Originally Posted by jaysona

Responses from some of the usual suspects that are sadly the typical of many FT responses steeped in what I can only presume are based on presumptive arrogance. Arrogance by some that think they are knowledgeable about a topic because they have read a few wikipedia articles and participate in forums such as this - yet don't even work intimately in the industry related to the topics they are commenting on.

I suspect that for some here the mention of a TCAS target is associated to being a warning - it is not. A TCAS target is informational not a warning, the proper term is TA (Traffic Advisory) which means be aware, obtain visual contact with the target and be prepared to immediately respond to an RA (Resolution Advisory). At no point did the TCAS produce a RA, which means at no point was there almost a mid-air collision.

Had there been no injuries sustained by anyone on this particular flight, the incident would be been nothing more than a loss of minimum separation - which is something that happens on a regular basis around the world - and reported as such.

My original assertion still stands, the W5 statement about "almost led to a midair collision" is ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst.

I am not an AC hack, I am an aviation hack.

I am aviation hack that despises lazy journalism on anything aviation related andi have absolutely zero respect for any journalist that misleads the public (whether intentionally or due to negligence) such that the public then draw inaccurate conclusions due to lack of proper context in the reporting.

I am quite familiar with the TSB AIR A11F0012, as it is one of the hundreds of reports from around the world I had to read through as part of the design, testing and certification activities I spent more than six years engaged in.