Should have done but so should the radar. Looks like it wasn't spotted until the last minute. Grant SYD QF allan9 wrote: > Wouldn't the fix postings have manually shown the conflict? > > Al > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grant McKenzie" <grantmckenzie@optushome.com.au> > To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 4:33 AM > Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid Collison > > > >>Hi Al, >> >>They should still use strips as a written record of all the instructions >>given to the acft but I'm not sure what format they take. Over here, >>procedural sectors had bays corresponding to mandatory reporting points >>with a strip for each acft due to report at that point. The level and >>estimate was used to alert the controller to conflictions. We now use >>electronic strips and I'm not sure how they work as far as conflict >>alert is concerned on a radar sector. There is an electronic conflict >>alert system which flashes the acft paints a different colour and sounds >>an aural alarm but I believe this was deactivated or not working in this >>case. >> >>Grant >>SYD >>QF >> >>allan9 wrote: >> >> >>>Grant, >>>Don't they still post flight progress strips and the fix posting should >>> > show > >>>two aircraft at the same altitude. Or are you saying they don't use >>> > and/or > >>>check strips in a radar sector over there? >>> >>>Al >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Grant McKenzie" <grantmckenzie@optushome.com.au> >>>To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> >>>Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:29 PM >>>Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid Collison >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>TCAS doesn't communicate with ground ATC. It's essentially a last line >>>>of defence type of device which goes into action when planes start >>>>getting seriously close. If a TCAS RA is issued the acft are already in >>>>conflict by the ATC definition of the term. >>>> >>>>And yes, procedural control (which uses flight progress strips) is >>>>designed to highlight potential conflicts although I think this conflict >>>>occurred in a radar sector. >>>> >>>>Grant >>>>SYD >>>>QF >>>> >>>>allan9 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>John, >>>>>Unless they have made some radical improvements since I retired TCAS >>>>> >>>>> >>>doesn't >>> >>> >>>>>communicate with the controllers. Don't they use flight progress >>>>> >>>>> >>>strips? >>> >>> >>>>>It would seem as though the strip postings would have shown a potential >>>>>conflict before the controler even worked the aircraft. DoDo just >>>>> >>>>> >>>doesn't >>> >>> >>>>>happen. >>>>> >>>>>Al >>>>> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: "John Kurtzke" <kurtzke@up.edu> >>>>>To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> >>>>>Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 1:19 PM >>>>>Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Doomed Planes Tried to Avoid Collison >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Does TCAS communicate with ATC? If not, this crash makes it look like >>>>>> > it > >>>>>>should. What is the sense of a system figuring out what the two planes >>>>>>should do, tell each other, and not tell ATC automatically. >>>>>> >>>>>>john >>>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Grant McKenzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Scotty, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Long time no natter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's sounding more and more like the Swiss ATC guy screwed up. Or, >>>>>>> > more > >>>>>>>accurately, the system screwed up and the poor sod up the sharp end >>>>>>> > was > >>>>>>>left wearing it. A mate of mine who was over in Geneva for a ATC >>>>>>>conference a couple of years back and was taken to the ATC simulator >>>>>>>which also takes a live feed from Eurocontrol, including the sector >>>>>>> > in > >>>>>>>question and he said it is a hellishly complicated piece of airspace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Grant >>>>>>>SYD >>>>>>>QF >>>>>>> >