February 03, 2025, 01:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820223
That rant aside, as the videos posted above by others demonstrate:
- A Blackhawk can in fact stop on a dime (so whatever you're suggesting Mike Blackstone was wrong about, it certainly wasn't that).
- Obviously that shouldn't be the plan , but it still a legitimate question to ask, in the context of an emergency, and when every other safety precaution has already failed, why couldn't it be done? Other poster's rationalize: at the low altitude, there's nowhere to go. The videos demonstrate otherwise. You can stop a Blackhawk 50 feet above the ground in seconds. If deviating in any direction is a risk, why didn't ATC just say " PAT25 slow to stop and hover!" – as a Very. Last. Resort?
- A Blackhawk can in fact stop on a dime (so whatever you're suggesting Mike Blackstone was wrong about, it certainly wasn't that).
- Obviously that shouldn't be the plan , but it still a legitimate question to ask, in the context of an emergency, and when every other safety precaution has already failed, why couldn't it be done? Other poster's rationalize: at the low altitude, there's nowhere to go. The videos demonstrate otherwise. You can stop a Blackhawk 50 feet above the ground in seconds. If deviating in any direction is a risk, why didn't ATC just say " PAT25 slow to stop and hover!" – as a Very. Last. Resort?
My experience? 15,000 hours rotary with at least 4-5,000 hours below 200', 1,500 night hours, Mil/Civil mix of mediums (21,000lb) down to horrid little clockwork toys.
No further online discussion from me, but it would be interesting to know your pilot qualifications to post here with such assumed authority, please?
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
Hover
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
PAT25
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 03:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820246
And in fact he did speak up, asked the helo to confirm in sight. Obviously he saw it was close and wanted to check.
Unfortunately he didn\x92t quite say enough. If he\x92d said \x93traffic is 1/2 mile\x94 and the helo was looking at something 2 miles away, they might have twigged to it. Maybe.
Subjects
ATC
Radar
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 08:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820320
The helicopter pilots were a qualified instructor pilot with 7 years experience and a pilot under check who graduated in the top 20% of her class. The CRJ pilots were quite experienced for an regional crew. Nothing to suggest the controller did not maintain the standards required of an air traffic controller.
These were 5 aviation professionals who had gotten their roles through hard work and perseverance (like all aviation professionals) and fell victim to the circumstances they found themselves in that night.
These were 5 aviation professionals who had gotten their roles through hard work and perseverance (like all aviation professionals) and fell victim to the circumstances they found themselves in that night.
Speaking to some of my colleagues who have used NVGs operationally, they say they do reduce your field-of-view and flatten depth perception - one said he had mistaken a star for another aircraft for a while; it was only further away than he thought by a factor of ten trillion...
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Close Calls
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 11:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820420
patrickal, very good argumentation! I have though one question, which was highlighted also some pages before but I didnt register an answer:
I fully sign your deduction, but granted your assumptions are true that PAT25 was mentally focussed on passing behind AA3130 (which I fully believe too), but they also received the information that it is RWY33 that is to be used for landing of the CRJ. So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension
before
AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!
8. ATC informs PAT25 of the conflicting aircraft on approach for RWY 33 at 1200 feet MSL, but at the time, PAT25 is heading almost due east towards the Jefferson Memorial on Helo Route 4 while JIA342 (the CRJ) is executing its right turn departing from the RWY 01 approach and is now heading in a northeast direction as it prepares to make a hard left onto the RWY 33 short final approach. From their respective positions, PAT25 in all likelihood sees the landing lights of AA3130 which is trailing JIA342 and whose landing lights are pointed almost directly in his direction, and mistakenly identifies it as the aircraft approaching RWY 33. At no time does it appear that ATC notifies JIA342 of the conflicting helo traffic. They are most likely focused on their approach to RWY 33, which was just handed to them.
