• 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
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

            • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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