Posts about: "CRJ" [Posts: 363 Page: 1 of 19]ΒΆ

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

Sam W
January 30, 2025, 02:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816787
CRJ and Blackhawk.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ

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.
MechEngr
January 30, 2025, 03:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816809
How did the top many measures that are in place to prevent this not prevent this?

TCAS
ATC
ADS-B
See and Avoid
Filing a flight plan
Not operating in controlled airspace without a transponder
Not operating at a landing altitude for aircraft on final for a well used runway
Announcing an intention to cross a well used approach
Position lights/strobes
Landing lights

Just spitballing, but there's a non-zero chance NVGs were in use in the helicopter.

It sucks that the best part of this is the airplane was a CRJ, not a larger airliner. Most all those passengers would have survived the initial collision and been aware during the fall to the river.

I feel rage.

Subjects ADSB (All)  ATC  CRJ  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  See and Avoid  TCAS (All)

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.
Pilot DAR
January 30, 2025, 03:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816817
CNN is saying 60 pax plus 4 crew on the AA CRJ jet, Blackhawk crew not stated yet....

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)  CNN  CRJ

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.
MitrePeak
January 30, 2025, 04:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816850
Video of collision
Originally Posted by Anti Skid On
News coming in of an incident with an American Eagle CRJ operating AA5342 colliding with a military Sikorsky over Washington
Plane crashes near Washington DC after mid-air collision with military helicopter \x96 follow live
Flightradar24 snot showing anything of note.

Update - everything grounded at Reagan International and Helicopters searching over the Potomac
Video of collision..

Subjects AA5342  CRJ  FAA

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.
MichaelKPIT
January 30, 2025, 04:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816861
BBC reporting that the CRJ has split in two and is in the Potomac. CNN saying that part of it is fully submerged & divers are on scene.

Subjects CNN  CRJ

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.
kap'n krunch
January 30, 2025, 04:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816871
Originally Posted by MichaelKPIT
BBC reporting that the CRJ has split in two and is in the Potomac. CNN saying that part of it is fully submerged & divers are on scene.
Video appears to show fuselage partially submerged off the end of the runway 33 approach light pier.

Subjects CNN  CRJ

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.
BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 05:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816892
Originally Posted by Capi_Cafre'
A late change to 33 had the potential to put the jet low and in conflict with the helicopter corridor.
Don\x92t think it was a late change. Listening to LiveATC, local controller (LC) calls the CRJ at 1200 ft, inbound 33, over the Wilson Bridge as a traffic advisory to PAT25. Don\x92t hear reply but it sounds like LC then says \x93visual separation approved.

LC then approves AAL1630 for immediate takeoff runway 1 with advisory of CRJ on 2-mile left base for 33.

LC queries PAT25 \x93do you have the CRJ in sight\x94? No reply heard but LC then directs PAT25 to pass behind the CRJ.

PAT25 may have been watching next in sequence, AAL3130, landing runway 1, instead of CRJ.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Pass Behind (PAT25)  Separation (ALL)

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

7 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
physicus
January 30, 2025, 05:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816894
The military helicopter did have a Mode S transponder, but no ADS-B out. The CRJ had a standard transponder with ADS-B out. In all my data sources, the helicopter is visible but only as an MLAT target, so its position in all the flight tracking feeds (ADSB Exchange and FR24) is inferred via time of arrival difference of the Mode-S signal at various receiver stations in the area (i.e. within 200-300m position precision).

TCAS however can operate off Mode-S signals alone, but as others have pointed out, during the late approach phase of a flight, TCAS RA is inhibited (but the target would have caused a TRAFFIC alert still and shown yellow/red on the TCAS display). The helicopter crew assuring the frequency they have identified them would have led them to believe they were cutting it close but will avoid.

It would have been a luck of the draw situation for the CRJ crew to see and avoid the helicopter. It's very hard to see a couple of light points moving against a sea of ground point lights at night. Assuming the CRJ had its logo light on, their only chance would have been for the helicopter crew to spot them (which they claimed they did?)

Subjects ADSB (All)  ADSB Out  CRJ  See and Avoid  TCAS (All)  TCAS RA

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.
Ignition Override
January 30, 2025, 06:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816907
Unhappy
My extra prayer, other than for the victims' families, and possibly for a truly despondent ATC controller , is that No children were on the CRJ.

All of my flights into DCA (1985-2017) --mostly DC-9, MD-88, 717 --were on the profiles over the Potomac River, to land on Rwy 19, or for Rwy 01, flying the ILS or a charted visual while going north over the river.
We Never were required to use "see-and-avoid" to maintain safe separation from helicopters or any fixed-wing aircraft iirc.

