this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
236 points (81.9% liked)
Technology
59329 readers
6112 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
And guess since when it is done that way....
According to the wiki..
Two years prior to the accident, in Europe, where the accident happened.
that is not answer to my question. but you knew that, didn't you? 😜
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
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.
you know what i meant
no
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.
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.
There it is. I’m glad we could finally come to an agreement. Thanks for the entertainment.
we could have agreed, if you weren't saying dumb shit. because you are constantly saying dumb shit which is not true, or is only partially true so in the context of this discussion it doesn't make sense, we DO NOT agree.
saying we agree when your opponent is telling you otherwise is the most pathetic attempt to avoid saying "ok, that probably wasn't best phrasing on my part" i have ever seen. or you are really so dumb that you lack the capacity to understand it.
no matter which one, i am out of here, bye. you are now on my blocklist so i won't be replying to you anymore. if you are truly interested why we still don't agree i suggest rereading the whole conversation. especially to compare your first quote i reacted to with the one you used to pretend that "we agree" in your last answer.