Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Mid-air collision over Brasil

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Mid-air collision over Brasil

Old 16th Oct 2007, 23:31
  #1341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
per aviadornovato -
IFALPA should learn more about the countries to which it issues its recommendations
Many of us will see it the other way around. Countries inclined to pursue criminal procedings against pilots should learn more about international civil aviation law and practice.

(thinks: Do Brazilian pilots have to follow different rules when they leave Brazilian airspace? Are the rules that different?)
barit1 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:05
  #1342 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(thinks: Do Brazilian pilots have to follow different rules when they leave Brazilian airspace? Are the rules that different?)
Excellent point barit1, if in fact true, the posters here that are blaming the Legacy pilots for the accident for not changing their FL without ATC approval are proved totally wrong or Brazilians pilot would have been being violated by every country in the world.

Of course they are not, because Brazilian pilots are very professional.



(The real one's anyway.)
con-pilot is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:27
  #1343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IFALPA and IFATCA are non-governamental organization, that talks in the name of the defendants. They should know better the Constitution and the laws in their own countries:

US Code of Federal Regulations:
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Phillip J. Kolczynski, American attorney in “Criminal Liability in Aviation”:
Some states have established criminal liability for unintentional homicide with an offense they call ‘criminal negligence’. Other states punish negligent homicide as a form of ‘manslaughter’. This charge is often called ‘involuntary manslaughter’. These criminal charges require more than just simple negligence. In fact, most well-written state laws require more than ‘gross negligence’ for a criminal prosecution.
Why is the NTSB, which now knows precisely what happened, is sitting on its hands, citing procedure, when two American pilots are being criminally accused?
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:28
  #1344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many of us will see it the other way around. Countries inclined to pursue criminal procedings against pilots should learn more about international civil aviation law and practice.
Barit,

Let us let "countries" out of this topic.

I am one of those who are against the criminal proceeding against the pilots. However I cannot tolerate this "Brazil bashing" talk. This is pure prejudice and nothing else. Kind of "dick measurement contest".

If pilots are unhappy with the behaviour of the Brazilian Judiciary, WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH, so please direct the complaints against the right person: The Judge and the Federal Prosecutor in charge. This is the only reason why I am intervening here.

If a foreigner told you that any Judiciary absurd that happened in the United States was a proof of Americans not knowing anything about this or that international law how would you react ?
aviadornovato is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:33
  #1345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the posters here that are blaming the Legacy pilots for the accident
Are not (only) the posters here that are blaming. Are NTSB, CENIPA, almost all pilots in Brazil, all controllers, all newspapers and all magazines.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:45
  #1346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PS:
I, personally, blame the pilots bosses -- that were in the Legacy as passengers and almost lost their lives-- and controllers bosses -- that were in controlling room -- and didn't give them correct training.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:50
  #1347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our government should be ashamed for allowing the airspace over Brazil get in to this mess.

I heard a rumor saying some international airline pilots are being instructed by their Ops to fly on the "shoulder" of the airways when over Brazil's airspace.
Ok, Rob21. I agree with you.

But just to put some "pepper in the sauce", I would sugest you read the whole story of the Uberlingen collision back in 2002...
aviadornovato is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 00:56
  #1348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know why people here are worried about finding ONE cause (ONE guilty). ALL of them have their responsabilities: pilots, controllers and their bosses.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 01:10
  #1349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Con Pilot,
Excellent point barit1, if in fact true, the posters here that are blaming the Legacy pilots for the accident for not changing their FL without ATC approval are proved totally wrong or Brazilians pilot would have been being violated by every country in the world.
No Con Pilot, NTSB/CENIPA is blaming the pilots, besides transponder issue, for not requesting an ammended clearance when they received a clearly incorrect (FL370 in UZ6) and incomplete clearance (CRAFT: Clearance limit, route, altitude, frequency, transponder).
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 04:00
  #1350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATC has responsibility for this midair collision

Under the circumstances of lost contact with the Legacy, the correct ATC procedure would have been for Brasilia Center to have called Manaus Center [by telephone] and alerted them about the Legacy's altitude [FL370]. Then Manaus Center would have contacted the GOL B737 and have it vacate FL370...
GlueBall is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 10:31
  #1351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Glueball,

When Brasilia lost transponder signal, 1 hour before collision, and this was displayed at their ATC screen, they immediately should have called Legacy, ... and they didn’t. 30 before collision, when Brasilia lost radio communications, they should adopt all applicable procedures (bridge between planes, using emergency frequency, …), ... and they didn’t. After failing all of these procedures, they should put away all traffic against the Legacy because they didn’t know its altitude due to the transponder failure, ... and they didn’t. All errors after Brasilia, besides the transponder issue, are controllers procedures errors.

