PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8201 posts, RR: 48 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14612 times:
Re-posting my last post from Part 4:
More information:
The Legacy was indeed in the wrong altitude. Once they left SJK, 37,000ft was correct, but as the Legacy flew by BSB on their way to MAO they should have changed their altitude to 36,000 (an even number) as they passed by BSB. Their flight plan from SJK states precisely that. The Legacy crew states that they had approval from BSB to conduct the flight at 37,000ft.
BSB ATC, however, seems not to have realized their mistake and did not attempt to contact the Legacy.
Available information about the radar was that there was no form of identification on the screens nor altitude, just a single dot. For the military, that can only mean one thing: the "faixa C" or "band C" from the transponder was not available. The consensus in the military is that either the transponder was completely shut off, partially shut off, or had some kind of technical issue.
This would explain why they didn't deviate from one another. But no info on the 737s CVR/FDR so far, other that they have been found.
BSB ATC at one point realized something was wrong. A controler, with six years of experience, attempted contact with the Legacy using two different radio frequencies (135.9 MHz & 125.2 MHz) but without success. The Legacy crew, on their police report, state having lost communications with ATC minutes before the collision.
The article also mentions a regional "black hole" of radio communications. The area between BSB and MAO radio frequencies are of "terrible quality" and, in the region right above the Serra do Cachimbo (a mountain range), there is a true "blackout" of communications, situation that only improves once MAO radio and radars become more efficient. Pilots say that they rely solely on aircraft instruments in that area.
The investigation is going to try to find any evidence of any contact between BSB and MAO ATC to alert the Boeing after the Legacy did not answer.
PS: The BSB controller in undergoing psychological treatment.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8201 posts, RR: 48 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14593 times:
And here are some of the latest posts that raise questions:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 181): I am wondering what airplanes could be using the same airway behind the Gol flight. The Gol departure is the first afternoon departure out of MAO towards the Southeast. Fifty minutes later the Varig MD-11 takes off towards GRU. Then there are a few other GRU/BSB departures. A Copa 737 PTY-GRU and and AA 767 MIA-GRU could also have been in the same airway. In the absence of Gol 1907, the Legacy could have hit another plane.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 183): A few more pics (including close ups of the damage to the Legacy and a departure picture from SJK):
Quoting Famfmarques (Reply 184): Guys, maybe my question should be posted in another topic, but I´m just curious... why planes fly the same airway (both directions) with only a separation of altitude? Why not 1000 feet off-center to right of the airway, for example?
Ok, some of us airliners may like for photos such as these, but is this really necessary? This kind of simple rule could have avoided this crash....
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14307 times:
Quoting Rudi (Reply 122): Red dot: Boeing crash site;
UZ6: airway being used by both planes;
Thinner blue line that crosses RONIL, XINGU and NABOL intersections: borderline between Manaus and Brasilia ATC centers.
Thanks for the chart. Very relevant IMHO.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1): The Legacy was indeed in the wrong altitude. Once they left SJK, 37,000ft was correct, but as the Legacy flew by BSB on their way to MAO they should have changed their altitude to 36,000 (an even number) as they passed by BSB. Their flight plan from SJK states precisely that. The Legacy crew states that they had approval from BSB to conduct the flight at 37,000ft.
Quoting Famfmarques (Reply 184): Guys, maybe my question should be posted in another topic, but I´m just curious... why planes fly the same airway (both directions) with only a separation of altitude? Why not 1000 feet off-center to right of the airway, for example?
Folks, I've asked this before and still haven't gotten an answer. If the Legacy should be flying at FL360, it means it was operating under RVSM. As per IFR and RVSM, between FL290 and FL410, westbound aircraft SHOULD fly at EVEN flight levels, e.g. FL340, FL360, etc. And eastbound aircraft like the B738 at ODD levels such as FL330, FL350, FL370, etc. This is precisely to avoid a head-on mid-air on the same airway. Then, there's no need for a course offset from the airway centerline. If you check the caption on the pic above by Axel Fabeck, you will see that there are three westbound planes flying at FL340, FL360, FL380. This is to allow eastbound planes to occupy even flight levels. The reason the DHL and the Russian plane were on the same level was that they were not flying in opposite directions as the Legacy and B738.
