Posts about: "DCA" [Posts: 332 Page: 8 of 17]¶

That is not a thing in the USA. Prior to security crap I flew to DCA in C-150s and C-172s to grab dinner frequently.

Whatever the procedure used in this instance, correct or 'made up on run' something went terribly wrong somewhere. Until the inquiry is done, speculation is of zero value in this instance, but a system overload and compromise in safety appears to be a rising risk in US flight traffic.
Sadly I would suspect individuals will be 'hung out to dry' for what is more likely systemic failure, starting from the top management trying to more with less.

No one is saying this idea with the helicopters isn't nuts. I haven't seen anything remotely like it anywhere else. I was wary of them south of DCA, I would be at 800 feet doing turns around a point at my favorite tree in a field and they would fly by directly under me

There is a general lesson and a specific lesson:
The specific one only applies to DCA, so unless you fly there for your job or want to fill out 1001 forms to get your own airplane in there, no worries, no one else does crazy stuff like that with helos.
The general one for me so far is how easy it is to see the wrong traffic at night and the next "do you see X" I get at night I am going to be triple-redundant sure and then some before saying I do.

Don't think this has been posted

NOTAM 5/1069 for DCA, valid from 07 Feb 0200 UTC until 31 March 2359 UTC

!FDC 5/1069 DCA AIRSPACE NOTICE...RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NTL, WASHINGTON, DC. HELICOPTER TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS NEAR DCA. THE AFFECTED AREAS INCLUDE: SOUTH OF THE MEMORIAL BRIDGE TO THE WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE, EXCLUDING THE HELICOPTER PENTAGON TRANSITION, HELICOPTER ROUTE 1, TIDAL BASIN AND THE WASHINGTON CHANNEL. HELICOPTER ROUTE 4 IS CLOSED BETWEEN HAINS POINT AND WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE. HELICOPTER ROUTE 6 IS CLOSED BETWEEN GLEBE ROAD AND JB ANACOSTIA-BOLLING. IF A LIFESAVING MEDICAL, ACTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT, ACTIVE AIR DEFENSE, OR PRESIDENTIAL TRANSPORT HELICOPTER MISSION MUST OPERATE IN THIS RESTRICTED AREA, CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE AREA TO PREVENT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THIS AIRSPACE. THE MIX OF HELICOPTER AND FIXED WING AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE AFFECTED AREA AT THE SAME TIME WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. 2502070200-2503312359

This simulation, if correct, is harrowing. The accident aircraft is actually almost superimposed over the following aircraft AA3130 at exactly the time of the tower's first notification of traffic to the helicopter. The helicopter's response is so quick, so reflexive. Then when the second notification is received, even though PAT25 knows he has just asked for visual separation and been granted he asks again, further suggestion that this is reflexive behavior.

At the same time the accident aircraft peels off to the right to swing around and line up to 33, thus taking his (smaller) lights out of the helicopter's direct line of vision and leaving 3130's (brighter) lights still heading to 01 to decoy the pilot. The reflexive nature of the helicopter's responses suggest to me that the full implication of 'circling to 33' in the tower's first call was missed, and also sort of implies that the helicopter could not conceive that following (nearly) the published heliroute could lead him into conflict with an aircraft on final. Me neither.

I'd push the expiry date of that one out a little.

I suspect the NYTimes simulation did not adjust the helicopter heading for crosswind drift correction + the wind aloft could easily be double the DCA reported wind.

The CRJ FDR should allow the NTSB to determine the wind aloft at time of collision.

I guess it could be extended ... and extended ... and extended
As IMO it ought to be

Please, can you stop this witch hunt on finding someone to blame , and what the controller should have said or should have done ? Are you both controllers qualified in DCA ? if not may I suggest you just read and learn? .

