Пара мнений - Бибиси и летчиков профессионалов.
В обоих говорится о вине диспетчеров.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/2082331.stm

What might have gone wrong?


The planes crashed in flames

With vast amounts of airspace, advanced air traffic control systems and modern technology, how can two planes come to collide in mid-air?
An initial statement from Swiss air traffic controllers blamed the Russian crew for ignoring several warnings to dive.

But that raises as many questions as it answers.




How did the two planes get so close to each other in the first place, as they approached at right-angles on exactly the same altitude?

Why was only the Russian pilot apparently told to take avoiding action?

Why was the first instruction given to him only 50 seconds before impact?

If they were asking to dive it sounds like things had already got out of hand

Max Kingsley-Jones
Flight International
Tragically, within seconds of the Russian pilot belatedly heeding the instruction to dive, a collision avoidance computer on the DHL plane suddenly told its pilot to do the same.

In other words, verbal instructions from air traffic controllers to the Russian crew, and computer instructions on the 757, put the planes on a deadly new collision course.

Controllers' role

If both planes had been obeying the avoidance computer - known as TCAS - one would have been told to climb steeply and one to dive.

The Tupolev should have had the system, which is mandatory for all flights across Europe, said Mr Kingsley-Jones. It is not clear whether it was definitely fitted and working on the Tu-154 involved in the crash.

If the pilot failed to answer it is an important part of it, but it really has to come down to looking at the air traffic controllers

David Rider
Jane's Air Traffic Control
The actions of the Russian pilot are significant but not likely to be the main cause, said David Rider, editor of Jane's Air Traffic Control.

"The pilot's response at that stage was academic," he said.

"There are two sides, and if the pilot failed to answer it is an important part of it, but it really has to come down to looking at the air traffic controllers."

If it was confirmed that the pilot only received 50 seconds warning, he said, that was certainly not long enough.

Other experts pointed out that if the pilot's instruction had been to "dive" - rather than simply to descend - that was a clear indication that the situation was already critical.


The flight recorders will reveal cockpit conversations

"If they were asking to dive it sounds like things had already got out of hand," Max Kingsley-Jones, commercial aviation editor with Flight International Magazine, told the BBC.

The air traffic controller involved in handling the flights is said to be severely traumatised.

As to why the planes were on a collision course at the same altitude, it is thought they were both heading for a standard crossing point between two air corridors over Ueberlingen.

Both were flying at 36,000 feet, but normally one would be instructed to descend to pass across the "junction". In this case, it appears the instruction was given unusually late, at 50 seconds to impact.

Officials at Swiss air traffic control insist this was normal procedure, but this will be a key area of the inquiry.

Some speculation has focused on the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM), which means planes can sometimes fly only 1,000 feet apart vertically instead of the old 2,000 feet minimum.

That allows instructions to be later than they would have been in the past, as smaller adjustments in height are now necessary.

Handover zone

Attention in the inquiry may also focus on the handover of the flights to Swiss air traffic controllers. The Russian plane was handed over from German traffic controllers only five minutes before the crash, while the DHL plane had been handed over by Italian controllers just a few minutes before that.

If that turned out to be a factor in the crash, it would strengthen the argument for Europe's proposed Single Skies system, which would replace individual countries' airspace with an entire European Union zone.

Another area for investigation will be language. The instructions to the Tu-154 was given in English by a Swiss controller to a Russian crew - though so far there has been no suggestion that a misunderstanding occurred.

It seems incorrect to me for Swiss ATC to be already publicly blaming the Russian pilot 'because he did not respond to calls

Pilot
And the fact that pilots have to change radio frequencies as they move across European air space could also come under the spotlight. Investigators will want to be sure that the Russian plane was listening to the right air traffic control frequency when controllers first tried to make contact.

Pilots have already hit back at the early Swiss move to blame the Russian crew.

"It seems incorrect to me for Swiss air traffic control to be already publicly blaming the Russian pilot 'because he did not respond to calls'," said one contributor to the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network website.

"Why did they not co-ordinate this action with the DHL aircraft?"

"Tragedies like this are caused by governments and authorities not addressing the problems we encounter every day," one writer added.

Whatever the final conclusions, it is likely that a sequence of events - rather than a single catastrophic mistake - was to blame for the tragedy.

*************************************************

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=7

Capt PPRuNe

Chief PPRuNe Pilot

posted 2nd July 2002 15:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly I would like to ask that we try and keep this thread along the lines of procedures and technical issues. Whilst it is an emotionally tragic accident and many would like to offer their condolences, this is not the place to do it. Please feel free to start a condolences thread on the Aircrew Notices forum.

Secondly, I would like to point out that what I have seen so far in the media is once again biased reporting of distorted facts interspread with assumptions of blame based on whoever has the most effective press agent. Whilst we cannot prevent speculation as it is only human to do so and calls not to specualte on here will be fruitless, at least we can hope for some 'informed' specualtion and discussion on PPRuNe. Anyone posting what I or other admins consider to be frivolous, insulting and/or anything that just sounds like someone wanting to see their username on this thread will have them deleted.

As has already been mentioned in a few of the other posts and picked up on by the BBC is our questioning of the Swiss reports (and apparent conclusions) that it was purely pilot error on the part of the Russian crew. I too find it incredible that both aircraft were not at least put on radar vectors to assure separation as a prelude to issuing a descent request to the Tu154. Whlst I am not an expert, but having flown through that airspace more times than I care to remember, the standard of controlling is usually very high. If as has been stated that the STCA equipment was out of service why did the controller leave the request for a descent so late? Surely at that time of night when traffic is nowhere as busy wasn't the decision made earlier to descend or vector the traffic?

How many times, especially at night have any of us missed an initial call? It doesn't matter whetner the crew of the Tu154 were Russian because it can and has happened to just about every one of us at one time or another that we have missed a call from ATC. The mix of accents is one reason and there is nothing we can do about that but also there is the 'callsign' itself. If the Tu154 was not a regular in that airspace it is possible that its callsign was not familiar to ATC and the identifier on the strip bore no resemblance to the callsign familiar to the crew. Flying for a new airline myself I have missed calls that controllers have made because they assumed that the three letter identifier on the strip meant something totally different from our callsign.

After a thorough investigation we will all be wiser and have learnt something from this tragedy but as we all know it takes time. In the meantime we are free to discuss the issues here and hope that the media luvvies pick up on sensible debate and not their usual misinterpreted sensationalism and as we have seen today, premature blame. As in any air accident there will be a chain of events, any one of which could have prevented the disaster. Ultimately the pilots get the 'blame' because the media luvvies need a scapegoat in their usual 'dumbing down' of facts but as we all know it should come down to a distribution of responsibilities over a series of events and we should hopefully become safer in the future. A high price to pay unfortunately.

--------------------
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork

И еще одно.

For the record, the percentage of Tu154 hull losses (from all causes) is comparable to several US jets. viz:
5.9% of all Tu154s built have been lost.
4.8% of Boeing 727s
7.5% of Boeing 737-200s
9.7% of Douglas DC-9-30s.

source http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/aircraft.html

[ 03-07-2002, 06:53: Сообщение отредактировано: JT ]