Why FL370 would be ok for the Legacy leaving SJK, especially since the airspace around SJK is much more congested, I have no idea and would like to have the input of a pilot who flies or has flown over Brazil. Maybe there are different regs and restrictions there.
If RVSM has not been implemented, levels available to the Legacy would be FL 310, 350, 390, etc.
The information there is accurate as per the FAA AIM and other documents.
I would think that this type of information would be much more relevant to the investigation than how exactly one plane clipped the other, which seems to be the focus of these threads.
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14175 times:
Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 175): STW...may disagree a bit. As widely reported in the press this accident has occured during a pretty dubious election in Brazil full of charges and counter charges. Now we have a Brazilian airline involved in a mid air with a Brazilain built aircraft..The Brazilian press already started into it with wild unconfirmed reports of the American pilot shutting off tcas, the transponder, changing altitude, drug running. It is the nature of the journalistic beast in Brazil right now. I hold no great expectations of a neutral investigation.
I really have no clue where you got this information about a dubious election in Brazil. The (electronic) electoral system there is one of the most modern in the world. Granted, as in any campaign there are false charges from many sides (remember swift boat vets for truth?) But there have never been any allegations of electoral fraud. There are no hanging chads and absentee ballots in Brazil. The result of the presidential election was known less than 7 hours after the polls closed.
That said, the press did make mistakes, as I suspect would happen in most cases where secondary sources are used. But the "drug running" plane hypothesis was reported by one TV channel and the "turning off the transponder" hypothesis seems to have been posted in some forum. Both were never picked up by the more "serious" media, if I'm not mistaken.
Moreover, there is no reason for you to extrapolate from media mistakes to not having a neutral investigation. This will be conducted by very professional people under an air force command. The air force is the main reason why there is an Embraer, why Brazil makes satellites and is trying to build a satellite launcher. It is no accident that Brazil is rated Category 1 in FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment Program and that the last major accident in Brazil occurred 10 years ago, and was somewhat the result of a freak occurrence.
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14029 times:
Air Force commander, General Luiz Carlos Bueno has answered my questions in the previous post.
As PPVRA posted, the Legacy flight plan was for her to fly at FL360 under RVSM. The B738 was flying at FL370. Unfortunately, the Legacy was flying at FL370 when they collided.
An Infraero source claims that an airplane over Brazil CAN fly at the "wrong" FL if there is no conflicting traffic and if cleared by ATC (seems like a stupid rule to me since it unnecessarily increases ATC workload, and I would like to see some confirmation). As PPVRA wrote, the Legacy crew says it had been cleared to fly at FL370. And General Bueno states that the collision occurred with both planes flying level at FL370.
So I guess investigators will be looking into clearances issued by ATC, readbacks by the Legacy crew, any miscommunication that might have occurred, and ATC error.
Capt. Lapore also believes in a problem with the Legacy's TCAS, since he had no warning. This might also explain the absence of Mode C info available to controllers, as PPVRA notes.
Finally, for those not believing in an unbiased investigation, please note that an NTSB team was expected to arrive in Brazil today. And the NTSB is known to speak its mind when it doesn't agree with local investigators (cf. EgyptAir 990).
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11010 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13864 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Don't know if already posted:
Something very bad: both Boeing 738 black boxes were too damaged. ANAC will send them to Boeing in Seattle in order to verify if they can recover the necessary information.
Also, Air Force is still looking for some missing part of one of the boxes.
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
BlueShamu330s From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2274 posts, RR: 29 Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13718 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1): Available information about the radar was that there was no form of identification on the screens nor altitude, just a single dot. For the military, that can only mean one thing: the "faixa C" or "band C" from the transponder was not available.
