Mid-air collision over Brasil
And why is the same latitude not given across continental Australia when not radar identified. And *&^#@$ it, why not even when you ARE identified when not in the terminal area, say 30 nm from the major airports?? What is the big deal if you are 0.5 nm off the airways centreline.
Would an Aussie ATC'r please explain what the big deal is? If an airways was defined with a lateral area of 1 or 2 nm either side, why can't you simply add that to whatever lateral limits there are with other aircraft diverting from adjacent airways??
What do we have to do to get the ball rolling on changing the status quo?
Would an Aussie ATC'r please explain what the big deal is? If an airways was defined with a lateral area of 1 or 2 nm either side, why can't you simply add that to whatever lateral limits there are with other aircraft diverting from adjacent airways??
What do we have to do to get the ball rolling on changing the status quo?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that this is pertinent, but it may offer some clues. 
Barit1
Yes it probably is. From this perspective it sometimes seems that Brazil has more lawyers per capita than any other country, although I know the US wins hands down in that miserable ranking.
On the other hand, even the simplest legal cases here can go on for decades so you might go through several generations of lawyers (as well as claimants) so perhaps young Joao Victor is onto something.
Many private universities are in it only for the money so the bar in this case could well have been lower. I once sat on the examining board of one, judging final-year foreign trade students' oral defenses. Once was enough: I didn't pass a single one.
Yes it probably is. From this perspective it sometimes seems that Brazil has more lawyers per capita than any other country, although I know the US wins hands down in that miserable ranking.
On the other hand, even the simplest legal cases here can go on for decades so you might go through several generations of lawyers (as well as claimants) so perhaps young Joao Victor is onto something.
Many private universities are in it only for the money so the bar in this case could well have been lower. I once sat on the examining board of one, judging final-year foreign trade students' oral defenses. Once was enough: I didn't pass a single one.
Blip:
You're barking up the wrong tree!
ATC don't make the rules, they just apply them!
I'm sure they would accommodate your half-mile; if you ask nicely...
Would an Aussie ATC'r please explain what the big deal is?
ATC don't make the rules, they just apply them!
I'm sure they would accommodate your half-mile; if you ask nicely...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aviation International News today
Legacy Midair Pilots Can Now Testify in U.S.
Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino–the two U.S. pilots of an ExcelAire Legacy 600 that collided with a Gol Airlines Boeing 737-800 over Brazil’s Amazon jungle in September 2006, killing all 154 aboard the airliner–will now be allowed to testify in a criminal trial from the U.S. A Brazilian federal court judge reversed his previous decision based on new case law from the Federal Supreme Court, which decided that two North American flight attendants, in similar circumstances, would be allowed to testify in their own country. According to Theo Dias, the pilots’ criminal lawyer in Brazil, a U.S. legal body such as a state attorney will be selected to hear the pilots’ evidence, probably in their home state of New York. However, with the need to translate questionnaires and legal documents and decide which court will hear the proceedings, this process is likely to take a while. “It may take three months or more before the pilots can be heard,” said Dias. The two pilots already spoke to Cenipa investigators in January for some 20 hours over the course of three days at the NTSB offices in Washington, D.C.
Legacy Midair Pilots Can Now Testify in U.S.
Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino–the two U.S. pilots of an ExcelAire Legacy 600 that collided with a Gol Airlines Boeing 737-800 over Brazil’s Amazon jungle in September 2006, killing all 154 aboard the airliner–will now be allowed to testify in a criminal trial from the U.S. A Brazilian federal court judge reversed his previous decision based on new case law from the Federal Supreme Court, which decided that two North American flight attendants, in similar circumstances, would be allowed to testify in their own country. According to Theo Dias, the pilots’ criminal lawyer in Brazil, a U.S. legal body such as a state attorney will be selected to hear the pilots’ evidence, probably in their home state of New York. However, with the need to translate questionnaires and legal documents and decide which court will hear the proceedings, this process is likely to take a while. “It may take three months or more before the pilots can be heard,” said Dias. The two pilots already spoke to Cenipa investigators in January for some 20 hours over the course of three days at the NTSB offices in Washington, D.C.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that this is pertinent, but it may offer some clues
If it were, what to say about the US who put a two year old boy in the Presidency ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aviation International News today.
