Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Last Index Page
| thparkth
January 30, 2025, 17:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817469 |
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| photonclock
January 30, 2025, 18:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817485 |
The longer video shows that the "late warning" was the SECOND time that ATC asked the helicopter pilot to confirm that he was visual with the CRJ, and that he was avoiding it. The ATC followed the established procedure of allowing the heli to visually separate itself from the arriving aircraft, which the heli had specifically requested from ATC. You might argue that the procedure isn't safe, and I would agree... but individual ATCs are expected to follow the procedures they're given.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 18:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817497 |
If that published in AIP route 4 crossing under the final approach path of RWY 33 says max 200 ft and according the calculations made by Luc Lion earlier the altitude of the CRJ was, if not exactly on the PAPI , very close to it at 300 Ft in less than a mile before TDZ. But 100 ft separation is not a normal civil vertical separation standard in controlled airspace, for an IFR flight. it is 500 ft minimum in our books. . One of the roots of the problem is right there : a published route where you need a visual military type separation to make it work . And it may have worked hundreds of times before , sometimes with luck I am sure, but this time it did not and this was just an accident waiting to happen written in the book.
To answer an earlier question , Yes they have CISM , NATCA is good at this , they will take care of the controllers. @ fdr : our posts crossed each other , fully agree with you . Subjects
Accident Waiting to Happen
CRJ
IFR
Route 4
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| FUMR
January 30, 2025, 19:05:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817547 |
There was a line of traffic on approach to 01. The helicopter's track did not conflict with the extended line of 01. The problem starts with the CRJ accepting 33, breaking right and positioning for a left turn onto final. I don't think (despite ATC's info) that the chopper crew were quite fully aware of this and were in fact looking at traffic along the extended line of 01. The relatively late runway change, common as it is at DCA, was a major contributor to this accident in terms of the chopper pilots' awareness. Just thinking out loud and speculating like many others on here.
Subjects
CRJ
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| CONAIR11
January 30, 2025, 19:44:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817589 |
There was a line of traffic on approach to 01. The helicopter's track did not conflict with the extended line of 01. The problem starts with the CRJ accepting 33, breaking right and positioning for a left turn onto final. I don't think (despite ATC's info) that the chopper crew were quite fully aware of this and were in fact looking at traffic along the extended line of 01. The relatively late runway change, common as it is at DCA, was a major contributor to this accident in terms of the chopper pilots' awareness. Just thinking out loud and speculating like many others on here.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Lomon
January 30, 2025, 19:50:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817595 |
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.
The helicopter was tracking in southerly direction with the airliner passing left to right in front of them. A right turn is the obvious avoiding action as a last ditch manoeuvre to avoid a collision. Subjects
CRJ
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| jumpseater
January 30, 2025, 20:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817604 |
A possibility I can see here is that the PAT25 crew misidentified AAL3130 (on extended final for 01) as the CRJ. If so, they didn't see the CRJ to their left and possibly above them descending. If the CRJ descended into the helicopter from above the CRJ crew would likely not have seen PAT25 as it would have been in the blind spot underneath the nose.
Subjects
CRJ
PAT25
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Meehan Mydogg
January 30, 2025, 20:28:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817627 |
Hi all, I’m a UK lapsed PPL and, having listened to the recordings of the ATC comms during this incident, a number of things strike me.
1. The ATC (local controller, or LC) was entirely blameless and appears to have followed all the rules. 2. Likewise the crew of the airliner were entirely blameless, and appeared to be following the procedures perfectly. 3. The mistake, if that is the right word, clearly lies with the actions of the crew of the helicopter here, and the traffic they reported being visual with was obviously not the airliner involved. We will never know what they were looking at, but it wasn’t the CRJ referred to by the LC. 4. My guess is that the result of the investigation into this incident will point the finger at some sort of misunderstanding of radio comms, eg. The helicopter crew might have thought the LC was referring to another aircraft or something similar. Remember, misunderstood comms was responsible for Tenerife in 1977. 5. The troubling thing, though, was that it sounded to me as if the LC here was on the verge of being overwhelmed. He had to speak so quickly that his comms were bordering on being unfathomable. And yet it seems that this was ‘normality’ at DCA. 6. Effective radio comms depend on the people communicating speaking clearly and precisely, so that what they say is understood by all parties involved. That includes waiting for read-backs and acknowledgements. 