My understanding is that the FAA depicted width of a helicopter route is governed by the following doc: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...2-complete.pdf . It specifies that on a fully printed chart the route should be 0.1 inches wide regardless of chart scale. The chart I pulled from was 1:125,000 scale (full chart size is 51x33 inch poster), which would mean the routes "appear" to be 125,000 * 0.1 / 12 = 1,042 ft wide. In the same FAA chart package https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/12-26...-Wash_Heli.pdf , the third page is a "Washington Inset" with a scale of 1:62,500. In that inset the routes "appear" to be 62,500 * 0.1 /12 = 521 ft wide. Also, if you look at the centerlines of the routes depicted on those two pages (which I "drew in" below), they do not exactly match. For example, look at how the full chart shows the route going east of Hains Point while the inset shows it very close to Hains Point.


DCA Helicopter Routes

Given these chart differences, I wonder how far a helicopter can stray from the various depictions of a route before it is considered a pilot deviation? Perhaps the NTSB will give us some insight with their accident report.

Obviously I'm not a controller at DCA - but have been in another country for 18 years.
I'm not pointing the finger of blame at anyone - merely asking why the DCA procedure seem so lax to a controller from another part of the world.

Meanwhile how am I supposed to understand the DCA way of doing things if I can't ask a question about the procedures in place and then read the answers to learn about them?

When it comes to flight safety I was always told there is no such thing as a a stupid question.

Lomon , asking questions is fine , but have you listened to the R/T in any busy airport in the US like DCA is ? the traffic levels and the phraseology , or slang I would say used, ?This not ICAO land with little traffic . The guy here was trained to work like this , single position , 2 runways and VFRs crossings on 2 different frequencies. Your suggestion of what he should have said like " if not sighted do that ,etc," does not fit in here . No time for long sentences,,. The procedures were completely wrong , not the controller...
Absolutely , but you were not asking a question , you were making suggestions on what the controller could have done ,.

"...FAA depicted width of a helicopter route is governed by the following doc: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/iac/media/IAC15/IAC-15-22AUG2022-complete.pdf "

I think that the "width" that you are referring is for the chart maker but not the actual width of a helicopter route.

I can't find in any FAA document a definition of the lateral extent of a helicopter route. Is there one?

There are inconsistencies between the "DESCRIPTION OF ROUTES AND ALTITUDES" and the charts themselves. The Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary definition of "BANK 2 : the rising ground bordering a lake, river, or sea or forming the edge of a cut or hollow."
for example "RT. 4: ... VIA EAST BANK OF POTOMAC RIVER..." while the chart depicts RT. 4 over the POTOMAC RIVER not over the ground bordering the river.
while "RT. 15: ... ALONG THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND PATAPSCO RIVER..." and the chart depicts RT. 15 over water.

Hi, ATC Watcher,
I am sorry you see a witch hunt in my post. It was supposed to be an idea for a future improvement, rather than a criticism of the very hard worked man who was on the job. On the flying end, there is quite a rigid procedure to follow if a TCAS RA goes off. From posts since I see, that there seems to be one for for STCA triggers too. It seems to me that the gravity of the situation is brought faster to a pilot's attention if the Conflict warning is announced on the RT.
That is just one factor in this sad affair of course. Both TCAS and STCA are last ditch saviours but only if full attention can be paid to them.

Hi Bill , understood, I was a bit too harsh maybe, but I get upset to continuously read what the controller should have done. Remember he was trained like this , to follow procedures that were basically unsafe in order to move the traffic . I can say unsafe because they were removed immediately after the accident , not waiting for the NTSB to recommend it . No everyone is stupid in the FAA , they knew this route was in conflict with 33 Visual arrivals. And did not pass any safety case, but the procedure was kept , most probably due political or military pressures , relying on controllers and pilots to mitigate the risks.

Now on the Conflict alert on the BRITE display . I have no first hand info on the SOPs in DCA on how a TWR controller uses the BRITE and if STCA are even displayed . `, but if they are, seen the charts and the routes , I guess STCA alerts are very common .especially when you delegate separation and you then play with a couple of hundred feet, vertical separation Too many unnecessary alerts equals normalization of deviance, . Look at the Haneda preliminary report , same ..

