Mid-air collision over Brasil
Scurvy.D.Dog, you state:
I’ve never promoted change without process. Look at the AMATS changes, for which I was responsible in 1991. It all came in superbly and still remains.
In fact you are incorrect. I was howled down by professional pilots and air traffic controllers in relation to the 0.1 nautical mile offset. The balance of Airspace 2000 was almost identical to the current NAS.
Yes, it was undermined in every way by people who resist change, but gradually we are moving ahead and eventually in Australia we will have a well disciplined radar based airspace where jet airline aircraft remain in controlled airspace not in some form of “do it yourself” uncontrolled airspace.
The remainder of your post makes something which is very simple - and just requires commonsense - incredibly complicated. This is what has happened in Australia and in many parts of the world. More and more studies are done – which no doubt earn the consultants a fortune and delay any rational decision making.
You only have to read this thread to know that all of the pilots with lateral thinking abilities know that a small offset will substantially improve safety.
Isn’t it interesting that we have had to have a major accident (or a number of them) to bring this to a head? I’m absolutely confident that in the next 12 months or so, changes will be made to reduce the chance of this type of accident happening in the future.
That was, and still is repeatedly pointed out to those who would promote change without process!
In fact you are incorrect. I was howled down by professional pilots and air traffic controllers in relation to the 0.1 nautical mile offset. The balance of Airspace 2000 was almost identical to the current NAS.
Yes, it was undermined in every way by people who resist change, but gradually we are moving ahead and eventually in Australia we will have a well disciplined radar based airspace where jet airline aircraft remain in controlled airspace not in some form of “do it yourself” uncontrolled airspace.
The remainder of your post makes something which is very simple - and just requires commonsense - incredibly complicated. This is what has happened in Australia and in many parts of the world. More and more studies are done – which no doubt earn the consultants a fortune and delay any rational decision making.
You only have to read this thread to know that all of the pilots with lateral thinking abilities know that a small offset will substantially improve safety.
Isn’t it interesting that we have had to have a major accident (or a number of them) to bring this to a head? I’m absolutely confident that in the next 12 months or so, changes will be made to reduce the chance of this type of accident happening in the future.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Nov 2006 at 23:04.
The remainder of you post makes something which is very simple and just requires commonsense incredibly complicated. This is what has happened in Australia and in many parts of the world. More and more studies are done – which no doubt earn the consultants a fortune and delay any rational decision making.
This is not to say I'm against an offset; I'm all for it, it just needs to be properly analysed.
Unfortunately some quite good ideas are sometimes presented as part of an unpopular package. The good ideas tend to be consigned to the scrap heap together with the bad, human nature being what it is.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here they go . . . .
I guess it was only a matter of time, but the lawyers (vultures?) have moved in. Honeywell (TCAS maker) and ExcelAire are being sued, by families of 10 of the victims, for "Gross Negligence"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6123030.stm
In the lawsuit, the families allege that the ExcelAire jet's pilots were flying at an incorrect altitude and the transponder - a piece of equipment used for gauging an aircraft's position - was not working at the time of the crash. Honeywell, the firm that manufactured the transponder, has said that it is not aware of any evidence to show that was the case. ExcelAire is yet to comment.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, accuses both companies of gross negligence.
"The negligent acts and omissions of ExcelAire and its pilots... were a substantial contributing factor to the mid-air collision," said Robert Lieff, whose law firm is representing the families.
"Honeywell shares responsibility for the collision and the wrongful deaths of the plaintiff's decedents because it defectively designed the transponder," he said
Funny how they already know what happened and who was responsible - and how it's the corporations from "rich" USA and not the Air Traffic orgnisation from "poor" Brazil
And Robert Leif is an attorney who specialises in "Class Actions" etc, from corporate-rich San Fransisco
Just hope that the ensuing circus does not drown out the lessson(s) that might be learned and actions that might be taken to reduce the chance of repetition (offset? dual TCAS?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6123030.stm
In the lawsuit, the families allege that the ExcelAire jet's pilots were flying at an incorrect altitude and the transponder - a piece of equipment used for gauging an aircraft's position - was not working at the time of the crash. Honeywell, the firm that manufactured the transponder, has said that it is not aware of any evidence to show that was the case. ExcelAire is yet to comment.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, accuses both companies of gross negligence.
