Posts about: "ATC" [Posts: 614 Page: 2 of 31]ΒΆ

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last  Index Page

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 10:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817078
on Juan video, I did not hear ATC passing traffic info on the Helicopter . something we would normally do in Europe, , something like : PSA , you have Heli on your right at 300 Ft has you in sight. passing being you " is that not standard in the US ?
especially with the fact that possibly the 2 were on different frequencies seems odd .
Anyway the whole procedure is very odd to me . Lots of holes in the cheese legally opened here .

Subjects ATC

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

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
MissChief
January 30, 2025, 10:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817093
Visual Separation is a recipe for a collision. The US ATC use it far too often, setting a trap for many an unwary crew. At night, in complex and crowded airspace, Visual Separation should not be used. I nearly came a cropper in daytime at MCO, when my gung-ho CM1 accepted it just as we entered cloud while joining final approach at 8 miles. So the blame can lie on both/all sides.

Remains to be seen here.

Subjects ATC  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

5 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Diff Tail Shim
January 30, 2025, 10:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817098
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
on Juan video, I did not hear ATC passing traffic info on the Helicopter . something we would normally do in Europe, , something like : PSA , you have Heli on your right at 300 Ft has you in sight. passing being you " is that not standard in the US ?
especially with the fact that possibly the 2 were on different frequencies seems odd .
Anyway the whole procedure is very odd to me . Lots of holes in the cheese legally opened here .
The swiss cheese has well and truely been blown open. The CRJ would have been on a fixed descent on the localiser into Reagan? Only one aircraft was not where it should have been.
Last edited by Diff Tail Shim; 30th January 2025 at 10:49 .

Subjects ATC  CRJ

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

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Stringy
January 30, 2025, 10:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817113
Originally Posted by 172_driver
I used to enjoy the free use of airspace in the US, but I always told myself and others; It's not for anyone who under performs.
That's an indirect way of saying that the system is flawed and is relying too much on humans to stop it from failing.
Originally Posted by EDLB
So a midair in the most tightly restricted and controlled airspace in the world. How many official agents were watching this in real time without taking action?
The problem is an over reliance on visual separation in congested and complicated airspace. An aircraft claims it has the traffic in sight, therefore taking responsibility for separation, and ATC moves on to their next task. The fact that this is allowed with commercial aviation over DC (or any major US city) when there's potentially hundreds of lives at stake in the air, never mind the lives on the ground, is staggering.

Subjects ATC  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.

15 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Capt Fathom
January 30, 2025, 10:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817122
Originally Posted by Stringy
The problem is an over reliance on visual separation in congested and complicated airspace. An aircraft claims it has the traffic in sight, therefore taking responsibility for separation, and ATC moves on to their next task.
I remember the Lufthansa A380? that refused a night visual approach into SFO and subsequently diverted to Oakland.

Subjects ATC  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.
nicolai
January 30, 2025, 11:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817126
Neither Lufty nor Iberia will accept a visual night approach (as far as I recall).

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.

The Lufty A380 that went to Oakland looked a lot like they were being sent there by ATC to punish them, since it can't have been news to the SFO controllers that Lufty won't do that approach - when they come there every night at about the same time. The ATC kept him waiting and the Lufty Captain was pretty arsey to the ATC and then they sent him to Purgatory (OAK).

Subjects ATC  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

9 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Not_apilots_starfish
January 30, 2025, 11:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817137
Hi, I am new, I read this thread because I wanted to know what those that fly thought. I liked how everyone updated the facts as they emerged. Not a Pilot, just a Mum and a former Journalist that is obsessive about information and facts.

I notice (according to Sky) the AA aeroplane was 400 ft when it crashed. That means the helicopter had to increase to 400 ft. How common is that ? At the last point of contact for the Black Hawk, it was far below 400 feet.

Even to a casual observer with no experience, this seems amiss. I know you're all saying that it was bound to happen and that the air traffic controller is too vague but that doesn't explain the sudden increase in elevation of the black hawk ?

Subjects ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)

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.
Locked door
January 30, 2025, 11:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817145
The whole USA aviation sector needs root and branch reform, there have been so many near misses in recent years that this accident was inevitable, it was just a question of when.

The majority of people inside the system don\x92t realise how bad it is because it\x92s all they\x92ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it\x92s ok to switch to TA only to avoid \x93nuisance\x94 RA\x92s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it\x92s acceptable to \x93slam dunk\x94 a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.

I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.

On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.

Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.

Stay safe out there

LD

Subjects ATC  Close Calls  Land and Hold Short  Separation (ALL)  TCAS (All)  TCAS RA  Traffic in Sight  VFR  Visual Separation

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

98 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Tu.114
January 30, 2025, 12:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817164
I am rather surprised by the route the helicopter took, this looks like quite a high risk in itself.