Midair Collision Civil Suit Moves to Brazilian Courts
Wrongful-death suits brought on behalf of family members of passengers and crew killed in the 2006 midair involving a Legacy business jet and a Brazilian Gol Airlines Boeing 737 were dismissed last Thursday by New York District Court judge Brian Cogan based on his opinion that the Brazilian courts are a more appropriate venue. Among the defendants are Honeywell, which provided the avionics for the Legacy; the aircraft operator, Long Island-based charter and aircraft management provider ExcelAire; and pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino, who were in control of the Legacy at the time of the accident. The crash of the Gol airliner following the midair killed all 154 passengers and crew aboard the Boeing. The initial lawsuit on behalf of those whose families died in the crash was filed in November 2006. In making his decision, Cogan observed, “On the whole, this court’s inability to compel testimony or evidence from potentially unwilling witnesses located in Brazil, compared to the Brazilian courts’ likely access to all the evidences, weighs in favor of dismissal.” While the pilots have agreed to provide testimony to Brazilian courts, Brazilian air traffic controllers and other Brazilian entities might choose to provide no evidence at all to a U.S. court, explained Cogan. The decision also took into consideration an agreement by all defendants to consent to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts with regard to the civil actions, with certain exceptions. ExcelAire agreed to all conditions except the toll of any applicable statute of limitations. The Legacy pilots agreed to the domestication of any Brazilian judgment against them; they also agreed to appear for videotaped or transcribed depositions taken in the U.S., and to provide evidence in response to interrogatory requests by the Brazilian courts.
Midair Collision Civil Suit Moves to Brazilian Courts
Wrongful-death suits brought on behalf of family members of passengers and crew killed in the 2006 midair involving a Legacy business jet and a Brazilian Gol Airlines Boeing 737 were dismissed last Thursday by New York District Court judge Brian Cogan based on his opinion that the Brazilian courts are a more appropriate venue. Among the defendants are Honeywell, which provided the avionics for the Legacy; the aircraft operator, Long Island-based charter and aircraft management provider ExcelAire; and pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino, who were in control of the Legacy at the time of the accident. The crash of the Gol airliner following the midair killed all 154 passengers and crew aboard the Boeing. The initial lawsuit on behalf of those whose families died in the crash was filed in November 2006. In making his decision, Cogan observed, “On the whole, this court’s inability to compel testimony or evidence from potentially unwilling witnesses located in Brazil, compared to the Brazilian courts’ likely access to all the evidences, weighs in favor of dismissal.” While the pilots have agreed to provide testimony to Brazilian courts, Brazilian air traffic controllers and other Brazilian entities might choose to provide no evidence at all to a U.S. court, explained Cogan. The decision also took into consideration an agreement by all defendants to consent to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts with regard to the civil actions, with certain exceptions. ExcelAire agreed to all conditions except the toll of any applicable statute of limitations. The Legacy pilots agreed to the domestication of any Brazilian judgment against them; they also agreed to appear for videotaped or transcribed depositions taken in the U.S., and to provide evidence in response to interrogatory requests by the Brazilian courts.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: São Paulo
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a copy of the judge's decision if anyone needs it.
For the relatives to sue in Brazilian courts, there are three possible statutes of limitations, in the Code of the Air, the Civil Code, and the Consumer Code. The shortest is in the Code of the Air, two years.
The families have an incentive to sue in the Brazilian courts, instead of betting the bank on an appeal of this decision, which will push them beyond the two years. At least one of the leading lawyers expects a flood of work on this before September 29, 2008. (Because I talked to his secretary just after the decision came out, that's how I know.)
The American lawyers have said they plan to appeal. Their incentive is different than that of the relatives: Brazilian courts will award the families lower damages, but based on past experience will enforce no fees for American lawyers. The lawyers have everything to gain by betting on an appeal, and nothing to lose if they miss a Brazilian filing deadline.
I've been told that the National Geographic Channel documentary has been aired. I've also heard that the aeronautic investigation report is done or very close.
Four air traffic controllers are on trial in the federal court in Sinop, Mato Grosso, and five have been indicted in the Military Courts. The fifth controller is the explanation as to what caused the collision, as opposed to what failed to prevent it. The Brazilian press fails to question the discrepancy, though.
