If something is unofficial, how can it be a fact?
I disagree....Just because something is official does not make it a fact.
I remember reading somewhere about ATC procedures in general. I seem to remember a concept that I remember as "positive seperation" (I think), basically, no two aircraft should ever be in a situation where a loss of communication would produce a mid-air. I think it may have mainly applied to radar vectors. Basically, if two aircraft were converging at the same altitude the aircraft would be stagered laterally or vertically immediatelly even if the eventual plan was to have one of the aircraft turn or change altitude before a conflict would result. Not sure...maybe I'm remembering wrong.
As far as the aircraft trying to "stretch" their fuel...I know I am "preaching to the choir" with most of you looking at this, but this is absurd. Any of us who have flown EMB-135 or aircraft with similar Flight Management Systems would know that the easiest way to stretch the range would be to just pull the power back. The EMB-135 FMS allows you to punch in all of the forecast winds along your route, the altitudes, TAS, etc...the FMS will tell you exactly how much fuel you would have at your destination when the wheels hit the ground to the minute. If you want to stretch your range...you punch in the distant destination you are trying to fly to, and then you keep pulling the power back until the FMS displays the amount of fuel you want to have in the tanks at your destination. We did this all the time flying up and down the east coast and the calculated fuel on touchdown was easily +/- 1% when you punch in all the variables correctly....and all without busting any ATC clearences.
The same people that are saying they climbed 1,000 feet to save ALL THIS FUEL (hardly any at all) are also saying that they were changing altitudes radically. These maneuvers would have negated any fuel savings they would have gained by climbing an extra 1,000 feet. These charges are so outrageous to any jet pilot that I think it makes us all sick to our stomach that these quotes are actually being picked up by reputable papers around the world.
To any reporters reading this (I can tell from some of the articles I have read that you are reading this form) This is clearly an attempted cover up by members of the BraZilian government to place blame on the pilots. Please stop quoting the Brazillian Airports Director (read: head janitor at an airport) These burecracts know absolutely nothing about aircraft operations. Go to Houston, or Dallas, or Miami, or Atlanta, find a flight crew that just got in from South America and ask them what THEY think. These guys do it every week and I am sure you will get some great prophetic stories to run in your newspapers. They will confirm what I will outline for you...
1. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew "turned off" their transponder unless they were instructed to do so by ATC. (which sometimes happens)
2. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew would climb (or not descend)1,000' contrary to an ATC clearence...on purpose...in an effort to SAVE GAS!
3. It is ridicules to think that this flight crew would be doing wild maneuvers in foreign airspace, under IFR, in the Flight Levels, contrary to an ATC clearence, with the boss and a reporter from the New York Times in the back.
This is very similar to the "experts" on TV immediatelly after 9/11 stating that "the pilots could have had guns to their heads and been made to fly into the buildings"....absolutely ridicules.
Anyway, anyone in contact with the pilots please let them know that all of their peers are praying and rooting for them...hang tough.
Later,