Written by José Wilson Miranda

other than being unfamiliar with a BRAND NEW airplane that was just purchased in one country, and returning home to their own country, I don't see ANY proof of incompetence whatsoever. The only thing this report proves is that the communications system in brazil is responsible for these pilots being at a different altitude than the flight tower wanted them at. Also shows that the flight controllers in brasilia are not speaking english at a level they should. It is the international STANDARD for all flight controllers as well as pilots speak english when flying internationally, and naturally a level of english that is required to communicate with the vocabulary necessary in regards to the technical jargon of aeoronautics.

Kind of conincidental that after this crash travel in brazil has been a fucking nightmare. Wonder why that is?

Please, be sure and post the transcripts from the boeing as well.

Nice investigative job Jose! (rolleyes)

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Hi José Wilson Miranda, since you only read the Brazzil Magazine summary of the full Folha article you are unable to appreciate the full extension of what went on in that flight. By your biased comments it appears that you have already made up your mind, regardless of what the media will put forward...You should be aware, however, that the Legacy flight was NOT international. They departed from São José dos Campos and destination was Manaus, a totally domestic brazilian flight. So I don't think your assertion of the language they should speak is entirely correct.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

"According to Folha, the transcripts don't answer a key question: "Why the Legacy's transponder, which should have prevented the collision, wasn't working at the time of the accident?" "

Yes, a key question. The transponder systems which interoperate between two or more aircraft as an automatic protection measure of last resort did not prevent this accident. These systems can also be picked up by the secondary surveillence systems on the ground to aid the airspace usage planning and tracking projections of the ATC which they then direct which aircraft is to go where / do what through two-say radio communications. The transponder sysstems which are now mandatory for nearly every aircraft are supposed to help make up for the other human and technological failures which do from time to time occur. Communications were not correctly working. The ATC planning system had the Legacy indicated as being at the altitude normal for this transit and not at the altitude it was at. When everything is fine, their actual altitude would have been confirmed by the secondary surveillence system in some (but not all) segments of its transit through the region as well as by the normal controller-pilot verbal confirmations.

The planning and tracking system used by the controllers must be fixed. The failure or inoperability of one peice of equipment on one aircraft should never have lead to the false assumption that the aircraft was progressing along at an altitude that it had not been confirmed as having been specifically directed to go to / confirmed as actually having arrived at through the normal human-human communications.

All necessary communications and instructions between pilots and ATC controllers the world over is done in English. The amount of information and patterns of interactions is fairly limited and almost always very predictable. Whether it is a Russian or Swiss pilot and a controller from India or Africa, all with heavy or unsual accents when speaking in thier own native language, it is not supposed to matter.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

So, Bo if the name of the journalist was Bill Shithead Jones would had made a world of difference in your little fucking mind…???You ignorant fuck!!!
It is obvious that they were talking about basic international regulations as it pertains to flight "direction and altitudes" when in the absence of communication.
As for the flights in Brazil are very much normal with exception of carnival traveling. What has been a nightmare for you is to defend the indefensible just for the sake of your stupid patriotism. So the next time you roll your eyes think of this...my balls in your mother's chin!!!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

I have only one thing to say about these leftist anti america articles. Who does every country call when the "shit hits the fan." They call the USA. When countries need emergency loans to keep their government running, they call the USA. When countries need medical experts to identify an outbreak of some sickness, they call the USA. When violence overruns a third world country, they call the USA for assistance. I'm tired of these left anti-american articles. I understand that the writers must create controvecy so that people will read their lies. I'm not defending the USA, but I wish authors to these articles were held accountable for their lies. Tchauzinho, George P

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

For all who have been following my postings on this terrible needless accident you can see by some of what is written here that everything I have said is been right on the money. Not only accurate but true. People will grasp at straws (language, etc.) but since they have no aviation experience let alone flown in Brazil they will hold on to that little hope that the pilots are to be totally absolved of any contribution to this accident.

For those who want to try and understand the why’s and how’s of this tragic accident go back and reread my postings. I have said all along besides the Brazilian ATC system, blind spots, etc. that Excelaire the lack of adequate training, the lack of international experience, the lack of international procedures training, the lack of knowledge of the airplane and the fact that this was the first time the two flew together.

