Brazil Air Crash - Aircraft of World War II

Gnomey · 10-04-2006, 07:21 PM

You have probably all heard about the air crash in Brazil where are full loaded 737 came down in the Amazon Rainforest with no survivors. It seems it had a mid-air collision with a Business Jet, attached is an article by one of the passengers on that jet (published on the NY Times website).

BBC NEWS | Americas | Amazon crash pilot passports held
BBC NEWS | Americas | Amazon plane 'black boxes' found
BBC NEWS | Americas | Brazil mourns air crash victims

It is in a zip because the word document was to large to upload, just extract to read.

NY Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/bu...34400&adxnnl=0

FLYBOYJ · 10-05-2006, 12:07 AM

Been reading this today. Both aircraft were at 37,000. The biz jet allegedly had its transponder off, but was talking to ATC and ignored an order to descend to 36,000 (ATC would of really bitched bout this since they were in "A" airspace, Airspace above 18,000 feet). Bottom line I can't see how ATC would allow this, even in Brazil. Something is really fishy here.....

Matt308 · 10-05-2006, 01:47 PM

I read that they are contemplating charging them with manslaughter. Ooof. Why would they have their transponder off in Class A airspace? It is an ICAO requirement and is not MEL deferrable.

FLYBOYJ · 10-05-2006, 02:37 PM

Yep!

pbfoot · 10-05-2006, 07:37 PM

The fact it happened in a remote part of Brasil where radar coverage would be possibly non existent I'm not sure but I have worked in areas where there was no radar for the ACC 's Not too different then flying Oceanic when separation of traffic is maintained by time and altitude. did the transponder pack it in or was the lateral and verticle separation comprimised by false reporting by the aircrew or a screw up by ATC it all happens. Remember that all ATC's work without radar more then you might think.

FLYBOYJ · 10-05-2006, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The fact it happened in a remote part of Brasil where radar coverage would be possibly non existent I'm not sure but I have worked in areas where there was no radar for the ACC 's Not too different then flying Oceanic when separation of traffic is maintained by time and altitude. did the transponder pack it in or was the lateral and verticle separation comprimised by false reporting by the aircrew or a screw up by ATC it all happens. Remember that all ATC's work without radar more then you might think.

True, but ATC was in communication with them and allegedly told them to decend from 37,000 to 36,000 ft. With that statement made, how did ATC know they were at 37 if they didn't have radar coverage?

k9kiwi · 10-06-2006, 01:51 AM

By asking.

ATC is in voice contact, no radar, asks for altitude and gets told. Also possibly from last known altitude if they had their transponders on at all during the flight.

FLYBOYJ · 10-06-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

By asking.

ATC is in voice contact, no radar, asks for altitude and gets told. Also possibly from last known altitude if they had their transponders on at all during the flight.

And they would also asked about the transponder (which the aircraft would of gotten a squawk code prior to departure considering they were on an IFR flight plan). If the aircraft was in an area where there was no radar coverage, then the transponder being on or off is a non issue, but considering Brazilian Authorities brought it up it seems that there is something not right here. There should be ATC Tapes of the whole situation, I'd like to hear what they have to say....

The point here if they were flying in "A" airspace, they would of filed a flight plan and would of received a squawk code prior to take off. Had that transponder been turned off or not transmitting ATC would of been asking immediately what the problem was. If radar contact was not possible, then this statement about the transponder being off is a smokescreen...

FLYBOYJ · 10-06-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

By asking.

ATC is in voice contact, no radar, asks for altitude and gets told. Also possibly from last known altitude if they had their transponders on at all during the flight.

In most places you are not flying in "A" airspace without radar contact (Pb did mention that there are some areas where radar contact is unavailable).

pbfoot · 10-06-2006, 03:37 PM

I might be a little out of date but isn't 2000 ft the verticle separation at high level can;t recall giving fl360 the instruction probably would or should be worded "callsign descend to or climb to fl 360 immediatly for traffic avoidance" and did the light guy have his altimeter set at standard or 29.92 and who cleared both aircraft to fl370 initially and the fact the light guy was on a ferry flight from factory did the a/c have a snag

FLYBOYJ · 10-06-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I might be a little out of date but isn't 2000 ft the verticle separation at high level can;t recall giving fl360 the instruction probably would or should be worded "callsign descend to or climb to fl 360 immediatly for traffic avoidance" and did the light guy have his altimeter set at standard or 29.92 and who cleared both aircraft to fl370 initially and the fact the light guy was on a ferry flight from factory did the a/c have a snag

I think it's 1000'. And good points there - I see no rational reason why the guys in the corporate jet would of switched off their transponder. I think someone really screwed the pooch and it's easy to blame the living....

The plot thickens...

Gnomey · 10-06-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think it's 1000'. And good points there - I see no rational reason why the guys in the corporate jet would of switched off their transponder. I think someone really screwed the pooch and it's easy to blame the living....

The plot thickens...

Unfortunately that is the case. Yep, I am now interested to see where this goes.

Matt308 · 10-06-2006, 07:30 PM

It was 2000ft (at least in US). But in Class A and RVSM, it is now 1000ft. Don't know about Brazil. Also, nobody has mentioned TCAS. I see lots of talk about transponders, but the aircraft transponder can be Mode A, Mode C or Mode S. Each mode provides different information about the aircraft and flight profile. ICAO requires an Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) for some operations. In the US, TCAS is required and is the means of compliance. With TCAS (depending upon revision), both aircraft would have received either (worst case) a Traffic Adviosry (TA) instructing pilots of traffic location for situation awareness or a Resolution Advisory (RA) instructing pilots for coordinated maneuvers.