"The negligent acts and omissions of ExcelAire and its pilots... were a substantial contributing factor to the mid-air collision," said Robert Lieff, whose law firm is representing the families.
"Honeywell shares responsibility for the collision and the wrongful deaths of the plaintiff's decedents because it defectively designed the transponder," he said
Funny how they already know what happened and who was responsible - and how it's the corporations from "rich" USA and not the Air Traffic orgnisation from "poor" Brazil
And Robert Leif is an attorney who specialises in "Class Actions" etc, from corporate-rich San Fransisco
Just hope that the ensuing circus does not drown out the lessson(s) that might be learned and actions that might be taken to reduce the chance of repetition (offset? dual TCAS?)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Pilots Involved in Deadly Brazil Air Collision Stuck in Legal, Emotional Limbo
The Associated Press
Two American pilots involved in Brazil's worst air disaster have been virtual prisoners since the crash, isolating themselves in their hotel rooms just steps from Copacabana beach, their lawyer said Friday.
The two men face possible criminal charges in the accident and remain in the odd emotional limbo reserved for the few people lucky enough to survive a collision in the sky and live to talk about it.
Not that they talk much - Joseph Lepore, 42, of Bay Shore, N.Y., and Jan Paladino, 34, of Westhampton Beach, N.Y., have tried to avoid discussing their feelings about the Sept. 29 collision, their lawyer said Friday.
The accident killed all 154 people on board Gol Airlines Flight 1907 when the jet crashed into the Amazon rainforest. Despite damage to the wing and tail of a smaller jet the Americans were piloting, they managed to land safely, and all seven on board survived.
"The one and only time where there was even a hint toward an emotional direction is when one of the guys said 'why did God pick seven and not 154?'" said attorney Robert Torricela, who has holed up with the pilots in a hotel suite for more than a month.
Lepore and Paladino - employees of ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, N.Y. - had been flying the new Embraer Legacy 600 executive jet back to New York when it collided with the Brazilian passenger jet.
Early speculation in Brazil pointed to errors by the U.S. pilots, but the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper reported this week that air traffic controllers were recorded putting them on a collision course with the bigger jet according to a leaked flight recorder transcript.
Brazil's Defense Minister Waldir Pires earlier labeled "irresponsible" the pilots' statements to investigators that they had been flying at the correct altitude.
Brazilians speculated in the media that the pilots had ignored their flight plan and even switched off the new jet's transponder to avoid being tracked as they tested its performance - allegations denied by the pilots.
Now, the probe into the accident has stalled.
The Brazilian Air Force, citing international conventions, has not turned over control tower transcripts to federal police, nor let criminal investigators interview the 10 air traffic controllers working that day. All 10 controllers have been put on paid leave and offered psychological care.
The American pilots have tried to cooperate, and initially did not contest the seizure of their passports, which their Brazilian lawyer said was illegal. Now they are considering legal action to retrieve their passports and leave Brazil, Torricela said.
"These guys were near death and are confined in a foreign country for no valid legal or factual reason," he said.
Torricella said the pilots will not talk publicly until they have returned to the United States, for fear of stirring up another media frenzy and out of respect for the victims' relatives. They understand how images of them enjoying Rio's beaches would be seen in Brazil, and so have avoided even leaving the hotel.
"They follow the news reports and see what people have said about them. They felt like powerful forces were aligned against them and it scared them," he said.
U.S. Pilots Involved in Deadly Brazil Air Collision Stuck in Legal, Emotional Limbo
The Associated Press
Two American pilots involved in Brazil's worst air disaster have been virtual prisoners since the crash, isolating themselves in their hotel rooms just steps from Copacabana beach, their lawyer said Friday.
