Mid-Air Collision over Southern Germany (merged)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the issue is now in the public domain, it is safe to quote the rumour-now-fact that at the time of the mid-air collision there was a third person in ZRH ACC. A young female radar assistant, whose existence has until now only been rumoured, has been identified.
To quote the district attorney: "We currently have no idea what she was doing there....what duties she might have had .....whether she was using the only functioning phone line.... or whether she was distracting the controllers."
To quote the district attorney: "We currently have no idea what she was doing there....what duties she might have had .....whether she was using the only functioning phone line.... or whether she was distracting the controllers."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We currently have no idea what she was doing there....what duties she might have had .....whether she was using the only functioning phone line.... or whether she was distracting the controllers."
I would have thought that, given the seriousness of the situation, someone in his/her position would stick to the facts rather than inuendo and insinuation...very poor form methinks.
Pegase Driver
My God , now sexism is joining in...
For info, from day one ( next morning after the collision ) did we know there was only one controller AND AN ASSISTANT , present at the time of the collision.
True we did not know she was female ...
What next, ? some juicy rumors maybe ?
Better not be Russian and a woman on this forum....
As for the Reuteurs site cited above, I am sure the swiss controlers will be pleased to learn that their Minister already declare they are partially responsible, the ATC enquiry not having even started yet !
The only resonable voice in all this seems to Be Dieter Kaden, head of the DFS. (The German ATS provider ).
For info, from day one ( next morning after the collision ) did we know there was only one controller AND AN ASSISTANT , present at the time of the collision.
True we did not know she was female ...
What next, ? some juicy rumors maybe ?
Better not be Russian and a woman on this forum....
As for the Reuteurs site cited above, I am sure the swiss controlers will be pleased to learn that their Minister already declare they are partially responsible, the ATC enquiry not having even started yet !
The only resonable voice in all this seems to Be Dieter Kaden, head of the DFS. (The German ATS provider ).
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 13th Jul 2002 at 13:26.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuggett 90
To quote the JAA definitions:
Will means that the application of the rule procedure or provision is mandatory.
Should means that the application of the procedure or provision is recommended.
It seems to me that the JAA needs to revisit its TCAS recommendations.
Pilots of UK-registered aeroplanes equipped with TCAS II were required to be trained in accordance with the contents of Civil Air Publication (CAP) 579, published that month, which included the following text:
"Manoeuvres should never be made in a direction opposite to that given in an RA: this is because the sense may have been determined following an exchange of data with the established threat. For this reason:
(a) RAs may be disregarded only when pilots visually identify the potentially conflicting traffic and decide that no deviation from the current flight path is needed.
(b) If pilots receive simultaneously an instruction to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA, and both conflict, the advice given by ACAS (TCAS) should be followed."
The JAA have published similar guidelines in Temporary Guidance Leaflet No 11.
"Manoeuvres should never be made in a direction opposite to that given in an RA: this is because the sense may have been determined following an exchange of data with the established threat. For this reason:
(a) RAs may be disregarded only when pilots visually identify the potentially conflicting traffic and decide that no deviation from the current flight path is needed.
(b) If pilots receive simultaneously an instruction to manoeuvre from ATC and an RA, and both conflict, the advice given by ACAS (TCAS) should be followed."
The JAA have published similar guidelines in Temporary Guidance Leaflet No 11.
Will means that the application of the rule procedure or provision is mandatory.
Should means that the application of the procedure or provision is recommended.
It seems to me that the JAA needs to revisit its TCAS recommendations.
New York Times Article
Their Watchword Efficiency, Swiss Recoil at Air Disasters
Free registration may be required to view this page.
Copyright allows a short quote:
Is ATC the one God? -- TCAS?
No! It's the bean counters
Free registration may be required to view this page.
Copyright allows a short quote:
Marc Baumgartner, a controller in Geneva who is the president of the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers. "There is a shortage of staff," he said. "The management decided to stop training, to stop investing in new equipment."
