CRJ Page: 2 of 19

Upside Down
January 30, 2025, 10:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817092

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkflyer

Obviously way too soon for a definitive answer, however the Helo calling the traffic in sight may have been the first or second hole in the cheese.

wrong traffic ?
Or could the circling approach from 01 to 33 also be a factor with the helo misinterpreting the CRJ flight path and somehow losing sight ? The track of both aircraft is interesting\x85 helo seems to initially be parallel to the river bank and turns 40 right. Why ? Was their destination the same airport or was that manoeuvre related to traffic avoidance or loss of visual ?

All guesswork I know\x85 putting Special VFR traffic so close to final approach traffic at night clearly a problem. Tragic.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) 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.

Diff Tail Shim
January 30, 2025, 10:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817098

Quote:

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.

HOVIS
January 30, 2025, 10:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817102

Am I right in thinking the CRJ is in a left banking attitude? The chopper is approaching from the right which would put it 'below' the horizontal deck level of the CRJ? If so, the AA crew would not be able to see the chopper at all. The helicopter pilots would only be able to see the lower anti col beacon and maybe the navy lights, logo lights if fitted/working would not highlight the fin at that angle, are cabin lights still being dimmed at night for take off and landing? So windows not lit up either?
I'm astonished that civil passenger carrying aircraft are operating in such an environment.
Incredibly sad and ultimately avoidable incident.
RIP.

Subjects 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.

FUMR
January 30, 2025, 12:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817202

The helicopter crew were so fixated on the (wrongly identified) traffic and crossing behind that traffic that they just failed to see the actual traffic. When you see how lit up the CRJ was it is difficult to understand, but if you're concentrating on what you perceive to be the traffic concerned I guess everything else just blends into the array of lights. Tragic.

Subjects CRJ

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

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

visibility3miles
January 30, 2025, 13:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817228

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upside Down

wrong traffic ?
Or could the circling approach from 01 to 33 also be a factor with the helo misinterpreting the CRJ flight path and somehow losing sight ? The track of both aircraft is interesting… helo seems to initially be parallel to the river bank and turns 40 right. Why ? Was their destination the same airport or was that manoeuvre related to traffic avoidance or loss of visual ?

All guesswork I know… putting Special VFR traffic so close to final approach traffic at night clearly a problem. Tragic.

The helicopter’s right turn was directly over a golf course, not a residential neighborhood. It was probably done for noise abatement reasons, because it then turned left and proceeded down more directly over the river.

The golf course is on a peninsula in the river, so the helicopter was flying over water before and after it made the two turns.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) VFR

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.

JRBarrett
January 30, 2025, 13:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817229

Quote:

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)

Military aircraft are required to have standard external lighting when operating in civil airspace. In the zoomed video clip of the collision, you can see the helicopter had a strobe light. But with the relative positions, it probably would have been difficult for the CRJ crew to have seen the Blackhawk - especially since they were probably looking forward to concentrate on the runway.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) 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.

MarkD
January 30, 2025, 13:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817240

I see people saying the CRJ should be lit up more laterally but given the many observations about light clutter is the answer to add more, or to change the procedure, at least for night operations?

It certainly seems to me that the value of *a training flight* pressing on and not waiting for/requesting a wider gap in 33 approaches should be looked at. One wonders if the FAA plugged this incident into a risk analysis and decided this procedure is no longer safe, how many similar shortcuts will have to be amended.

Subjects CRJ FAA

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.

Timmy Tomkins
January 30, 2025, 13:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817257

For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"

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.

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817266

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"

sequence is not important . What is is the difference between passing traffic information and delegating separation . . in the US limits are being "pushed" to use a politically correct term in order to allow more traffic than the rules would allow . That is the issue here . Not the phraseology .
Same as using "side step " , a procedure made for parallel runways , here they do with with runways 30 degrees apart . etc..etc..

Subjects ATC CRJ Phraseology (ATC) 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.

10 DME ARC
January 30, 2025, 14:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817271

Might have missed it but the CRJ wasn't given any traffic on the Blackhawk?? Plus the Blackhawk was only asked if he had the CRJ insight very late on and no updated traffic information given! The ATCO was obviously concerned but that concern should have included traffic information as directly ahead of the Blackhawk was two CRJ one much further out which was no factor!!
Plus does the Blackhawk have a TCAS screen?? That would have been invaluable to pick out the traffic!

Subjects ATCO Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ TCAS (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.

MLHeliwrench
January 30, 2025, 14:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817284

Blackhawk comms

Some of the ATC recordings and YouTube videos don\x92t show the Blackhawk responding to ATC instructions. The Blackhawk does acknowledge more than once they have the traffic in sight - just on a different frequency, likly UHF which commercial planes do not use generally.