The two men face possible criminal charges in the accident and remain in the odd emotional limbo reserved for the few people lucky enough to survive a collision in the sky and live to talk about it.
Not that they talk much - Joseph Lepore, 42, of Bay Shore, N.Y., and Jan Paladino, 34, of Westhampton Beach, N.Y., have tried to avoid discussing their feelings about the Sept. 29 collision, their lawyer said Friday.
The accident killed all 154 people on board Gol Airlines Flight 1907 when the jet crashed into the Amazon rainforest. Despite damage to the wing and tail of a smaller jet the Americans were piloting, they managed to land safely, and all seven on board survived.
"The one and only time where there was even a hint toward an emotional direction is when one of the guys said 'why did God pick seven and not 154?'" said attorney Robert Torricela, who has holed up with the pilots in a hotel suite for more than a month.
Lepore and Paladino - employees of ExcelAire Service Inc. of Ronkonkoma, N.Y. - had been flying the new Embraer Legacy 600 executive jet back to New York when it collided with the Brazilian passenger jet.
Early speculation in Brazil pointed to errors by the U.S. pilots, but the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper reported this week that air traffic controllers were recorded putting them on a collision course with the bigger jet according to a leaked flight recorder transcript.
Brazil's Defense Minister Waldir Pires earlier labeled "irresponsible" the pilots' statements to investigators that they had been flying at the correct altitude.
Brazilians speculated in the media that the pilots had ignored their flight plan and even switched off the new jet's transponder to avoid being tracked as they tested its performance - allegations denied by the pilots.
Now, the probe into the accident has stalled.
The Brazilian Air Force, citing international conventions, has not turned over control tower transcripts to federal police, nor let criminal investigators interview the 10 air traffic controllers working that day. All 10 controllers have been put on paid leave and offered psychological care.
The American pilots have tried to cooperate, and initially did not contest the seizure of their passports, which their Brazilian lawyer said was illegal. Now they are considering legal action to retrieve their passports and leave Brazil, Torricela said.
"These guys were near death and are confined in a foreign country for no valid legal or factual reason," he said.
Torricella said the pilots will not talk publicly until they have returned to the United States, for fear of stirring up another media frenzy and out of respect for the victims' relatives. They understand how images of them enjoying Rio's beaches would be seen in Brazil, and so have avoided even leaving the hotel.
"They follow the news reports and see what people have said about them. They felt like powerful forces were aligned against them and it scared them," he said.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
.
I apologise in advance for this slight diversion, I do so in the hope of putting an end to un-related content in this important discussion!
.
Dick Smith
I’ve never promoted change without process.
.. AusNAS2b!? .. was it not the ARG (Airspace Reform Group.. of which you were a principle member) that insisted US procedures were a ‘reference system’ and on that basis design aeronautical studies were not required, in fact the record would suggest you actively discouraged such assessments.
.
The fact that the US system was not the system being introduced with AusNAS2b is fact, it is demonstrable, and was reversed at great expense as the changes to existing CTA meant a tangible and demonstrable (incident type data both in Oz and the US) reduction in safety in some terminal areas and surrounds! .. the industry was telling you that the whole way along!
… AMATS changes were subject to change processes that were insisted on by those responsible for change oversight at the time … it is arguable whether those changes were on balance valuable or otherwise … certainly not overwhelmingly lauded!
… ‘howled down’ … seems emotive, almost churlish .. perhaps a ‘contrary view’ in your language is being howled down, I would suggest that those responsible for safety oversight raised questions for which you had few answers! … I repeat my previous question
… otherwise, how do you suppose different states might mitigate against different rules on track offset?? .. Hmm .. remember being asked that??
… I rest my case!
… no … resistance to untested/increased risk for no cost or safety benefit!
