737-Legacy collision in Brazil

[Chairboy]

Some new information coming out in regards to the Gol/ExcelAir crash in South America.

The pilots may have turned off their transponder, possibly so they could stay at 37,000 feet instead of the 36,000 feet they were assigned to.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/04/brazil.crash.ap/index.html

If the transponder was off, they would have disabled the TCAS as well and made it invisible to the TCAS on the 737-800 they collided with.  The Embraer Legacy safely landed with damage to its left wing and horizontal stabilizer, the 737 was destroyed on impact in the jungle below.

There's no direct ATC coverage of the area they were in, as I understand, but an assigned altitude is an assigned altitude.  They were at an odd numbered altitude while northwest-bound, too (hence the 36,000 assigned altitude) which is a break from the international conventions in place to avoid exactly this kind of incident.

Stay tuned.  Anyone else following this story?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Some new information coming out in regards to the Gol/ExcelAir crash in South America.

The pilots may have turned off their transponder, possibly so they could stay at 37,000 feet instead of the 36,000 feet they were assigned to.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/04/brazil.crash.ap/index.html

If the transponder was off, they would have disabled the TCAS as well and made it invisible to the TCAS on the 737-800 they collided with.  The Embraer Legacy safely landed with damage to its left wing and horizontal stabilizer, the 737 was destroyed on impact in the jungle below.

There's no direct ATC coverage of the area they were in, as I understand, but an assigned altitude is an assigned altitude.  They were at an odd numbered altitude while northwest-bound, too (hence the 36,000 assigned altitude) which is a break from the international conventions in place to avoid exactly this kind of incident.

Stay tuned.  Anyone else following this story?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if a US pilot turned off the transponder in US airspace, he'd most likely feel a stinger or ATA missile soon after doing so, correct?

[lukster]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a US pilot turned off the transponder in US airspace, he'd most likely feel a stinger or ATA missile soon after doing so, correct?

I don't think you have to have a transponder in uncontrolled airspace. Should a commercial jet turn one off it would definitely get someone's attention.

[Debonair]

i fly a no transponder plane all the time, but not in that airspace.
i think most ATC radar doesn't work so well if your transponder isn't on, i've been told once that my transponder wasn't working by ATC when it was on & i was on an instrument clearance
they were all like "dood!:noid "
and then i was like " lmao u cant <3 me "
and were all " cycle teh xpondr!!11"
and i was "zOMG OK dont go nuts"
then it was all kewl

[lukster]

Two separate but integrated systems. Primary radar uses reflected energy to paint the target while secondary sends a query to which the transponder replies with a code and altitude. I was an ATC radar tech in the USAF.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Rip,

In the USA, you can fly under 10,000ft MSL or 2,500ft AGL without a transpondeur. Above that you will need a Mode C transpondeur, which sends back your altitude for radars to pick. Certain airspaces also require a mode C.

I can still have my transpondeur ON, so ATC can spot me on the radar, or have it ON MODE C, so they can spot my position and my altitude.

At flights above 29,000 ft there's now something called RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum), that is pricy but mendatory to install. It allows airplanes to cross each other path at 1,000ft intervall rather than the old 2,000ft.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Rip,

In the USA, you can fly under 10,000ft MSL or 2,500ft AGL without a transpondeur. Above that you will need a Mode C transpondeur, which sends back your altitude for radars to pick. Certain airspaces also require a mode C.

I can still have my transpondeur ON, so ATC can spot me on the radar, or have it ON MODE C, so they can spot my position and my altitude.

At flights above 29,000 ft there's now something called RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum), that is pricy but mendatory to install. It allows airplanes to cross each other path at 1,000ft intervall rather than the old 2,000ft.

Thank you! That's very educating!

[deSelys]

Debonair

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
At flights above 29,000 ft there's now something called RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum), that is pricy but mendatory to install. It allows airplanes to cross each other path at 1,000ft intervall rather than the old 2,000ft.

NVSM seemed to be in use in this situation, as they seem to have crossed each other at a 0ft interval.

I'm reminded of an ATC conversation I read:
ATC: Saratoga 12345, traffic at 3,000 feet (same altitude), 1 O'Clock, 3 miles opposite direction.

Saratoga 12345: Roger, looking for traffic.

(long pause)

Saratoga 12345: Approach, Saratoga 12345, no joy on that traffic, can you give us a better location on it?

ATC: I can give you a much better location ... he's 2 miles behind you. Traffic no longer a factor. In spite of your best efforts, the Big Sky theory wins again.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a US pilot turned off the transponder in US airspace, he'd most likely feel a stinger or ATA missile soon after doing so, correct?

Uh...no.

You think they should shoot at a plane when the CB pops on the transponder?

What you normally would get, in controlled airspace, is a comment that they're not getting your ID and check the transponder.

Normally, the pilots would just select the 2nd transponder first and then trouble shoot the first one.

[Chairboy]

Now, if you dropped your transponder while traversing the ADIZ, the interaction might be a liiiiiittle different.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

About colliding visual scan and such, sometimes I spot a cessna 172 at 5 miles, sometimes I cannot find a MD88 2 miles 12 o'c co-alt. The sky works it's misterious ways indeed.

On a side note, when I fly the C210, C402, the C412 I look outside almost constantly. When I fly the Metro, I found myself barely looking ahead of me, which made me realized I became more "unsafe". It's due to the position of the seat, in the Metro, I have this big dash ahead of me that greatly reduces my foward vis. If I raise my seat to get some kind of foward vis, then I cannot see the top row of my instruments, nor the radios. To make matters worse, the Metro is very sensitive in pitch and only a couple of seconds of distraction will get you +/- 500ft, thus you stare at those instruments often.

I also recall a collision between the single engine Cessna, and a B737, where the Cessna pilot didn't see the B737 coming from his 3 O'c. The planes coming straight at you are hard to see as they appear to not move, compared to the ones crossing your field of vision.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Now, if you dropped your transponder while traversing the ADIZ, the interaction might be a liiiiiittle different.

Haven't flown in a while but I SERIOUSLY doubt that it's "shoot first, ask questions later" even in that scenario.

[lukster]

If all communications go down and the plane deviates from it's flight plan I'd expect an armed escort.

[Henrique Jitsu]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a US pilot turned off the transponder in US airspace, he'd most likely feel a stinger or ATA missile soon after doing so, correct?

Wrong

Originally posted by lukster
I don't think you have to have a transponder in uncontrolled airspace. Should a commercial jet turn one off it would definitely get someone's attention.

Its not uncontrolled airspace, actually some military americans went to the amazon to learn about SIVAM(Amazon Vigilance System) and how to control an airspace after september 11th. It's definetely one of the most controlled airspace in the world and often planes invading Brazilian territory (most of times loaded with drugs) are being shot down.

Originally posted by lukster
If all communications go down and the plane deviates from it's flight plan I'd expect an armed escort.

They would get it if they were invading our territory, but they were leaving Brazil to deliver it to a USA buyer


-----------------------------------------------

The legacy tapes have showed that the control tower tried to contact the jet 5 times but the crew simply ignored it.



Just imagine how "happy" we brazilians are, an american pilot ignores our control tower, hit a 737(brand new with less than 200 hours of flight) in the horizontal stab, the 737 hits the ground vertically, no chance of survivors and as if it wasnt enough the american reporter in the jet says that the control tower didnt try to contact them and says our vigilance system (that you americans came to learn how to avoid terrorist atacks) is a "black hole"
And The New York Times are giving wrong informations about the accident.









pictures at: http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/album/0609aviao_album.jhtm?abrefoto=25