No! It's the bean counters
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because of the criminal negligence inquiry, I assume the Zurich ATC audio tape is sub judice. Seems to me the answers as to what should all be on there (why is of course another matter).
Best I can figure from 'public' sources only:
1. ATC instructs 154 to descend
2. 757 calls 'TCAS descent'
3. ATC instructs 154 to descend again
4. 154 calls 'descending'.
Now I'm still not sure of the sequence and timing of 2.
Q: was it before or after the second ATC descend isntruction ?
Q: did DHL include their callsign
Swiss say BTC 'did not respond' to first instruction.
Q: What exactly does that mean ? Did they not answer or did they answer but not comply. 'Not respond' could mean either.
How much longer before we get a transcript, or is there some dealing going on here ? Perhaps I missed its release .
Best I can figure from 'public' sources only:
1. ATC instructs 154 to descend
2. 757 calls 'TCAS descent'
3. ATC instructs 154 to descend again
4. 154 calls 'descending'.
Now I'm still not sure of the sequence and timing of 2.
Q: was it before or after the second ATC descend isntruction ?
Q: did DHL include their callsign
Swiss say BTC 'did not respond' to first instruction.
Q: What exactly does that mean ? Did they not answer or did they answer but not comply. 'Not respond' could mean either.
How much longer before we get a transcript, or is there some dealing going on here ? Perhaps I missed its release .
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Story
Zurich AT controler told Focus (translation from German):
*********************************************
Meanwhile pilot Peter N. took over the joint responsibility for the collision of both aeroplanes on the 1st July. He(it) said FOCUS and the Swiss Sunday newspaper: " I was at the accident night a part of a network of people(persons), computers, monitoring, transmission devices and regulations. All these parts must cooperate smoothly and faultlessly and be tuned(adjusted) on each other. " The accident shows that on this network mistakes have appeared. " As an air traffic leader it is my task and obligation to prevent such accidents ", so Peter N. The members of the victims pressed he(it) are over " deeply felt sympathy ". Many " hopeful perspectives " have been extinguished. " As a father I anticipate that this loss leaves a gap which will also hurt in future. "
13.07.02, 8:47 Uhr
**************************************************
http://focus.de/G/GN/gn.htm?snr=108304&streamsnr=9
*********************************************
Meanwhile pilot Peter N. took over the joint responsibility for the collision of both aeroplanes on the 1st July. He(it) said FOCUS and the Swiss Sunday newspaper: " I was at the accident night a part of a network of people(persons), computers, monitoring, transmission devices and regulations. All these parts must cooperate smoothly and faultlessly and be tuned(adjusted) on each other. " The accident shows that on this network mistakes have appeared. " As an air traffic leader it is my task and obligation to prevent such accidents ", so Peter N. The members of the victims pressed he(it) are over " deeply felt sympathy ". Many " hopeful perspectives " have been extinguished. " As a father I anticipate that this loss leaves a gap which will also hurt in future. "
13.07.02, 8:47 Uhr
**************************************************
http://focus.de/G/GN/gn.htm?snr=108304&streamsnr=9
Pegase Driver
Paper tiger : for the sequence check www.bfu-web.de . But I have some doubts myself as to what they say on the timing.
No the DHL did not seem to include his call sign ( if it was him that really called )
On the Focus article. Journalism at his best once more. we managed successfully so far to keep the nationality and the name(s) out of the media . The NY Times gives away the Nationality, and now Focus gives half his name. I wonder how long he will be able to keep the vultures away from his front yard...
No the DHL did not seem to include his call sign ( if it was him that really called )
On the Focus article. Journalism at his best once more. we managed successfully so far to keep the nationality and the name(s) out of the media . The NY Times gives away the Nationality, and now Focus gives half his name. I wonder how long he will be able to keep the vultures away from his front yard...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher I've been following the BFU releases but
'At about the same time' is unacceptable. We have second-hand evidence on page 2 of this thread that it was DHL who made the TCAS call. Is there or is there not an ATC tape ? Surely it's all on there, sequence, timing and everything. Why prolong the mystery ?