7. This man was having to speak so fast in order to do his job that it seems strikingly obvious that the volume of traffic he was having to deal with was far too high. 8. I remember that in the UK when I was flying radio comms were set down in a detailed publication which I think was known as CAP413. What I heard of the comms at DCA last night fell rather short of that publication, but it was in no way the fault of the LC. 9. Rather, it was down to whoever set down how much traffic capacity was ‘safe’ to be handled at DCA, and the procedures allowed to accomplish that capacity. It was a fault of the procedures themselves, and my own personal opinion is that having low-level VFR helicopter traffic in potential conflict with low-level VFR airliner traffic in this way, and especially at night, is utterly bonkers. 10. Unless and until the authorities in the US reduce the volume of traffic that they deem to be safe at certain airports, these sorts of incidents will continue to be possible. 11. But of course they won’t reduce the volume, will they. Because the greater volume means more dollars, and dollars trumps safety, doesn’t it, regardless of the platitudes of politicians. It’s just that they have managed to get away with it for so long. Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| C0ir3all
January 30, 2025, 20:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817649 |
ATC asked for visual avoidance in darkness
\x85\x85\x85
I am a long retired aviator but with strong views that have been inflamed by today\x92s tragedy. I am writing this post for non professionals so for you guys, please tolerate my carefully chosen words. \x85,.. US air traffic controlling has been awful since Ronald Reagan sacked all the ATCs in the mid 80\x92s. Their replacements were amateur (-ish) from the start and the previous highly regarded professionals\x92 ethos was not replicated. I stopped flying in 2010 so maybe it has improved since then.πππππ \x85\x85 I know we have to wait for the formal investigation. But I have first impressions. The crash today is an example that I can associate with. The TV clips are very revealing to me. The ATC (air traffic controller) asks the helicopter if he has the \x93CRJ insight?). The CRJ is the type of aeroplane. If the pilot replies \x93yes\x94 then the ATC is absolved from responsibility to deconflict them. The problem with this issue is that it is difficult or impossible to see what type of plane it is in the dark. All we can see is the plane\x92s navigation and anti-collision lights. So when the helicopter replied \x93yes\x94 this morning in Washington, he clearly was not referring to the plane he collided with a few seconds later!!!!!! He must have seen a different plane (and there are many planes at any busy airport!!). \x85\x85\x85 I had one memorable experience of this myself when leaving Los Angeles as a copilot in the mid 90\x92s. It was nighttime. \x85.The ATC asked me if I had \x93the DC9 ahead visual?\x94 I said \x93I have no idea if it is a DC9 but I can see aircraft lights\x94. He got the message! What they want to do is dump their own responsibility and pass it on to the pilot using his/her own eyes. And they speak far too fast etc etc etc. I feel sad for the airliner pilots of today\x92s crash. At that stage, at just over 200feet from touchdown (20-25seconds) their attention was on the runway, not looking 90degrees either side \x85..(They would not have been looking around in case another plane might be targeting them!!!) May they all be resting in peace. Such an unnecessary accident. i look forward to the accident report which will be done in accordance with ICAO Annex 15. In particular, I will be looking forward to their recommendations for avoidance of a repeat of this kind of collision.. POTUS\x92s comments today are totally in conflict with Annex 15\x92s words: \x85..accident investigation is \x85\x94not to apportion blame or responsibility\x94. Subjects
ATC
CRJ
ICAO
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| TEEEJ
January 30, 2025, 21:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817674 |
A possibility I can see here is that the PAT25 crew misidentified AAL3130 (on extended final for 01) as the CRJ. If so, they didn't see the CRJ to their left and possibly above them descending. If the CRJ descended into the helicopter from above the CRJ crew would likely not have seen PAT25 as it would have been in the blind spot underneath the nose.
See following video. Subjects
CRJ
PAT25
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| shared reality
January 30, 2025, 22:11:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817695 |
Yes, I saw that. Why wasn't ATC more specific, ie, do you see the traffic at your 1 o'clock, etc? Still, the question stands: ATC sees both aircraft, so why is ATC putting them on a collision course with AA setup to turn in front of the helicopter with almost no separation? The clock was ticking and ATC wasn't reacting with
instructions
\x96 ATC was just asking questions. Is that SOP?
In such close distance, on a collision course, there is no place for a question, but an INSTRUCTION, as ATC is the only one with a clear overview of the situation. Not trying to put blame here, but the controller needs to step up once he gets a conflict warning and act, and ask questions later. RIP to all involved, a truly sad and avoidable event. Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
PAT25
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| CayleysCoachman
January 30, 2025, 22:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817697 |
Listening to the ATC transcript on YouTube, one can clearly hear ATC receive a conflict warning as the CRJ and the Blackhawk get close. Why on earth didn't ATC immediately instruct the helo simply to "PAT25 turn left hdg xxx IMMEDIATELY, I say again ..." , instead he again asked for verification that PAT 25 had the CRJ in sight?
