Well, unhooked, sounds like a pattern is developping here.

Just giving up?

And Amos, trusting in devine intervention as a last resort after your TCAS system fails on you :ugh::ugh:

Come on, with guys like you in the cockpit, it`s no wonder the T&C`s are going down the drain.

Unhooked, no more points to make, no sensible arguments. Keep your head inside and run away.

See ya!

P.S. "Over and out" makes as much sense as flying with your eyes closed. None. Back to your flight sim son.

Mercenary pilot, that's a very interesting link that you shared in your post #22.

After reading your post, I also found this report about the JAL incident.

This incident happened because the JAL 747 pilot obeyed (wrong) ATC instructions, rather then following the TCAS climb instruction. After disobeying the TCAS RA he then visually avoided the DC10 (which he had kept in sight during his descent.:ugh: (REF 1)) by an abrupt last second manoeuvre. Can anyone explain me what was passing through the mind of this pilot while he was disobeying the TCAS RA and descended towards the DC10 that he already had in sight?

Some will say that this proves that searching visual contact avoided this disaster. Others -like me- will say that the incident would never have happened had the B747 jockey obeyed his RA to begin with.

I agree with Unhooked that amos747's post # 78 is a very good summary and would have been a nice end of this thread!

But what disgusts me most of all is that the Ueberlingen tragedy should and could have been avoided. This JAL incident happened about 18 monts before the Ueberlingen collision. Sad to see confirmed that only mortal accidents seem be have an influence on safety recommendations. :{

Ref 1: page 18 of the report: The flight crew of Aircraft A kept insight(sic) Aircraft B, but did not recognize relative position and height accurately. Also have a look at the picture on page 16 of this report!

So reliance on TCAS alone is insufficient for good SA.

You also fail to note that Aircraft B, although correctly following their RA, also had to maneuver visually to avoid a collision.

Having kept the other aircraft in sight, despite not following an RA correctly, Aircraft A was able to visually avoid the other aircraft.

Backs up everything that I've said.

It's a fuel saving trick. Cover the windows with paper to reduce the incoming long wave radiation so reducing the demand on the air-con to cool the cockpit, hence reducing fuel consumption. If every aircraft in the fleet did this for 8 hrs a day, the savings would be enormous! Enough to buy the Ops Director a new car every two years.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.

I don't think anybody ever said that TCAS displays are sufficient for good situational awareness. It's clear however that simply obeying TCAS RA's would have avoided the JAL incident from happening.

What I remember from this post is that despite A having he other AC in sight before they got really close, they got to within 50 m of each other.

Now it's true that when I get a TCAS TA, apart from getting ready to obey a possible RA as per SOP, I will also be looking out to get visual contact with other traffic. But unless the other traffic suddenly fills my window, I will be obeying the RA. THAT is the lesson that everybody should have learned from Ueberlingen by now! So, my lord, as long as you will agree that you should obey RA's when you get them I do not feel need to continue this argument with you.

Except those pilots who cover the inside of the flight deck with charts and those on this thread that think it's a good idea.

Correct. However, that didn't work for B did it?

Good, as will I.

I haven't said anything to the contrary, look back at my posts.

Sadly that is the lesson that will not be learned by everybody, ever. It happened in Japan and years later in Uberlingen and it will happen again.

You think it's over now? It's not. Which is why, like Aircraft B in Japan, you need to look out and, if necessary, avoid a collision visually when TCAS is inadequate. Which, in several instances, it has proven to be.

I find it pretty astounding that professional pilots would ever condone covering all the flightdeck windscreens and side screens with charts and it absolutely beggars belief that ANY pilot would discard the MK1 eyeball and their flying skills as the last line of defence to avoid a mid-air collision.

Have covered the sidewindow with the newspaper, after I finished reading the newspaper. Then took a snooze. On long boring routes of course.

Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years. The odds were almost zero before TCAS.

I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.

Back to the news.

While I concur to Sabena's positition with regards to collision avoidance, I got interested in the quoted comment from rubick101.
Made a rough calculation: let's say that there is [upperlimit] a squaremeter open to incoming sun with radiation of about 1kW/m2. So that means incoming energy of 10kWh for a ten hours flt [again upper limit, the
sun is likely to not always shine in]. Lets take a thermodynamic efficiency of air conditioning system and turbine of 20%, so we need to provide 50Kwh, that would be approx 5 ltrs of fuel per 10hrs flt. Assuming a company with about 100 such flts per day it means about 150 tons of fuel saved each year. (But it could be easily 5 times less, I made genereous assumtions).
150 tons that is not negligible, you could even figure our how much less oil-workers
got killed and then compare that to the potential lives saved by "see&avoid", not that I am advocating this, but, LORD, thruth could reaveal is more complicated then you might think.
Cheers to all.

You mean you can't do both?!

That's a hell of an admission to make, does your employer know you can't do a proper scan?

I wonder how many errors have been made because someone is being lazy, reading the paper or having a kip.

At least one. Unless you offset, the dead-nuts accuracy of modern nav systems means you can centerpunch opposite-direction traffic if worse comes to worst, as the Brazilian bizjet-versus-airliner collision showed. Big Sky Theory has turned into One-Airplane-Wide Airway theory.

Where did I admit that I can't scan. Does your employer know that you can't understand simple written sentences?

As for "Kipping", you will find it officially approved by many authorities. Paper...maybe not.

Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...

...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".

Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.

Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.

Does your employer know that you also make false assumptions and incorrect interpretations?

Please let them know as it is a dangerous habit to have.

Off the the business section now as there is nothing on the TCAS.

You said it mate, not me.

If you want to rewrite it correctly, the way you meant it, then fill your boots. We'll have a chat about it then.

I said it, you misread it. Not surprising really. To quote yourself..."Do you have a problem reading English?"

Now for the comics. More to learn from that than here.

Just use some common sense when covering windows. Jesus...

In my day, the thin plastic tray mats used by American Airlines were valuable and attractive items.

They could stick to the inside of a DC-10 windscreen like sh*t to a blanket.

It was then possible to keep the sun out of your eyes and so give about 98% of uninterrupted viewing of everything else out of the window. The 2% lack of coverage was irrelevant.

Neither the screen shade or the best pair of Ray Bans that could be bought could deal with the 2% blind spot into sun and an American Airlines tray mat was so much more efficient.

Why else do you imagine that the Hun always got into the Sun?

Actually I gave you the correct definition for what you had written. You can keep denying it but that'll just make you look even more foolish.

You speak for yourself, therefore, what you have written pertains to your abilities and experiences. The implication of which is that you can't or don't look outside and monitor inside. Again 'rather than' is defined as 'and not'.

You consider that looking outside may cause errors. You would rather monitor inside to prevent yourself making these errors. You consider that this is safe because a midair collision is unlikey, especially with the introduction of TCAS.

You place too much reliance on automation and computers, that is a poor attitude for a professional pilot. Technology is not magic or infallible, it will not replace airmanship no matter how unlikey a situation is, it has not been introduced to the flight deck to pardon you from doing your job it is there to assist you and improve your survivability.

Keep reading your comics, it may expand your mind. I feel sorry for your passengers.