Now I’m not saying that there should never be a time when two pilots fly together who have never flew together before. The airlines do that all the time, as does the military, as do corporations as do legitimate charter operators. They follow Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) that set out specific procedures and operating parameters. They have more than adequate training in the specific airplane as well as International Procedures before they go out and fly the airplane in another country.

Being a professional pilot means that you know all of this beforehand. It is your responsibility to do so. You don’t go out and “barnstorm around the country or countries” (as ric would have us believe). When you do not act in a professional manner, tragic things happen. Does anyone on this board remember Tenerife? The Comair crash in Kentucky? The GIII crash in Aspen?? How about the regional jet accident listed on the NTSB web site of several years ago, where the pilots flamed out both engines, didn’t bother to tell ATC, over flew several suitable airports to make an emergency landing and then crashed and died??? Ring any bells?? IF not go onto the NTSB web site and read some of the accident reports.

And some clown like ric says that all pilots should ban together as brothers. Professional pilots ban together with other PROFESSIONAL pilots. Not merely because they are other pilots.

And before rick puts other words in my mouth, I am not asking for criminal charges against these Legacy pilots. I’m not at all opposed to criminal action being taken again Excelaire for their lack of personal accountability and responsibility in this matter. The FAA and NTSB will take care of anything that needs to be done with these two.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

That seems uncalled for. The article does present only a few snippets of info and is strung together in a way obviously intended to invoke judgemental responses from those without much knowledge of what goes on behind the dashboard and radar screens.

Let's try these:

""What the hell was that?" A little later one of them says, "We hit another plane. I don't know where this shit came from." " Obviously the sounds and mechanical reactions upon contact which they most likely felt to their core was unlike anything they'd ever encountered in midair. The controllability of the aircraft thereafter certainly told them that something very very bad had happened. Seeing the damage after landing left no doubt that they had hit something up there at 37,000 feet. What was it? A cow? A farm impliment? What we're they supposed to think or say - sh_t, fu_k, we're sc_ewed.

"had a laptop open in the cockpit in a way that its cover hid the panel where the transponder was located" The laptop might have obscured the control panel for the transponder that typically has a blinking light when the receiver-transmitter is being pinged by another aircraft. Once the control head (typically located down in the console or center pedestal area) is set up and checked (which it was earlier in the flight) it basically never get's touched or looked at again unless the ATC calls them up to have them help check thier own systems by having them press the IDENT button. There are other more prominently located indications in the dashboard that automatically tell the status of the TCAS and provide the cautions / warnings and directions to climb or dive when a potential collision is eminent. Those are also accompanied by loud speaker and headphone tones or voice commands that the crew can't miss. The TCAS in the Legacy may or may not be integrated well enough with the receiver-transmitter to warn the crew if the unit is failed, unpowered or turned off (although it most certainly should and can be).

"flight controllers in Brazilian capital Brasília were sure that the Legacy was at 36,000 feet and not 37,000, which was the real altitude." Without the automated secondary surveillence data system working and without direct controller-pilot conversations directing and confirming the actual altitude, there is no way in hell the controllers could be sure that the Legacy was at 36,000 feet.

"the FMS (Flight Management System) one of the pilots comment: "I'm still working on how to deal with this thing." A little later he says that he needs to "read the manual" and complains: "Everything is a mess because (...) we need, I think, to clean and set up this plane." " FMSs from various manufacturers are somewhat the same an somwhat different. Most pilot's adapt fairly quickly even without the manual and complain when it does work like the one they most used / grew up with. Who programmed in the flight plan for this trip - the pilot's or an Embraer employee? Does this FMS and the cockpit display system have the most recent technological advancement of a vertical profile capability? Did all the pre-saved flight plans, radio frequency guidance info (if it has such capability), etc., left over from the Embraer flight testing and company sell-off flight(s) get cleared out? If the thing was still set up with a bunch of garbage was it bad service from the manufacturer or poor planning on the part of the purchaser not to clean things up before this ferry flight?

