777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11643 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6148 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Six Familys are sueing several Miami based Aviation safety companys over the mid-air collision over Germany. The crash was between a DHL cargo jet and a passenger jet full of school children that claimed 71 lives. 30 Familys in total are planning on sueing Honeywell International and four other companies involved in the manufacture and of the collision avoidance system they blame for giving pilots instructions that conflicted with orders from a Swiss air traffic controller. The Traffic controller was found murdered a few months ago outside his home.
Unique From Switzerland, joined Mar 2003, 1703 posts, RR: 38 Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6075 times:
They'd rather sue the pilots for not following the TCAS orders! But those who are involved are all dead (pilots, air traffic controller) so they're left to sue Honeywell. Maybe they should also sue the Wright brothers or Leonardo da Vinci... (you know what I mean)
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6038 times:
Correct, AviationMaster, it was the pilot of the Bashkirian Airlines flight... unfortunately, he - if I recall correctly - reacted precisely as trained, the training at that time (at his airline) saying that the controller has higher authority than TCAS - obviously, the training of the DHL pilots (just as the training for most other pilots around the world) said otherwise...
But suing the company that made the equipment that, if both pilots had followed it's recommendations, had prevented the crash? If at all, it's the aviation oversight authorities that failed to agree on a common reaction to TCAS advisories that are to blame, but absolutely not the companies that make TCAS systems...
Russophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5982 times:
Get a clue people.
Russians give precedence to ATC over TCAS. It has been like this since day dot, and it will continue to be like this until such time as the ICAO introduces a standard which is applicable to the entire industry.
So long as there is no standard, a lawsuit such as this is easy fodder.
Russophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5846 times:
It already is standard except in Russia...
No it is not.
In the civil aviation industry, for something (such as TCAS) to be standard, it needs to be set out legally within guidelines passed by the ICAO.
No such standard exists, so your standard is not a standard at all, but simply the way we do things.
Doesn't mean that this has to be observed by any other country.
Russia has its reasons for decreeing that ATC commands have precedence over TCAS commands. And until such time as they are directed otherwise by the ICAO, the government and the airlines will continue to instruct their crews likewise.
Do you know why the Russians do this?
I'll tell you why.
Because the Russian authorities believe that ATC should at all times have a clear picture of what is happening within their air corridors. Because they have been training to work with their equipment, they should be able to keep separation. TCAS, as a 'computerised' piece of equipment is prone to failure. When they received the TCAS command, they clarified with ATC who gave them an opposite command. As ATC is supposed to be able to see what is happening, they would have been led to believe that their TCAS was giving a faulty reading, and as per their operating regulations, they went by ATC commands.
What about this instance. BAL Tu-154 was getting a TCAS command to climb. ATC is screaming that they need to dive. The BAL crew, going by "your" standard disregard ATC command and climb as per their TCAS command. In doing so, they are now on a collision course with the DHL 757. They collide mid-air. It is later found out that the TCAS on the Tu-154 was faulty and giving a false reading. And of course, ATC was screaming to dive because they could see precisely what is happening on their screens, and knew the Tu-154 had put themselves on a collision course.
It's basically a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", it will always be the fault of the Russians, right? The Russians are just mad bastards -- nothing they do makes any sense, right?
As per the report from the German authorities.
The regulations concerning ACAS/TCAS published by ICAO and as a result the regulations of the national aviation authorities, operational and procedural instructions of the TCAS manufacturer and the operators were not standardised, incomplete and partially contradictory
Sorry, but there is no 'standard' as you are claiming.
Haven't heard such a cattle excrement for a long time!
Yeah? To see what you talk abuot just look at Reply 12.
LZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5792 times:
Russophile, do you read your postings before hitting the "post" button?
Sorry, but what you're talking is really bovine faeces. No matter what russian rules say, they don't apply when flying in european airspace. So, get your facts straight, if you're flying in european airspace, TCAS has priority and you have to oblige. Actually, if you have read the final report, you'll find out that the check captain(actually BAL's chief pilot) has forced the Cpt. to follow ATC's instructions and ignore the TCAS. And the fact the Cpt. obliged as long with the extensive use of profanity phrases by the check captain say a lot about BAL's CRM training and crew culture.
Unique From Switzerland, joined Mar 2003, 1703 posts, RR: 38 Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5720 times:
As ATC is supposed to be able to see what is happening, they would have been led to believe that their TCAS was giving a faulty reading...
Human error is much more the reason for accidents, equipment failure isn't, compared to human error.
Conclusion: human error was the reason for the accident (both ATC as well as pilots and whole procedure set-ups) rather than equipment failure. TCAS on both airplanes worked perfectly fine. Just too bad when their commands are ignored.
Maybe the russian procedure to follow ATC is wrong? Maybe the worldwide procedure to follow TCAS instructions isn't that wrong?
OV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5182 times:
From the keyboard of Russophile: Because the Russian authorities believe that ATC should at all times have a clear picture of what is happening within their air corridors.
Unfortunately, they are still humans and make errors. For example, some midair collisions in the CCCP:
1976: Near Anapa, Russia, an An-24 and Yak-40 collided. 52 dead.
1979: Near Dneprodzerzinsk, Ukraine, two Tu-134's collided.
1985: Near Lvov, Ukraine, a Tu-134 and An-26 crashed.
The problem in USSR was that electrical equipment was always prone to reliability issues. I figure this was also why Soviet pilots where trained to give a higher authority to ATC rather than the TCAS.
Things have changed a lot compared to those times, however. Self-igniting refridgerators and exploding TV's are not the case anymore, and I'm sure the navigational equipment in aircraft like the Tu-204, Il-96 and An-140 is of higher quality nowadays, and can be trusted more.
In the spirit of minimizing the possiblity of such disasters as the Bashkirian/DHL one, the crew training in these issues around the world should be streamlined in the future.
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5023 times:
Didn't Skyguide, the Swiss ATC company, just announce to pay higher compensations to all the famlies? Is there really a point for a lawsuit left?
AFAIK the case is still not closed, still in investigation, but it seems like being a chain of incidents, but I actually hardly believe, there is enough basis for a lawsuit.
Yet, condolences to all the families and relatives! May God bless the souls of the killed people.
InitRef From India, joined Nov 2000, 118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4832 times:
Read Unique's response carefully and learn before engaging your keyboard.
TCAS was invented as a last-resort equipment, designed and to be used when separation is about to be lost.
IF ATC were perfect, there would be NO need for something like TCAS. So the assumption has always been that IF TCAS issues an RA, aircrew obey it immediately. Maybe the Russians need to examine why TCAS was invented before inventing rules that obviate its use.
Rwylie77 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 367 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4771 times:
Oh the irony...come on, it is the US that originally came up with the idea of "where there is a blame, there is a clame" - suing McDonalds for example because coffee is hot! If that case won, then this has a great chance.
MarkATL From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 539 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
rwylie77 - suing McDonalds for example because coffee is hot! If that case won, then this has a great chance.
This is somewhat valid, except that McDonald's is a consumer product. Companies will spend big $$$ to keep away from bad publicity. Honeywell for the most part has no consumer products to be affected by a bad "spin" in the press. I predict they will fight this tooth and nail.
BTW the coffee lady did win some huge amount, which is how that case became so notorious. She however had her award reduced down to the minimal amount it deserved on appeal (not very well publicized).
"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...