- Richard
For the relatives to sue in Brazilian courts, there are three possible statutes of limitations, in the Code of the Air, the Civil Code, and the Consumer Code. The shortest is in the Code of the Air, two years.
The families have an incentive to sue in the Brazilian courts, instead of betting the bank on an appeal of this decision, which will push them beyond the two years. At least one of the leading lawyers expects a flood of work on this before September 29, 2008. (Because I talked to his secretary just after the decision came out, that's how I know.)
The American lawyers have said they plan to appeal. Their incentive is different than that of the relatives: Brazilian courts will award the families lower damages, but based on past experience will enforce no fees for American lawyers. The lawyers have everything to gain by betting on an appeal, and nothing to lose if they miss a Brazilian filing deadline.
I've been told that the National Geographic Channel documentary has been aired. I've also heard that the aeronautic investigation report is done or very close.
Four air traffic controllers are on trial in the federal court in Sinop, Mato Grosso, and five have been indicted in the Military Courts. The fifth controller is the explanation as to what caused the collision, as opposed to what failed to prevent it. The Brazilian press fails to question the discrepancy, though.
- Richard
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard, thanks for sharing this with us.Very interesting.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this point ?
The fifth controller is the explanation as to what caused the collision, as opposed to what failed to prevent it. The Brazilian press fails to question the discrepancy, though.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: São Paulo
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you elaborate a bit more on this point ?
Here's part of his note:
We will examine the occurences:
1) On September 19, 1986 Embraer delivered to the American company Atlanta Southeast Airlines a Brasilia aircraft, registry N219AS. The aircraft took off from São José dos Campos with The United States as its destination with a stop in Manaus and collided with the Serra da Mantiqueira mountains, killing 5 people.
The aircraft with an American crew collided with a mountain range covered by clouds at 700 feet from its crest, maintaining an altitude of 5,000 feet or FL050. The flight was instructed by the controller to climb to FL280 on radius 253 of the São José VOR, however, for unknown motives, remained at 5,000 feet on radial 012.
The final report on the accident detected as a contributing factor, among other, the improper phrases used by the São José TWR controller on instructing the aircraft to climb to level 280 and informing "crossing" FL050 instead of "passing" FL050. When the American pilot read back crossing FL050 the controller responded "roger" (understood) and the pilot stayed at crossing, awaiting a new authorization to climb and collided. That occurrence generated a safety recommendation by CENIPA to take care with English phraseology, but there was no investment made that yielded improvement in the controllers' English.
2) On September 29, 2006 Embraer delivered to the American company ExcelAir a Legacy aircraft registry N600XL. The aircraft took off from São José dos Campos with the United States as its destination with a stop in Manaus and collided in flight with a commercial aircraft of GOL (B737-800) near the beacon TERES at the boundary between FIR Brasilia and Amazônica, killing 154 people.
"Déjà vu!" - 20 years later, coincidentally in the month of September of 2006, the scene is repeated. A new Embraer aircraft was delivered to American pilots, with doubtful technical capacity in the aircraft, badly oriented by DOV, received incomplete clearance from TWR São José, flew over Brasilia, presented communications problems, there was a failure in RADAR communications, stayed at a level that was incorrect, although that determined in the clearance and collided with GOL 1907. The initial investigations turned to the pilot's difficulty in understanding the Brazilian controllers' instructions, not only because of the language, but also because of the different interpretations existing among the FAA, the ICAO standards and the Brazilian terminologies.
The saddest and most decisive evidence of this episode is that "disgracefully" besides the coincidences of situations, the valuable principle of SIPAER (System for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautic Accidents) was confirmed , because the controller was the same who participated in the 1986 occurrence.
And that's the fifth controller. 1) On September 19, 1986 Embraer delivered to the American company Atlanta Southeast Airlines a Brasilia aircraft, registry N219AS. The aircraft took off from São José dos Campos with The United States as its destination with a stop in Manaus and collided with the Serra da Mantiqueira mountains, killing 5 people.
