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, 10:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820374
The amazing thing is that there wasn’t an accident like this every month at DCA with the procedures and environment as they were. I suspect that there have been a lot of close calls and they’ll find a filing cabinet worth of reports but likely not much was done. If you continuously set up a dangerous scenario that in the end relies for safety on a procedure that is known to be unreliable (visual ID at night in a city environment), then statistics eventually intervene. This has likely been mitigated over the years by awareness, training, professionalism and sheer will to survive but when you are dealt the perfect bad hand and the last of the barriers to MAC fail, this is the result. Another factor pointed out recently is the “mission” status of military flights: someone with more gold on their uniform and a bigger hat than you has said to go and do this task with that equipment, so you do it.
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...
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...
What's wrong with this picture?
Last edited by artee; 3rd February 2025 at 10:37 . Reason: Corrected wording.
Subjects
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, 11:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820447
Has there been any confirmation on whether Blackhawk crews flying Priority Air Transport (PAT) missions receive additional deconfliction training beyond standard procedures? Given the reported multiple near-misses around DCA and now the crash, situational awareness protocols don't appear sufficiently robust for PAT pilots in mixed-airspace operations
Last edited by PPRuNeUser548247; 3rd February 2025 at 12:18 .
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
DCA
Situational Awareness
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, 12:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820496
Just an opinion
I have personally flown the the approach scenario that PSA was flying.
I think I first flew that procedure in the mid 1980's. It has been in use for decades.
I expect most pilots operating into DCA, and possibly this PSA crew have done this.
Based on the NTSB briefing yesterday, the PSA was at 325 feet +/-25 feet.
Had PAT25 been on the east coast of the Potomac, and at or below 200 feet, this accident would not have happened.
Just an opinion.....
I think I first flew that procedure in the mid 1980's. It has been in use for decades.
I expect most pilots operating into DCA, and possibly this PSA crew have done this.
Based on the NTSB briefing yesterday, the PSA was at 325 feet +/-25 feet.
Had PAT25 been on the east coast of the Potomac, and at or below 200 feet, this accident would not have happened.
Just an opinion.....
Subjects
DCA
NTSB
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, 12:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820506
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...ues-point-dei/
Plane extraction from Potomac River set to begin on Monday…
Crews are set to begin lifting a catastrophically damaged American Airlines regional jet from the bottom of the Potomac River in Washington on Monday, five days after the plane and an Army helicopter collided in a fiery crash that left no survivors .
What’s left of the plane will be carefully brought to the surface with the help of Navy salvage experts and specialized dive teams who have been rehearsing the effort, according to Col. Francis Pera, the Baltimore district commander for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is helping oversee the work.
The Army Corps said the process could take three days to complete. The aircraft will be hoisted out of the water with a crane and onto a barge, then covered by a large tent, providing “full discretion” for human remains that may still be on board, Pera said.
Crews are set to begin lifting a catastrophically damaged American Airlines regional jet from the bottom of the Potomac River in Washington on Monday, five days after the plane and an Army helicopter collided in a fiery crash that left no survivors .
What’s left of the plane will be carefully brought to the surface with the help of Navy salvage experts and specialized dive teams who have been rehearsing the effort, according to Col. Francis Pera, the Baltimore district commander for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is helping oversee the work.
The Army Corps said the process could take three days to complete. The aircraft will be hoisted out of the water with a crane and onto a barge, then covered by a large tent, providing “full discretion” for human remains that may still be on board, Pera said.
Work to pull out wreckage of the Black Hawk helicopter would follow, with completion of “large lifts” expected around Feb. 8, according to an estimated timeline. Crews will then work to clear other large crash-related debris elsewhere in the river, with a goal of “demobilizing” the salvage equipment authorities have rushed to the site by Feb. 12, according to the Army Corps.
The FAA also
said Sunday
that a system for sending safety alerts to pilots was operational after an outage that began Saturday evening. The FAA said a backup plan was in place while the alert system, known as NOTAM, was temporarily out. It is investigating the cause of the outage.
Last edited by visibility3miles; 3rd February 2025 at 13:00 . Reason: Adding quote about NOTAM
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
DCA
FAA
NTSB
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: 11820562
I am surprised with the NTSB statement that the CRJ was at 325 ft altitude: the collision appeared to have taken place over the water (the helicopter had a track parallel to the bank and its hull splashed in the water) and, even if computed overhead the river bank, 325 ft gives a glide slope with an angle of 3\xb0 and 28 minutes. This is between 3 and 4 whites on the PAPI (the angle separating 3 and 4 whites is 3\xb0 and 30 minutes).