At about the same time the crew of flight DHX611 started a descent as well. This happened without instruction from the radar controller. At the same time there was a statement on the radio that a TCAS descent was initiated. This transmission most probably came from DHX611
Guest
Posts: n/a
why don't they link TCAS instructions to Traffic Control? it's clear that TC had no idea TCAS already had instructed differently.
Must be a way those computer whizkids can do this?
Karlsrune TC saw the disaster coming and can't reach Skyguide, STCA in maintenance, 2nd employee out of the room/building, a lot of things to explain....
Swissair bankrupt, Skyguide failed, there's sure some sand in the Swiss Clockwork.......
Capt.KAOS
Must be a way those computer whizkids can do this?
Karlsrune TC saw the disaster coming and can't reach Skyguide, STCA in maintenance, 2nd employee out of the room/building, a lot of things to explain....
Swissair bankrupt, Skyguide failed, there's sure some sand in the Swiss Clockwork.......
Capt.KAOS
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C.K.
Trouble is, you would get the TCAS RA report and the ATC collision warning as well if all were working properly and that would cause an overload. Just in this case it would have helped maybe...
Trouble is, you would get the TCAS RA report and the ATC collision warning as well if all were working properly and that would cause an overload. Just in this case it would have helped maybe...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rice Whine:
The only "load of bollocks" in this whole mess is that the presence of the third person (who happens to be a female radar assistant) was not immediately communicated to the either the D.A. or, indeed, the public by Skyguide, who - in retrospect - have obviously had umpteen opportunities to correct their initial version of events, which - until the third person version surfaced - officially only included two ATCs, one of whom was taking a break at the time of the disaster.
Whatever your point of view about Skyguide's culpability in the mid-air collison per se, their cooperation with the investigating authorities, the judiciary and the media are an absolute disgrace. If their public interfacing is anything to go by, their operation procedures cannot hold up to scrutiny.
Whatever your point of view about Skyguide's culpability in the mid-air collison per se, their cooperation with the investigating authorities, the judiciary and the media are an absolute disgrace. If their public interfacing is anything to go by, their operation procedures cannot hold up to scrutiny.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from Emma-Jane Kirby of the BBC writing a wrapup of the accident from on the scene in Germany. It was written on July 6, but I only noticed it today. Speaking of the TU-154, she said:
"The tail of the plane had sheered off from the main body of the aircraft and the jagged piece was lying beside part of one of the propellers."
I suggest Emma-Jane find a new beat to cover. No propellers on these two unforunate aircraft.
"The tail of the plane had sheered off from the main body of the aircraft and the jagged piece was lying beside part of one of the propellers."
I suggest Emma-Jane find a new beat to cover. No propellers on these two unforunate aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's all the fuss about the Radar Assistant??
She was there, so what?!?
Typical journo food. They haven't got any idea about the business, but, WOW, THERE WAS AN ASSISTANT, TOO! WHAT DID SHE DO THERE? WAS THE CONTROLLER MAYBE ABSORBED BY HER PRESENCE?? WHAT DOES SKYGUIDE HAVE TO HIDE??
C'mon, gimme a break!!
Alpha Leader,
The "load of bollocks" is, what you read about ATC by journalists who don't have a clue!
Dramatisation for the sake of it (the better the headline, the more they sell).
And, believe me, I'm getting more and more fed up with it!
She was there, so what?!?
Typical journo food. They haven't got any idea about the business, but, WOW, THERE WAS AN ASSISTANT, TOO! WHAT DID SHE DO THERE? WAS THE CONTROLLER MAYBE ABSORBED BY HER PRESENCE?? WHAT DOES SKYGUIDE HAVE TO HIDE??
C'mon, gimme a break!!
Alpha Leader,
The "load of bollocks" is, what you read about ATC by journalists who don't have a clue!
Dramatisation for the sake of it (the better the headline, the more they sell).
And, believe me, I'm getting more and more fed up with it!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proceed As Cleared
I am not sure what political or judicial system you live in, but witholding a material witness is frowned upon in most societies. In addition, Skyguide's basic story was initially that there were only two people present at Zurich ACC at the time of the collision, which is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.