The aircraft with an American crew collided with a mountain range covered by clouds at 700 feet from its crest, maintaining an altitude of 5,000 feet or FL050. The flight was instructed by the controller to climb to FL280 on radius 253 of the São José VOR, however, for unknown motives, remained at 5,000 feet on radial 012.
The final report on the accident detected as a contributing factor, among other, the improper phrases used by the São José TWR controller on instructing the aircraft to climb to level 280 and informing "crossing" FL050 instead of "passing" FL050. When the American pilot read back crossing FL050 the controller responded "roger" (understood) and the pilot stayed at crossing, awaiting a new authorization to climb and collided. That occurrence generated a safety recommendation by CENIPA to take care with English phraseology, but there was no investment made that yielded improvement in the controllers' English.
2) On September 29, 2006 Embraer delivered to the American company ExcelAir a Legacy aircraft registry N600XL. The aircraft took off from São José dos Campos with the United States as its destination with a stop in Manaus and collided in flight with a commercial aircraft of GOL (B737-800) near the beacon TERES at the boundary between FIR Brasilia and Amazônica, killing 154 people.
"Déjà vu!" - 20 years later, coincidentally in the month of September of 2006, the scene is repeated. A new Embraer aircraft was delivered to American pilots, with doubtful technical capacity in the aircraft, badly oriented by DOV, received incomplete clearance from TWR São José, flew over Brasilia, presented communications problems, there was a failure in RADAR communications, stayed at a level that was incorrect, although that determined in the clearance and collided with GOL 1907. The initial investigations turned to the pilot's difficulty in understanding the Brazilian controllers' instructions, not only because of the language, but also because of the different interpretations existing among the FAA, the ICAO standards and the Brazilian terminologies.
The saddest and most decisive evidence of this episode is that "disgracefully" besides the coincidences of situations, the valuable principle of SIPAER (System for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautic Accidents) was confirmed , because the controller was the same who participated in the 1986 occurrence.
- Richard
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your clarification Richard. I have not read the previous crash report you refer to,but from what you tell us, I guess that the phraseology issue was a possible contributing factor, definitively not a cause.
From your description , I believe the departure was a non-radar one and the aircraft was clear to fly a VOR radial. Under those circumstance it is the responsibility of the pilot to avoid terrain, not the controller ( he cannot see where the aircraft is at which altitude) . If , as you described , the pilot leveled off on the wrong radial below minimum altitude, it is not the controller responsibility.
Also the difference between " passing" and " Crossing " a FL cannot be understood as leveling off. There must be more to the story.
Therefore I do not see any link between the 2 accidents , other than they were delivery flights operating by US crews in a unknown environment.
From your description , I believe the departure was a non-radar one and the aircraft was clear to fly a VOR radial. Under those circumstance it is the responsibility of the pilot to avoid terrain, not the controller ( he cannot see where the aircraft is at which altitude) . If , as you described , the pilot leveled off on the wrong radial below minimum altitude, it is not the controller responsibility.
Also the difference between " passing" and " Crossing " a FL cannot be understood as leveling off. There must be more to the story.
Therefore I do not see any link between the 2 accidents , other than they were delivery flights operating by US crews in a unknown environment.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: São Paulo
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The January issue of Vanity Fair will have a 13-page article on the collision.
The article is already up on the web site at William Langewiesche on the Amazon air crash: About Us: vanityfair.com The Web article includes black-box audio of both the Gol Boeing and the Legacy 600.
The Legacy recording starts some four minutes before the "BEGINNING OF RECORDING" in the transcriptions that have turned up in court filings. It has some dialog that seems to have been elided from the transcripts. Also, the phrase, "Yes, the TCAS is off", which on a recording leaked to TV seemed to be "Yes, the TCAS in on", seems to just have a very broad New York accent. About 1:26:02.
One question the recording does answer is why the phrase "in blind" wasn't hear in Brasilia's last transmission to the Legacy before the collision. There's a burst of static on the recording then, at 1:20:20. On the Gol's black box, the phrase appears at 26:02, but the pilots are talking over the transmission.
I am not a pilot, and my sound equipment is utterly basic. Someone else can make more sense of this than I.
As to the article itself, its main technical source seems to be Megaron, who is an Indian chief.