With respect, this means that the Embraer's transponder was completely turned off, either manually or there was a fault.
Simply put, mode 'A' provides the ground station with basic information about the relevant aircraft, i.e. what will appear in the data block for the aircraft on radar - callsign/registration/raw transponder code
Mode 'C', in addition, provides altitiude/flight level information.
With just a raw 'dot' return, this means the controllers had just a primary return with no secondary information at all.
I also doubt there was just a single dot, as even with just primary radar, the radar display will show historically the position of the target for the last 5 or 6 sweeps (most primary radars rotate at 10 rotations per minute). After the collision, if there was indeed a mid-air break up, this would more than likely have shown up on a primary radar as many small returns, not unlike weather clutter.
Shamu
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
Swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1711 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 13602 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 6): Something very bad: both Boeing 738 black boxes were too damaged. ANAC will send them to Boeing in Seattle in order to verify if they can recover the necessary information.
If that is for real....... wow, lets hope Boeing can get a least some data...
Dougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 367 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13588 times:
Ref LipeGIG post 6
Something very bad: both Boeing 738 black boxes were too damaged. ANAC will send them to Boeing in Seattle in order to verify if they can recover the necessary information.
I believe the report states that the rcording element of the voice recorder is still missing as it separted from the assembly. Though the data recorder is reported as damaged but complete. Finding the missing part of the voice recorder could be like looking for a needle in a haystack if its not close to the original location of the other part of the unit.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 376 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13504 times:
Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 9): Something very bad: both Boeing 738 black boxes were too damaged. ANAC will send them to Boeing in Seattle in order to verify if they can recover the necessary information.
Do you have a source for this?
BTW, check out this CNN International article......
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8201 posts, RR: 48 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13509 times:
Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 9): Ref LipeGIG post 6
Something very bad: both Boeing 738 black boxes were too damaged. ANAC will send them to Boeing in Seattle in order to verify if they can recover the necessary information.
I believe the report states that the rcording element of the voice recorder is still missing as it separted from the assembly. Though the data recorder is reported as damaged but complete. Finding the missing part of the voice recorder could be like looking for a needle in a haystack if its not close to the original location of the other part of the unit.
EDIT: Nevermind, you are correct. Below is a link to ANAC with the information:
Antiuser From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13370 times:
The media has been speculating a whole lot - this is straight from the horse's mouth (issued by the Brazilian Air Force):
"Com relação às hipóteses que estão sendo exploradas por alguns setores da imprensa referentes a fatores que possam ter contribuído para o acidente aéreo, o Comando da Aeronáutica informa ser prematuro, no momento, estabelecer-se qualquer juízo de valor a respeito e tecer comentários antes da conclusão das investigações que se encontram em andamento."
Translated:
"In regards to hypotheses being explored by some sectors of the press about factors that might have contributed to the accident, the Command of the Air Force informs that at this time it's much too early to establish any judgment of value or make comments before the conclusion of the investigations which are ongoing."
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 882 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13372 times:
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 5): As PPVRA posted, the Legacy flight plan was for her to fly at FL360 under RVSM. The B738 was flying at FL370. Unfortunately, the Legacy was flying at FL370 when they collided.
An Infraero source claims that an airplane over Brazil CAN fly at the "wrong" FL if there is no conflicting traffic and if cleared by ATC (seems like a stupid rule to me since it unnecessarily increases ATC workload, and I would like to see some confirmation). As PPVRA wrote, the Legacy crew says it had been cleared to fly at FL370. And General Bueno states that the collision occurred with both planes flying level at FL370.
A filed flight level is just what the flight initially proposes and this facilitates planning by ATC for anticipated traffic. However the filed level can be and frequently is changed once the aircraft is en route, according to other traffic that has be accommodated and also according to what the pilot may request.
