through without stopping or even slowing down. But then he did stop at an intersection where the stop signs were only posted on the cross street, looked both ways and then pulled on through. When I asked him why he stopped there, he said his brother lived a ways up that road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Madding
I experienced one situation where a potential collision was detected. Cruising at 6,400 ft.[one of my mid air avoidance techniques-never right on altitude] .
Henning said:
I was riding out in the toolies with a "Good Ol' Boy" in SW Texas whose driving skills left me speechless. Every time he came to a four way stop he'd floor the gas and run through without stopping or even slowing down. But then he did stop at an intersection where the stop signs were only posted on the cross street, looked both ways and then pulled on through. When I asked him why he stopped there, he said his brother lived a ways up that road.
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Re: Keep looking
Then it should scare you more to know that many CFIs teach that technique
Henning said:
Then it should scare you more to know that many CFIs teach that technique
Aztec Driver
Line Up and Wait
Re: Keep looking
Wow, never saw that. I always follow it, because it is a logical thing to do, but I thought it was an AIM "suggestion". Didn't realize it was in the FAR's. Time to go back and study some more. Fortunately, I am not teaching it. I agree with you on the 100 feet, though.
flyingcheesehead said:
Wow, never saw that. I always follow it, because it is a logical thing to do, but I thought it was an AIM "suggestion". Didn't realize it was in the FAR's. Time to go back and study some more. Fortunately, I am not teaching it. I agree with you on the 100 feet, though.
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
Maximize midair avoidance odds
Gee, I hope not! There goes my buffer. In 40 years of flying I've had 5 instances of conflicts where paths crossed exactly with only altitude the separating factor, and that less than 200 ft. Two of those occurred while in contact with ATC, and one of those involved another aircraft with transponder inop in Class C airspace.
Kent Shook recounted many of the factors which go in to having an inaccurate altimetry system. But GPS has dramatically increased the odds of meeting an aircraft along a path between navigational points both are using. So I also offset my track a half mile or so to the right when using GPS for navigation. This is probably more effective in avoiding collisions than a small deviation from cardinal altitude. [Never on a cardinal altitude at or below 3000 ft. agl.]
I'm not advocating or suggesting what I do to anyone else. I'm especially concerned about midairs because they are the one aspect of flying over which each pilot is not in total control of his/her destiny. And while rare, the consequences are typically severe, so they are high on my risk evaluation chart. Then there's the fact that I've had several near midairs, and nothing gets your attention more than one of those, except perhaps a coughing engine at night over Lake Michigan in a single.
New technology brings with it the usual unintended consequences. Brazil reportedly just completed installation of a comprehensive ATC hardware system. But it is possible that a controller, unable to contact the Legacy, failed to redirect the 737 for conflict avoidance. The 737 and Legacy were both the newest and latest versions of their kind. Nonetheless, a series of events, reportedly including the ATC unable to contact the Legacy after its pilots ended up on a wrong frequency after a handoff, resulted in the collision. Also recently brought into question is the Honeywell transponder, about which there are conflicting claims as to whether the one installed on the Legacy is subject to a recall due to intermittent failures. The facts will out during the coming weeks. But it is certain, as it is in each and every accident, that human error are at the root of accident cause.
The Comair crash may also be partly attributed to new technology. No longer is it necessary to put the final touch on mechanical Directional Gyros just prior to starting the takeoff roll.
Will GPS and other non-aviation electrical systems be affected by the coming solar activity peak?
AdamZ said:
Gee, I hope not! There goes my buffer. In 40 years of flying I've had 5 instances of conflicts where paths crossed exactly with only altitude the separating factor, and that less than 200 ft. Two of those occurred while in contact with ATC, and one of those involved another aircraft with transponder inop in Class C airspace.
Kent Shook recounted many of the factors which go in to having an inaccurate altimetry system. But GPS has dramatically increased the odds of meeting an aircraft along a path between navigational points both are using. So I also offset my track a half mile or so to the right when using GPS for navigation. This is probably more effective in avoiding collisions than a small deviation from cardinal altitude. [Never on a cardinal altitude at or below 3000 ft. agl.]
