In a report that will make you want to travel by car for the rest of your life, the FAA's records detail how "near collision" episodes are frequent and ongoing.
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.
TCAS adherence wasn’t fundamentally changed after the accident in question
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.
So let’s come back to the original argument: following the erroneous instructions of atc over the TCAS resulted in the accident
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.
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.
It was answer. You thinly asked when did we start adhering to TCAS, my answer was when it was made mandatory. Your question was pretty obviously meant to be statement, but you knew that didn’t you?
Once again, was the accident caused by not adhering to TCAS?
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
Removed by mod
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.
It was answer. You thinly asked when did we start adhering to TCAS, my answer was when it was made mandatory. Your question was pretty obviously meant to be statement, but you knew that didn’t you?
Once again, was the accident caused by not adhering to TCAS?