You have every reason to be fed up - but your anger would be better directed at Skyguide's SOPs and their less-than-forthcoming cooperation with accident and criminal investigators.
You have every reason to be fed up - but your anger would be better directed at Skyguide's SOPs and their less-than-forthcoming cooperation with accident and criminal investigators.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dubai
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will come of this ?
It is indeed sad that (often) the only way the aviation community makes (major) headway in the field of aviation safety, is through the loss of life.
One would think that they (we) would have learned their (our) lessons by now, but I fear this is not the case.
In this specific situation, it must be fair to say that the awareness toward TCAS, (non) compliance to RA's and contra-instructions from ATC is at an all time high.
Perhaps on this occasion, the loss of life may wake up the appropriate authorities to the fact we are working in an environment that spans across countries, continents and cultures, across old and new technology and that improved communications between all concerned is imperative if we are to harmonise the rules, regulations and practices in aviation.
The time has passed for aviation bodies (authorities) to try and hold on to individual (group) identities for the purpose of pride and profit. We need to see aviation as one field, with one goal and with one purpose; safety & efficiency. Without this, we will not be able to move forward to bigger and better things without the immeasurable sadness and loss of life.
SID
One would think that they (we) would have learned their (our) lessons by now, but I fear this is not the case.
In this specific situation, it must be fair to say that the awareness toward TCAS, (non) compliance to RA's and contra-instructions from ATC is at an all time high.
Perhaps on this occasion, the loss of life may wake up the appropriate authorities to the fact we are working in an environment that spans across countries, continents and cultures, across old and new technology and that improved communications between all concerned is imperative if we are to harmonise the rules, regulations and practices in aviation.
The time has passed for aviation bodies (authorities) to try and hold on to individual (group) identities for the purpose of pride and profit. We need to see aviation as one field, with one goal and with one purpose; safety & efficiency. Without this, we will not be able to move forward to bigger and better things without the immeasurable sadness and loss of life.
SID
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AlfaLeader
...if you say that the only "load of bollocks" is the failure to convey the facts earlier it appears that you find nothing wrong with public officials being the purveyors of rumour and inuendo...a strange stance indeed.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LSZH
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more: McKinsey
Obviously, McKinsey guys and gals in black suits went through the books and screened former Swisscontrol when it was transformed into the privatized SkyGuide company. By squeezing the entire company for the sake of share holder value and profit they sacrified a safety buffer which contributed to this tragic accident. Safety IS a cost issue indeed, but are we really determined to accept the vaporization of those safety buffers both in the air and on the ground ?
CB
CB
TCAS and Range Selection
I am wondering why the CVR transcripts so far fail to show either crew questioning ZRH about the converging TCAS symbol at same altitude, or any cockpit discussion before the traffic alerts.
With courses converging at nearly 90 degrees, the TCAS symbol for the other a/c should have shown on the display at 45 degrees off the a/c track plus or minus the 15 degrees azimuth error.
I speculate that a typical en route range selection of 160 or 320 miles on the ND would compress TCAS symbols in a way that would make it difficult to sort out potential threats from non-threats.
Would it be useful to momentarily override the range selection on one of the NDs or EICAS when another a/c approaches within the limits for proximity intruder traffic (<1200 ft and/or 6nm) or even earlier?
This would give the crew a bit more time to query ATC and get ready for a TA.
With courses converging at nearly 90 degrees, the TCAS symbol for the other a/c should have shown on the display at 45 degrees off the a/c track plus or minus the 15 degrees azimuth error.
I speculate that a typical en route range selection of 160 or 320 miles on the ND would compress TCAS symbols in a way that would make it difficult to sort out potential threats from non-threats.
Would it be useful to momentarily override the range selection on one of the NDs or EICAS when another a/c approaches within the limits for proximity intruder traffic (<1200 ft and/or 6nm) or even earlier?
This would give the crew a bit more time to query ATC and get ready for a TA.