I'm not advocating or suggesting what I do to anyone else. I'm especially concerned about midairs because they are the one aspect of flying over which each pilot is not in total control of his/her destiny. And while rare, the consequences are typically severe, so they are high on my risk evaluation chart. Then there's the fact that I've had several near midairs, and nothing gets your attention more than one of those, except perhaps a coughing engine at night over Lake Michigan in a single.
New technology brings with it the usual unintended consequences. Brazil reportedly just completed installation of a comprehensive ATC hardware system. But it is possible that a controller, unable to contact the Legacy, failed to redirect the 737 for conflict avoidance. The 737 and Legacy were both the newest and latest versions of their kind. Nonetheless, a series of events, reportedly including the ATC unable to contact the Legacy after its pilots ended up on a wrong frequency after a handoff, resulted in the collision. Also recently brought into question is the Honeywell transponder, about which there are conflicting claims as to whether the one installed on the Legacy is subject to a recall due to intermittent failures. The facts will out during the coming weeks. But it is certain, as it is in each and every accident, that human error
The Comair crash may also be partly attributed to new technology. No longer is it necessary to put the final touch on mechanical Directional Gyros just prior to starting the takeoff roll.
Will GPS and other non-aviation electrical systems be affected by the coming solar activity peak?
Re: Keep looking
Sigh...yeah, I know. I stopped for fuel once and overheard this as a CFI was giving some X/C ground to his student on the FBO couch. I went over and told him I didn't mind him teaching things that would get his student killed, but would he mind not teaching dumb a$$ed crap that would get me killed as well, walked out and jumped in the Ag Cat. He was too stunned to have a rebuttle. Hopefully he lost a student. One of the nice things about flying around below 300' is not much traffic, the downside is most of the traffic are fast movers.
AdamZ said:
Sigh...yeah, I know. I stopped for fuel once and overheard this as a CFI was giving some X/C ground to his student on the FBO couch. I went over and told him I didn't mind him teaching things that would get his student killed, but would he mind not teaching dumb a$$ed crap that would get me killed as well, walked out and jumped in the Ag Cat. He was too stunned to have a rebuttle. Hopefully he lost a student. One of the nice things about flying around below 300' is not much traffic, the downside is most of the traffic are fast movers.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Re: Maximize midair avoidance odds
I think your logic is flawed. I do not see how GPS has dramatically increased the odds of a midair collision. If anything it has reduced it.
Yes pilots can now navigate more accurately on a line between two points. But we are also no longer all flying on airways. We are no longer all meeting up on one single point from different directions (vor). The chance of me colliding with an aircraft coming directly head on at me at my altitude is pretty small. I would see it. I'm more worried about an aircraft that is approaching from the side, above, or below me. These are the ones that I may not see.
When I fly XC I try to keep my eyes outside the airplane. It's far too easy to simply fly a course or follow the line on your GPS. About the only way that I have came up with that *forces* me to keep my eyes outside the airplane is an honest effort to keep my finger on a sectional at my location. This way I'm constantly looking out of the airplane in an attempt to verify that I am where I think I am. Yes, I still fly primarily by the GPS..But at least this way my eyes are outside of the plane. Another thing is estimating ground speed with a stopwatch.. One of the things I've been *trying* to get good at is estimating a mile on the ground..Counting that mile in my head..and calculating my ground speed in my head....Not that this will probably ever be all that useful to me but it at least keeps my head outside of the plane..Plus it's kind of fun. Sometimes I surprise myself with how accurate I can get.
Dick Madding said:
I think your logic is flawed. I do not see how GPS has dramatically increased the odds of a midair collision. If anything it has reduced it.
Yes pilots can now navigate more accurately on a line between two points. But we are also no longer all flying on airways. We are no longer all meeting up on one single point from different directions (vor). The chance of me colliding with an aircraft coming directly head on at me at my altitude is pretty small. I would see it. I'm more worried about an aircraft that is approaching from the side, above, or below me. These are the ones that I may not see.
When I fly XC I try to keep my eyes outside the airplane. It's far too easy to simply fly a course or follow the line on your GPS. About the only way that I have came up with that *forces* me to keep my eyes outside the airplane is an honest effort to keep my finger on a sectional at my location. This way I'm constantly looking out of the airplane in an attempt to verify that I am where I think I am. Yes, I still fly primarily by the GPS..But at least this way my eyes are outside of the plane. Another thing is estimating ground speed with a stopwatch.. One of the things I've been *trying* to get good at is estimating a mile on the ground..Counting that mile in my head..and calculating my ground speed in my head....Not that this will probably ever be all that useful to me but it at least keeps my head outside of the plane..Plus it's kind of fun. Sometimes I surprise myself with how accurate I can get.