It\x92s easy to look now and be like - who would allow a helicopter highway 300 feet below a final approach path????

but this has been completely routine in that area for years and years. Helicopter Pilots who have flown the route have felt wake turbulence when scooting under/behind.

also - the use of 33, especially by CRJ size jets is completely normal and should of been expected by any helicopter crew as a possible traffic issue. In the VAS channel ATC video linked above. There are other jets using 33.

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ Traffic in Sight

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.

canyonblue737
January 30, 2025, 14:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817292

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

yes. if you look at the longer transcripts his initial call of the traffic was exactly that format and the helicopter acknowledges the traffic in sight and is approved visual separation. they some time later 30-60 seconds at least (maybe more) there are the more common published transcripts where the controller uses non standard phraseology in quick succession to attempt to point out and ask he helicopter to pass behind the traffic. the non-standard phraseology and voice is clearly stressed because its the moment in time the ATC controller becomes first concerned by the proximity of the helicopter and airplane and clearly he is making a quick call to try to see if the helicopter still "has him in sight" or if he needs to take action (like sending the CRJ around). unfortunately after the second quick non standard call the helicopter again responds they have the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation. perhaps 10-15 seconds later the midair occurs. detailed audio long before and after the incident is here:

Subjects ATC CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Phraseology (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.

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

JG1
January 30, 2025, 15:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817310

"Do you have the CRJ in sight?"
Honestly, at night? A light is a light. Which CRJ, where?
ATC have had a large input into a lot of past accidents. Briefed as one of our biggest threats, especially in the US and the 3rd world. Curiously, never in the UK.

Subjects ATC CRJ

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.

Climb150
January 30, 2025, 15:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817312

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG1

It's easy Do you see the traffic? Yea or no. If there is an ounce of uncertainty you say no. This guy either thought he did or he didn't see it but said he did.

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.

BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 15:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817345

Observations after listening to the KDCA 134.35 audio file:

After LC provides CRJ at Wilson Bridge/1200ft/runway 33 traffic advisory, PAT25 requests visual separation, which LC immediately approves. This is several minutes prior to the collision.

LC is working at least 2 other helos in addition to PAT25.

PAT25 is responding to LC on VHF 134.35. LC is simultaneously transmitting on 119.1 and 134.35 so both PAT25 and the CRJ were hearing all LC transmissions but each was not hearing the others replies.

Immediately prior to the collision when the LC queries if PAT25 has the CRJ in sight and to pass behind the CRJ, the immediate response is “[unclear] has the aircraft in sight, request visual separation” to which the LC immediately responds “approved.” The voice sounded the same as earlier PAT25 transmissions. If so, the non-urgent tone of the reply would indicate that PAT25 had no indication that a collision was imminent and was likely looking at the wrong aircraft.

Subjects CRJ Frequency 119.1 Frequency 134.35 KDCA PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) 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.

Alpine Flyer
January 30, 2025, 16:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817383

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 DME ARC

Might have missed it but the CRJ wasn't given any traffic on the Blackhawk??

As stated already, what are they supposed to do with that information? There\x91s a pretty tight envelope you have to follow to get that CRJ down to the runway without running afoul of external (noise) or company (stabilized approach) rules. There\x91s not much time to look out towards two o\x91clock for a darkish green or camo helo that is one stationary speck of light against the backdrop of an urban agglomeration. Even if you see it it will need to be quite close before you realize it will hit you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Climb150

It's easy Do you see the traffic? Yea or no. If there is an ounce of uncertainty you say no. This guy either thought he did or he didn't see it but said he did.

As it\x92s unlikely that the helo crew flew with a death wish it is most likely that they thought they saw it. As stated numerous times the system cannot be allowed to be based on pilots seeing other planes at night, at least not in airspace as busy as that.

While we don\x92t operate like that in Europe we shouldn\x92t be too sanctimonious as it is root less in a superior sense for safety than a dearth of GA/military VIP traffic. Most European leaders don\x92t have themselves shuttled to/from downtown in a helo, senior officials even less so. AFAIK even the late queen took a car to the airport to be seen and believed.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ

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.

Luc Lion
January 30, 2025, 17:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817417

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

which would make me ask the question what height the CRJ should have been at at the point it collided with t he helicopter.

Between 229 and 263 feet above runway TDZ whose altitude is 14 feet MSL, if the plane was spot on the visual glide slope indicated by the PAPI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

Was the CRJ Crew using Glide Slope information as part of their VFR Approach procedure for the designated runway?

Yes, there is a PAPI or VGSI (a set of lights on the ground near the TDZ whose colours indicate if the plane is on the glide slope).
I couldn't find any NOTAM that would have signaled a non-functioning PAPI and, in a clear night, any trained pilot would follow the PAPI indication out of force of habit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

The other question is at what point would the CRJ Crew have benefit of visual glide slope lighting for the RWY 33?

