• Elderos@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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
          3
          ·
          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
            2
            ·
            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
              2
              ·
              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
                  1
                  ·
                  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.