this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
236 points (81.9% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
11 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. 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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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”

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And guess since when it is done that way....

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

that is not answer to my question. but you knew that, didn't you? 😜

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yours wasn’t a question, it was a statement

you know what i meant

wrong one

no

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.

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yes, had they followed the tcas, the accident might have been avoided.

There it is. I’m glad we could finally come to an agreement. Thanks for the entertainment.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.