Letters to the Editor
-
Doesn't Add Up...
Maybe I’m missing something, but your description of the accident doesn’t seem to add up. You first state that: “The real question...is why two aircraft, on converging headings, were assigned to the same altitude in the first place. The answer to that question solves the accident.” Okay—- that makes sense. Sounds like a screw-up by the air-traffic control for sure. But then, after referring to a report stating that one plane was actually flying 1,000 feet above the altitude to which it was assigned, you claim this was no big deal: “The public never learns that for a plane not to be cruising at its flight-plan-specified altitude, be it in Brazil, the United States, or most other countries, is not the least bit unusual. Flight plan altitudes are just that: for planning purposes.”
So… are assigned flight plans the focal point of this story and the primary reason for the crash? Or are they for planning purposes only, with individual planes free to deviate at any time?
(Either way, it would seem to have bearing on the flight plan issue if in fact one plane was flying at an altitude different from what had been assigned… I imagine that 1,000 feet would have been sufficient distance to avoid a head-on collision, but again, please correct me if there’s something I’m missing.)
What's the deal?
-
Just explain
Instead of relying on your usual, reflexive -- and lazy -- instinct to bash the press, why not just explain what happened? You don't need to rely on the crutch of using the idiot press as an introductory device to a topic. Just get into it. And, by the way, some newspapers do know what they're doing and do the best they can with the information available at the time. You might want to read Newsday's coverage of this incident over the past couple of months.
Meanwhile, while you're accusing others of sloppiness, check your own language. If the Japanese planes you described managed to avoid each other, it's not a "near-miss," as you called it. It's a miss.
Generally, though, keep up the good work.
-
RE: Letters from Ziptron and Melody (From the author)
Ziptron writes: << instead of relying on your usual, reflexive -- and lazy -- instinct to bash the press, why not just explain what happened? >>
If millions of people were in fact subject to the misleading information picked up by the AP, I'd be remiss for not pointing it out. But mostly I was bashing the Brazilian authorities for *taking advantage* of the press.
As for "what happened,"nobody knows for sure. I explained what I could, based on the available evidence.
Melody writes:
<< But then, after referring to a report stating that one plane was actually flying 1,000 feet above the altitude to which it was assigned, you claim this was no big deal >>
No, you're confusing a plane's *assigned* altitude, given out by ATC, with the altitude stipulated in the flight plan. Those are, in this context, different things. That was the point I was trying to make.
If you're still confused, send me an email directly.
Thanks,
Patrick Smith
-
here's the deal on altitudes
Melody -
Since Patrick hasn't answered this - yet - let me. (Yes. I'm a pilot.)
Under Instrument Flight Rules, which cover essentially all flights by airlines and business jets, it works like this: Sometime - usually several hours - before before departure, you file a flight plan with Air Traffic Control (ATC) describing the route you WISH to take and the altitude at which you WISH to cruise.
Later, when you are actually ready to depart, ATC gives you your clearance, which tells you the route you WILL take and the altitude at which you WILL cruise. Their starting point in issuing this clearance is indeed the plan you filed. (That's how they know where you're going.) Frequently, the route and altitude they assign will be the ones you requested, but it's not at all unusual for them to assign a different route or altitude based on their need to coordinate your flight with all the others in their airspace. Likewise, it's quite common for ATC to change a routing or altitude during the course of your trip for the same reason.
The key point is that at all times you MUST follow exactly the clearance as given by ATC. Your filed flight plan was a statement of intentions, but it is superseded by your departure clearance and all subsequent enroute clearances from ATC. "Clearance" may sound a a little soft, like "permission." It isn't. It's a direct order.
The only times a pilot may choose his own altitude are a couple of specific situations where ATC CLEARS him to make that choice at his discretion.
In the Brazil crash, the initial evidence indicates that the Brazilian controller cleared (i.e. ordered) both planes to cruise at the same altitude, thus setting up the possibility of a collision
All the discussion is over why neither the people nor the electronics that should have sensed the impending collision issued a warning.
-
Pilots and Jail
The short answer is no. An air traffic control system is in place because airplanes travel at high rates of speed in IFR conditions and pilots cannot be expected to provide their own seperation from each other. Over the years the increasing reliance on technolgy acknowlegdes this fact. Anytime you put people, a lot of people in an aluminium tube and fly five miles from the earth and at 500 miles an hour, you're going to have the occasional crash. There are a temendous amount of people who spend a lot of time making flight as safe as they can. When planes crash, generally a large amount of people die and it makes for "good" TV. What took place in Brasil was an accident. Sometimes there are no easy answers, sometimes it is just an accident and there is no one to blame.
-
Like watching paint fly
Yet another tedious--and way too long--piece on the theme, "Why Pilots and Airlines Should Be Held Harmless."
Honestly. Was there nothing more worthy of civilian attention this time around, Patrick?
And yes, in certain circumstances pilots involved in killing people should be treated as criminals. Or are you arguing for some sort of corporate non-responsibility? Sue United but not the pilot?
Sheesh.
-
Accountability Yes, Criminality No
Mr. Smith posses the question, should pilots involved in aviation accidents be treated as criminals. My answer is, baring wilful misconduct discovered through due process, of course not. These two individuals were caught in the middle of diplomatic and bureaucratic crossfire.
Should pilots be held professionally accountable for accidents. Of course.
According to the NTSB, (http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/061122a.htm), when they crossed the Brasilia (BRS) VOR , the waypoint where their filed flight plan called for a decent to 36,000 feet, they were in contact with ATC and no request for an altitude change was made by either party. However, for the four minutes prior to the collision the Legacy crew knew that ATC was trying to contact them and they knew that ATC was not receiving their transmissions. Five minutes after the collision, the Legacy’s transponder, which failed shortly after crossing the BRS VOR, returns to service.
One can certainly see the ambiguities involved. On the one hand they received implicit permission to continue at 37,000 feet once they crossed the BRS VOR when ATC did not explicitly request an altitude change. On the other hand, just prior to the collision for four minutes the Legacy crew knew that they were not in communication with ATC. So, at what altitude should they have been flying?
As for me the critical issue is the transponder. It provides vitally important information both to ATC and, to TCAS. I therefore strongly disagree with Mr. Patrick’s assertion that “the reason behind any TCAS failure is only somewhat pertinent.“ This was the classic situation that TCAS was developed for.
If the Legacy pilots did in fact, either due to the ‘known‘ quirkiness of the Legacy's avionics, or through human error, disable their own transponder signal. Imagine the self guilt that they will live with the rest of their lives. For a pilot, any punishment provided by society would be peanuts in comparison.