"I need to learn this international shit." Absolutely. You know how to read the charts to see what's normally required where and it may be different than what you're used to. The rules where you are (over water or in someones elses airspace) are the rules. The failure here was not studying things in sufficient depth to know to question the São José dos Campos's controller to confirm what was the next controller contact point expected / first change in the initial flight profile after reaching 37,000 as directed. The controller there sees things as normale and routine. This set of pathways is used by many many aircraft. The turn from one airway to the other is published in the charts as are the contact frequencies for the next ATC zone over. The flight level rules based on direction for each airway can also be found. Even in the US, ensuring a full complete and proper hand off from one ATC zone to the next is / was challenging. In this case, that did not occur at all as neither CINDACTA made contact with the Legacy and directed the flight level change or had them confirm where they were actually at and thier intentions. In a way, these poor guys were somewhat like the ATC controllers. They were sure they were following the last order they heard.

(Oh, and excuse my use of "dashboard" and any other atypical names for things - just want non-pilots / non-avionics engineers to be better able to relate to things.)

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

there is some concern that less than total professionalism was used during this flight.

I would like to see the entire transcript...IF there were 3 attempts at getting information to determine the assigned altitude without success, and a subsequent loss of communication...one might wonder why the trandsponder was not checked and perhaps the loss of communication code selected? this would have at least had the transponder checked and perhaps avoided the collision.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

jon, good point although setting in the code for comm loss in place of the one assigned for the flight might not have caused things to be put back into proper operating order nor made it clear to the crew that something was amiss. Similarly, if the reply light that might have been obscured from view wasn't blinking, the crew may or may not have noticed nearby traffic passing that should have made it do and made the mental connection that something was wrong.

This author was quoting Fohla. Not sure whether Fohla was quoting someone who had access to the transcript or whether they got a copy of the transcript directly or that even perhaps it is now publicly available. I'd like to see this too as well as have about 20 minutes on the tarmac with a Legacy and a TCAS ramp checker so I can go through the entire system design to show what might be done to make it better. No doubt it complies with FAA requirements (or else Legacys would be banned from US airspace) but that doesn't prove it is the best it can be.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Opa - forgot to add that you would need to know the area where the comm problem was becoming evident to the crew. There might have been no secondary surveillence coverage in that area. (There are much larger areas of "blind spots" for that than for the primary radars which only tell you position - not altitude). That in turn might lessen the possibility / probablity that setting in the comm loss code could have made a difference. If the transponder was working at least intermittently, the ATC would (hopefully) have gotten a que of the distress situation developing and made quick strides to divert the course of the Boeing aircraft by telling them to fly an offset.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

jon, here is a reposting of part of my comments from an earlier article.

I agree with you and Simpleton that getting the whole transcript would answer multiple questions.

"Internationally (especially with the implementation of RVSM) it is next to impossible to fly at the wrong altitude for the wrong direction. Almost all countries will not allow this except for weather or fuel and even then it is fairly rare. In Canada the only time I’ve gotten a “wrong” altitude for the direction is at FL450 (45000 feet) going westbound coming back from Europe and that was only because of weather. The fact is there are no airplanes up there, especially going eastbound to Europe, but those are the rules and they adhere to them; especially in countries where English is not the first language. The flying I did in Brazil (and granted the last time was 8 years ago before RVSM) you were still expected to fly the right altitude for the right direction. It was, and still is, the pilot’s responsibility to clarify when to comply with a change in altitude. I feel that Lepore and Paladino’s asking a general “should we stay at FL370” before BRS gave the wrong impression to ATC, as well as to the pilots themselves. ATC said to “maintain” and probably the thinking was that they were going to have them stay at the right altitude and then be changed to the correct altitude for direction after BRS. The pilots erroneously assumed that that meant for the route after BRS flying at the wrong altitude for the direction of flight. You must at all times be exactly sure of what is going on, what to expect and what ATC expects. Asking non-specific questions or not clarifying routes, altitudes etc. when different then the rules is complacency at best. It is not only unprofessional; it is downright dangerous and reckless.

One last thought on communication: When you have not been in contact with ATC for over an hour and have made numerous calls, you have to assume that you have lost communication and start to follow the lost communication procedures. Also, it is disingenuous to say that because you heard ATC that the radio was working perfectly. Maybe your receiver was working, but not your transmitter. Maybe both had failed. Maybe your receiver failed but not your transmitter. Just because you heard them doesn’t mean that you are communicating with ATC."

