Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/2/2002 12:11:29 PM EST
UEBERLINGEN, Germany - A Russian pilot ferrying children to Spain for a beach vacation had less than a minute to get out of the way of an oncoming cargo jet, but the planes rammed into one another after both apparently took the same evasive action at the same moment. The collision claimed 71 lives. [thinking] Wouldn't it be better to say if your bearing is between X and Y, pull up;otherwise nose down. Seems silly to always have everybody loose altitude.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 12:17:30 PM EST
I never finished off my pilots license but I always thought everyone gave way to the right. My dad is a captain for America West on the '37. He's on a trip right now, I'll ask him when he gets home.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 12:18:18 PM EST
My distant menory tells me that civilian planes have a green and a red wingtip light visible from the front. Turn to the green light. If they both tried the same thing, they must have seen each other, no? And a hard and fast rule won't always work. What if I'm suposed to pull up in your new scenario, but the plane I'm going to hit is high and to my front? If they were closing from the front, he had a lot less than a minute, figure closing rate of what, about 800-900 knots? That's moving. Tough to tell what the other plane is doing when it's getting so much bigger so fast. In the US, civilian traffic is layered, traffic going east is on even 1000 foot elevations, west is odd, or vice versa.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 12:50:15 PM EST
Well there is a monkey wrench here. The new Boeing had a automatic collision avoidance system. Its set function is to call for a dive, and the training for Boeings so equipped REQUIRES the pilots to follow the computers instructions. The air traffic controller ALSO should have known that that is what would happen. By ordering the Tupolev to decend also the ground controller appears to have ordered them to crash into the Boeing. Had the air controllers done nothing there would not have been a crash! Just one pissed off DHL pilot. Its not absolutely sure yet, but it sure looks like ground control was at fault here. Though they are trying to blame it on "backward" Russian pilots to avoid responsibility.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 12:57:09 PM EST
If I remember right, I think my pilot friend told me that if you are on a head on collision to ALWAYS turn to the left. If the other guy sees you, and he turns to his left, then you should miss each other.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:12:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 1:15:11 PM EST by DarkHelmet]
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:15:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 1:16:02 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020702/ap_on_re_eu/germany_airliner_crash_59[/url] Swiss air traffic controllers have already been caught lying about the incident and it isn't even 24 hours old.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:30:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 1:36:11 PM EST by CAM_PIN]
§ 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level. (a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled air-space shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft byATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns ‘‘VFR conditions on-top,’’ that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by § 91.159. (b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows: (1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000). (2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290,and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220). (3) When operating at flight level 290 and above, and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:41:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By CAM_PIN: § 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level. (a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled air-space shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft byATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns ‘‘VFR conditions on-top,’’ that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by § 91.159. (b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows: (1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000). (2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290,and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220). (3) When operating at flight level 290 and above, and— (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).
View Quote
looks like you pulled that from U.S. FAR's I know most of western Europe uses ICAO standards wich may vary a little I know oceanic airspace is using 1000ft intervals above FL290 over there & they may have implemented that over the continent too
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 1:57:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 2:10:38 PM EST by cnatra]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Well there is a monkey wrench here. The new Boeing had a automatic collision avoidance system. Its set function is to call for a dive, and the training for Boeings so equipped REQUIRES the pilots to follow the computers instructions. The air traffic controller ALSO should have known that that is what would happen. By ordering the Tupolev to decend also the ground controller appears to have ordered them to crash into the Boeing. Had the air controllers done nothing there would not have been a crash! Just one pissed off DHL pilot. Its not absolutely sure yet, but it sure looks like ground control was at fault here. Though they are trying to blame it on "backward" Russian pilots to avoid responsibility.
View Quote
"TCAS", it may also tell the flight crew to descend the aircraft depending on the circumstances. I don't think pilots really have the time to utilize evasive visual manuevers when they're converging at 7 miles a minute at the same altitude. TCAS is what most U.S. flight crews utilize. Essentially on board "traffic" radar they can set for a limited range. (50mi,???) IMHO, TCAS isn't really effective unless both aircraft involved are using it. TCAS is NOT perfect, I have personally witnessed situations where if the pilot did what the TCAS was telling him to do a loss of minimum standard sepration would have taken place (less the 5mi or 1000/2000ft) It's common for TCAS to get give flawed commands when a commercial aircraft is flying over a MOA (military operating area) In most circumstances though company policy requires the pilot to comply with TCAS instruction & I would guess 90% of the time that is the correct action BUT if ATC is providing service & traffic advisories then that information should be taken into consideration when the pilot makes his decision. I always think of TCAS as the last line of safety if all others have failed but it needs to be on all turbojet/turboprop aircraft. It still isn't required on freight aircraft in the U.S. like DHL,UPS,FEDEX etc.(I think Jan. '03 fianally) I see plenty of 752/200's with NO TCAS hauling freight, lots of old DC8's too. Unfortunately it does look like the Swiss EnRoute controllers screwed up. I would sure like to know why they had two turbojets(800-900mph closure rate)at the same altitude on converging courses?!?! [?]WTF! Unless the pilots where deviating for weather but even then that's where the controllers are supposed to step in & get some vertical seperation.
Top Top