Finally since you mention TCAS RAs , there is a major difference with STCA , it is not the same as a TCAS RA . With an RA , as a pilot you have to react and follow , it is mandatory , for a controller a STCA is just an alert , just like a TCAS TA , if in your judgement it will pass you will not do anything , and if you have already issued a correcting instruction ( heading, level , etc,,) or here delegate visual separation , the STCA just becomes a nuisance. .

I sincerely hope the DC Controller will not be made the scapegoat of this accident . Not so sure it will not.

Concur. Scapegoating stochastically guarantees a repeat incident/accident of the same kind under "rhyming" circumstances.

Rarely does the "bad apple" theory of accident causation survive the scrutiny of a robust, honest investigation.

Long version of Wall Street Journal article about changing DCA airspace use rules, from WSJ website (summary in print edition Feb. 12):
__________

Federal air-safety officials want to permanently keep helicopters away from commercial jets taking off and landing at a busy Washington, D.C., airport after the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in more than two decades.

The move, under consideration by senior Federal Aviation Administration officials, would be part of a long-term plan to improve safety at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Helicopters have been temporarily barred from flying in a corridor used by the U.S. Army Black Hawk that collided on Jan. 29 with an American Airlines regional jet, killing 67 people. The chopper routes have been used to ferry senior military officials around the region and to train for a \x93continuity of government\x94 mission in the event American political leaders need rapid evacuation from Washington. Other government agencies have also used the routes.

Federal officials have said they would revisit the helicopter restrictions once the National Transportation Safety Board issues a preliminary report on the accident in the coming weeks. Preliminary indications from the probe point to multiple factors potentially contributing to the crash, including the design of the airspace, as well as actions by the helicopter pilot and air-traffic controller, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The NTSB said it would examine how far apart planes and helicopters are supposed to be while flying in the airspace.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has criticized the Pentagon\x92s operation of helicopters near the airport. \x93If we have generals who are flying in helicopters for convenience through this airspace, that\x92s unacceptable,\x94 he said last week. \x93Get in a damn Suburban and drive. You don\x92t need to take a helicopter.\x94

The Army said it would continue to comply with FAA requirements and restrictions to enhance flight safety. The service said it was reassessing its aircraft operations near the airport and that it gave priority to the safety of the public and military personnel. The current restrictions allow certain critical flights.

Duffy also suggested certain military missions can be done at a different time of night. The Jan. 29 crash occurred around 9 p.m. Eastern time.

Defense officials have assumed that the helicopter routes would be closed in the coming months amid several ongoing investigations, but have privately said that the routes should be reopened. Adjustments under consideration if routes are reopened include limiting hours for training and test missions.

Reagan\x92s convenient location, a few miles from Capitol Hill, has made the nearly 84-year-old airport a favorite among politicians, business executives and tourists.

Space is tight at the airport. Reagan\x92s longest runway, Runway 1, is the nation\x92s busiest, airport officials have said, and it has two smaller runways. Routes into and out of the airport are constrained by no-fly zones around sensitive government buildings.

The FAA has said it is also reviewing airspace around airports aside from Reagan that also have high volumes of helicopter and airplane traffic.

Discussions about Reagan airport have also focused on a small runway known as Runway 33, people familiar with the matter said. The American Airlines regional jet was attempting to land there when it collided with the Army helicopter. Some government and industry aviation officials believe that there isn\x92t a problem with planes using the runway if helicopters aren\x92t near the traffic lanes.

Warning signs existed for years about risks facing commercial passengers, with planes sharing the skies closely with helicopters zipping up and down the Potomac River.

The path the American Airlines regional jet took toward Runway 33 required it to turn toward the right and then bank left to line up for its landing. That route crosses over a lane for helicopters at a relatively low altitude.

There have been at least 35 events involving conflicts between helicopters and flights into and out of the airport that have been flagged since the 1980s, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of anonymous reports to a system overseen by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

In one instance, in July 2018, a helicopter and small plane came within roughly 580 feet of each other while the plane was approaching Runway 33. The helicopter pilot had to maneuver to avoid the plane and questioned the air-traffic controller about it after, according to an internal FAA report on the incident viewed by the Journal.