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
Seeing head-ons
Like the massive airspace restructuring/restrictions following the Cerritos midair, GPS tends to concentrate aircraft into a smaller volume of airspace, which increases the probability of collision. The risk is not so much head on encounters during cruise[above 3000 ft. agl], but rather encounters during the climb/descent phase, either thru overtaking or meeting head on. The randomness associated with the Big Sky theory is reduced by GPS.
When you have your first head on near miss, you will learn about the difficulty of spotting another aircraft which is perfectly still [apparently unmoving] to your eyes in time to take evasive action. And the evasive action may be mirrored by the other aircraft, in which case there is a collision anyway. Here is an example- read the full narrative.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21286&key=1
Aircraft with relative movement are much easier to see, and while you may congratulate yourself for having seen them, they pose no actual threat and should not lull you into thinking that you are able to see aircraft in time to evade a collision. The old saw applies: The one you don't see will kill you.
Here is my favorite example of why you should always have your landing light on and be looking for traffic in the airport traffic area. As I recall, the government was successfully sued citing controller lapses in this accident.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15679&key=1
The MU-2 pilot evidently had his eyes in the cockpit working on getting his clearance. The FAA installed a clearance delivery frequency at the Greenwood airport not long after the accident.
The airlines have their landing lights on at or below 10000 ft. agl. I turn mine on at or below 3000 ft. agl, when climbing or descending regardless of altitude, and keep them on in the airport traffic area. While the cabin cross section of a small aircraft which is not moving can be almost impossible to see at 4 miles, a landing light can usually be seen in time to take evasive action. From reading the accident reports, it is not known whether the landing lights were on for any of the aircraft involved.
jangell said:
Like the massive airspace restructuring/restrictions following the Cerritos midair, GPS tends to concentrate aircraft into a smaller volume of airspace, which increases the probability of collision. The risk is not so much head on encounters during cruise[above 3000 ft. agl], but rather encounters during the climb/descent phase, either thru overtaking or meeting head on. The randomness associated with the Big Sky theory is reduced by GPS.
When you have your first head on near miss, you will learn about the difficulty of spotting another aircraft which is perfectly still [apparently unmoving] to your eyes in time to take evasive action. And the evasive action may be mirrored by the other aircraft, in which case there is a collision anyway. Here is an example- read the full narrative.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21286&key=1
Aircraft with relative movement are much easier to see, and while you may congratulate yourself for having seen them, they pose no actual threat and should not lull you into thinking that you are able to see aircraft in time to evade a collision. The old saw applies: The one you don't see will kill you.
Here is my favorite example of why you should always have your landing light on and be looking for traffic in the airport traffic area. As I recall, the government was successfully sued citing controller lapses in this accident.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15679&key=1
The MU-2 pilot evidently had his eyes in the cockpit working on getting his clearance. The FAA installed a clearance delivery frequency at the Greenwood airport not long after the accident.
The airlines have their landing lights on at or below 10000 ft. agl. I turn mine on at or below 3000 ft. agl, when climbing or descending regardless of altitude, and keep them on in the airport traffic area. While the cabin cross section of a small aircraft which is not moving can be almost impossible to see at 4 miles, a landing light can usually be seen in time to take evasive action. From reading the accident reports, it is not known whether the landing lights were on for any of the aircraft involved.
cwyckham
Line Up and Wait
Re: Seeing head-ons
I agree with most of your post, but am confused by your statement that GPS concentrates aircraft. I would have assumed the opposite. If we're comparing to VORs, GPS certainly spreads people out since they're not following the same airways and not converging over the VOR with their heads down twiddling OBS knobs.
Perhaps compared to dead reckoning between any two particular points, GPS would concentrate people that happen to be flying between those two points since they're going to be flying more accurately along the line, but it seems to me that that's a pretty unrealistic scenario. The number of GA flights between any two particular airports is pretty minimal on a given day. Besides, VFR cruising altitude should take care of that.