* Not to say anything against the CRJ pilots, when getting night runway changes at DCA myself I would line up first and deal with the PAPI second. Flying over black water in the dark that seems a normal thing to do.
Subjects
CRJ
DCA
NTSB
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, 16:21:00 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, 16:46:00 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, 18:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820767
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 focused 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 ?!
I fully sign your deduction, but granted your assumptions are true that PAT25 was mentally focused 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 ?!
Subjects
CRJ
DCA
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, 19:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820823
There have been a couple of posts up thread about 15/33 and 04/22 being temporarily closed after this tragic accident - until 9th Feb IIRC. No one seems to have commented on this. So a couple of questions.
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Subjects
DCA
FAA
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, 19:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820830
There have been a couple of posts up thread about 15/33 and 04/22 being temporarily closed after this tragic accident - until 9th Feb IIRC. No one seems to have commented on this. So a couple of questions.
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Subjects
DCA
FAA
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, 19:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820835
There have been a couple of posts up thread about 15/33 and 04/22 being temporarily closed after this tragic accident - until 9th Feb IIRC. No one seems to have commented on this. So a couple of questions.
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Updated Monday, February 3, at 1 p.m.
All airport roads and terminals are open, and concessions are operating their published hours.
Runways 15-33 and 4-22 are expected to remain closed for the duration of the salvage operation. All flights will operate on the airport's main Runway 1-19. While airfield capacity is reduced, airline schedules may be impacted. Passengers are encouraged to check directly with their airline to confirm the status of their flight.
Subjects
DCA
FAA
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.
February 03, 2025, 21:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820895
and
Does a non-trained/qualified controller have the authority to use that data in extremis?
.
If you are a controller you know how we work , Problem identified , = Conflict with PT detected , solution found = delegate separation , delegation accepted = problem solved. Next ... The guy was quite busy with departing and arrival traffic in runway one . Now of course with hindsight ,, what he should, and could perhaps have done is very easy for us to say . Feel very sorry for the guy . I hope he is not made the scapegoat for this mess.
Subjects
ATC
DCA
NTSB
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, 21:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820928
That is a question I posed way back. Does DCA Tower have a slaved radar display? Does a non-trained/qualified controller have the authority to use that data in extremis? Personally, as an ATCO, and presented with imminently co-altitude and virtually head-on conflicting traffic, I would have intervened. But then I was always an interventionist Tower controller!
My earlier questions remain unanswered \x85 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\x92t use it?
My earlier questions remain unanswered \x85 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\x92t use it?
Subjects
ATC
ATCO
DCA
Radar
Situational Awareness
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, 21:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820932
Altimeter setting vs Altimeter error amount?
The Helicopter wasn't landing at DCA, but, most likely would have the airports barometric setting in it's altimeter? If it was off by 0.2 inches, that would be about 200 ft?
I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance
that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in?
I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance
that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in?
Subjects
ATC
DCA
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, 22:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820948
The Helicopter wasn't landing at DCA, but, most likely would have the airports barometric setting in it's altimeter? If it was off by 0.2 inches, that would be about 200 ft?
I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance
that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in?
I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance
that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in?
Although the route / approach crossed the main plan was surely to never let two aircraft on different courses /stages get even 10 times that close in passing . . which takes us back to the real issue
Subjects
ATC
DCA
Separation (ALL)
Vertical 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 04, 2025, 09:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821226
4) TCAS RAs on approach? you mean below 1000 ft ? No , in our scenario here , with the Blackhawk climbing , the logical RA would be a descent RA for the CRJ ,, you want a Descent RA at 300 ft ?
I think there is no problem for RA below 1000ft, it would only be like \x94TRAFFIC AHEAD, PULL UP\x94 in Airbus World. Horizontal separation might be smaller and system takes into account whether the traffic is between you and touch down. This DCA case is problematic because you join the final below 500ft, that is not acceptable in any case with an airliner.
TCAS 8 is getting closer and sooner after this horrific accident.
I think there is no problem for RA below 1000ft, it would only be like \x94TRAFFIC AHEAD, PULL UP\x94 in Airbus World. Horizontal separation might be smaller and system takes into account whether the traffic is between you and touch down. This DCA case is problematic because you join the final below 500ft, that is not acceptable in any case with an airliner.
TCAS 8 is getting closer and sooner after this horrific accident.
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
DCA
Separation (ALL)
TCAS (All)
TCAS RA
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.