While there are preferred eastbound and westbound levels, these are not completely rigid and it is not unusual (in Europe, anyway) for a non-standard level for a particular route to be assigned to a flight, for example to get out of more turbulent levels. However this is of course subject to the necessary separation being achieved - it is not up to a pilot just to select a particular flight level, either as per his flight plan or otherwise. He (or she) must comply with whatever ATC instructs at the time.
ULMFlyer From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 470 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13254 times:
Quoting Irish251 (Reply 13): While there are preferred eastbound and westbound levels, these are not completely rigid and it is not unusual (in Europe, anyway) for a non-standard level for a particular route to be assigned to a flight, for example to get out of more turbulent levels.
Thanks for providing the European perspective. I understand that a filed FL is just an initial level and changes are common due to traffic, weather, etc. But I had expected adherence to standard FLs to be stricter, especially under RSVM. If, for instance, the Legacy was experience moderate turbulence at FL360, I'd expect the crew to request FL340 or FL380, not FL370 (disclaimer: this is an example and did not happen). I guess as I pilot, I'd feel a little uneasy flying at the "wrong" FL even with an ATC clearance. At least I payed a lot of attention to that while flying VFR (obviously not at the flight levels).
Regarding the DVR and FDR, if they are badly damaged, I'd expect them to be shipped either to the NTSB or to the manufacturer (Honeywell, L-3 Comm., or Smiths Aero.), but not to Boeing.
A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1963 posts, RR: 30 Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12846 times:
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 14): I guess as I pilot, I'd feel a little uneasy flying at the "wrong" FL even with an ATC clearance.
Sometimes, weather and ride reports play a factor when requesting "wrong" altitudes. 1000' higher may mean getting on top of clouds causing bad rides below. Presuming it's a radar environment, a pilot receiving a "wrong" altitude should have little to worry about as ATC wouldn't have cleared them if traffic conflicts were to occur.
JSD
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 756 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12549 times:
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 3): Why FL370 would be ok for the Legacy leaving SJK, especially since the airspace around SJK is much more congested, I have no idea and would like to have the input of a pilot who flies or has flown over Brazil. Maybe there are different regs and restrictions there.
Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 5): An Infraero source claims that an airplane over Brazil CAN fly at the "wrong" FL if there is no conflicting traffic and if cleared by ATC (seems like a stupid rule to me since it unnecessarily increases ATC workload, and I would like to see some confirmation). As PPVRA wrote, the Legacy crew says it had been cleared to fly at FL370. And General Bueno states that the collision occurred with both planes flying level at FL370.
Quoting Irish251 (Reply 13): A filed flight level is just what the flight initially proposes and this facilitates planning by ATC for anticipated traffic. However the filed level can be and frequently is changed once the aircraft is en route, according to other traffic that has be accommodated and also according to what the pilot may request.
While there are preferred eastbound and westbound levels, these are not completely rigid and it is not unusual (in Europe, anyway) for a non-standard level for a particular route to be assigned to a flight, for example to get out of more turbulent levels. However this is of course subject to the necessary separation being achieved - it is not up to a pilot just to select a particular flight level, either as per his flight plan or otherwise. He (or she) must comply with whatever ATC instructs at the time.
Generally I do not request a wrong direction altitude for precisely this reason, however if I know that I will be making a turn later that will require that altitude I may request it. This will save a climb, then descent, then climb. I might also request it for the above reasons.
Transponders do cut out from time to time. I do not know why but I have noticed mode C or mode S cutting out for a few seconds or longer and then returning on a fully functional transponder. I've even had them pause long enough for ATC to question it. Anybody familiar with avionics on more than an operational level would be appreciated to tell us why this happens.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10018 posts, RR: 54 Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12239 times:
Could you change the title of this thread to at least include the airline's name?
From the other thread:
Quote: Quoting Richierich
In all fairness, he did just have a near-death experience. And being a NYT reporter, he is allowed to embellish a little, isn't he?
Hell, if this had happened to me, I'd have written about it too.