9. As JIA342 rolls out of its left hand turn to final on RWY 33, completing the deviation they were just handed and had not briefed for, it is now approaching the 9-11 o\x92clock position of PAT25. Since the pilot of PAT25 is on the right-hand side of the Blackhawk, visibility of the CRJ may be limited. Both pilots of PAT25 are now most likely visibly fixated on passing to the rear of AA3130, which is in their 1-3 O\x92clock position, and which is the conflicting aircraft they perceive as the one ATC initially warned them about.
9. As JIA342 rolls out of its left hand turn to final on RWY 33, completing the deviation they were just handed and had not briefed for, it is now approaching the 9-11 o\x92clock position of PAT25. Since the pilot of PAT25 is on the right-hand side of the Blackhawk, visibility of the CRJ may be limited. Both pilots of PAT25 are now most likely visibly fixated on passing to the rear of AA3130, which is in their 1-3 O\x92clock position, and which is the conflicting aircraft they perceive as the one ATC initially warned them about.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
PAT25
Route 4
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 11:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820440
You have not fully understood. In your world, ATC would not give any instructions to the helicopter, becauuse that 150ft was OK as separation minima. Instead in this world ATC relied (by request and reply) on the helicopter to identify visually the conflict, take the deconfliction in its own hands and adjust his flight path horizontally such that it places them well behind the CRJ (and its wakes). I.e. left turn towards the city and then once CRJ passes your 4 o'clock return to the river corridor by own navigation.
Now thats the 2D view. At 200ft-max altitude you dont turn at night from the river towards the city to position yourself east of, and then behind the CRJ on the 1 mile final...so what-else?
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 12:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820516
As far as I can see, the helicopter crew when asked twice if they had the CRJ in sight responded in the affirmative both times. I think it's a tad unfair to criticise the controller for not being able to divine that they were actually looking at a different aircraft in the approach sequence.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 13:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820540
Subjects
ATC
Radar
Republic Airways Flight 4514 Go-around
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820561
This was discussed earlier, with several posts being based on listening to an incomplete ATC recording which failed to pick up the (UHF) frequency on which the helicopter crew were responding.
As far as I can see, the helicopter crew when asked twice if they had the CRJ in sight responded in the affirmative both times. I think it's a tad unfair to criticise the controller for not being able to divine that they were actually looking at a different aircraft in the approach sequence.
This was discussed earlier, with several posts being based on listening to an incomplete ATC recording which failed to pick up the (UHF) frequency on which the helicopter crew were responding.
As far as I can see, the helicopter crew when asked twice if they had the CRJ in sight responded in the affirmative both times. I think it's a tad unfair to criticise the controller for not being able to divine that they were actually looking at a different aircraft in the approach sequence.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Close Calls
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 14:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820596
Using visual separation, the system will generate CAs, they’re issued to alert the controller, not to provide guidance. Thats why the controllers ask, “do you have the traffic in sight?”
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.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 14:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820598
"do you have the CRJ in sight" .."pass behind the CRJ" shows indeed he's uncertain of their awareness and wants them on a different heading. But the communication is completely inadequate to resolve the concern in the 15 sec time window left to intersection. It brings zero locational information of either the CRJ or the heading change they need to execute. The best possible outcome was clear to be a very near miss. With according to radar PAT at 200ft, CRJ descending from 500 at 600ft/min, and a 100ft radar resolution, there is zero margin here. So if you don't command a snap heading change at zero projected margin, at what point do you..?
But the controller doesn\x92t know they have the wrong plane. Guess: he\x92s just checking they didn\x92t think they\x92d passed it already.
Either way, the controller does not have enough information to use a heading \x97 neither to know one is needed nor what it should be . The radar & display is just not as accurate as a Mark I eyeball in one cockpit seeing the other plane out the window.
When would he? \x93Tower, PAT25 has lost that traffic\x94. Until then a vector might bring them *into* a collision.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Close Calls
PAT25
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 15:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820640
the controller does not have enough information to use a heading
flight recorder show the collision occurred at an altitude of about 325 feet, plus or minus 25 feet.
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.