- Richard
The article is already up on the web site at William Langewiesche on the Amazon air crash: About Us: vanityfair.com The Web article includes black-box audio of both the Gol Boeing and the Legacy 600.
The Legacy recording starts some four minutes before the "BEGINNING OF RECORDING" in the transcriptions that have turned up in court filings. It has some dialog that seems to have been elided from the transcripts. Also, the phrase, "Yes, the TCAS is off", which on a recording leaked to TV seemed to be "Yes, the TCAS in on", seems to just have a very broad New York accent. About 1:26:02.
One question the recording does answer is why the phrase "in blind" wasn't hear in Brasilia's last transmission to the Legacy before the collision. There's a burst of static on the recording then, at 1:20:20. On the Gol's black box, the phrase appears at 26:02, but the pilots are talking over the transmission.
I am not a pilot, and my sound equipment is utterly basic. Someone else can make more sense of this than I.
As to the article itself, its main technical source seems to be Megaron, who is an Indian chief.
- Richard
Vanity Fair
Richard,
Thanks so much for your contributions, especially the link to the Vanity Fair article. In the more than 35 years I have spent in the aviation business that is the most accurate, informative, and well-written article I have ever seen in the mass media. Langewiesche has done a masterful job of telling the story in terms that all readers can understand, and he did his research exceedingly well. Most importantly he succeeded in the most difficut task for any writer of non-fiction: humanising a story without using hyperbole, and without glorifying or degrading anyone.
Thanks again for that,
Grizz
Thanks so much for your contributions, especially the link to the Vanity Fair article. In the more than 35 years I have spent in the aviation business that is the most accurate, informative, and well-written article I have ever seen in the mass media. Langewiesche has done a masterful job of telling the story in terms that all readers can understand, and he did his research exceedingly well. Most importantly he succeeded in the most difficut task for any writer of non-fiction: humanising a story without using hyperbole, and without glorifying or degrading anyone.
Thanks again for that,
Grizz
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Langewiesch is clearly prejudiced against corporate aviation and those connected with it. Just look at the phraseology he uses. The article is a disgraceful example of biased journalism.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: São Paulo
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's Brazilian press carries articles claiming the final report on the accident will be released this week, and giving what are purportedly the report's conclusions.
The accident investigation was done by CENIPA, which is part of the Brazilian Air Force. The Air Force released a statement on the accident report this afternoon.
In reading this, keep in mind that the reports in the media say the report concludes the pilots turned off the transponder. There is a small group of relatives of the accident victims who are determined to find some way to blame the American pilots for the crash. These people have repeatedly told lies in the past. They have not "spun" or "shaded" or "given their side", they have repeatedly and consistently made statements that are factually untrue, and known to be untrue.
Below, the complete Air Force statement.
http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=2051
06/12/2008 - 13h40
Note: Final Report Flight 1907
In relation to the material published in the press about the FINAL REPORT ON THE FLIGHT 1907 ACCIDENT, the Air Force Center for Social Communication (CECOMSAER) clarified that this document will be presented to the victims' relatives on December 10, 2008, at 13:00, at the Center for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautic Accidents, in Brasilia, according to an invitation issued on Friday, yesterday, 5/12. Only after fulfilling this commitment to first inform the relatives, will the content be presented to the press in general.
Additionally, this Center confirms that CENIPA held a meeting with victims' relatives, on August 9, 2008. At that meeting, the relatives saw segments of the reconstruction of the accident, based on the voice and data records of the black boxes of the aircraft involved in the accident. They also received information about the work done up to that point by the Commission, however they were informed that the conclusions will be presented in the final document.