Absolutely not. Being a reporter, especially one for such an esteemed outlet as the New York Times means you should REPORT, not EMBELLISH. If you're embellishing, you're making stuff up. That's not reporting, and it's dishonest.
I'm not against his writing about his experience. I'm against his making stuff up. What this reporter did was sensationalize - adding embellishments to make it sound more harrowing, more dangerous, and more *entertaining*, so as to get more readers. The thing is, if he had just reported what happened plain and simple, the harrowing danger would have been more than apparent. He overstepped his duty as a reporter by trying to make it entertainment.
Examples:
* titling it "Colliding with Death" (but he lived.)
* "And it was clear that the situation was worsening in a hurry. The leading edge of the wing was losing rivets, and starting to peel back." But then, look at the picture, and it all looks fine on the leading edge. Made up?
* "But as the minutes passed, the plane kept losing speed. By now we all knew how bad this was." Mr. Sharkey must be aware that part of landing is slowing down...
* "For the next 25 minutes, the pilots, Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino, were scanning their instruments, looking for an airport. Nothing turned up." That's gotta be bullshit. I can't imagine that knocking out a winglet and part of a stabilizer would make calling ATC impossible. Besides that, how the hell does Sharkey know that no airports showed up?
* "We came down hard and fast." I doubt it. Pilots were concerned about the plane's structural integrity. That and Sharkey wasn't looking at the instruments.
* "We were the Amazon Seven" Jeebus, Sharkey. Did you just now make that up?
I'll admit though, the article does get much better on the second page.
Antiuser From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12109 times:
Some very serious news have been reported by Globo - they say, and I will quote directly (translating, obviously): "All information gathered by the Air Force indicates that the pilots of the Legacy jet were flying with the transponder switched off, preventing air traffic controllers from seeing both aircraft in the same route and avoiding the collision."
"Even more serious and mysterious: the Air Force wants to know why the pilot of the Legacy jet did not respond to the many calls made by Cindacta 1 until the moment of the collision. They also wish to know why, after the collision, not only did the transponder work again, but the pilot called ATC, reporting the shock with an unidentified object through the same radio he hadn't answered until then."
HOWEVER
Nothing has been posted on either the DAC or the Air Force's websites. It could be because unlike the news organisations, the people who update their sites go home at 7pm, but I would wait until something is published on the official sites to make any comments.
Antiuser From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11814 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 20): Why would they turn thier transponder off? Is there a lagidamit reason to do this.
No idea. What the report says is that the Legacy took off from SJK with the transponder fully functional and a filed cruise altitude of FL370. They were supposed to descend to FL360 after crossing BSB, but the controllers couldn't read the aircraft's altitude either because the transponder was off or malfunctioning. Once the transponder came back up, the controllers saw the Legacy was still at FL370.
AMSSFO From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 947 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11320 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 18): He overstepped his duty as a reporter by trying to make it entertainment.
Examples:
* titling it "Colliding with Death" (but he lived.)
* "And it was clear that the situation was worsening in a hurry. The leading edge of the wing was losing rivets, and starting to peel back." But then, look at the picture, and it all looks fine on the leading edge. Made up?
* "But as the minutes passed, the plane kept losing speed. By now we all knew how bad this was." Mr. Sharkey must be aware that part of landing is slowing down...
* "For the next 25 minutes, the pilots, Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino, were scanning their instruments, looking for an airport. Nothing turned up." That's gotta be bullshit. I can't imagine that knocking out a winglet and part of a stabilizer would make calling ATC impossible. Besides that, how the hell does Sharkey know that no airports showed up?
* "We came down hard and fast." I doubt it. Pilots were concerned about the plane's structural integrity. That and Sharkey wasn't looking at the instruments.
* "We were the Amazon Seven" Jeebus, Sharkey. Did you just now make that up?
I'll admit though, the article does get much better on the second page.
He writes a column not a news article. He descibes his feelings, thoughts and fears at that time. Nowhere he claims he's giving facts only. Give him a break, please.
Dougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 367 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11128 times:
I remember in part 4 of this continuing thread that there was some controversy over a radio blacked out zone on or around where the incident happened.
Now the rumors of the Legacy crew having turned off the transponder.
How about the transponder problem being linked, as stated above in post 19 by Antiuser, he says that Global news network has reported that at the time of the supposed transponder failure or off, the ATC were trying to contact the Legacy with little success before the collision.
What if the transponder was suffering the same blackout as the comms, that could explain why suddenly after the collision both the trasnponder and the comms started working agian. A transponder is a radio device is it not.
Also to be noted here is that as of today no one has stated if the GOL B737 crew made a mayday call or were they also in this blackout zone.
The TCAS system requires that the transponder inputs are valid and signals are streamed. surely the TCAS system would also have flagged up a failure due to a lack of these signals, and so far no one has made any statement saying that the TCAS gave any such warning.
To be fair to all parties in this accident, simulation tests need to be carried out to see if this scenario could have happened in and around the area of the collision.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10018 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10357 times:
No. Absolutely not. This would be a different story had someone shoved a mic in his face and asked him to comment on his ordeal. But this was planned. He sat down a couple days later and said "how can I write this? How can I make people read this?" This is the answer - exaggerate. The thing is, the event was already so graphic... why exaggerate?
The more people accept sensationalization, the more the media will sensationalize. Eventually, it will all be fiction.
25 SeeTheWorld: Honestly, you weren't there. How the hell do you know if the plane landed hard or not? He's reporting a personal, frightening experience. JEEZ!!
26 SeeTheWorld: If there were so many attempted calls to the Legacy, then why wasn't the GOL flight called and warned that there may be a problem. It's interesting t
27 MiCorazonAzul: my only question is, whatever happened to the anticollision system that the Boeing 738 is equipped with? Wouldn't it have warned the pilots of the app
28 Boeingforever: not if the legacys transponder was off
29 Thomson735: the picture in A net database of the GOL 737 with the safety cards etc pinned against the window to stop sunlight, what if this same procedure was use
30 CURLYHEADBOY: The sun should have been at their left, not right in front of them... however, I think you'd not see that much anyway with the sun beaming right in y
31 FlyMatt2Bermud: Actually this is permitted in many areas on non radar coverage such as the North Atlantic or Pacific RVSM airspace(etc). The procedure is called Stra
32 Mir: Back before the US converted to RVSM, it was pretty common for pilots to ask for (and recieve) clearance to fly at the "wrong way" altitude. It would
33 Thomson735: Yea fair point, but u may see somthing e.g a gilmer of light of the fuselarge of acft, ive seen this many times, with paper across the windows u wont
34 CURLYHEADBOY: I say I agree on this, and the sun should have been at their right, as they were heading south, I got it wrong in my previous post.
35 Richierich: I'm joking, sorry for my latent sarcasm. Of course a real reporter for the NYT should NOT embellish or twist the facts. Otherwise, OttoPylit could go
36 D L X: That's the reason I demand accuracy, and not embellishment. He wasn't talking about the landing. He was talking about the descent. He has no idea how
37 AMSSFO: You weren't there so you have absolutely no clue whether he exaggerates or not. Losing rivets?: maybe, maybe not: we simply don't know what he has se
38 N844AA: Yeah, but, this was a column based on his personal subjective experience. I mean, you're just not going to find objectivity here -- it's just not pos
39 LuckyEddie: I hate this Sh*t. Completely unnecessary. If you spend a lot of time on a high altitude flight deck you will realise that you cannot effectively do y
40 D L X: I didn't witness a single flight today, however I do know for a fact that all of them took off after V1, and landed with gear down. There are somethi
41 David L: There was an interesting debate about that earlier. The consensus of those with experience seems to have been that you won't see much if you look int
42 N844AA: Just a nitpick, but these reporters knew what they were getting into -- they had made their promises of confidentiality to their sources, and chose t
43 D L X: The anonymous source has become the downfall of American media. It basically gives the reporter a legitimized opportunity to make something up. Then
44 Khobar: It is a publication of his "diary". He is NOT a reporter - he is a columnist, and he was writing a personal account.
