First, I"m not a manned aircraft pilot, but I am FAA certified for unmanned which is about 70-80 percent of the written part of getting a manned aircraft license.
My drone is more sophisticated than many airliners and equipment in ATC. My drones are Chinese made.
First, the system is ultimately at fault for being outdated.
Here are key points involving the ATC:
CRJ: appears to have done nothing wrong, flying under IFR, should have received Conflict Alert (CA)) warnings from the ATC.
PST: night flight, flying under VFR (Visual Flight Rules), night vision goggles could have restricted field of view, flying at wrong altitude, most likely was looking at another craft when he said he had visual on the CRJ. Even though he was on VFR, should have still received CA warnings.
ATC: established coms with PAT, asked for visual of CRJ (did not identify where or which one or where), should have still issued CA warning and evasive instructions, is STILL responsible for the safety of the CRJ under IFR and should have been protecting it. Where is the line between legally correct and professionally correct.
Also, an Air traffic controller 'left work early'
(Supervisor approved) before deadly crash occurred while a single controller was left to handle the air traffic of planes and helicopters flying over the airspace when two people would typically be monitoring both flight paths. Possibly understaffed in the tower.
People are Dead. They are never coming back. The male flight attendent worked a flight I was on a couple of weeks ago. Terrific with passengers. He wasn't a number.
My drone is more sophisticated than many airliners and equipment in ATC. My drones are Chinese made.
First, the system is ultimately at fault for being outdated.
Here are key points involving the ATC:
CRJ: appears to have done nothing wrong, flying under IFR, should have received Conflict Alert (CA)) warnings from the ATC.
PST: night flight, flying under VFR (Visual Flight Rules), night vision goggles could have restricted field of view, flying at wrong altitude, most likely was looking at another craft when he said he had visual on the CRJ. Even though he was on VFR, should have still received CA warnings.
ATC: established coms with PAT, asked for visual of CRJ (did not identify where or which one or where), should have still issued CA warning and evasive instructions, is STILL responsible for the safety of the CRJ under IFR and should have been protecting it. Where is the line between legally correct and professionally correct.
Also, an Air traffic controller 'left work early'
(Supervisor approved) before deadly crash occurred while a single controller was left to handle the air traffic of planes and helicopters flying over the airspace when two people would typically be monitoring both flight paths. Possibly understaffed in the tower.
People are Dead. They are never coming back. The male flight attendent worked a flight I was on a couple of weeks ago. Terrific with passengers. He wasn't a number.