The accident was in a ACC-Brasilia sector, and Gol flight was already under control of ACC-Brasilia, and in ATC mind, Legacy were in FL 360, ATC didn’t guess that Legacy was FL 370. That it is why they didn’t guess that there was a mid-air collision risk at that moment. They assumed that it was just a transponder mistaken code issue.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 10:42
  #1352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is the reading of testimony of the controller who issued the wrong clearance at Senate. Maybe it helps to understand what happened:

SENATOR DEMOSTENES TORRES: “Sergeant Felipe S.R. were not heard on this CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry). He affirmed – he is one of the indicted – as was published by press, that would not talk about the accident and his professional conduct. His intention of stay in silence was confirmed when he was requested to testify at CPI of the Chamber of Deputies (in Brazil there is two chambers – Deputies and Senate). If he said nothing to Chamber of Deputies, it became clear in his testimony to police officer Sayao, there is no doubt that his conduct was relevant to the accident. He said to police officer... So, this testimony is important for what? Because he didn’t came here to testify and even in the Chamber he stayed quite, that is why we didn’t request him to testify, but for the police officer he said: “That, when he transmitted the flight plan – who was this sir, sir Felipe S.R.? Or who is he? On that moment he was the person in Brasilia, who was in charge of approving the plan and transmit the plan to Sao Jose dos Campos – and, by the occasion of transmitting the plan of N600XL aircraft, of planning room in position “S1 assistant”, the declarant was occupying this position; That the air traffic in that moment could be considered of low intensity; That he received only the “electronic strip” that indicated the flight plan only of the sector of the declarant-S1; That he didn’t have, in that occasion, the declarant, the information that the aircraft intended, in their plan, modify its fly level at Brasilia, neither in Teres position, because those information is not displayed in the “electronic strip”; That the subsequent information regarding the flight plan in the sectors after of the declarant, could be accessed by a special function key, but since it was an ordinary flight plan and an ordinary clearance and since the responsibility of the declarant was only Sector 1, the declarant didn’t understand necessary to access them – he didn’t access all information; That in his training, the declarant learned that flight plans clearances, that have several levels, were issued by the first sector assistant specifying only the flight levels of his sector, due to the lack of information in the “strip”. That, for that reasons, the declarant, indeed, when received the call of São José dos Campos tower – that requested clearance for aircraft N600XL flight plan, issued this clearance mentioning the level 370 and direction necessary to the aircraft intercept the intended airway; That when asked if this clearance was complete or partial, answered that his clearance was of the essential information, and didn’t mention complementary information and that was a partial clearance; That when was read the transcription of phone communication between Brasilia and Sao Jose dos Campos, by which this clearance was issued and asked again about the partial aspect of this clearance, the declarant assured that his clearance foresaw level and direction to be flown in the airway until Brasilia, and ends in Brasilia, and this way, couldn’t be understood as a complete clearance; That the extract that says “São José – Eduardo Gomes” was interpreted by the declarant, as a way to identify what flight and aircraft he was referring to and not the complete extension of the clearance; That he knowledge and understand that he didn’t infringe what is put in ICA-100/12, item 8.4.9 and item 8.4.10.1 (clearance)”.
(THIS IS MY TRANSLATION, AND I’M NOT A GOOD TRANSLATOR)