… ‘Uncontrolled airspace’ such as non-radar E airspace (50% uncontrolled) where VFR are invisible to ATS and IFR as well as other VFR! … lets not forget that unless a VFR TXPDR is ON and mode C is ACCURATE .. ICAO non-radar class E will provide un-alerted see-and-hope to avoid ! ….. moving ahead … are you the one driving further change, are you accepting responsibility for the safety outcomes of such changes??? ….. if you say so!
… there is the key, an enthusiastic amateur would understandably consider Airspace and ATS safety assessments issues as 'complicated' 
… in reality, if you know what you are talking about, they are not, they do require careful handling to ensure they are not creating other potential problems! 
… such as Wes Willoughby?
… ‘rational’ … to a broad section of industry (both professional and recreational), or to an individual?
…. Know …. Will … perhaps you might support that statement with the appropriate data that confirms your contention ….. what I read from this thread is a continuing discussion (one that has occurred from time to time in recent years) regarding the merits of ‘Offset’ … and it seems clear to me that many pilots and air traffic controllers agree, that if it can be done safely without creating other issues then it should … which brings me back to those responsible for stewardship of ‘international coordination and standards liaison’ with ICAO
… yes very sad!
.
… perhaps if those ICAO states 'representative leaders' (of ANSP’s such as, for instance, the former Civil Aviation Authority of Australia and Flight Operations Regulators such as for instance, the former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia) had organised ICAO representations/states with the view to draw consensus, this may not have happened!
.... quite obviously, unless and until the states representative leaders can get their collective acts in to gear, the design and risk managers both ground based and airborne are basically powerless to act in a single state/manufacturer (political approval) context!
.
…. It is pale after the event to be seemingly blaming operations staff (pilots and air traffic controllers) who pointed out (years ago) that ICAO (and its member states) would have to study and sanction ‘standard’ offsets before we could introduce them across borders and around the globe! .... blame shifting perhaps??
…. Yes it is a shame that important safety standards were not coordinated more efficiently in a representative global sense!
.
.. an appeal to your common decency:-
.
.. discussion relating to Australian airspace (half way around the world from Brazil) and one mans rehash of who said what in the past is not really relevant … is it!
.
The offset issue is one thing, and should be discussed thoroughly, but let us not detract from this discussion with A political grandstanding regarding unrelated Australian Airspace arguments. It is neither helpful, nor appropriate in this important thread discussion!
.
.. I am more than happy to continue this in D&G …. If you must get it off your chest … AGAIN!
.
… To the rest of you,
.
Once again, I sincerely apologise for my part in this digression, however, in an international forum such as this one, certain ‘rose coloured’ statements cannot be left unaddressed!
.
I apologise in advance for this slight diversion, I do so in the hope of putting an end to un-related content in this important discussion!
.
Dick Smith
That was, and still is repeatedly pointed out to those who would promote change without process!
.
The fact that the US system was not the system being introduced with AusNAS2b is fact, it is demonstrable, and was reversed at great expense as the changes to existing CTA meant a tangible and demonstrable (incident type data both in Oz and the US) reduction in safety in some terminal areas and surrounds! .. the industry was telling you that the whole way along!
Look at the AMATS changes, for which I was responsible in 1991. It all came in superbly and still remains.
In fact you are incorrect. I was howled down by professional pilots and air traffic controllers in relation to the 0.1 nautical mile offset.
.... did you lobby ICAO states for 'uniform' cross-border offsets back in 1998- or since???
The balance of Airspace 2000 was almost identical to the current NAS.
Yes, it was undermined in every way by people who resist change,
but gradually we are moving ahead and eventually in Australia we will have a well disciplined radar based airspace where jet airline aircraft remain in controlled airspace not in some form of “do it yourself” uncontrolled airspace.
The remainder of your post makes something which is very simple - and just requires commonsense - incredibly complicated.
… in reality, if you know what you are talking about, they are not, they do require careful handling to ensure they are not creating other potential problems!
This is what has happened in Australia and in many parts of the world. More and more studies are done – which no doubt earn the consultants a fortune
..and delay any rational decision making.