Subjects
ATC
FAA
ICAO
Radar
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 15:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820651
On the general subject of the 2nd Twr call to PAT25 and issuing avoidance instructions from BS5342, my take would be that maybe Twr saw it so late and simply didn't have an accurate mental picture of the precise trajectories of the helo and the CRJ to actually formulate a plan to deconflict safely. The only hope was that the helo crew "still" had the aircraft in sight (as they had already stated they had) and were still going to pass behind the CRJ............. Sadly, by then, that was just wishful thinking. At that late stage, all ATC probably knew was that ordering an evasion maneuver was just as likely to turn a near-miss into an accident as it was to turn an accident into a near-miss. A "Rock and a hard place springs" to mind....... One can only feel for the ATCO ...............
Subjects
ATC
ATCO
CRJ
DCA
PAT25
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820667
The period I was referring to was prior to the GA call. ATC does not acknowledge one call from the landing traffic, which is then repeated. This part of the video is marked as a handover (verified?). As the helicopter and passenger jet are passing close & almost reciprocally (leading to the second CA on the screen), it seems an odd time to handover.
On the face of it, CAs seem to be a regular occurrence and the controllers don't issue separation instructions as the traffic has already reported that they will manage separation visually. There are two CAs in this video and there was also a CA in a video of the crash the following day.
On the face of it, CAs seem to be a regular occurrence and the controllers don't issue separation instructions as the traffic has already reported that they will manage separation visually. There are two CAs in this video and there was also a CA in a video of the crash the following day.
Subjects
ATC
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820674
The right turn does not make sense.
If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.
It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.
Speculation follows:
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.
For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.
If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.
It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.
Originally Posted by
51bravo
So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension
before
AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.
For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd February 2025 at 16:45 .
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
PAT25
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820681
Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings,
Subjects
ATC
FAA
ICAO
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820688
Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings, while they might have a copy of the Approach radar picture on a TV monitor somewhere , it is to verify actual positions not to issue vectors.. In addition some TWR controllers are just TWR rated, not Approach radar rated.
25 ft is the accuracy of mode S, transmit data so let's take 300 ft , Heli was apparently 100 ft higher than its altitude restriction , doing a separation maneuver ? (*) question to my US friends , : when delegating separation VFR to an aircraft does that automatically cancels its previous altitude restrictions ?
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.
25 ft is the accuracy of mode S, transmit data so let's take 300 ft , Heli was apparently 100 ft higher than its altitude restriction , doing a separation maneuver ? (*) question to my US friends , : when delegating separation VFR to an aircraft does that automatically cancels its previous altitude restrictions ?
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.
Subjects
ATC
FAA
ICAO
Radar
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820702
A few points, perhaps helping the Swiss cheese line up:
1) There seems to be a big push, especially in the US, to get traffic to go visual and do visual approaches, in order to squeeze in more traffic. I know of several European carriers that prohibit visual approaches at night. Is this really a sensible trend?
1) There seems to be a big push, especially in the US, to get traffic to go visual and do visual approaches, in order to squeeze in more traffic. I know of several European carriers that prohibit visual approaches at night. Is this really a sensible trend?
One night over at BWI the controller hinted he could tighten things up if everyone reported the airport in sight, so the incoming push played along and I guess they lost track of the real ceiling and vectored me right into IMC going past and then if I complained it would mess up the whole thing.
Underfunded Understafffed Overloaded and In a Hurry has been a thing for ages, maybe since the strike.
Subjects
ATC
DCA
IFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 18:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820790
Hmmm. Dunno. Would you really expect this maneuver to be executed in such proximity that it can't be reliably resolved by the radar accuracy? At night? In a 45\xb0 head- on angle of the two flight paths? Your comfort zone for sure is a different one than mine would be.
Subjects
ATC
Radar
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 20:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820853
A UK Tower/LC can\x92t give headings unless they are radar qualified and current, and have the appropriate equipment.
Subjects
ATC
Radar
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820868
My earlier questions remain unanswered … does DCA Tower have a slaved radar display ?
And thus could Tower have used that data to direct PAT21 out of the way, regardless of qualification or licensing? Or did Tower have a Radar qualification anyway, but didn’t use it?
Subjects
ATC
ATCO
DCA
Radar
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.