Could you expand on why GPS concentrates traffic?
Chris
Dick Madding said:
I agree with most of your post, but am confused by your statement that GPS concentrates aircraft. I would have assumed the opposite. If we're comparing to VORs, GPS certainly spreads people out since they're not following the same airways and not converging over the VOR with their heads down twiddling OBS knobs.
Perhaps compared to dead reckoning between any two particular points, GPS would concentrate people that happen to be flying between those two points since they're going to be flying more accurately along the line, but it seems to me that that's a pretty unrealistic scenario. The number of GA flights between any two particular airports is pretty minimal on a given day. Besides, VFR cruising altitude should take care of that.
Could you expand on why GPS concentrates traffic?
Chris
Dick Madding
Pre-Flight
traffic effects of GPS
In my study of midairs done for a local flying club as part of an evaluation of a member request to teach formation flying, I don't recall coming across any involving converging over a VOR. Except for the 18% involving formation flying, most were in the airport traffic area, or climbing/descending for same. My reasoning is that GPS will concentrate aircraft in the climb/descend paths between airports [talking VFR here now] and cruise at/below 3,000 ft. agl [which many of us avoid, even on short flights]. VFR cruising altitudes won't compensate for those problems. As you say, aircraft will be flying more accurately along the direct path between airports.
The risk of a midair is very small, unless you happen to fly in the Northeast, Florida, California, or around Chicago, where airspace restrictions artificially concentrate traffic flow. While the risk is small, the consequences are usually severe, which makes any increase in risk a concern. In view of that small risk a lot of people choose not to worry about it. After being involved in a few near collisions and reading about several midairs, including DC-9s at Urbana, OH, and Indy, I spent some time to come up with proactive procedures to reduce the already small risk.
The airport traffic area, particularly at uncontrolled fields, has the highest potential, so using the landing light, monitoring the radio for traffic situational awareness, and minimizing your exposure time in this area are important for collision avoidance. What impact GPS has here depends on the airspace configuration around and between the airports you're using.
cwyckham said:
In my study of midairs done for a local flying club as part of an evaluation of a member request to teach formation flying, I don't recall coming across any involving converging over a VOR. Except for the 18% involving formation flying, most were in the airport traffic area, or climbing/descending for same. My reasoning is that GPS will concentrate aircraft in the climb/descend paths between airports [talking VFR here now] and cruise at/below 3,000 ft. agl [which many of us avoid, even on short flights]. VFR cruising altitudes won't compensate for those problems. As you say, aircraft will be flying more accurately along the direct path between airports.
The risk of a midair is very small, unless you happen to fly in the Northeast, Florida, California, or around Chicago, where airspace restrictions artificially concentrate traffic flow. While the risk is small, the consequences are usually severe, which makes any increase in risk a concern. In view of that small risk a lot of people choose not to worry about it. After being involved in a few near collisions and reading about several midairs, including DC-9s at Urbana, OH, and Indy, I spent some time to come up with proactive procedures to reduce the already small risk.
The airport traffic area, particularly at uncontrolled fields, has the highest potential, so using the landing light, monitoring the radio for traffic situational awareness, and minimizing your exposure time in this area are important for collision avoidance. What impact GPS has here depends on the airspace configuration around and between the airports you're using.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Re: traffic effects of GPS
That doesn't make any sense, at all. GPS doesn't concentrate traffic (by your own admission) enroute, and most of the danger is near the airport traffic area. How does GPS concentrate traffic around the airport? Are people flying their crosswind, downwind and base legs using the GPS for reference? I doubt it.
I have a hard time trying to wrap my mind around the idea that because of GPS, suddenly there will be more traffic flying between say...Podunk, IL and West Podunk, IL. The same number of planes are flying (not many).
Dick Madding said:
That doesn't make any sense, at all. GPS doesn't concentrate traffic (by your own admission) enroute, and most of the danger is near the airport traffic area. How does GPS concentrate traffic around the airport? Are people flying their crosswind, downwind and base legs using the GPS for reference? I doubt it.
I have a hard time trying to wrap my mind around the idea that because of GPS, suddenly there will be more traffic flying between say...Podunk, IL and West Podunk, IL. The same number of planes are flying (not many).
Last edited: