Mid-air collision over Brasil
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first off, I don't think that Brazil was or could have ever been considered a Banana Republic...typically this term was used for more central american countries whose fates seemed controled by those who "DOLED" out decisions based on the price of bananas.
now, back to the crash...a US newspaper is saying that the flight plan was not prepared by the crew, but by Embraer...also that the captain had left the cockpit to use the bathroom and had just come back to the cockpit.
WITH THIS INFO, is it possible that the alleged altitude change was part of the flight plan but not fully understood by the pilots...indeed, reading this article indicates that the LEGACY crew had twice asked about the altitude assignment.
While Aviation is an international enterprise, it is obvious to me that there are many differences country to country.
I post the following from New York Newsday:
Long Island
LI pilots did not prepare Brazil flight plan
BY BILL BLEYER
Newsday Staff Writer
October 9, 2006, 7:49 PM EDT
The controversial flight plan for an American corporate jet that collided with an airliner over the Amazon jungle 11 days ago was prepared not by the two Long Island pilots but by the plane's Brazilian manufacturer, according to the pilots' statements to authorities.
Joseph Lepore, 42, of Bay Shore, and Jan Paladino, 34, of Westhampton Beach also insisted in their depositions that they had authorization from air traffic controllers in two locations to fly at 37,000 feet, the altitude at which the collision occurred.
Click here to find out more!
Those details, reported in the Brazilian press and confirmed by aviation sources in this country, could bolster the the contention of some aviation experts in the U.S. and Brazil that the pilots may not be the only ones at fault. They say a series of errors by various participants, including the pilots, led to the crash of Gol Airlines Flight 1907 and the loss of all 154 aboard.
Prominent among these experts is Milton Zuanazzi, director-president of ANAC, the national agency for civil aviation.
But many officials in Brazil continue to blame the pilots for the country's worst air disaster. They say it might have made sense for the Embraer, the Brazilian company that was familiar with the local airspace and that built the Legacy executive jet and had just turned it over to its new owner, ExcelAire of Ronkonkoma, to prepare the flight plan.
They insisted that it was still the pilots' responsibility to make sure it did not conflict with other air traffic.
José Carlos Pereira, president of Empresa Brasileira de InfraEstrutura Aeroportuária (Infraero), the agency that handles logistics and meteorology for air transport in Brazil, told The State of Sao Paulo newspaper that the "the pilot, the highest authority in a plane, knows very well when he is on the right way in a two-way aeroway."
Pereira said the traffic corridors north of Brasilia where the impact occurred are set up so that planes flying north, such as the Legacy, are routed at at even-numbered altitudes such 36,000 feet. Aircraft heading south, such the Gol Boeing, would be at odd-numbered altitudes.
"Every pilot knows that," Pereira said, so the Legacy should have descended to 36,000 feet hundreds of miles before the site of the impact.
Embraer spokesman Pedro Ferraz declined to comment on the flight plan. "The company is providing full support to the aeronautical authorities for the investigations," he said. "We do comment on any other rumor or report."
The Folha newspaper, of Sao Paolo, on Sunday printed more details from the depositions of the American pilot, whose plane was damaged but landed without injury to the seven aboard.
It said Lepore said he left the cockpit a few minutes before the impact to go the bathroom and then came back and saw Paladino trying to reach controllers without success. Then he heard a noise but felt no impact. The jet veered to the left and a passenger came to the cockpit to report damage to a wing.
Lepore also said that during the emergency landing at a military airfield, they tried to use an emergency radio frequency and couldn't make contact, so a freight plane relayed the information, the newspaper said.
Lepore also told investigators he had trained for 20 hours in a Legacy simulator and five hours flying a Legacy before the flight, the Folha story said.Lepore said he never saw the Gol Boeing jet and that his vision was impaired by the position of the sun. He said there was no alert from the anti-collision system, the paper said.
Paladino said the jet's location transponder seemed to be working properly before and after the impact, the newspaper said.
While the investigation continues, the pilots, who were ordered by a judge to surrender their passports, have remained secluded after being joined by their wives in a suite on a secure floor at the five-star Marriot hotel in Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana Beach section. They are being shielded from the media and the public by security personnel organized by the U.S. general consulate and have not left their rooms, the local media reported.
Also Monday, a Brazilian Air Force officer told Newsday that the military has increased the number of personnel working to recover the bodies of the airliner passengers at the urging of an organization of victims' families. But that the crash site's remote location, dense vegetation and high temperatures has slowed progress, said Lt. Col. Fagundes.
The officer, said 85 recovery workers had been sent into the dense forest to look for bodies. He said eight Air Force helicopters and an Army helicopter were assisting in the search and recovery effort. "The difficulty is the access to the area because the jungle is so tight and the temperature is so high," Fagundes said.
Staff writer Martin C. Evans contributed to this story
Subscribe to Newsday home delivery | Article licensing and reprint options
now, back to the crash...a US newspaper is saying that the flight plan was not prepared by the crew, but by Embraer...also that the captain had left the cockpit to use the bathroom and had just come back to the cockpit.
WITH THIS INFO, is it possible that the alleged altitude change was part of the flight plan but not fully understood by the pilots...indeed, reading this article indicates that the LEGACY crew had twice asked about the altitude assignment.
While Aviation is an international enterprise, it is obvious to me that there are many differences country to country.
I post the following from New York Newsday:
Long Island
LI pilots did not prepare Brazil flight plan
BY BILL BLEYER
Newsday Staff Writer
October 9, 2006, 7:49 PM EDT
The controversial flight plan for an American corporate jet that collided with an airliner over the Amazon jungle 11 days ago was prepared not by the two Long Island pilots but by the plane's Brazilian manufacturer, according to the pilots' statements to authorities.
Joseph Lepore, 42, of Bay Shore, and Jan Paladino, 34, of Westhampton Beach also insisted in their depositions that they had authorization from air traffic controllers in two locations to fly at 37,000 feet, the altitude at which the collision occurred.
Click here to find out more!
Those details, reported in the Brazilian press and confirmed by aviation sources in this country, could bolster the the contention of some aviation experts in the U.S. and Brazil that the pilots may not be the only ones at fault. They say a series of errors by various participants, including the pilots, led to the crash of Gol Airlines Flight 1907 and the loss of all 154 aboard.
Prominent among these experts is Milton Zuanazzi, director-president of ANAC, the national agency for civil aviation.
But many officials in Brazil continue to blame the pilots for the country's worst air disaster. They say it might have made sense for the Embraer, the Brazilian company that was familiar with the local airspace and that built the Legacy executive jet and had just turned it over to its new owner, ExcelAire of Ronkonkoma, to prepare the flight plan.
They insisted that it was still the pilots' responsibility to make sure it did not conflict with other air traffic.
José Carlos Pereira, president of Empresa Brasileira de InfraEstrutura Aeroportuária (Infraero), the agency that handles logistics and meteorology for air transport in Brazil, told The State of Sao Paulo newspaper that the "the pilot, the highest authority in a plane, knows very well when he is on the right way in a two-way aeroway."
Pereira said the traffic corridors north of Brasilia where the impact occurred are set up so that planes flying north, such as the Legacy, are routed at at even-numbered altitudes such 36,000 feet. Aircraft heading south, such the Gol Boeing, would be at odd-numbered altitudes.
"Every pilot knows that," Pereira said, so the Legacy should have descended to 36,000 feet hundreds of miles before the site of the impact.
Embraer spokesman Pedro Ferraz declined to comment on the flight plan. "The company is providing full support to the aeronautical authorities for the investigations," he said. "We do comment on any other rumor or report."
The Folha newspaper, of Sao Paolo, on Sunday printed more details from the depositions of the American pilot, whose plane was damaged but landed without injury to the seven aboard.
It said Lepore said he left the cockpit a few minutes before the impact to go the bathroom and then came back and saw Paladino trying to reach controllers without success. Then he heard a noise but felt no impact. The jet veered to the left and a passenger came to the cockpit to report damage to a wing.
Lepore also said that during the emergency landing at a military airfield, they tried to use an emergency radio frequency and couldn't make contact, so a freight plane relayed the information, the newspaper said.
Lepore also told investigators he had trained for 20 hours in a Legacy simulator and five hours flying a Legacy before the flight, the Folha story said.Lepore said he never saw the Gol Boeing jet and that his vision was impaired by the position of the sun. He said there was no alert from the anti-collision system, the paper said.
Paladino said the jet's location transponder seemed to be working properly before and after the impact, the newspaper said.
While the investigation continues, the pilots, who were ordered by a judge to surrender their passports, have remained secluded after being joined by their wives in a suite on a secure floor at the five-star Marriot hotel in Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana Beach section. They are being shielded from the media and the public by security personnel organized by the U.S. general consulate and have not left their rooms, the local media reported.
Also Monday, a Brazilian Air Force officer told Newsday that the military has increased the number of personnel working to recover the bodies of the airliner passengers at the urging of an organization of victims' families. But that the crash site's remote location, dense vegetation and high temperatures has slowed progress, said Lt. Col. Fagundes.
The officer, said 85 recovery workers had been sent into the dense forest to look for bodies. He said eight Air Force helicopters and an Army helicopter were assisting in the search and recovery effort. "The difficulty is the access to the area because the jungle is so tight and the temperature is so high," Fagundes said.
Staff writer Martin C. Evans contributed to this story
Subscribe to Newsday home delivery | Article licensing and reprint options
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to get away from the name calling and blame game for a moment: has it occurred to anyone else that if offset tracking was MANDATORY for all aircraft (or even better, as some have suggested earlier, inbuilt into our FMSs), this thread would be be about a half page long and titled something like "Close call in Brazil?"
And 154 people would still be alive.
As someone else has already said, I can't understand the ongoing resistance to this idea.
And 154 people would still be alive.
As someone else has already said, I can't understand the ongoing resistance to this idea.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why automatic off-sets, above a certain altitude, are not built into FMS is a complete mystery to me; and an industry disgrace. The people who designed these things must surely have known how accurate they would be in service – together with altimeters to the nearest inch. Surely they had the combined wit to consider this. In fact, why didn’t the airlines query the likelihood of a combined bull’s eye at 35,000 feet?
And what about the certification people? Didn’t anyone ever ask ‘What happens if........?’ Astonishing!
Anyone care to reveal if their own airline insists on offsets in the cruise?
And what about the certification people? Didn’t anyone ever ask ‘What happens if........?’ Astonishing!
Anyone care to reveal if their own airline insists on offsets in the cruise?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Italy
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why automatic off-sets, above a certain altitude, are not built into FMS is a complete mystery to me; and an industry disgrace. The people who designed these things must surely have known how accurate they would be in service – together with altimeters to the nearest inch. Surely they had the combined wit to consider this. In fact, why didn’t the airlines query the likelihood of a combined bull’s eye at 35,000 feet?
And what about the certification people? Didn’t anyone ever ask ‘What happens if........?’ Astonishing!
Anyone care to reveal if their own airline insists on offsets in the cruise?
And what about the certification people? Didn’t anyone ever ask ‘What happens if........?’ Astonishing!
Anyone care to reveal if their own airline insists on offsets in the cruise?
This is done in remote, non radar, non controlled areas and in the RVSM if you are following another aircraft, same direction with altitudes different 1000 feet, to avoid wake turbulence.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'd vote for 'automatic' offsets - the 737 has a 'default' 0.1NM right offset available at all times with a couple of button presses. I cannot see how that could adversly affect any traffic anywhere, as it is only 600ft, but it is enough.
The problem is, piombo, these aircraft WERE in 'radar coverage' and would almost certainly have missed each other with a 0.1R.