The circling approach for RW33 after an ILS RW01 follows more or less the same path as the RNAV approach for RW33 and the final segment of this RNAV approach is an Extended Visual Segment
starting at the Visual Guidance Fix (VGF) IDTEK which is overhead of the motorway I-295 (if I am not mistaken).
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the pilot would have aimed at passing overhead IDTEK at 490 feet MSL as specified in the RNAV procedure.
IDTEK is about at 1.4 nm or 8500 ft from the threshold or about 9600 ft from the TDZ.
With a published PAPI glideslope of 3.00\xb0, the glideslope path is at about 500 ft MSL at IDTEK

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

Can one derive a reasonable height above ground for the collision point....and/or a distance from the Touchdown Point of RWY33 for comparison to what seems to be the height and distance from the TD point?

Yes. The radar tracks show the collision above the eastern side of the river on the runway extended centerline. That makes the collision point between 1000 m and 1200 m from the threshold.
And the distance TDZ - threshold is about 330 m for this runway.
With some trigonometric calculation, you end up with a height between 229 and 263 feet above runway TDZ, under the assumption that the plane was spot on the glide.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Radar VFR

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

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

WHBM
January 30, 2025, 17:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817425

The sudden right turn by the helo in the final moments is surprising, but I wonder, given the bland "Can you see the CRJ", followed by "Pass behind the CRJ", whether they were actually looking, in the dark through their night vision goggles, at the aircraft lined up on 01 which was just starting its takeoff run. "Can you see it". There it is, down there. "Pass behind it". OK, let's turn now to pass behind it.

Subjects CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (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.

Hot 'n' High
January 30, 2025, 17:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817442

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHBM

On NVGs, just my thoughts but the can some RW Mil people comment on NGVs in a built-up area? The work to make the cockpit NVG-compatible is very significant (I did get involved with that side - all sorts of lights have to be replaced) and, when flying in trail on NVGs, only the rear aircraft had it's Nav lights on so the aircraft in front does not blind the crew behind. IR cameras in a built-up area is one thing (as in the police chasing down crims!) but NVG in a heavily built-up area? That's a whole new ball-game. With the stuff I dealt with that was impossible! Things may have changed. Be interested to know!

Subjects CRJ Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (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.

fdr
January 30, 2025, 17:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817466

Quote:

Originally Posted by thparkth

Imagine being that ATC right now. As if yesterday wasn't horrific enough, the President of the USA is now on TV implying that the accident was directly your fault, and that you are a mentally-handicapped diversity hire.

For a minute there, I misread your post, and thought that Trump was the mentally handicapped diversity hire!

Hanging the ATCO on duty will not bring back the dead, and was not the cause of the problem. Having a civil aircraft flight path immediately overhead a LL RW VFR transit lane that guarantees that there is a loss of separation standards is what set this off, and that has been the case for decades. The crews, pax, ATC officers and families just happened to be the ones that got caught out by the insanity that permitted this track and procedure to exist.

Will Mr T go after the ATC guy? probably, the ATC officer doesn't own a kingdom, a corporation, in fact he is highly unlikely to have a DUI, and certainly won't be a convicted felon. So, I would rate the ATC guy as the convenient fall guy for the US Govt, the FAA who should not have permitted the operation of civil aircraft proximate to military LL traffic, and the US DOD, who will have signed off on the practice of disregarding minimum separation per \xa791.111. As far as right of way, the CRJ was landing, \xa791.113(g) applies, notwithstanding 91.113(d). The CRJ had every reasonable expectation of not sharing a cockpit on short finals to a short runway with crossing helo traffic.

IDTEK is 1.4nm from touchdown, 490' PA
the east bank of the river is half way to the runway, ~0.7nm, -> 245'+40' = 285'PA
the collision occurred around mid river, ~0.3-0.4nm from T/D, or 125+40=165'

How does a 200' transit height down the east side of the river overwater provide any reasonable separation for the guys who were unfortunate last night to be the graphic example of normalisation of deviation, by the US GOVT, FAA, and US DOD.

What is particularly annoying is that the generals and other command staff, and Secretaries of Transport, Defence etc are quite happy to cashier the F-18 pilots who do a slow flypast of an arena, or the T-38 instructors who do the same over some other game, and yet, what is the chance that any general takes responsibility for their part in this sorry state of affairs. responsibility like other stuff, only goes downwards,

Its pretty easy for the guy in charge to defame the ATCO.

Glass houses.

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ FAA President Donald Trump Separation (ALL) VFR

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

33 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: "CRJ" [Posts: 363 Page: 2 of 19]¶