Originally Posted by punkalouver
I couldn't find where this second intruder is mentioned. Please show the chapter for me.
If one doesn't know that the Russian crew were concerned with two possible intruders, one is missing a large part of what can be learned from the accident.
Since the thread has split since some of the observations were introduced, let me first refer to it:
Originally Posted by
pbl, in post on [email protected], currently #87 of Überlingen-trial thread
Section 2.2.2 of the (english version of the) report, which says "According to CVR data it can be concluded that the instructor searched the airspace in front and to the right in vain."
Reason is that ATC had given as a reason for immediate descent that traffic was at 2 o'clock. Bakshirian already had visual contact with DHL, who was at 10 o'clock.
The Überlingen-trial thread went two ways, almost from the start. The first was to, well, celebrate the rehabilitation of Peter Nielsen (which event I applaud!). The second was to discuss the accident again. I plead guilty to contributing to the second. ATC Watcher split the thread.
A good place to start reading the previous thread is at a contribution from 30.05.2007 by 120.4. I brought in my study of TCAS on 05.09@10:40, currently post #78. The study can be found at
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...rts/SCSS04.pdf
and is published in
http://crpit.com/Vol47.html,
specifically
http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV47Ladkin.pdf
in which the paper by Ed Williams is also pertinent:
http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV47Williams.pdf
Originally Posted by punkalouver
the airplane turned at a bank angle of 10° to the right a total of 10° heading change. ......... Would they have missed each other if this slight turn had not been made?
We have been trying to figure out this turn for a couple of years, without success.
I think they would have missed.
PBL