AA5342 Page: 2 of 2

Sailvi767
September 29, 2025, 02:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11961287

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

Actually, it's not the exact same scenario.

In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC.
In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic?

This was a lot of years ago. I believe what was said was, “out of the turn VFR helo traffic will be at your 10 o’clock 1 mile. They have you in sight, cleared to land RWy33”. Don’t recall if a altitude was mentioned. Their altitude was on TCAS as 200’.

Subjects AA5342 DCA Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Musician
February 19, 2026, 18:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039831

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ver5pen

repeatedly in the CVR transcript of the Blackhawk the instructor tells the PF they are straying from their clearance

Once only, not repeatedly. She's following the river when they come out of the side arm, but in the wrong direction. My understanding is that the PNF is supposed to be navigating, though.

Quote:

the PF had also shown their handling skills were not to standard earlier in the check ride (I’ve seen it mentioned their abandoning a manoeuvre earlier would’ve been a fail normally) hence monitoring their trainees parameters would’ve been even more taxing for the instructor

The landing at the helipad where she abandoned because the wind made the helicopter hard to control, and she lost sight of the landing zone? and then the instructor calls "go around", possibly because of some deer?

Quote:

I don’t know how anyone can pretend these things didn’t at least play a part in the Swiss cheese.

if the PF had been as equally capable as the instructor and performing their scan (the CGI reenactment shows that much of the CRJ’s flatboats occurred within the PF’s side of the scan) would the outcome have been different? Possibly.

the conduct of that flight was the final hole in the Swiss cheese arguably

I don't think the handling played a part at all.

What I do see is that when the instructor is flying, he's having some altitude excursions as well.

There's also a visual separation while the instructor is flying, and it plays out like this:

20:00:11.0 APR-P PAT two five if you hear Potomac acknowledge with an IDENT. traffic at your nine to ten o'clock in two miles eastbound one thousand eight hundred indicated its a helicopter.

INT-2 [trainee] do you see him?
INT-1 [instructor] nope.

INT-2 do you see him?
INT-1 no. nine to ten o'clock. *.

20:00:22.7 RDO-2 * * traffic

INT-1 yeah. I got it. tally. coming left.
INT-1 alright you want me to keep chasing this number one needle or-
INT-2 yeah. just avoid traffic at this point.
INT-1 yup. I got the traffic out the right door

.
and only then does she call 'traffic in sight maintaining visual separation'.

For the CRJ, the instructor calls 'traffic in sight' without ascertaining that the PF sees it. When the tower cautions them again, the CRJ still hasn't turned, so while it's visible, it doesn't appear a threat. I think both pilots expect the CRJ to be to their right, because that's where the bridge is when ATC tells them where the CRJ is initially, and because the instructor thinks that ATC wants them to move left. They don't understand that the CRJ is on their left and will be turning onto the runway heading.

I imagine, based on that, that the PF believed the instructor has the CRJ in sight on his side. If she did see the CRJ, it would've been well above and on a diverging course, except for the final 6 seconds or so; it wouldn't have appeared to be a threat.

With his radio call, the instructor put himself in the position of being responsible for avoiding AA5342, but he didn't actually know where it was (maybe he thought he did).
There are a lot of factors contributing to that, but that's the big hole here for me.

Last edited by Musician; 19th February 2026 at 18:47 .

Subjects AA5342 ATC Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ CVR Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "AA5342" [Posts: 22 Page: 2 of 2]¶