Was the ATC controller so Busy watching Other aircraft on his radar that he could not clear the helicopter to fly a southeast (ie 150 *) heading--- to keep it well east of the final approach for Rwy 33, until the CRJ was clearly west of the heli, on final approach?
Or a similar separation?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 30th January 2025 at 06:25 .

Subjects ATC  CRJ  DCA  Radar  Separation (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.
Denflnt
January 30, 2025, 06:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816920
I have seen comments that the AA CJ was diverted to a different runway. In the video I've seen, there was an aircraft taking off and banking to the left when the incident happened. I am wondering if the helo crew figured the AA flight was landing on the main runway and when asked, couldn't see them among the ground light clutter. Still, no reason I can see for that helo to be anywhere near that spot and ATC asking them if they had a visual on the CRJ indicates, to me, that ATC didn't have a picture was to what was going on.

Subjects ATC  CRJ

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.
LessThanSte
January 30, 2025, 06:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816922
Interviewee on the BBC a few minutes ago suggested, as above, the potential for the helicopter crew to have mistakenly identified the aircraft departing (on further back on approach) rather than the CRJ they hit.

On the face of it, that seems stupid but is, I guess, entirely plausible as others have noted above (angles, spotting the specific dot of a moving light!).
​​​​​​
But that ignores all of the other systems which could prevent such an incident. Did ATC switch attention to something else, and miss the opportunity to intervene when it became apparent that both aircraft were getting close. Etc.

Seems baffling that this could happen in such a tight controlled environment...

​​

Subjects ATC  CRJ

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.
Simplythebeast
January 30, 2025, 07:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816927
Originally Posted by MechEngr
How did the top many measures that are in place to prevent this not prevent this?

TCAS
ATC
ADS-B
See and Avoid
Filing a flight plan
Not operating in controlled airspace without a transponder
Not operating at a landing altitude for aircraft on final for a well used runway
Announcing an intention to cross a well used approach
Position lights/strobes
Landing lights

Just spitballing, but there's a non-zero chance NVGs were in use in the helicopter.

It sucks that the best part of this is the airplane was a CRJ, not a larger airliner. Most all those passengers would have survived the initial collision and been aware during the fall to the river.

I feel rage.
what is a \x93non-zero chance\x94? Is it the same as a chance or more like a certainty? Confused by what seems like an American expression.

Subjects ADSB (All)  ATC  CRJ  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  See and Avoid  TCAS (All)

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.
Someone Somewhere
January 30, 2025, 07:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816947
Originally Posted by WideScreen
Not sure how an approach like this one can be flown with an ILS, even a GPS based approach I have my doubts to be able to fly that precise, etc.
I was talking about visual separation; I should have been clearer.

I think, the better option would be to not rely on "bright lights" but suitably illuminated big surfaces, IE an airplane should illuminate its own surfaces. For this particular case, that might not have made a big difference, given the near head-on approach for a long time.

This accident was certainly "setup" in the procedures defined in this area, heavily relying on Humans not making (altitude (settings)) mistakes and Humans detection opportunities, for which we all know, the human is not really that well-designed for from scratch.

For this case, the helicopter corridor was designed to be below the approach path, though when the human makes even a small mistake and/or the weather makes the approach path a bit lower, things can go haywire quite easily.
Might have helped the CRJ see the helicopter (except a military helicopter probably won't be illuminated anyway). But if the helicopter crew has CRJ landing lights pointing at them, are they going to see anything? It seems like another poor-quality band-aid on top of the fundamental problem of trusting see-and-avoid and voice comms.

RVSM is 1000ft at higher altitudes; even if things had gone 100% to plan, this would have only provided, what, <300ft vertical separation? Is wake turbulence a threat to helicopters?


Subjects CRJ  Separation (ALL)  Vertical Separation  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.
fdr
January 30, 2025, 07:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816967
Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere
I was talking about visual separation; I should have been clearer.

Might have helped the CRJ see the helicopter (except a military helicopter probably won't be illuminated anyway). But if the helicopter crew has CRJ landing lights pointing at them, are they going to see anything? It seems like another poor-quality band-aid on top of the fundamental problem of trusting see-and-avoid and voice comms.
The video shows the lights of the helicopter quite clearly, approaching the CRJ from about 2 o'clock to the CRJ.

