• ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to the wiki…

      TCAS was a relatively new technology at the time of the accident, having been mandatory[Note 2] in Europe since 2000.

      Two years prior to the accident, in Europe, where the accident happened.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        that is not answer to my question. but you knew that, didn’t you? 😜

        • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hi actual pilot,

            Has other poster actually provided any evidence of or mentioned any qualifications to you? Because I think you’re arguing with a clueless idiot.

          • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yours wasn’t a question, it was a statement

            you know what i meant

            wrong one

            no

            TCAS adherence wasn’t fundamentally changed after the accident in question

            yes it was. fundamentally.

            at the time of the accident there wasn’t any regulation that would state what to do in case of contradicting instructions from tcas and atc. different pilots may have been and have been told something else, or may have not been told anything at all and left to make split second decision when such event occurs.

            about a year before uberlingen there was very similar incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan_Airlines_mid-air_incident. there were other incidents before and after.

            So let’s come back to the original argument: following the erroneous instructions of atc over the TCAS resulted in the accident

            yeah, no. BEING SENT ONTO COLLISION COURSE is what resulted in the accident.

            yes, had they followed the tcas, the accident might have been avoided. but that is not what caused it. they already were in the shitty situation when they had to decide between tcas and atc.

            situation is caused by something that creates the situation, not by all of the infinite number of random things that might have been done to avoid it or escape it when you are already in. otherwise we could get into absurd argument like “if someone haven’t got out of the bed in the morning, the situation might have been avoided as well”. which, while technically true, is also absurd nonsense and no one would seriously tried to argue that.

            • ClutchCargo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                we could have agreed, if you weren’t saying dumb shit. because you are constantly saying dumb shit which is not true, or is only partially true so in the context of this discussion it doesn’t make sense, we DO NOT agree.

                saying we agree when your opponent is telling you otherwise is the most pathetic attempt to avoid saying “ok, that probably wasn’t best phrasing on my part” i have ever seen. or you are really so dumb that you lack the capacity to understand it.

                no matter which one, i am out of here, bye. you are now on my blocklist so i won’t be replying to you anymore. if you are truly interested why we still don’t agree i suggest rereading the whole conversation. especially to compare your first quote i reacted to with the one you used to pretend that “we agree” in your last answer.