Originally Posted by
photonclock
Well, that's interesting. You seem to be saying that "the system" worked as designed? FDR notes immediately before your reply:
Did ATC do all of that? Having listened to the ATC comms (including the UHF) a few times, I believe they did, for the most part? They mentioned CRJ (of what use is mentioning the type at night, I have no idea, but they did), they mentioned where it was and where it was headed, and they received two acknowledgments...
So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?
These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.
So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?
That's not good.
YES/NO
Musings:
"The system" includes all of us that are involved in aviation at all levels, everyday. Thee are a lot of flights that go into DCA every day, each crew observing the same conditions, and conducting briefings of the arrivals, approaches and departures. Same out of LAX etc. How many of us, as stakeholders in the system have raised our concerns to the system by the means available, the ASRS, company safety reporting systems, the squadron SMS systems. How many safety managers have bothered to go and do an operational route survey/audit? Without our active participation, then we are relying on some person long retired who designed a procedure that survives to this point in time, and due to our collective indifference to the common users safety we remain broadly mute, until something falls off the perch. At this point we feign surprise, shock and some horror, yet, search inside, how many of us are surprised by this event, or Jeju Air in Muan, or the Russians shooting down yet another civil aircraft, Instead, we pontificate, (myself possibly more than most) and point the bone at all others in the system,
SMS systems only work if they have data that is meaningful. Each airline may seem to be swamped in data, that however is not the case for dealing with extremely low incidence, but high consequence events. There is not enough data generally to do a damned thing with, for just UAL, DAL, AAL etc or other operators. To be able to understand fully a system behavior there has to be adequate data, At present the only aggregated data of any note is that with NASA under the ASRS, and with ICAO at the reportable event level. Each ICAO state safety plan is supposed to provide data to the extent it can to its own community and to ICAO, and that is generally the last that is seen of the data. The airlines and operators dont get feedback, ICAO may or may not apply that data towards rule making, but that is years hence, and does not meet the needs of the user or the public today. Without the data being available to all, it is diminished in its utility. SMS systems have limited effectiveness that is IMHO glossed over universally, as actually getting data that is useful takes effort, and then evaluating that data takes critical analysis. By squandering the opportunity to have the data to evaluate, it should be no surprise that occasionally, we have SA-1, SA-2 and SA-3 type situational awareness failures of biblical proportions.
Aerospace suffers from frequent events that are normal in most respects. Functional resonance is a reasonable paradigm to assess how the system is really working, to give the system the understanding of how large the slip between assumptions and real system behavior is. The means of doing that is available from the flight data, and from operational audit aimed at understanding how expectations of process match with the real world.
Alternatively, we can sit back and blame the victims of the most recent mishaps, chasing those that should take responsibility for this, which to an extent falls on all of us that use the system and don't bother to raise concerns to the system.
Complacency works well though, until it doesn't.