OK, disclaimer, it's reported in the Daily Mail, so there is probably some sensationalism that needs to be toned down to mirror reality, and some inflated facts, that probably need deflating. But interesting nonetheless.
What happened to TCAS?
Yes, quite a bad situation. But a typical DM report - 100ft apart (well yes if you ignore the 2.8nm horizontally at CPA).
But a typical DM report - 100ft apart (well yes if you ignore the 2.8nm horizontally at CPA).
Exactly. They later said (in bold surprisingly) that it was 100ft vertically, though 3 miles horizontally. But nonetheless you would think TCAS would have been an aid here. I am sure there was one of those Aircrash Investigation programmes where there was a conflict between two different TCAS systems, and what a controller said they should do, and one went up, one went down, then crashed.
IF (and maybe this isnt the case, I dont know) all TCAS systems were all a standard manufuctured type, fitted to the Airliner type aircraft, surely they have dynamic logic to give an instruction to ensure two aircraft dont conflict. Maybe the last line of defence is pilots clearly following ATC instructions, which it seems wasnt the case here - if the report is to be believed as written.
OK, I missed that...
I vaguely recall that 3nm is the smallest allowed lateral separation when radar vectored so technically this was a "loss of standard separation" if vectored, and a bigger one if not vectored (min separation 5nm?).
But hardly a danger...
surely they have dynamic logic to give an instruction to ensure two aircraft dont conflict
Yes, the proper ones communicate with each other and work out which way they tell each pilot to climb or descend.
What happened to TCAS?
Nothing. If the radar plot in the article is correct, the aeroplanes were flying along almost parallel courses at almost equal speed. A possible collision would not have occurred in the 30 seconds (IIRC) that would have triggered a resolution alert. Almost certainly, both aircraft will have seen each other as filled yellow diamonds on their display with a possible traffic alert ("Traffic! Traffic!"), but this is nothing that requires immediate action.
IF (and maybe this isnt the case, I dont know) all TCAS systems were all a standard manufuctured type, ...
They are indeed, as there is only one manufacturer of approved devices for transport category aircraft! Incidentally "TCAS" is that manufacturers proprietary designation for the device, the generic term is "ACAS" (which most pilots will probably never have come across...).
Addition: Just read the offical report (this occured in June already): Very strange. Two experienced crews of well respected airlines (BA and LH) got confused regarding each others instructions. And there have been TCAS resolution alerts and avoiding actions in both aircraft after they wrongly turned onto colliding courses.
I am sure there was one of those Aircrash Investigation programmes where there was a conflict between two different TCAS systems, and what a controller said they should do, and one went up, one went down, then crashed.
If you are talking about the 2004 crash over Sitzerland between a Russian passenger jet and a DHL cargo jet, TCAS was no at fault...it was the Russian pilots who decided to ignore the RA and climb....mitigating circumstances were the instruction from the Swiss controller to climb, but TCAS must always be obeyed....always
TCAS must always be obeyed....always
Except if GPWS says otherwise 
If you are talking about the 2004 crash over Sitzerland between a Russian passenger jet and a DHL cargo jet, TCAS was no at fault...it was the Russian pilots who decided to ignore the RA and climb....mitigating circumstances were the instruction from the Swiss controller to climb, but TCAS must always be obeyed....always
Yes, that sounds like the one.
so there is probably some sensationalism
Some? It's grossly sensationalised - the headline is written to make the reader think that the aircraft were literally 100 feet away from each other, not nearly 3 nautical miles from each other. A grossly misleading distortion of the actual event to the point I'd call the headline "a lie".
