ATC Page: 18 of 31

island_airphoto
February 07, 2025, 16:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823780

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbcooper8

With proper ATC staffing would it be a practicle proceedure for helicopter traffic travelling Southbound on route 1 to be given an expected further clearance time for Hains Point. This would allow the helicopter to adjust its speed or hold at Hains until traffic on approach to 33 is clear before the helicopter is then given clearance to enter route 4 and proceed Southbound crossing the approach to 33?

The busy airplane controller was relieved of a significant workload when the helicopter assumed responsibility for themselves. A helicopter-only controller could have stayed on top of the situation and had them slow up, turn around, go orbit something, or 101 other ideas that didn't involve squeezing between an airplane on short final and the river.

* re the NVGs, I found an old video I shot of trying to drive with mine and coming around a corner to a bright street light at first the light bloomed across a good portion of the display and then the thing ramped down gain until the light was a pinpoint surrounded by black. Good thing I had it on one eye! I assume that if you have them on and look at a landing plane with lights on you get the same, either blooming or black with pinpoints.

Last edited by island_airphoto; 7th February 2025 at 17:16 .

Subjects ATC Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Route 4

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.

Someone Somewhere
February 07, 2025, 17:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823784

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosepileit

Hence the issue requiring metering the helicopters on the numbered Routes.

I don't suggest a hard 1.5NM, but anywhere standard fixed wing ops cannot assure 500' vertical separation, Rotary wing traffic must be gated and controlled.

If rotary wing mission dictates, then fixed wing traffic will have to wait/go missed/discontinue approach. Visual Sep, ATC and a Pavlovian environment killed an airliner.

Yeah, 1.5Nm is a pretty broad flat rule but I could see an argument for tighter separation particularly where the aircraft is established on an ILS and the helicopter has a fixed obvious route. I don't think holding the helicopter at Hains Point while an aircraft does a visual approach to 33 is sensible, but it might be reasonable for an ILS into 1.

I'm still going to argue that a helicopter on Route 4 from DCA to the Wilson Bridge or across Route 6 is unacceptable while there's an approaching aircraft below 700ft.

Subjects ATC DCA Route 4 Separation (ALL) Vertical 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.

West Coast
February 07, 2025, 19:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere

I'm honestly not certain, but if you're not visually separated , that seems to be the conclusion reached upthread and from the link I posted.

The guiding document in the US is the controller handbook, FAA order 7110.65AA. There, it is clear that visual separation is an approved form of separation in Class B airspace. Not defending the application of it specific to this crash, just pointing it out so the discussion revolves around existing FAA separation standards and not what folks in the thread wish it to be, believe it to be or what it is in their country.

Subjects ATC FAA Separation (ALL) 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.

Stagformation
February 07, 2025, 21:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823937

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf

As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies.

Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded ‘not visual yet, looking’ or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great —maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo.

This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it.

However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it’s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace— helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky.

Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes.

Last edited by Stagformation; 7th February 2025 at 22:06 .

Subjects ATC CRJ FAA IFR See and Avoid Separation (ALL) 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.

Someone Somewhere
February 07, 2025, 21:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823944

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

Yes. My point is that if visual is deemed not acceptable, the next step appears to be several Nm. If you are telling the controller to keep them clear, they can't be just missed ; they need to actually be properly radar separated.

This is following on from #960-964, discussing what would happen if the PAT flight(s) refused visual separation. It seems like it would throw a spanner in ATC's arrivals and they would probably get a response similar to that Lufthansa A380: Buzz off somewhere else.

Subjects ATC FAA Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

West Coast
February 07, 2025, 22:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824002

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf

As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies.

Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo.

This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it.

However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky.

Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes.

I will not speculate specific to the accident. One more point to add about visual sep then you guys can go back to arguing about the accident. Visual separation isn\x92t just applied aircraft to aircraft. The local controller can observe both aircraft, (even if they don\x92t see each other) and apply visual separation. Such as two aircraft that are diverging but radar separation isn\x92t established.

Subjects ATC CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

BrogulT
February 08, 2025, 01:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824068

Quote:

Originally Posted by 51bravo

I really run out of an idea what ATC would clear if the PAT25 crew didnt ask for "visual separation"...