The principal points presented in the meeting with the families, already supplied to the press, were the following:
1) No errors were found in the design or integration of the communications, transponder and TCAS (anti-collision) equipment of aircraft N600XL (the Legacy);
2) Between January 29 and 31, the two American pilots were heard, in individual interviews, at the headquarters of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), in Washington, in the United States. The pilots heard two hours of audio recorded by the black-box (CVR) of aircraft N600XL and answered a long questionnaire elaborated by the Commission of Investigation about the accident;
3) The pilots said that they did not undertake any intentional act to interrupt the functioning of the transponder and, consequently, of the aircraft's anti-collision system, as well as not having noticed or remembered having done anything that could have caused the accidental interruption of the functioning of that equipment;
4) Some rules and procedures were not correctly followed in the occurrence, which led the Commission to analyze the reasons for this having happened, with the objective of elaborating flight safety recommendations. These considerations will be made in the final report;
5) In the accident no indication was found of influence of radar coverage, through inefficiency or deficiency in air traffic control communications and surveillance equipment;
6) Additional information on the technical investigation will be supplied at the end of the work, with the conclusion of the final report. Air Brigadier Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez
Head of the AIR FORCE CENTER FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
Source: CECOMSAER
The accident investigation was done by CENIPA, which is part of the Brazilian Air Force. The Air Force released a statement on the accident report this afternoon.
In reading this, keep in mind that the reports in the media say the report concludes the pilots turned off the transponder. There is a small group of relatives of the accident victims who are determined to find some way to blame the American pilots for the crash. These people have repeatedly told lies in the past. They have not "spun" or "shaded" or "given their side", they have repeatedly and consistently made statements that are factually untrue, and known to be untrue.
Below, the complete Air Force statement.
http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=2051
06/12/2008 - 13h40
Note: Final Report Flight 1907
In relation to the material published in the press about the FINAL REPORT ON THE FLIGHT 1907 ACCIDENT, the Air Force Center for Social Communication (CECOMSAER) clarified that this document will be presented to the victims' relatives on December 10, 2008, at 13:00, at the Center for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautic Accidents, in Brasilia, according to an invitation issued on Friday, yesterday, 5/12. Only after fulfilling this commitment to first inform the relatives, will the content be presented to the press in general.
Additionally, this Center confirms that CENIPA held a meeting with victims' relatives, on August 9, 2008. At that meeting, the relatives saw segments of the reconstruction of the accident, based on the voice and data records of the black boxes of the aircraft involved in the accident. They also received information about the work done up to that point by the Commission, however they were informed that the conclusions will be presented in the final document.
The principal points presented in the meeting with the families, already supplied to the press, were the following:
1) No errors were found in the design or integration of the communications, transponder and TCAS (anti-collision) equipment of aircraft N600XL (the Legacy);
2) Between January 29 and 31, the two American pilots were heard, in individual interviews, at the headquarters of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board), in Washington, in the United States. The pilots heard two hours of audio recorded by the black-box (CVR) of aircraft N600XL and answered a long questionnaire elaborated by the Commission of Investigation about the accident;
3) The pilots said that they did not undertake any intentional act to interrupt the functioning of the transponder and, consequently, of the aircraft's anti-collision system, as well as not having noticed or remembered having done anything that could have caused the accidental interruption of the functioning of that equipment;
4) Some rules and procedures were not correctly followed in the occurrence, which led the Commission to analyze the reasons for this having happened, with the objective of elaborating flight safety recommendations. These considerations will be made in the final report;
5) In the accident no indication was found of influence of radar coverage, through inefficiency or deficiency in air traffic control communications and surveillance equipment;
6) Additional information on the technical investigation will be supplied at the end of the work, with the conclusion of the final report. Air Brigadier Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez
Head of the AIR FORCE CENTER FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
Source: CECOMSAER
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for this double information Richard, very interesting.
Carrier : The article is journalism, made for the masses, it is not an accident investigation report. With this in mind I find it rather good, even if there are some innacuracies and perhaps incorrect assumptions, I particularly like the last sentence. The lateral offset debate can go on.
I am curious to see the tone of the CENIPA report next week. However , looking at the Air force statement one can see already the pressures that were applied :
1) Honneywell and Embraer are off the hook .
5) The Brazilian air force wanted all in Brazil to believe that, and they apparently won.
Wait and see for the full report before commenting further.
Carrier : The article is journalism, made for the masses, it is not an accident investigation report. With this in mind I find it rather good, even if there are some innacuracies and perhaps incorrect assumptions, I particularly like the last sentence. The lateral offset debate can go on.
I am curious to see the tone of the CENIPA report next week. However , looking at the Air force statement one can see already the pressures that were applied :
1) Honneywell and Embraer are off the hook .
5) The Brazilian air force wanted all in Brazil to believe that, and they apparently won.
Wait and see for the full report before commenting further.