45 B777fan: For someone who 'just wants the facts' you seem to be jumping to conclusions one can't reach from the photo you looked at. Friendly wager, I'll bet t
46 Summa767: I have just watched an interview with Sharkey. He described the experience of the impact and landing in a straight forward manner. However, when asked
47 D L X: I disagree. It was published in the Business section, and has a byline. It was considered "news." I never said I want just the facts. Opinions are FI
48 Khobar: You state the London times is reporting that "investigators believe that human error by the Legacy pilots and ATC" was most likely the cause of the a
49 Antiuser: I think that's a bit too much speculation, but agree that he shouldn't have said that. The pilots are in no peril if it's proved that they didn't do
50 Summa767: If you watch the interview you will see that when he refers to being careful to examine the evidence carefully, he is implying that the "peril" comes
51 SCEagle: Was browsing through some photos of the 737, and noticed that it appeared the landing gear was in the down and locked position. Thoughts? http://www.e
52 Antiuser: Here's the note published by ANAC (Brazilian Civil Aviation Authority) today: O Centro de Comunicação Social da Aeronáutica (Cecomsaer) informa a r
53 Khobar: Nope. It's his column - "On The Road", and he's a columnist, not a reporter. Doesn't matter where it appears - it's still a column.
54 B777fan: I don't think you meant me here (B777fan) because I was not all over anyone for that. I only demand reasonableness. Here was an eyewitness, looking a
55 D L X: Correct - that "you" was not the singular "you" but the nonspecific plural "you all." (Sadly, a hole in the English language - there is no "yous".) A
56 N685FE: I have been keeping up with this since the news first aired and have been reluctant to give any speculation of the cause, it's not my job I will leave
57 Antiuser: Brooklyners might disagree with you... err, youse guys.
58 MiCorazonAzul: if the transponder is this important, why is there the ability to just simply switch it off. I mean, shouldn't this be an automated thing that can't
59 Khobar: Dear Abby is a column. Do you think Dear Abby is considered news? If Dear Abby was writing the account of the collision, would your reaction be the s
60 D L X: Bob Novak is also a column. It is also certainly news. Being a column does not make it not news. Yes. If Dear Abby were acting like a reporter, I'd h
61 FlyinHigh: And lawyers would never embellish or sensationalize right? It's an article in a newspaper. Anyone with half a brain knows that all that you read in n
62 Khobar: Bob Novak is news? Thanks for making my day. Sometimes we call people who tell what happened witnesses. Being a witness doesn't make a person a repor
63 D L X: I have no idea how that is relevant. Fiction writers embellish and sensationalize too. If I had said I was an author if fiction in my profile, would
64 ULMFlyer: Since I asked most of the questions about RVSM, I want to thank you guys for the perspective you provided. Somebody mentioned in a previous part of t
65 Scarebus03: Getting away from the literature debate, I must commend the Brazilian investigation and recovery effort. From the above post despite the difficulty of
66 Khobar: Fiction writers make it up - hence the name. Columnists express their opinions subjectively. Bob Novak, your example of a reporter, is a conservative
67 Swissy: Agree with you and no offence to you guys everyone of you have points but please lets get back to the current post. Cheers,
68 77411: Very true, as my training in investigations goes, one area to look for a liar, be it witness or involved party, is to much detail. To much and they a
69 DeC: Being able to turn it on and off has nothing to do with its importance. You switch it off and on 'cause while on ground, it transmits very powerful a
70 FlyinHigh: I'm trying to show that all professions at times embellish (your favorite word) stories. Lawyers are just particularly good at it, so it's worth ment
71 D L X: 1) still irrelevant. 2) Lawyers that embellish don't stay lawyers very long. It's not like TV. In any event, Mr. Sharkey's words may have caused a bi
72 Bobster2: Well ... the cockpit door was open. He was talking to them. I'm biased. I never liked Joe Sharkey. I agree with your criticisms of the column. The ob
73 Agrodemm: Quoting Reply 39.. Do not bode well. I hope the legacy CVR will show that the ATC transmissions were not received. Equally the FDR may tell if the tra
74 Litz: CVRs used to have a 30 minute loop, but I'm not sure if that's been increased or not with the new digital versions. The newer digital FDRs capture so
75 N685FE: During the transmit cycle, the TCAS computer transmits a 1030 MHz signal to the antenna. During the receive cycle, the TCAS computer receives a 1090
76 Antiuser: According to Globo's Air Force source, this is the most probable chain of events: The Legacy was flying only slightly lower than the 738, when its lef
77 Theweave33: I've noticed a lot of blame on the American pilots when really no investigating has been accomplished. My question in response to those quick to blame
78 Tangowhisky: Thanks Antiuser. Is there any reliable reports if the 738 crew tried to contact ATC? I heard of mayday calls on other threads.