You only have to read this thread to know that all of the pilots with lateral thinking abilities know that a small offset will substantially improve safety.
Isn’t it interesting that we have had to have a major accident (or a number of them) to bring this to a head?
.
… perhaps if those ICAO states 'representative leaders' (of ANSP’s such as, for instance, the former Civil Aviation Authority of Australia and Flight Operations Regulators such as for instance, the former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia) had organised ICAO representations/states with the view to draw consensus, this may not have happened!
.... quite obviously, unless and until the states representative leaders can get their collective acts in to gear, the design and risk managers both ground based and airborne are basically powerless to act in a single state/manufacturer (political approval) context!
.
…. It is pale after the event to be seemingly blaming operations staff (pilots and air traffic controllers) who pointed out (years ago) that ICAO (and its member states) would have to study and sanction ‘standard’ offsets before we could introduce them across borders and around the globe! .... blame shifting perhaps??
I’m absolutely confident that in the next 12 months or so, changes will be made to reduce the chance of this type of accident happening in the future.
.
.. an appeal to your common decency:-
.
.. discussion relating to Australian airspace (half way around the world from Brazil) and one mans rehash of who said what in the past is not really relevant … is it!
.
The offset issue is one thing, and should be discussed thoroughly, but let us not detract from this discussion with A political grandstanding regarding unrelated Australian Airspace arguments. It is neither helpful, nor appropriate in this important thread discussion!
.
.. I am more than happy to continue this in D&G …. If you must get it off your chest … AGAIN!
.
… To the rest of you,
.
Once again, I sincerely apologise for my part in this digression, however, in an international forum such as this one, certain ‘rose coloured’ statements cannot be left unaddressed!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear wiley
instead of an offset, which I do understand...simply make all airways/jetroutes ONE WAY
while overtake collisions might still happen, head ons wouldn't.
with GPS, phantom vors ( boy am I old) could allow for one way airways.
instead of an offset, which I do understand...simply make all airways/jetroutes ONE WAY
while overtake collisions might still happen, head ons wouldn't.
with GPS, phantom vors ( boy am I old) could allow for one way airways.
The Brasilia newspaper Correio Brasiliense said today that an airforce source close to the investigation and who has seen/heard the FDR and CVR data, confirmed that the Legacy’s FDR indicates the transponder “jammed” (literal translation from the Portuguese word “travou” which can cover several other meanings including “went to standby”) shortly after overflying Brasilia and that this “impeded all radio transmission or reception” (see note below).
The FDR also confirms the flight was stable at FL370 and not, as Cindacta primary radar recordings showed, varying between FL 320 and FL 420.
The Legacy’s CVR recorded five attempts to contact Cindacta 1 by radio and that they were tuned to the correct Brasilia frequency. At the same time Cindacta were attempting to contact the Legacy, first requesting it to switch the transponder on and, when primary radar began showing the altitude variations, to follow its flight plan - equally without success. Shortly before the collision Cindacta asked on an open frequency that any other aircraft in the vicinity contact the Legacy. There was no reply until after the collision, when the Legacy switched to emergency frequency and both radio and transponder resumed functioning.
End of very free synopsis of the Correio Brasiliense article.
Nothing yet re passports being returned.
ATC returned to “normal” on Sunday with few delays attributable to traffic control. Anyone who wishes to check current status can go to http://www.infraero.gov.br/ and click on “Voos on line”. There were rumours during the weekend that the head of the airforce would resign but, since it’s the airforce personnel who’ve got the planes back in the air that no longer seems to be an issue.
Note: is it conceivable that a defect in the transponder could affect radio communication?
The FDR also confirms the flight was stable at FL370 and not, as Cindacta primary radar recordings showed, varying between FL 320 and FL 420.