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

"An anonymous quote found in AETC's Handbook 11-1, "Road to Wings," summarizes judgment pretty well: "We should all bear one thing in mind when we talk about a troop who rode one in. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That he was mistaken in that judgment is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every supervisor and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes in with every troop we lose."
When you think about it, that's a pretty sobering comment to an audience whose jobs are inherently dangerous and require mass quantities of instantaneous judgment. But "human factors" have accounted for an average of about 69% of aircraft-related mishaps across the past ten years, with approximately 54% of the human factors aircraft-related mishaps involving errors in judgment. With this one item (judgment) identified as one of the most frequent causes of aviation mishaps, can we regulate it to decrease the number of incidents?
Webster's defines judgment as "The ability to make a decision or form an opinion by discerning and evaluating ... The capacity to make sound and reasonable decisions: good sense." I especially like the part about "good sense" because it seems to be lacking in people at times. But what this definition doesn't explain is how one goes about acquiring good sense or judgment. This is because judgment isn't something that can be taught through a definition, textbook or even a cookbook!
Judgment is a cognitive skill, learned during the on-going process of education and experiences throughout one's life. The Air Force mentors us by providing technical training courses to advance our knowledge and establishing upgrade programs to advance our skills. This, combined with experience developed over time, is designed to improve your judgment ability.
However, experience alone is not the sole qualifier for judgment. Everyone has seen an example of a highly experienced person making a poor judgment call. Numerous mishap reports and "There I Was" stories talk about pilots with "thousands of hours" or "doing it a hundred times before," making a bad decision. Or, on the other hand, a young second lieutenant making an input to the crew during a critical situation and saving the aircraft.
So this brings us back to the original question: Can judgment be regulated? The Air Force makes a valiant attempt to regulate judgment through written restrictions, operating instructions, and technical manuals, but does this really regulate judgement? Can it?
Taking a consensus of experienced pilots, it can be said that judgment Can't be regulated. So why do we have all those written restrictions and operating instructions? The best way to look at it is to view regulatory guidance as parameters, established to limit our choices that directly influence our judgment. In other words, until you acquire that breadth of experience over time that is helpful in developing judgment, the regulations and instructions are there to aid you and give you guidance. Even after you have developed a wealth of experience, the regulatory guidance is still there when you need it.
It's like a flow diagram kept in your head that you review each time a decision is made. By knowing what is legal, what the capabilities of your aircraft are, and what your personal limits are, you can more effectively make a good judgment decision when presented with a situation. Over time, the decision process becomes more intuitive as your experience builds, until one day you graduate from the "school of hard knocks" and are awarded a degree in "judgment."
After you acquire what you think is judgment, keep this quote by Mark Twain in your hip pocket for those times when you're just not sure which way to go: "It is better to be careful a hundred times than to be killed once." In other words, taking the safer course of action most likely will keep you out of trouble during those times when things just aren't going your way. So continue to build your judgment, work on your knowledge and fly safe!
COPYRIGHT 2001 U.S. Air Force, Safety Agency
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group"

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Not that it has any significant bearing on things in this case but as a sideline thing some people wouldn't have a clue about (or may need reminding of including some or most "professional" pilots) - at a closure rate of say 800 miles per hour you might expect a perfectly good set of working aircraft systems to give you in round numbers 22.5 seconds warning to pull up or dive. My personal experience listening to a commercial flight deck crew attempting to make ground contact in the region in question was disturbing to say the least. 15, 20 minutes or more gaps in being able to raise a response from ATC through repeated calls (and more of the same on another occassion on the same passage) seemed to piss off the "professional" crew but didn't cause them to do anything exceptional that I was able to be aware of. Certainly you could hear ATC talking to other aircraft as well as the other aircraft responding. Was something wrong? Apparently not, we didn't collide with anyone and it was a regularly flown scheduled flight being flown roughly "on time" so why be such a worry wart and think maybe something's wrong with your transmitter but not your receiver (they're all in the same black box using the same antenna).

