U.S. pilots may face manslaughter charge in Brazil crash(Transponder off?)

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

The U.S. pilots of an executive jet could be charged with manslaughter if they are considered responsible for a high-altitude crash with a Boeing 737 that killed 155 people, federal police said Wednesday.

Police earlier seized the passports of pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino, both from New York state, to prevent them from leaving the country.

The two were piloting the Brazilian-made Embraer Legacy 600 when it collided with a Boeing 737-800 over Mato Grosso state in the Amazon rain forest. The Boeing crashed, killing all 155 aboard. The Legacy landed safely at an air force base.

<snip>

Investigators are puzzled why the pilots weren't alerted by equipment designed to avoid collisions. The air force said both jets were equipped with a traffic collision avoidance system, which monitors other planes and sets off an alarm if they get too close.

"Preliminary investigations indicate that the pilots may have turned off the transponder" that communicates the plane's location, he said. If so, that would mean "that they knew the risks they were running and nevertheless they took certain attitudes that endangered the lives of people."


The wing and tail of the Embraer Legacy 600 were damaged in what seems to have been a collision with a Boeing 737 in Brazil on Friday.

NYT's writer was on surviving plane - here's good account of the collision and emergency landing. Also interesting that Brazilian authorities after questioning passengers photographed naked from waist up to show they weren't tortured.

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/business/03road.html

What a horrible tragedy.

or is it a pretty clear indication of drug or arms trafficking?

...in the U.S. that would be flying in Class A airspace where a transponder (and DME) is required (14 CFR Part 91.135). My guess is that there may have been a malfunction with the equipment and the crew turned it off, which effectively cancels the Traffic Collision Alert System II (TCAS) warnings. However, if that's the case the crew should have reported the malfunction to Brazil's ATC and requested a descent below FL180 and landed as soon as possible.

there like we do here? But I think you're right, because no competent pilot would shut off the xpdr.
I'd think it would have a backup one, though. Strange story for sure.

So, in your experience, is this something that malfunctions with any regularity, or is the educated supposition that it was turned off for nefarious reasons?

Does it seem clear to you that they have little defense to the manslaughter charges insofar as you feel as an aviator they were negligent, either intentionally or by neglect to report a broken transponder?

...ATC usually says no problem and asks me to report compulsory reporting points. (Unless I'm flying near Palm Beach's airspace - where the rich guys hang out - then they tell me, radar service terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved ).

In answer to your second question, I don't know. I always wait until the facts of the investigation come out.

One thing that's kind of 'odd' about transponders is that there's no real good way to 'test' them
without a verification from ATC, it's possible to have no indication of a fault that exists. I've
never had one fail in 8000+ hours of flying.

but they would still have gotten a traffic advisory. If the bizjet had turned its transponder off or to standby the Gol plane wouldn't get any TCAS indication, and vice-versa. If there'd been a malfunction of either the transponder or the TCAS in either airplane, their crews would likely have known, since these were new airplanes and there would have been some indication, assuming the systems were monitored. It's very odd. Guess we'll have to wait for the investigation. The other thing that occurs to me is an altimeter error in RVSM airspace, but that still doesn't explain why the TCAS apparently didn't work on either airplane.

...the altitude in the Master Control Panel so that vertical separation was lost. Guess I'll have another CRM case study for my class once the final report comes out - very large sigh.

Or do they just move to fast?

From reading about mid-airs in many cases the closing rate is just too darn fast. Sometimes pilots do pick up the other plane visually and take radical evasive action and do avoid. And looks like the 737 pilot did take evasive action and possibly saved the other plane but not his own.

all happens VERY fast.

The writer was wondering why he didn't hear the engines of the 737 approaching, and was told that at the speeds involved he would have heard the sound for only a split second. And obviously what he heard over that was the impact.

:scared:

What a thing to experience!

I can't even imagine.

...are not head-on-head affairs but rather one plane overtaking another. Also the closure rate of two advanced turbofan jets can exceed 1000 knots at that altitude giving little if any time to react.

would have just about 1 second before hitting. That's barely more than human reaction time let alone
sufficient to alter course.

In the article they had just picked up this plane. Turning on transponders does not mean they are really working.

That's a critical item that should be checked. Would the pilots have some responsibility for making sure it's working before takeoff? Would they notice if not working while in flight?

controllers told him that they could not read his id.

...because of the discreet transponder code that the crew inputs into the device. ATC's primary radar (the blip on the scope) is an echo return off the skin of the aircraft, the plane (actually a slash) will appear unless the plane is beneath radar coverage. The secondary radar is a continuous interrogation signal that identifies the airplane through the discreet code.

they would not know it was not working.

instantly noticed...and reported, within moments of departure. Unless the radar at the departing
airport wasn't working, a possibility. Also where the collision took place was WAY out in the
boonies and maybe no radar coverage there anyway. Believe it or not there are still a few places
in the USA where radar doesn't cover.

The skies must be very crowded and dangerous for normal passenger airplane traffic.

...because of the system that we have. The reason why airplane accidents draw so much attention is because they are rare and sell newspapers and TV advertisement. If you were to compare the fatality statistics between all aircraft accidents (General and Commercial) versus automobile accidents most of the country would demand shutting down the interstate highway system.

ever seeing one other aircraft enroute.

where some expert was saying that all northbound planes in Brazil would be flying at even feet measurement, and the southbound ones would be flying at an odd feet measurement.

Somebody said that they were at an odd measurement when they hit, which would have been incorrect.

I'm paraphrasing, but all you aeronautical folks probably know what I mean. No time to read the article above right now. ....

degrees, it's 'odd' thousands and from 180 to 359 it's 'even.' For VFR (visual flight rules...not
allowed above FL180, 18000 feet), add 500 feet.

Thanks Karl.

I was skimming the original article too.

ATC can assign a different altitude or a pilot can request one and if there's no conflict ATC will
generally allow it.

he saw the altimeter reading was 37,000. He's a NY Times reporter.

They were airing an interview of him on KQED radio this morning.

who flew as an airline attendant for Poppy Bush

hmmmm.....