But boy, oh boy. Say this to a believer and get ready to loose an afternoon.

Let me add some context from the perspective of an airline pilot who is also is a company training captain.

All modern transport category aircraft are equipped with a system called TCAS, or Terminal Collision Avoidance System.

TCAS operates by interrogating the TCAS system of other aircraft in a defined proximity ring based on some variables like altitude and rate of closure and resolves a climb/descend/level command to each aircraft, which we pilots train regularly to execute. The system is a near perfect solution to deconfliction when collision is probable.

With daily average flights in the US alone around 45 000, the amount of “near misses” is an incredibly small percentage. In 15 years of flying TCAS equipped aircraft, I’ve had 5 actual TCAS RAs (RA stands for resolution advisory - the actual avoidance maneuver)

Another way to look at it is: when was the last mid-air collision in the US, or even the world involving TCAS equipped airliners? The only one that comes to mind is the DHL-BAL mid air in 2002, which was a result of the one crew not following the TCAS instruction.

This article can fuck right off.

Presenting his floofness, Basel. Pictured with his two favorite things, snow and sticks.

Sucks to be waiting, but while your sitting there, maybe watch a few videos of people suffering from the effects of rabies. You probably won’t feel so bad about the wait after that.

Happy your pooch is safe and sound, as well

Aircraft maintenence is regulated by federal aviation authorities, in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. It’s incredibly regulated, and transparent.

Run to failure isn’t a thing in aviation.

Do you routinely walk into open expanses during electrical storms?

I volunteer as tribute

Multiple plaintiffs in a single case, similar to a class action. I think OPs point still stands.

It did, but Sir Floofy butt enjoyed the second round of pets.

Also, love the pet love this post generated. Keep being awesome!

It denotes the variation to the specific fin when it was ordered from the manufacturer. For example, if an airlines wants to use its 777-300 type for a domestic market and needs a smaller center fuel tank to make room for baggage and cargo, that configuration would have a different model subtype number, such as 777-3xx.

Yeah, sometimes. I live in a country with strict gun laws though, so I’m less concerned about getting shot than I am about getting hit by lightening.

I like your approach, and for what it’s worth, I live in about a half km from the aberfoyle bottling plant, and am on well water from the same aquifer as the plant. I’ve never once had well issues, or low water.

I’m in no way trying to “carry water” for a terrible company like Nestle, however the impact on the local populations water supply is minimal, and the community benefits from tax dollars that keep our property costs relatively low and our community centres and parks well maintained.

Again, fuck nestle and their more nefarious business practices, but there is some nuance to the discussion.

I’d probably pay $15 alone for that. Looks like a lot of (frustrating) fun

Had both aircraft followed those automated instructions, the collision would not have occurred.

That is right from the wiki.

I never claimed the pilots were “cowboys”, you made that up in your head. I simply said the accident was a result of not following TCAS, which at its core is correct. Of course there are multiple contributing factors, ATC being the largest, but my post was already getting long winded.

Is that some kind of a faux pas? I don’t know who mentor pilot is

Not sure where a list of all variations would be, but there may be something out there. Lots of companies can have similar subtypes, as fins change airlines frequently, be it by lease or sale. I flew the 767 for 4 years, and my company flight summary has about 6 different 767-300 variations broken down. We got our fins from all over the place, we had fins from Hawaiian to Ethiopian.

Nice! Now that foveated rendering is implemented, I might just buy it when it goes on sale.

Yours wasn’t a question, it was a statement, and a wrong one. TCAS adherence wasn’t fundamentally changed after the accident in question, but it brought to light it’s importance.

So let’s come back to the original argument: following the erroneous instructions of atc over the TCAS resulted in the accident - if they had followed TCAS, like the DHL crew, they’d be alive.

Edit: posted two answers by accident. Deleted one

them obeying the atc command was reasonable and expected course of action.

That’s incorrect, and is exactly why we train to ignore ATC commands and follow TCAS advisories. We don’t even tell ATC if we’re climbing or descending, simply “Aircraft XYZ, TCAS RA”

yes, had they followed the tcas, the accident might have been avoided.

There it is. I’m glad we could finally come to an agreement. Thanks for the entertainment.