The Legacy’s CVR recorded five attempts to contact Cindacta 1 by radio and that they were tuned to the correct Brasilia frequency. At the same time Cindacta were attempting to contact the Legacy, first requesting it to switch the transponder on and, when primary radar began showing the altitude variations, to follow its flight plan - equally without success. Shortly before the collision Cindacta asked on an open frequency that any other aircraft in the vicinity contact the Legacy. There was no reply until after the collision, when the Legacy switched to emergency frequency and both radio and transponder resumed functioning.
End of very free synopsis of the Correio Brasiliense article.
Nothing yet re passports being returned.
ATC returned to “normal” on Sunday with few delays attributable to traffic control. Anyone who wishes to check current status can go to http://www.infraero.gov.br/ and click on “Voos on line”. There were rumours during the weekend that the head of the airforce would resign but, since it’s the airforce personnel who’ve got the planes back in the air that no longer seems to be an issue.
Note: is it conceivable that a defect in the transponder could affect radio communication?
Last edited by broadreach; 7th Nov 2006 at 21:40. Reason: to insert note
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, we are faced with the folllowing dangerous scenario: The Brazilian Air Force is in charge of the investigation of itself. It handles the investigation of Brazilian aircraft incidents and it also is in charge of ATC. And unlike the openess of an NTSB investigation and hearing, it sounds like much of the proceedings are behind closed doors.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. didn't someone report earlier that personnel from O/S agencies were to be part of the investigation??
.
.. if not, they are asking for trouble (perceived and real)!
.
.. one would assume it would be an issue raised in any subsequent legal proceedings
.
.. if not, they are asking for trouble (perceived and real)!
.
.. one would assume it would be an issue raised in any subsequent legal proceedings
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, we are faced with the folllowing dangerous scenario: The Brazilian Air Force is in charge of the investigation of itself. It handles the investigation of Brazilian aircraft incidents and it also is in charge of ATC. And unlike the openess of an NTSB investigation and hearing, it sounds like much of the proceedings are behind closed doors.
NTSB investigations are not open either, at least during the actual investigation process. Apart from press releases there is no official word from the NTSB until the investigation is finished. At that point the hearing will take place and the results and conclusions made public. That is the process in almost all countries, and strangely enough, that is exactly the process going on here. Once the investigation is completed the details will be released, until then there will be mostly uninformed speculation based on press comments.
Please take the trouble to read through the thread before making comments like this. If you had actually done that you would know that this investigation has representatives from the FAA, NTSB, and Boeing as an integral part of the investigation team.
NTSB investigations are not open either, at least during the actual investigation process. Apart from press releases there is no official word from the NTSB until the investigation is finished. At that point the hearing will take place and the results and conclusions made public. That is the process in almost all countries, and strangely enough, that is exactly the process going on here. Once the investigation is completed the details will be released, until then there will be mostly uninformed speculation based on press comments.
NTSB investigations are not open either, at least during the actual investigation process. Apart from press releases there is no official word from the NTSB until the investigation is finished. At that point the hearing will take place and the results and conclusions made public. That is the process in almost all countries, and strangely enough, that is exactly the process going on here. Once the investigation is completed the details will be released, until then there will be mostly uninformed speculation based on press comments.
Most investigations are open and credible updates and status are released by the single agency in charge. Other participants may openly discuss the potential impact of such releases on their organization. The greater industry itself can not afford to await a final report before adjusting to lessons learned in flight safety.
As an outsider to the investigation I can only express my own dismay at the overwheming mis information released by pseudo official sources in this accident only to be contradicted later.
And as so called members of the investigative team, NTSB & Boeing, my understanding is that they act only as advisors and as such speak only when asked. For this reason we have no ability to receive a public comment from them.
I suspect that there will be more surprises coming later as well as a lingering distrust.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
You're right, I wasn't entirely correct with my statement. I should have specified that information is not released to the public until the end of the investigation, whereas relevant facts will be circulated within the aviation industry as soon as they are known.
However, the misinformation that you refer to is not something that happens only in Brazil. It happens everywhere, including in the US and Europe, as the recent Helios and Comair accidents clearly show.
