• HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 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.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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”

              • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                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.

                  • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    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