The problem is, piombo, these aircraft WERE in 'radar coverage' and would almost certainly have missed each other with a 0.1R.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profit Max.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was touched on indirectly up the thread, but going back to the original incident - one thing is confusing me. Joe Sharkey described the moment of collision thus:
"Without warning, I felt a terrific jolt and heard a loud bang, followed by an eerie silence, save for the hum of the engines."
No mention of any pressure wave or turbulence from the larger aircraft, which I would have expected to severely affect the Legacy's handling immediately following the contact given the apparent angle of collision (head-on).
"Without warning, I felt a terrific jolt and heard a loud bang, followed by an eerie silence, save for the hum of the engines."
No mention of any pressure wave or turbulence from the larger aircraft, which I would have expected to severely affect the Legacy's handling immediately following the contact given the apparent angle of collision (head-on).
Last edited by Bertie Bonkers; 10th Oct 2006 at 13:51. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was touched on indirectly up the thread, but going back to the original incident - one thing is confusing me. Joe Sharkey described the moment of collision thus:
"Without warning, I felt a terrific jolt and heard a loud bang, followed by an eerie silence, save for the hum of the engines."
No mention of any pressure wave or turbulence from the larger aircraft, which I would have expected to severely affect the Legacy's handling immediately following the contact given the apparent angle of collision (head-on).
"Without warning, I felt a terrific jolt and heard a loud bang, followed by an eerie silence, save for the hum of the engines."
No mention of any pressure wave or turbulence from the larger aircraft, which I would have expected to severely affect the Legacy's handling immediately following the contact given the apparent angle of collision (head-on).
There might also be a little journalistic licence going on here.
R1
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Typical is a 3D system where 2 antennas handle the azimuth and bearing detection individually. The bearing/distance antenna axis is horizontal and the azimuth antenna axis is vertical. The newest digital 3D systems can detect a target's azimuth position by ramping the pulse frequencies and correlating small changes in the returning beam angle which can then be used to compute altitude. Only one antenna rotating in the horizontal plane is needed.
3D planar array radars work by generating multiple height stacked beams; older types would use 4-10 transmitters and be relatively inaccurate, later modules use hundreds of Tx modules in the actual array, but the basic principle is the same.
An aircraft is painted by only some beams, using trigonometry the height is calculated for each beam and averaged. Radar beams bend up or down, hence anaprop; an aircraft can also fail to paint in a higher or lower beam, pushing the average up or down. Suffice it to say that the average accuracy is about +/- 5000ft. When 2 aircraft are in close proximity, obviously the comparative height is much more accurate, perhaps 1-2000ft, but for safety a minimum of 5000ft should be used for separation, and the blips should never be allowed to merge.
Last edited by ORAC; 10th Oct 2006 at 16:20.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astra Driver and Hokie Nation
Can you provide a reference document to your RT Failure 'procedures' ?
Assuming Brasil uses the ICAO standard procedure, then you are both simply (and possibly dangerously) wrong with the assertion the pilot should not change level from that last assigned.
Can you provide a reference document to your RT Failure 'procedures' ?
Assuming Brasil uses the ICAO standard procedure, then you are both simply (and possibly dangerously) wrong with the assertion the pilot should not change level from that last assigned.
Interesting side note which may answer some posts regarding loss of RVSM capability;
Shortly after making my last post we took off for Los Angeles and after leveling at FL 400 we noticed our TCAS had gone to STBY, realizing this might be due to our losing mode C capablity I switched transponders. No change. I called center, "Are you recieving our Mode C?", "Negative".
After switching back and forth between our two transponders and recycling them it became apparent that we had a total failure of our mode C capability on both transponders, which, of course, rendered our TCAS inoperative and made us non-RVSM capable.