In such close distance, on a collision course, there is no place for a question, but an INSTRUCTION, as ATC is the only one with a clear overview of the situation. Not trying to put blame here, but the controller needs to step up once he gets a conflict warning and act, and ask questions later. RIP to all involved, a truly sad and avoidable event. Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
PAT25
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| TachyonID
January 30, 2025, 22:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817698 |
The audio is stitched back together. But that's why nobody picked up the responses from the Helo crew, despite the LC clearly hearing and getting acks. Complicating matters in that TRACON is that the military A/C also have their own controller on the assigned frequency. This is probably essential given the comings and goings at the Pentagon and local bases. Given the track for the helo? It sure appears they expected the aircraft they were waiting on was lined up for 1, not 33. Given this, it is at least possible that they were watching the lights coming from the inbound AC from the Localizer for 1 (a A319 AA plane), not the CRJ descending through their position towards 33. It's all conjecture, but the use of a separate frequency for the Pentagon-adjacent traffic is cited in several reputable reports as of this AM. Juan Brown's just uploaded an update with further information on the frequency split. It seems clear from that the the CRJ likely could not hear the Blackhawk. And, with less certainty, that the Blackhawk probably didn't hear transmissions from the CRJ. Last edited by TachyonID; 30th January 2025 at 23:14 . Reason: Clarify sources for statement about AC on two different frequencies. Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
KDCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| alfaman
January 30, 2025, 22:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817716 |
OK so what's your interpretation of the rules here then?
The airliner is under IFR rules on its flight plan until it gets changed to a different runway, when it's then VFR. The chopper is under VFR, stooging along a river at 200 ft and avoiding traffic on approach to Reagan by visual clues alone. Radar useless as the aircraft are too low. Airliner TCAS useless as inhibited, even if it can decode the military transponder's data. Radio situational awareness compromised as chopper on UHF, airliner on VHF. So each aircraft can neither hear the other nor the ATC instructions to that aircraft. It's difficult to see aircraft at night against a backdrop of a city with thousands of lights. And when you're gonna hit something, as others have said, that light doesn't move relative to you, so you don't notice it - it just blends into the background lights. It only takes the chopper to misidentify the aircraft it's supposed to go behind and to therefore turn into the path of the airliner it was supposed to avoid - draw the map with the vectors and it all makes sense. These two aircraft ended up in the Potomac, but they could have ended up in much worse places in terms of loss of life on the ground. Seems to me it's been an accident waiting to happen for some time. Subjects
ATC
Accident Waiting to Happen
CRJ
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
Separation (ALL)
Situational Awareness
TCAS (All)
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Pilot DAR
January 30, 2025, 23:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817736 |
but my understanding was always that the flight rules for the CRJ don't change, unless the crew cancel their IFR plan: ie flying a visual approach doesn't change the flight rule status. The crew can still expect IFR separation from other IFR & SVFR flights, & traffic information on conflicting VFR flights.
Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| jumpseater
January 30, 2025, 23:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817743 |
I can't speak for the USA, but my understanding was always that the flight rules for the CRJ don't change, unless the crew cancel their IFR plan: ie flying a visual approach doesn't change the flight rule status. The crew can still expect IFR separation from other IFR & SVFR flights, & traffic information on conflicting VFR flights.
In the US does an agreement to make a visual approach regardless of airspace classification, cancel IFR separation requirements for the ATCO? Subjects
ATC
ATCO
CRJ
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| digits_
January 30, 2025, 23:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817762 |
Assuming the youtube clips are accurate, why did ATC tell the helicopter to pass behind a CRJ when both aircraft were approaching each other head on? How would that even work?
And as stated by other people earlier, but it bears repeating, at night you're *never* sure what traffic you are seeing. Even during the day it's extremely hard to differentiate between different aircraft types. At night *everyone* is guessing that the light blob they see is a CRJ or a 737 or even a PC12 or a C172. Visual separation only works when it's not necessary: in low traffic areas. And to deviate a little bit, I'm afraid the next incident will involve landing clearances to runways that are not clear at all. Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Pearly White
January 30, 2025, 23:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817772 |
The real problem here is expecting one pilot to be responsible for visual separation (at any time, but especially at night). At what point do we agree to release ATC from the responsibility of keeping us separated by sufficient margins? I know a miss is as good as a mile but if I've got a bunch of people sitting behind me, I'd prefer 500/1000 feet just to be on the safe side thanks. Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| paperHanger
January 31, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817845 |
It is not a tightly controlled environment. It should be, but it clearly isn't. The helicopter was allowed to cross through the approach path, while accepting a visual separation, to route at his/her discretion to pass clear of the CRJ. This would never happen in most other countries in the day, let alone at night where identifying other aircraft agaisnt a backdrop of a brightly lit city skyline is close to impossible. The helicopter should have been vectored by ATC to be exactly where they wanted him, when they wanted him. Asking him to visually identify traffic and choose a route around it is just asking for trouble. Whoever designed a helicopter low level corridor that passed through the approach path of a major international airport also needs a psych exam.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| dragon6172
January 31, 2025, 02:05:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817847 |
Could the sudden right turn be last minute (second) avoiding action when the RW pilots realised they were about to collide with an airliner?
The helicopter was tracking in southerly direction with the airliner passing left to right in front of them. A right turn is the obvious avoiding action as a last ditch manoeuvre to avoid a collision.
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)
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 13 Next Last Index Page