Why do you think that the "black boxes" were sent to Canada for evaluation? The Brazilian authorities were aware very early of the potential for distrust, especially as the crew and most of the passengers from the US registered Legacy are US citizens. They were also well aware that many US citizens regard Brazil as a corrupt and lawless society which would only be interested in blaming a couple of US pilots to cover up inadequacies in the ATC system here. A perception that has been well illustrated by some posts on this thread.
It's not quite like that in reality and this accident will be properly investigated and reported. The presence, even as observers, of the NTSB and Boeing will see to that. Do you really think that the NTSB would not speak out, even in the US, if they thought something was wrong?
The buffoon in charge of the FAB has been muzzled, and not a moment too soon. It was largely his comments that led to a heated environment and now the investigation team can get on with the task of finding out why TCAS didn't work. That will be the most important flight safety lesson to come out of this tragedy.
You're right, I wasn't entirely correct with my statement. I should have specified that information is not released to the public until the end of the investigation, whereas relevant facts will be circulated within the aviation industry as soon as they are known.
However, the misinformation that you refer to is not something that happens only in Brazil. It happens everywhere, including in the US and Europe, as the recent Helios and Comair accidents clearly show.
Why do you think that the "black boxes" were sent to Canada for evaluation? The Brazilian authorities were aware very early of the potential for distrust, especially as the crew and most of the passengers from the US registered Legacy are US citizens. They were also well aware that many US citizens regard Brazil as a corrupt and lawless society which would only be interested in blaming a couple of US pilots to cover up inadequacies in the ATC system here. A perception that has been well illustrated by some posts on this thread.
It's not quite like that in reality and this accident will be properly investigated and reported. The presence, even as observers, of the NTSB and Boeing will see to that. Do you really think that the NTSB would not speak out, even in the US, if they thought something was wrong?
The buffoon in charge of the FAB has been muzzled, and not a moment too soon. It was largely his comments that led to a heated environment and now the investigation team can get on with the task of finding out why TCAS didn't work. That will be the most important flight safety lesson to come out of this tragedy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIO DE JANEIRO: A Brazilian judge Wednesday impounded a private US business jet involved in a September mid-air collision that sent a Brazilian Gol Airline jet crashing into the Amazon jungle, killing 154 people on board.
The Legacy jet, built by Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer, is owned by US company ExcelAire and is currently parked at the Serra do Cachimbo air base in Mato Grosso, where it landed after the collision with all five people on board unhurt.
The order to seize the 24-million-dollar jet came in response to a request by families of the GOL Airlines crash victims. It will be used as collateral for possible compensation.
.
The Legacy jets American pilots, Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Palladino, have been detained by Brazilian authorities to face possible criminal charges.
.
Meanwhile, Brazilian Defense Minister Waldir Pires on Wednesday branded as "totally inappropriate" the reported statements of ExcelAire officials who blamed the accident on flight controllers.
.
"The control tower doesn't decide the altitudes. That's determined by the flight plan," he said, inventively.
.
from link
The Legacy jet, built by Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer, is owned by US company ExcelAire and is currently parked at the Serra do Cachimbo air base in Mato Grosso, where it landed after the collision with all five people on board unhurt.
The order to seize the 24-million-dollar jet came in response to a request by families of the GOL Airlines crash victims. It will be used as collateral for possible compensation.
.
The Legacy jets American pilots, Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Palladino, have been detained by Brazilian authorities to face possible criminal charges.
.
Meanwhile, Brazilian Defense Minister Waldir Pires on Wednesday branded as "totally inappropriate" the reported statements of ExcelAire officials who blamed the accident on flight controllers.
.
"The control tower doesn't decide the altitudes. That's determined by the flight plan," he said, inventively.
.
from link
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts have to go out to the Legacy flight crew whose future may depend on the influence held by this cretin Pires who does not only have no understanding of aeronautical proceedures but does'nt know enough to keep his mouth shut so as not to look a complete bloody fool.