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

where the folha got the story? Read the article with your head out of your ass this time! Hello hello??? The folha got the transcripts from NTSB.

"The transcriptions were made at Washington's NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)."



You made absolutely no sense in your long stupid article. You merely regurgitated old information twisted and interpreted …your way.
REALGIVP is absolutely right from the very start, but it is impossible to deal with a bunch of “remote controlled pilots” morons with hyper patriotic sensitivity and an acute sense of indifference to the world outside theirs.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

realgivp - you still have access to the postings in the old articles? I thought those mysteriously disappeared. If you would, please go through and search them for "monkey" and "macaco" or "maccaco". Pretty sure it was in one of those threads where that garbage started out - think someone offered a reward for anyone finding / posting a link to anyone who could find the evidence - I'll go down and collect it and give you half.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Give me a few minutes, Real Gee Four, while I pull up the Folha article. And stop misquoting me. And stop denigrating people that have flown thousands of hours between the US and Brazil and are licensed in both as pilot and A&P. Consider the possibility that somebody besides yourself might know something.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Just for starters, my translation,"....had problems understanding what the Brazilian air traffic controllers were saying, probably due to the language.". "language" here has to refer to the way the Brazilians were speaking English, what else could it mean? The pilots speak English as their mother tongue and no one is speaking Portuguese.

The piots complain that the controllers just keep saying the same thing, same simple answers, indicating no understanding. Like asking a hispanic employee at a Miami Walmart where to find something, and whatever it is she says "housewares". Learn a few words and phrases and punch the time clock and then blame anyone else available when something goes wrong.

"Confused and Inexperienced" is a reporter´s value judgement. If that´s typical, after all this time, of what the prosecutor has got, whére´s the case?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

I know where the transcripts were made. I don't know where Fohla got them from. The NTSB just gave them directly to a news organization but not to the general public? The NTSB translated them into PT for Fohla?

I've never known any "remote controlled pilots". If nothing else, the vanity mirror tends to interfere with this.

As to "users" of these equipments and airvehicles (i.e. pilots), I've always found them a bit head strong and naive / prone to mis-believing things that taint so when encountering a new system setup. Even those with many years military experience in addition to years of experience doing ferry flights and maintenance flights for the big commercial boys (and toss in a little bit of "green" aircraft check flight testing to boot) have not the indepth knowledge one might knight them with. Don't take what they say so bitterly or as absolutes.

Ditto for some equipment manufacturers engineering reps designated to support first time air vehicle validation / verification testing in a cockpit upgrade program where their equipment has never been certified before.

These folks, pilots and engineers alike, are a far cry from being idiots but damb they can be hard headed and oft times surprise me with their lack of detailed knowledge about their own stuff.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

As you seem to be playing Devil’s Advocate and acting as your username (I can’t remember who named you simpleton, but know it was during the late summer) I’ll try to keep this ‘simple’ and spell it out for you…

Everything that I have posted and said is interlocking and in aviation it’s known as an error chain (I posted this long ago so I’ll make it short here). Error chains are like a chain where every link is a mistake, decision, etc. that contributes to the accident. If ONE link can be broken the accident will not happen. As you see in this accident that didn’t happen and the accident occurred.

Professional pilots don’t sit there, nod off to sleep, watch DVD movies on their laptops. etc. Yes, people read, do paperwork, etc. BUT AT LEAST ONE person is always watching what is going on. “Scanning the cockpit”, “looking outside”, “watching the engine instruments, fuel burns etc.” It’s more than just good procedure – it is “Situational Awareness”. Reading the preliminary NTSB report and the few things in this article on this web site just reiterates the posting on “Lack of Situational Awareness”.

I’m confused at how flying along FD and H for over an hour not in contact with ATC could be considered anything BUT Lack of Situational Awareness, outright non-professionalism and borderline negligence. As a professional pilot, I (and I’m sure all other real professional pilots everywhere) am outraged and insulted by that mentality. I’m also completely baffled about how reading the NTSB report and the few things posted here shows anything other than confusion, inexperience and, clearly, lack of situational awareness.