Yes, there is noise abatement and all that, but is there a compelling reason beyond that why the heli had to track the river in opposite direction to the flow of arriving airliners? Certainly, it would have been possible for a controller, radar-equipped or not, to hold the heli east of the field and clear him for a midfield crossing on heading 270 or so as an airliner is just touching down on 33 or 01 and the next one is still a few miles out? That would have kept him well out of the approach sector, allowed for a possible go-around of an arriving airliner and also would not interfere with departing traffic.

Surely, someone familiar with DCA can explain...

Subjects ATC  DCA

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.
C2H5OH
January 30, 2025, 12:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817168
Originally Posted by Not_apilots_starfish
Even to a casual observer with no experience, this seems amiss. I know you're all saying that it was bound to happen and that the air traffic controller is too vague but that doesn't explain the sudden increase in elevation of the black hawk ?
No, there is nothing amiss. Firstly there is time discretization, i.e. the data point is not from the very moment of the collision but some time before. That means the jet will have descended since that value was transmitted. Secondly there is value discretization, that means, the jet may have been e.g. at 388ft when it transmitted 400ft. And last but not least there are allowable tolerances in the barometric measurement of both aircraft that can add up to increase the perceived difference, i.e. the jet higher, the chopper lower.

Subjects ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Equivocal
January 30, 2025, 12:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817189
From the comments on this thread, it seems like many are unclear about flight rules and responsibilities of pilots and ATC. I'm not suggesting that the rules are good or applied in an appropriate way but, simply, the rules are clear....even if understanding is not.

Subjects ATC

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.
captains_log
January 30, 2025, 12:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817194
Originally Posted by WideScreen
Could it be this becomes another case that the regulatory defined airplane exterior (including landing light) lighting (especially for small RJ) is simply insufficient to let it stand out in the airport / city Xmas tree of lighting?

And the chopper crew simply had the next airplane in sequence of landing in sight and not the one they collided with?

RIP
This explanation above to me can be the only logical explanation because nothing else apart from intentional makes sense.

Akin to allowing a car to drive across a motorway/highway should just never be permissible ever. Overpass or underpass only unless emergency.

Some other observations
  • DCA operates within Class B airspace , requiring explicit ATC clearance for any aircraft, including helicopters, to enter.
  • Helicopters can operate in controlled airspace, but they must follow a predefined route and altitude assignment.
  • Military flights, even Black Hawks, must coordinate with ATC unless responding to an emergency.
A Black Hawk could only legally cross a major approach path if:
  1. It was explicitly cleared by ATC , or
  2. It was conducting an authorized emergency or security operation , with ATC aware.
If neither of these happened, this should not have been permissible .
Condolences to all involved, and their families, and the teams that will be involved in the recovery.
Last edited by captains_log; 30th January 2025 at 13:17 .

Subjects ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)  Route Altitude

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.
island_airphoto
January 30, 2025, 13:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817216
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
on Juan video, I did not hear ATC passing traffic info on the Helicopter . something we would normally do in Europe, , something like : PSA , you have Heli on your right at 300 Ft has you in sight. passing being you " is that not standard in the US ?
especially with the fact that possibly the 2 were on different frequencies seems odd .
Anyway the whole procedure is very odd to me . Lots of holes in the cheese legally opened here .
Normally I get a call like "Your traffic is at X altitude at your 3 o'clock, they have you in sight" or similar. I have flown into DCA at night and would have been more than highly surprised to have a helicopter directed to fly basically 100 feet under me, in sight or no.

Subjects ATC  DCA

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

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Upside Down
January 30, 2025, 13:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817221
Originally Posted by Tu.114
I am rather surprised by the route the helicopter took, this looks like quite a high risk in itself.

Yes, there is noise abatement and all that, but is there a compelling reason beyond that why the heli had to track the river in opposite direction to the flow of arriving airliners? Certainly, it would have been possible for a controller, radar-equipped or not, to hold the heli east of the field and clear him for a midfield crossing on heading 270 or so as an airliner is just touching down on 33 or 01 and the next one is still a few miles out? That would have kept him well out of the approach sector, allowed for a possible go-around of an arriving airliner and also would not interfere with departing traffic.

Surely, someone familiar with DCA can explain...
Im not \x93familiar with DCA\x94 but from the Terminal Chart & discussion here it\x92s clear that the heli was following the transit route 4, which would be a normal activity. Though it\x92s also possible their plan was to leave route 4 & cross the river towards the airfield\x85.

I would expect the airliner not to have to take any avoiding action, as it\x92d be IFR on a standard arrival for RW33. I would expect ATC to inform them of the helicopter traffic below them on the east side of the river.
I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*. But as they\x92re in controlled airspace then they should have been warned (which apparently they were) about the arriving civil traffic.

