Folks,
I restarted (reprovoked?) this thread on 21 August (post #1177) after a couple weeks silence (since 7 August) and a longer silence (essentially since 21 July).
I posted on 21 August because we have done some analysis of the accident from public information, and because I am concerned about the legal difficulties of 2 U.S. pilots and 4 Brazilian controllers. And I said so.
What then transpired has been eye-opening. We have been joined by three declared Brazilian non-pilots (indeed, two who are self-declared attorneys and one who is married to an attorney).
Of these three, just one engaged in technical discussion. But his repeated denial of the facts of air traffic control, and his attempted questioning of material in the Factual Statement of last October from NTSB/CENIPA, as well as his ad hominem comments, left little apparent room for genuine discussion. I suspect that he had an agenda that he was not sharing with us; Marciovp suggested what this agenda might be in his post #1253.
But he did introduce some important text (unfortunately without attribution). Marciovp told us this text came from the report of the CIP. The reason the text is important is not that is is fault-free, but precisely *that it contains reasoning that is alien to people familiar with air traffic control*. This is an governmental legal document which is making public the way that the Brazilian government sees ATC and aviation, and its reasoning appears to be at variance with international standards on ATC procedures. This is *hugely important*.
Does anybody have a copy of the entire document that they could share? I am e-mailable, and I do read portuguese.
One Brazilian amateur pilot has joined us and has contributed to technical discussion, and has made some decisive interventions (for example, identifying the source of the document above). One Venezuelan and one Spanish contributor have joined us but not yet contributed to the technical discussion.
There have been a large number of posts explaining the basics of air traffic control, and the contract between pilots and controllers. Since this is repetitive, and to many of us stuff that we have known for many years, some of the more technically-minded, aviation-experienced people are signing off.
This is a difficult discussion for a number of reasons. One reason is that there appear to be differences in what is acceptable in discussion protocol amongst various contributors. A second is that the difficulties that, on the one hand, pilots and air traffic controllers and, on the other hand, the Brazilian legal establishment seem to be having with each other are coming to the surface.
I propose that that is a good thing. Let's think of this discussion as an experiment in testing the persuasive strength of arguments. (In places in which the word does not have a perjorative meaning, this is known as rhetoric. Yes, logic is a part.)
The pilots of N600XL are in difficulties; the controllers are in difficulties; the first thing that possible helpers have to know is, in detail, what sort of reasoning is putting them in those difficulties. This kind of inquiry is not for everyone - I can quite understand if some people sign off - but I can assure people from personal experience that the best legal arguments are constructed on the basis of knowing *exactly what the other side is claiming*. That is why the CIP document, in portuguese, is so important.
I don't see any way that discussion can be easy. One first task for those concerned with the fate of the 6 participants is to understand where Sdruvss was coming from. His stance appeared irrational and stubborn to those familiar with the procedures of air traffic control, since he seemed to be comfortable denying established fact, but he was assuring us that many thought like him, and he is, obviously, not without legal experience. So let's simply believe him when he says he represents the many.
The question is, then, how is one to prevail with argument in a milieu in which everyone thinks and argues as he did. Now, he gave up and went away. Why? Is it because he finally could not answer the arguments presented to him (which is what I suspect), or is it simply because he felt outnumbered? If the latter, then we haven't necessarily found out what arguments would prevail in a forum consisting of all the people that think like him.
But it is crucial to helping the 6 participants to know that.
So, how to move forward? I am going back and deleting all my posts since 21 August that did not contribute persistent, pertinent information. I invite all serious discussants to do similarly with theirs.
Somebody with access please send me the CIP documents.
PBL