Are you referring to the DHL-Aeroflot (or some Russian carrier, it was a Tupolev) midair collision that happened over France IIRC? If so, that was due to a combination of errors, as most aviation accidents are as I am sure you know.
Anyway, the controller was alone and not paying enough attention, and was prosecuted for it. The two airlines TCAS systems gave the pilots adequate warning and proper instructions to avoid collision. But the ATC, finally noticing at the last minute the two were going to collide, gave the opposite instructions of the TCAS to the two pilot crews.
The pilots decided to listen to the ATC, and collided midair. Had they listened to the TCAS, they would have avoided the midair collision.
All lives were lost of course, and the Russian airliner was carrying something like 80% young students on their way to some cultural exchange.
Sad event, and now pilots are instructed to always listen to the TCAS over ATC instructions from what I understand.
iirc there was a mid air collision over Brazil a few years back as well
No I was talking about the one that happened over brazeil with a Embraer executive jet and a passenger liner.
Ground control in brazil didn't give the pilots an order to go to a certain altitude, and it collided with the passenger liner. Of course the executive jet managed to land somehow, but the passenger plan broke apart in mid air.
The pilots of the Embraer jet had accidentally disabled their transponder which made it impossible for the two jets to know that each other existed.
It was a cascade of human failures.
Posted in the P&N thread:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Malacca-Strait-Malaysian-source-reveals.html
According to Malaysian military, they tracked the plane for 100 miles after it lost contact. And it was headed in the wrong direction.
if they were being tracked for 100 miles while going in the wrong direction, isn't that enough time for the pilots to radio in their status?
If this were terrorism, wouldn't someone have claimed responsibility by now? I mean, isn't that kind of the point, that people know what you did and fear you for it?
You think it's cloaked?
Total loss of electronics leading to a u-turn glide to the ocean?
100 mile glide?
100 mile glide?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/world/asia/malaysia-plane-scenarios/Wouldn't the pilots have made a distress call though if both engines blew??
It's possible they could probably glide 100miles given the right conditions, but you'd think one of the top things to do is alert ATC...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/world/asia/malaysia-plane-scenarios/
Fact: The absence of a debris field suggests the possibility that pilots were forced to ditch the plane and it landed on water without breaking up, finally sinking to the ocean floor.
Analysis: But if that were the case, then why no emergency signal? These planes are able to perform a "miracle on the Hudson" maneuver. They have the ability to glide more than 100 miles and belly land on the water with both engines out, says former 777 pilot Keith Wolzinger, now a civil aviation consultant with The Spectrum Group. During the time it would take for a plane to glide 100 miles, it seems likely that pilots would be able able to send an SOS.
I wonder because I'm not sure. So I ask questions.You seriously have to wonder? Would you say cell service 30k feet above a city like New York or Los Angels would be normal?
Water landings with commercial jets are nearly impossible for even the most experienced flight crew. The 'miracle' on the Hudson was most definitely a miracle.
someone in this thread said the 777 can glide that much. correct me if i'm wrong.
I didn't suggest that they wouldn't or shouldn't have tried. If it's a pilot's only option, they should take it.Why not at least try if you have nothing left to lose? You fuck it up, and you start tumbling on impact, then you'd have lots of debris spread about. Which we would have found by now.
"91 nautical miles (169 km) from its flight level of 37,000 feet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9#Incident
100 mile glide?