After some discussion with ATC (Who were very co-operative) it was decided we would exit RVSM aispace and descend to FL 280 for the duration of the flight. This brings up an interesting question; what if we had also experienced a loss of communications as well as a loss of mode C capability? Lost comm procedures dictate maintaining altitude as per clearance or flight plan to the FAF at the destination, but loss of RVSM capablity dicatates exiting RVSM airspace and changing altitude. The controller has no way to know what your actual altitude is, he can only asume what you might or should do. I posed this question to our controller and his answer was pretty straight forward; "I wouldn't take any chances guessing what altitude you might maintain, I would just get everybody out of your way"
Pegase Driver
Today, ( i.e since 2001) with simultaneous loss of comm and mode C , you can asume the worst.
Remember , if you find yourself in that situation, and for those of you that have ACARS or SATCOM to use it to contact ATC either direct or via your OPS.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Italy
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'd vote for 'automatic' offsets - the 737 has a 'default' 0.1NM right offset available at all times with a couple of button presses. I cannot see how that could adversly affect any traffic anywhere, as it is only 600ft, but it is enough.
The problem is, piombo, these aircraft WERE in 'radar coverage' and would almost certainly have missed each other with a 0.1R.
The problem is, piombo, these aircraft WERE in 'radar coverage' and would almost certainly have missed each other with a 0.1R.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact. If either aircraft had flown a parallel offset then they would not have collided. As BOAC says, ‘the 737 has a 'default' 0.1NM right offset available at all times with a couple of button presses’.
This raises, to me, a very interesting question. Why did the designers of every Long Range Nav, from Delco/Litton INS to all current equipment, include the ability to fly offset with ‘a couple of button presses’.
This is a genuine question to which I’d appreciate knowledgeable answers.
I can only think that this feature was included to help prevent two 500 Knot radomes meeting up. Am I wrong? Was there another reason?
If I’m right, then surely the designers/manufacturers/authorities had an obligation to insist on this being automatic on later equipment.
Am I missing something?
This raises, to me, a very interesting question. Why did the designers of every Long Range Nav, from Delco/Litton INS to all current equipment, include the ability to fly offset with ‘a couple of button presses’.
This is a genuine question to which I’d appreciate knowledgeable answers.
I can only think that this feature was included to help prevent two 500 Knot radomes meeting up. Am I wrong? Was there another reason?
If I’m right, then surely the designers/manufacturers/authorities had an obligation to insist on this being automatic on later equipment.
Am I missing something?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankfully something of which I cannot claim any experience.
Last edited by Bertie Bonkers; 10th Oct 2006 at 21:49. Reason: double negative removed
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the fact that terrestrial traffic has used an offset for the better part of a century, one cannot help but wonder why aeronautical practice has not caught on to this safety feature. 
barit1
Accustomed to a starboard offset, but able to switch to port
barit1
Accustomed to a starboard offset, but able to switch to port
Forget,
"If I’m right, then surely the designers/manufacturers/authorities had an obligation to insist on this being automatic on later equipment."
Would that not simply be a case of manufacturers designing in a function which was expected to become a requirement at a later date. Or that was generally requested by users?
"If I’m right, then surely the designers/manufacturers/authorities had an obligation to insist on this being automatic on later equipment."
Would that not simply be a case of manufacturers designing in a function which was expected to become a requirement at a later date. Or that was generally requested by users?
"Missing component"
FlyVMO,
The latest news (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/200.../286044858.asp) has it that the "component" has not yet been found. Not sure whether it's from the CVR or FDR but the major in charge of the search describes it as a small (about the size of a 600ml bottle) orange cylinder.
The search area, as I'm sure you've seen from photos, is dense forest, quite dark on the floor, pretty exhausting to try to move through. Very much a needle in the haystack search.
Of the 154 on board, 9 bodies had not been found as at today.
The latest news (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/mat/200.../286044858.asp) has it that the "component" has not yet been found. Not sure whether it's from the CVR or FDR but the major in charge of the search describes it as a small (about the size of a 600ml bottle) orange cylinder.
The search area, as I'm sure you've seen from photos, is dense forest, quite dark on the floor, pretty exhausting to try to move through. Very much a needle in the haystack search.
Of the 154 on board, 9 bodies had not been found as at today.