Simpleton: The articles that disappeared are Joe Sharkey’s every changing and evolving story of what happened, where he was when it happened, what he was doing and when he was doing it when the accident happened. Stop living down to your user name and wake up. Or just stick to something that you do know

Ric: reread this paragraph:

“’I’m confused at how flying along FD and H for over an hour not in contact with ATC could be considered anything BUT Lack of Situational Awareness, outright non-professionalism and borderline negligence. As a professional pilot, I (and I’m sure all other real professional pilots everywhere) am outraged and insulted by that mentality. I’m also completely baffled about how reading the NTSB report and the few things posted here shows anything other than confusion, inexperience and, clearly, lack of situational awareness.”


Also, nothing you have written or said shows me that you have thousands of hours, A&P, etc. What you have written just leads me to believe that you work for Embraer and know Excelaire… and remain hopeful that some of Excelaire’s dollars from their alleged multi-plane purchases will trickle down into your pocket. If you have anything meaningful to contribute, I suggest that you try memantine before you post. I’ve heard that it has been having good results….unless, of course, it is compounded by a pharmacist who has a total lack of situational awareness.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

This Brazzil article is 13 mostly short paragraphs long. It was taken from a two dollar, 70 page Sunday newspaper that devoted 49 mainly long paragraphs and several graphs to summarize info taken from a reported 290 pages of transcripts. So you immediately go on line with no new info except the 13 paragraphs in English above and say it validates all you have been alleging. I have the newspaper in front of me. The full printed story may be gotten online for Folha subscribers, which I am not, but the online version may not have as much as the printed version. So stop salivating long enough for me to lay this out.
I want to concentrate on today´s new developments, not read downloads of what someone else said in aother time and another context.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

written by Your concience, 2007-02-18 14:50:51

As for the flights in Brazil are very much normal with exception of carnival traveling.

What??? Who's the idiot here??? What world are you in son??? Normal? In Brazil?? Since the accident??? The airports have been an absolute fucking mess since that accident. Obviously you HAVEN'T been in brazil, when I haven't been affected by it personally, I watched it on tv for MONTHS, delays, some people had delays for DAYS, people attacking people at the check-in counters, "sit ins" on the airport runways!!!

Problems with communications, blind spots, unqualified air traffic controllers, overworked air traffic controllers, etc, have ALL been confirmed!!!

The only "blind patriotism" going on here is ignorant-ass brazilians, like yourself and the ones that came out of the woodwork within hours of the accident, blaming the americans, and making ludicrous statements like, "if this would've happened in the U.S. he would've been labeled a terrorits". That was unreal how that old brazilian military idiot came out within hours, before an investigation even BEGUN, and blamed the americans....amazing that is, not to mention very "professional".

Get over yourself! Look at the FACTS. When you have blind spots on your fucking radar screen, places where communication is REGULARLY LOST, who's fault is that Einstein?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

"Confused and Inexperienced" is a reporter´s value judgement. If that´s typical, after all this time, of what the prosecutor has got, whére´s the case?

Exactly!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

First page, headline, Tapes reveal Errors in Plane Crash. Paragraph 2, first error, tower in SJC clears them for takeoff, climb and maintain 37,000 feet, without citing the three altitudes in the original flight plan.

Next paragraph, they had problems with the jet, the radio, the "aeronautical maps", and the controllers´English. This is detailed on the pages with the graphs but I don´t see the actual tapes supporting these allegations.

Next, the controllers didn´t know the planes were at the same level. Brasilia asks Manaus why the Gol isn´t showing up, and Manaus says, "Whoa! What Gol 1907 are you talking about?"

First page of the Cotidiano section, rehash, rehash, then mentions the "displicência" of the controllers, or "indifference" in this context, and the discomfort of the pilots with the new plane and the local flying conditions.

Down at the bottom of page C-1, this is key to me, "Even now, almost 5 months later, the lagest mystery continues: why the transponder was INOPERANTE (not working). And yet in another place in the same piece, it assumes the unit was turned off.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Next, the controllers didn´t know the planes were at the same level. Brasilia asks Manaus why the Gol isn´t showing up, and Manaus says, "Whoa! What Gol 1907 are you talking about?"

LOL..."oh, they one not showing up on your screen!"

Have to say, I'm not comfortable at all flying in brazil since knowing all this horseshit about regular blind spo