There's a designated holding point on the route. IDK exactly what that means, but it must mean something, right?

The river is 4000 feet wide just south of that designated point. I imagine there is a procedure otherwise what would be the point?

The other option is that they would have to have the landing traffic go around.

Subjects ATC PAT25 Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 08, 2025, 06:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824114

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf

As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies.

Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo.

This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it.

However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky.

Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes.

Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation?
He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable.
Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point)
or
At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point.
What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment?

Yes , I know it is Burund....

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

Someone Somewhere
February 08, 2025, 07:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824135

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I don't read the chart legend as having that denotation. The words on the legend for a solid triangle are, with my bolding: Compulsory Reporting or Holding Point.

Yes, you're correct; I didn't read carefully enough.

If you approach/reach the point and ATC doesn't clear you further, are you then automatically required to hold there?

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.

fdr
February 08, 2025, 08:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824169

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere

Yes, you're correct; I didn't read carefully enough.

If you approach/reach the point and ATC doesn't clear you further, are you then automatically required to hold there?

Not unless ATC have appended their instructions with that as a route limitation.

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.

Stagformation
February 08, 2025, 11:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824286

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

Visual separation isn\x92t just applied aircraft to aircraft. The local controller can observe both aircraft, (even if they don\x92t see each other) and apply visual separation. Such as two aircraft that are diverging but radar separation isn\x92t established.

That\x92s absolutely right. If the controller takes a look outside, identifies the correct aircraft and sees that their lights (at night) are diverging then all is ok, separation assured.

In this case though the aircraft lights were rapidly converging, the radar repeater was flashing \x91CA\x92 but the helo has already requested and been given responsibility for collision responsibility. Crazy tragic situation.

Subjects ATC Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

DaveJ75
February 08, 2025, 14:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824387

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

I keep re-reading this and it doesn't get any less amazing! To hell with the radar, I'll just look out of the window!

I would love to see it tried - obviously it would have to be over the desert in aircraft with no pax aboard! How would it work - do you just yell " Bloggs, left a bit " over the RT if all looks a bit close?

Subjects ATC Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 16:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824431

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

I will not speak to this accident but I will tell you as a controller I applied visual sep countless times over the years, all successfully.

Subjects ATC Radar

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.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 16:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824433

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation?
He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable.
Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point)
or
At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point.
What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment?

Yes , I know it is Burund....

How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed.

Subjects ATC ATCO Radar Separation (ALL) 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.

island_airphoto
February 08, 2025, 16:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824439

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed.

^ This
I have got plenty of vectors from DCA over the years, I never got the impression they were just looking out the window.

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.

Stagformation
February 08, 2025, 16:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824442

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

It happens all day long at airfields. Controller sees and gives clearances, eg remain dead side, go around, hold short of the active, expedite etc.

Subjects ATC Radar

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.

island_airphoto
February 08, 2025, 16:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824444

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

I will not speak to this accident but I will tell you as a controller I applied visual sep countless times over the years, all successfully.

This seems to be an EU-centric idea, one could get the impression there is no such thing as VFR over there, or if there is it is restricted to some farm field far away from anything.

Subjects ATC VFR

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.

DaveJ75
February 08, 2025, 19:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824529

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

It happens all day long at airfields. Controller sees and gives clearances, eg remain dead side, go around, hold short of the active, expedite etc.

Well, in GA yes... and obviously the airfield movements you're describing. Not quite sure that's going to hack it in a commercial air transport environment...

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.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 19:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824543

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

Well, in GA yes... and obviously the airfield movements you're describing. Not quite sure that's going to hack it in a commercial air transport environment...

Not familiar with the term dead side, but all the others I gave as a controller to commercial air transport aircraft and now receive same as an airline pilot.

Subjects ATC

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 08, 2025, 21:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824590

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed .

there is no word IDENTIFIED b efore any other instruction.

It is esential basic for radar/ surveilance. How the hell you could give vectors for non identified aircraft?

And the above post of island_photo gives exact link with explanation that is officially valid in USA.
No full radar service if it is not " radar contact"( or identified)

It is so logic and simple to remember and to apply.

Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 8th February 2025 at 21:45 .

Subjects ATC Radar

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.

Posts about: "ATC" [Posts: 614 Page: 18 of 31]¶