He and four other controllers were indicted. What surprises me is that how many thousands of clearances were issued this way? IFATCA believes that this is not a human fault, and it is not a training issue. They believe it’s a equipment failure.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 11:09
  #1353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,676
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Actually, Pilot-br, If I am to understand your translation correctly this is normal, and, as far as I know, the way clearances are issued all over the world.
An ATC clearance is a somewhat "fluid" authorization, in that it is expected that amendments occur enroute , and for the approach phase. This is necessary because it is impossible for the issuing controller to know in advance, or even with prior coordination, what the next controller along requires, and the next, and the next...
In our ATC manual, and I expect, all others, a clearance is defined in this manner.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Said this before in this thread, I'll say it again, thousands of flights are cleared, daily, at initial levels that are subsequently amended enroute for various reasons, including fuel efficiency as the aircraft burns fuel off and wants to climb, unavailability of existing level due other traffic, weather, and quadrantal rule (the case here.)
From what I've learned of this accident, I believe it is more an equipment issue, too.
When the transponder return was no longer received by ATC, the symbol-which is not large, nor I imagine particularly attention grabbing - changed. That was the clue available to the controller/s. Against that clue, the information in the datablock reverts not to the last assigned ATC level (370) but to the flight planned level (360). A counter-clue.And, in human factors terms, a deadly one. In addition, the radar system used in Brazil triangulates the position of the aircraft and offers an approximate level, which is displayed. This displayed level, at the crucial time, was also 360.
So yes, there are things the controllers might have noticed, and perhaps should have done, particularly when communications were interrupted, but I for one can easily understand, given the incorrect clues displayed, why the controllers might have believed that the flight was at 360. Had any controller had doubts about this, and no communication with the aircraft, they would have made darned sure the Gol aircraft was moved laterally away from the flight path of the Legacy.
Tarq57 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 11:20
  #1354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
barit1
(thinks: Do Brazilian pilots have to follow different rules when they leave Brazilian airspace? Are the rules that different?)
The answer is no, but the airways are different and Brazilian pilots should know the airways rules of the airspace they are flying.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 11:50
  #1355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Markjoy,
From what I've learned of this accident, I believe it is more an equipment issue, too.
Please, let me repeat CENIPA conclusions:
"7. There were no incorrect indications nor the appearance of unknown signals on the radar screens of the air traffic controllers’ consoles; this does not indicate, however, that there does not exist the possibility of improving the system, such as by the inclusion of audio alerts to indicate exceptional circumstances;"

Transponder fault was clearly seen in controllers screen (360Z360). The Z indicates that there is no information of actual altitute due to transponder failure, and the left or right (I'm not sure) 360 was the flght plan level.

...the way clearances are issued all over the world
Without clearance limt? Without route? Only "essencial informations" as controller said? What surprises me is that all Brazilians pilots and foreigners that operates here understands this is a clearance until Brasilia and then "as planed", and Legacy understood until destiny, as forsaw in ICAO regulations.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 12:07
  #1356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ask yourself these questions: Is Brazil a Contracting State of the Chicago Convention?
If so, why is it failing/refusing to comply with the standards set out in Annex 13?
Answers: Yes and you tell me...
As I see it, IFALPA is calling for in this case is for the Brazilian government to remind the Judiciary and so forth of the nation's obligations the treaty. Which is the same thing it has been saying for the last year.
BTW: IFALPA doesent have a country. It is an international organisation comprised of 97 member associations, including, and this may be significant, the SNA.
Ace Rimmer is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 12:19
  #1357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ace Rimmer
...why is it failing/refusing to comply with the standards set out in Annex 13?
Answers: Yes and you tell me...
Because Constitution and the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry supersedes Annex 13. Annex 13 applies only to NTSB/CENIPA investigation, and criminal negligency must be investigated by justice, it's the law almost everwhere, including USA. It doesn't matter if it is a car crash, a bridge that falls or a plane that has an accident, which is the same thing it has been saying for the last year.

Last edited by pilot-br; 17th Oct 2007 at 12:48.
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 12:27
  #1358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ace Rimmer,
BTW: IFALPA doesent have a country.
That is why I said "They should know better the Constitution and the laws in their own countries"
pilot-br is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 12:35
  #1359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The question is then how to establish any liability without waiting for an independant technical investigation to be completed first?

If this investigation finds evidence of wilful negligence by any party then procecute away...BUT this is NOT the case here. The prosecution proceeds without the benefit of the full report by CENIPA.
Ace Rimmer is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 12:54
  #1360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brasilia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ace Rimmer

The question is then how to establish any liability without waiting for an independant technical investigation to be completed first?
Liability was not estabilished yet. No one was convicted, hearings are just starting. No one, controllers and pilots, will be condemned without independant technica investigation be completed. You can be sure of that. Brazil is a country that usually doesn't make justice, but injustice is rare.
pilot-br is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.