If the helicopter was, indeed, following Route 4 then what led to the discrepancy in position & height is conjecture. Also why they confirmed traffic in sight yet still collided is conjecture (& It\x92s possible they had their own emergency)


*) does \x91Special VFR\x92 exist/ apply for \x91night VMC\x92 ops in US controlled airspace ? it\x92s a long time since my FAA/US flying days\x85\x85

Subjects ATC  DCA  IFR  Route 4  Traffic in Sight

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.
Jojobray
January 30, 2025, 13:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817227
Poignant truth
Originally Posted by Locked door
The whole USA aviation sector needs root and branch reform, there have been so many near misses in recent years that this accident was inevitable, it was just a question of when.

The majority of people inside the system don\x92t realise how bad it is because it\x92s all they\x92ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it\x92s ok to switch to TA only to avoid \x93nuisance\x94 RA\x92s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it\x92s acceptable to \x93slam dunk\x94 a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.

I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.

On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.

Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.

Stay safe out there

LD
Sadly this is probably the most honest and accurate description of flying into the USA I\x92ve read in many years.

Subjects ATC  Close Calls  Land and Hold Short  Separation (ALL)  TCAS (All)  TCAS RA  Traffic in Sight  VFR  Visual Separation

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

38 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
island_airphoto
January 30, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817231
Originally Posted by Upside Down
Im not \x93familiar with DCA\x94 but from the Terminal Chart & discussion here it\x92s clear that the heli was following the transit route 4, which would be a normal activity. Though it\x92s also possible their plan was to leave route 4 & cross the river towards the airfield\x85.

I would expect the airliner not to have to take any avoiding action, as it\x92d be IFR on a standard arrival for RW33. I would expect ATC to inform them of the helicopter traffic below them on the east side of the river.
I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*. But as they\x92re in controlled airspace then they should have been warned (which apparently they were) about the arriving civil traffic.

If the helicopter was, indeed, following Route 4 then what led to the discrepancy in position & height is conjecture. Also why they confirmed traffic in sight yet still collided is conjecture (& It\x92s possible they had their own emergency)


*) does \x91Special VFR\x92 exist/ apply for \x91night VMC\x92 ops in US controlled airspace ? it\x92s a long time since my FAA/US flying days\x85\x85
I have flown into DCA many times at night and there was no special VFR, it was either IFR or VFR. The weather was clear, no one would have been calling for special VFR anyway.

Subjects ATC  DCA  IFR  Route 4  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.
skippybangkok
January 30, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817232
Strange to see an accident like this ... have flown small planes at 900ft under the approach path at VTBS ( Bangkok ) with A380's going over the top of me. ATC was constantly on the mic making sure i understood clearly to stay below 1000 ft whilst transitioning from east to west sea side. Must of had 4 or 5 coms with them prior and whilst under.

Subjects ATC

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.
Flava Saver
January 30, 2025, 13:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817245
Back here, ATC will generally say \x93callsign, traffic is (whatever) 5 miles, in your 9 o\x92clock, a Boeing 737, report in sight, and pass behind, caution possible wake turbulence\x85\x94

Not saying it\x92s atc\x92s fault in this instance\x85. Just maybe some more info? Who knows\x85. What a bloody tragedy.

Subjects ATC  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
DonLeslie
January 30, 2025, 13:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817254
Originally Posted by nicolai
Neither Lufty nor Iberia will accept a visual night approach (as far as I recall).

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.

The Lufty A380 that went to Oakland looked a lot like they were being sent there by ATC to punish them, since it can't have been news to the SFO controllers that Lufty won't do that approach - when they come there every night at about the same time. The ATC kept him waiting and the Lufty Captain was pretty arsey to the ATC and then they sent him to Purgatory (OAK).



In the San Francisco case (it was an A350, BTW), there was a misunderstanding. Lufthansa are and have always been allowed to do visual approaches at night. At the time, however, they were not allowed to "follow visually behind" at night, that restriction has since been lifted.
Personally however, an LH A350 Captain myself, I would never do it at any airport that I'm not 100% familiar with. Take the Bay Area for example: there are millions of lights, from buildings, street lights, cars and other aircraft. One of the latter may or may not be your traffic, but can you be sure which one is the one? Or judge the distance from your own aircraft correctly? If ATC ask me whether I have traffic in sight, my answer is always "negative".
That American practice is inherently dangerous and, as many of my European colleagues have commented here, it is beyond me how that can be legal.



​​​​​​​


Subjects ATC  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.

37 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 13:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817256
Originally Posted by skippybangkok
have flown small planes at 900ft under the approach path at VTBS ( Bangkok ) with A380's going over the top of me. ATC was constantly on the mic making sure i understood clearly to stay below 1000 ft .
This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.
@upsidedown L I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*
Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

Subjects ATC  VFR

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

3 recorded likes for this post.

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

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last  Index Page