Neither aircraft had received traffic advisories or safety alerts, the report said. The helicopter pilot reported the incident as a near midair collision. \x93I\x92m sorry for the confusion,\x94 the controller told the helicopter pilot, according to an audio recording of air-traffic-control communications following the incident.

Nearly two weeks after the deadly crash over the Potomac, the FAA has lifted some of the constraints put on Reagan airport in the wake of the accident.

The FAA on Tuesday boosted the airport\x92s arrival rate from 26 to 28 aircraft an hour, after temporarily reducing it to ease the strain on controllers still dealing with the aftermath of the crash, according to an email viewed by the Journal and earlier reported by other news outlets. The current rate is still lower than the airport\x92s typical maximum of 32 arrivals an hour.

Reagan\x92s two smaller runways, which had been closed due to search and recovery efforts, have been reopened.
________

I would say that TCAS is designed to issue guidance on a projected loss of separation, not necessarily an imminent collision (although it does that too). A highly simplistic explanation would be that it projects a nested set of egg-shaped volumes around the aircraft, which if it looks like they will be infringed can generate a TA or RA, depending on where the intruder is projected to make its closest approach. These volumes have nothing whatsoever to do with ATC separation standards.

The problem with conflict alerting is that in mixed-use airspace you will get a lot of warnings; I hesitate to say false as they are defined by preset parameters that may or may not be relevant to the potential conflict. Talking to controllers in the UK, they often turn this feature (STCA) off as GA traffic happily avoiding each other by visual and/or electronic means can fill the screen with so many alerts it distracts from the main job, especially if you are not in communication with either aircraft.

I would expect, given the traffic density around DCA, that CAs are so commonplace they have become unremarkable, indeed expected. Twice the controller was told that the traffic was in sight, so in their mind they are applying visual separation (no minima, just don\x92t collide). The takeaway has to be that IFR/VFR separation at night by visual means is inherently risky and so a questionable pursuit.

I hadn't intended to go all the way along the causal chain in my post. But since you ask, I think your answer only goes one step further. There are more steps to take.

Helicopters in busy airspace are not a problem if a safe system exists for separating them from airline traffic.

There is no evidence yet of the controller having made a mistake. He was undoubtedly busy, but that was not his fault. What could be done about it? The answers to that question take us another step along the causal chain:

1. The FAA could have provided more controllers. We know the helicopter controller position was unoccupied, and it's likely that closer monitoring and earlier intervention could have changed the outcome (notwithstanding point 3).
2. Controller workload could have been reduced by implementing effective procedural separation . If the DCA ATC rulebook allowed this segment of Route 4 to be in simultaneous use with Runway 33 landings, then procedural separation did not exist , however much anyone thought it did. At least 1.5nm or 500ft between flight paths would be needed to meet the least restrictive FAA separation standards, and this would have forced constraints to be applied to Route 4 or Runway 33 utilisation.
3. Regulations allowed the helo pilots to assume responsibility for separation. This is what happened, with the consequences which flow from the inherent difficulty of identifying and separating visually at night (especially while wearing NVG).

The authorities (by which I mean FAA and DoD) have questions to answer on all three points. Why was the helicopter controller position vacant? Did the ATC rulebook or staffing requirements rely on a false assumption that procedural separation existed? How did any such assumption remain in place after previous near misses? Is visual separation between helicopters and airline traffic a reasonable thing for regulations to permit, at night and using NVG? Ultimately it seems to have routinely been used as a release valve for the pressure building in the system due to the failure to address points 1 and 2.

Hopefully the investigation will be bold enough to ask these questions, which expand the potential scope of responsibility well beyond the individual controller and pilots.

Excerpt from Feb 14 NTSB Briefing Points on Mid-Air Collision near DCA So nothing yet reported on the CRJ CVR when maximum elevator was applied.
I was once stopped at a red light, began rolling when the light turned green - and suddenly found myself on the brakes before I was conscious of the car running the red light. Possibly a CRJ pilot similarly caught the helo in peripheral vision and reacted subconsciously.
​​​​​