Irrespective, each aircraft certificated under Federal Regulation Part 25 (JAR 25 for the Europeans) would be required to have a cockpit voice recorder in accordance with the operating rules. The voice recorder has 2 hours of continuous recording of all PTT initiated communication, as well as area mic of the cockpit environment.

If ATC instructed either aircraft for a flight level change, it will be in crash survivable memory for the 737 and will certainly be on the Embraer. Assuming the 737 VCR did not survive (unlikely), recordings may be lost still. The only way that the Embraer might not have the recording is if the recorder was faulty (it happens more often than you think) or the pilots pushed the cockpit intitiated bulk erase feature. While that would be an aggregious act by the pilots, it has been done before.

pbfoot · 10-06-2006, 09:44 PM

I tend not to guess to much about air incidents I've guessed wrong more then once something sounds screwed up with ATC if the aircraft were at the same altitude and in the same vicinity you would instruct both aircraft to change altitude one up ...one down and determine the cause of the conflict later "pull the tapes" all the search radar tapes and voice tapes but there are so many variables and we have access to about 25% of the info

Chief · 10-06-2006, 10:14 PM

Is there a draw back to having the transponder on the whole flight? Just wondering.

10-05-2006, 12:07 AM	#2
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,051	Been reading this today. Both aircraft were at 37,000. The biz jet allegedly had its transponder off, but was talking to ATC and ignored an order to descend to 36,000 (ATC would of really bitched bout this since they were in "A" airspace, Airspace above 18,000 feet). Bottom line I can't see how ATC would allow this, even in Brazil. Something is really fishy here..... __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

10-05-2006, 01:47 PM	#3
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	I read that they are contemplating charging them with manslaughter. Ooof. Why would they have their transponder off in Class A airspace? It is an ICAO requirement and is not MEL deferrable. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

10-05-2006, 02:37 PM	#4
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,051	Yep! __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

10-06-2006, 01:51 AM	#7
k9kiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Kiwi Land Posts: 850	By asking. ATC is in voice contact, no radar, asks for altitude and gets told. Also possibly from last known altitude if they had their transponders on at all during the flight. __________________ 4 out of 5 voices in my head say I am normal. Majority rules. You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.

10-06-2006, 07:30 PM	#13
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	It was 2000ft (at least in US). But in Class A and RVSM, it is now 1000ft. Don't know about Brazil. Also, nobody has mentioned TCAS. I see lots of talk about transponders, but the aircraft transponder can be Mode A, Mode C or Mode S. Each mode provides different information about the aircraft and flight profile. ICAO requires an Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) for some operations. In the US, TCAS is required and is the means of compliance. With TCAS (depending upon revision), both aircraft would have received either (worst case) a Traffic Adviosry (TA) instructing pilots of traffic location for situation awareness or a Resolution Advisory (RA) instructing pilots for coordinated maneuvers. Irrespective, each aircraft certificated under Federal Regulation Part 25 (JAR 25 for the Europeans) would be required to have a cockpit voice recorder in accordance with the operating rules. The voice recorder has 2 hours of continuous recording of all PTT initiated communication, as well as area mic of the cockpit environment. If ATC instructed either aircraft for a flight level change, it will be in crash survivable memory for the 737 and will certainly be on the Embraer. Assuming the 737 VCR did not survive (unlikely), recordings may be lost still. The only way that the Embraer might not have the recording is if the recorder was faulty (it happens more often than you think) or the pilots pushed the cockpit intitiated bulk erase feature. While that would be an aggregious act by the pilots, it has been done before. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

10-05-2006, 07:37 PM	#5
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,586	The fact it happened in a remote part of Brasil where radar coverage would be possibly non existent I'm not sure but I have worked in areas where there was no radar for the ACC 's Not too different then flying Oceanic when separation of traffic is maintained by time and altitude. did the transponder pack it in or was the lateral and verticle separation comprimised by false reporting by the aircrew or a screw up by ATC it all happens. Remember that all ATC's work without radar more then you might think.

10-06-2006, 03:37 PM	#10
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,586	I might be a little out of date but isn't 2000 ft the verticle separation at high level can;t recall giving fl360 the instruction probably would or should be worded "callsign descend to or climb to fl 360 immediatly for traffic avoidance" and did the light guy have his altimeter set at standard or 29.92 and who cleared both aircraft to fl370 initially and the fact the light guy was on a ferry flight from factory did the a/c have a snag

10-06-2006, 09:44 PM	#14
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,586	I tend not to guess to much about air incidents I've guessed wrong more then once something sounds screwed up with ATC if the aircraft were at the same altitude and in the same vicinity you would instruct both aircraft to change altitude one up ...one down and determine the cause of the conflict later "pull the tapes" all the search radar tapes and voice tapes but there are so many variables and we have access to about 25% of the info

10-06-2006, 10:14 PM	#15
Chief Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 366	Is there a draw back to having the transponder on the whole flight? Just wondering. __________________ Corporal: "Hmm. it's quiet. too quiet." BANG! Same Corporal: "Now it's suddenly too loud. I preferred it when it was quiet."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
French fighter aircrft	carpenoctem1689	Aviation	56	02-25-2009 11:41 AM
The 9th FS Unit History... Nov 1944 - Sept 1945....	lesofprimus	Stories	12	12-10-2006 07:06 PM
Air War's Greatest Aces...	lesofprimus	Stories	14	10-09-2006 02:45 PM
Air Force test team launches 'overhauled' Iraqi aircraft	Royzee617	SitRep	0	04-28-2006 11:53 AM