Subjects CRJ  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.
fdr
January 30, 2025, 08:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816975
Originally Posted by Denflnt
I have seen comments that the AA CJ was diverted to a different runway. In the video I've seen, there was an aircraft taking off and banking to the left when the incident happened. I am wondering if the helo crew figured the AA flight was landing on the main runway and when asked, couldn't see them among the ground light clutter. Still, no reason I can see for that helo to be anywhere near that spot and ATC asking them if they had a visual on the CRJ indicates, to me, that ATC didn't have a picture was to what was going on.
The CRJ was in the 60's 9 o clock, and above the horizon relative to the 60. NVG if in use reduces peripheral vision, the crewman would usually locate on the RHS to support the command pilot.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)

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
January 30, 2025, 08:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816986
Originally Posted by fdr
The video shows the lights of the helicopter quite clearly, approaching the CRJ from about 2 o'clock to the CRJ.
From this angle, yes. With ground clutter and looking at the helicopter from the other side...

Subjects CRJ

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.
WideScreen
January 30, 2025, 08:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816997
Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere
From this angle, yes. With ground clutter and looking at the helicopter from the other side...
With the CRJ crew probably having their attention focused to aim for runway 33, while performing the circle to approach. With a "clear to land" obtained, they even might be less aware, there might be something out there on a collision course with them.

Not to say, the helicopter declared a "CRJ in sight", which also implies from that moment on, the separation became their responsibility.

When flying myself, I am very hesitating to "accommodate" to ATC's information about other aircraft around me, since I then take over the separation responsibility, even when losing sight of the other aircraft(s).

Subjects CRJ  Separation (ALL)

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.
mobov98423
January 30, 2025, 08:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817000
Originally Posted by WideScreen
With the CRJ crew probably having their attention focused to aim for runway 33, while performing the circle to approach. With a "clear to land" obtained, they even might be less aware, there might be something out there on a collision course with them.

Not to say, the helicopter declared a "CRJ in sight", which also implies from that moment on, the separation became their responsibility.

When flying myself, I am very hesitating to "accommodate" to ATC's information about other aircraft around me, since I then take over the separation responsibility, even when losing sight of the other aircraft(s).
yeah,atc had nothing to do with this ;(

Subjects CRJ  Separation (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.
Semreh
January 30, 2025, 09:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817034
Putting humans in situations where failing to notice something results in catastrophic consequences is bad engineering, not human error. I am very glad that no-one is pointing at one, or either, pilot or flight-crew's actions or inactions and saying pilot/human error.

The human visual system is good at picking up movement across the visual field. As other have pointed out, if the two aircraft were on intersecting vectors, there would be no relative movement to be picked up. Bright(er) lights don't help: if anything, they make it harder to make out the source from the background, as the bright light makes the local background look like a uniform dark field.

From a 'human factors' point of view, if you have an incorrect situational awareness model in your consciousness, it is difficult to remain flexible enough to recognise you might be wrong - misidentifying the next in sequence, AAL3130, landing runway 1, as the CRJ (IF that is what happened) is hard to recover from.

We should not blame the flight-crews. We should not engineer them into situations where incorrect interpretation of what were likely inputs that were easy to interpret in more than one way become catastrophic. The problem is not restricted to air-navigation. One of the many reasons Norway lost the frigate Helge Ingstad in a collision was misidentification of a moving object (a brightly lit oil tanker) as a stationary object (an oil terminal), and incorrectly ascribing radio transmissions as coming from other moving ships in the vicinity,

The personnel on the bridge of Helge Ingstad both before and after the change of watch 20 minutes before the accident were of the opinion that the lights they saw from Sola TS were from a stationary object in connection with the Sture Terminal , and not from an oncoming ship. Contrary to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea , [60] "Sola TS" had the same deck lights on after the ship left as when they were still at the terminal. The personnel on the bridge of Helge Ingstad were of the opinion that the radio call just before the accident was from one of the three other oncoming ships.
We should look at how to engineer things better to avoid this happening: this does not mean 'more training', 'brighter lights', or putting additional human-operated steps in already complex procedures.

Subjects CRJ  Situational Awareness

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

14 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Avv
January 30, 2025, 10:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817091
Originally Posted by bigjames
If the Heli said he would pass behind the aircraft on approach and that aircraft was behind the incident aircraft, then it makes even less sense.
Unlikely that they mistook the CRJ, It's landing lights were pointing right at them. More likely they weren't sure where they were in relation to the plane and where it was going. From the radar plot they are head on, then the CRJ turns final to 33 and the Blackhawk turns right to avoid them. Too high and in the wrong spot.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  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.

2 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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last  Index Page