79 Coronado990: Odd to think that if it was not for the winglets, these two aircraft would have literally flown through each other without a scratch.
80 OPNLguy: ..not to mention having set the absolute World's record for the closest near-midair collision...
81 PPVRA: In one of the most unlikely of places. . .
82 LipeGIG: Gol Press Release, they made a mistake and now reduce the number of pax from 148 to 147, and total victims to 154. GOL Flight 1907 Advisory #18 GOL re
83 PPVRA: Btw, I found this quick animation that shows where the aircraft were and under which cindacta they were: http://www.estadao.com.br/ext/especi...nfogra
84 Bobster2: You're sure they wouldn't have crashed after a near miss? If the 737 made a violent avoidance roll and simultaneously got hit by the jet blast and tu
86 D L X: Well, I'm sorry to have offended you. Media abuse is an issue I feel quite strongly about, as you can probably now tell. I'm particularly upset when
87 BuyantUkhaa: Very interesting: http://www.pernambuco.com/ultimas/no...ia=2006106082207&assunto=83&onde=1 - ATC tried to contact Legacy 7 times - No response during
88 D L X: Interesting indeed. I have to wonder, since we're talking about two brand new planes, was part of the fault due to what computer engineers call "infa
89 Tangowhisky: My understanding is that Com radios are completely independent units than the transponders (correct me if I am wrong)? Therefore how could the Coms f
90 Derik737: That's why you have two Transponders. If the Legacy crew noticed their TCAS display was indicating a failure (which a failed or deactivated Transpond
91 DeC: The whole thing seems really suspicious. What about that illegal drug theory? Has it been dropped?
92 Summa767: Indeed. ATC will have to explain too, why, upon unsuccessfully attempting to contact the legacy for 1 hour, they did not forsee that it could have be
93 Jonvesi: Here is a link to a streaming-video interview with Joe Sharkey, by Aviation Internatinal News -Magazine ( AIN ). It about 27 minutes long, after a 3 m
94 D L X: Jonvesi (or someone else), can you paraphrase the video for those that don't have access to fast internet right now? Anything new, or more of the same
95 D L X: Jonvesi (or someone else), can you paraphrase the video for those that don't have access to fast internet right now? Anything new, or more of the same
96 PPVRA: Those are outrageous claims. The Legacy was just delivered to ExcelAir, on it's delivery flight with executives from both companies (ExcelAir and EMB
97 David L: On some aircraft the FMS auto-tunes the nav radios. I've never heard of comms radios being auto-tuned. How would it know which frequencies to use? Ca
98 Antiuser: It was reported by Globo that the Air Force did receive information that there was a great amount of money on board. The aircraft was searched and no
99 Antiuser: There's an Airworthiness Directive out for the same model of transponder that's used in the Legacy - it becomes valid in 10 days. http://www.tdatacorp
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8201 posts, 
From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2274 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1711 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 376 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 882 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 947 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
