Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Last Index Page
| sunnySA
February 22, 2025, 10:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 11833564 |
Which, put another way, means no visual separation, and I think that's the right answer. I would commend the DCA authorities also to a scheme we had in London where regular users of the routes such as PAT are given a number to call before planned movements to see if it was likely to come off. Another trick that I've seen is to add a suffix to the callsign for aircraft on a priority shout (eg. helimed).
Subjects
DCA
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Easy Street
February 22, 2025, 11:12:00 GMT permalink Post: 11833584 |
I can think of one: you apply IFR separation standards (the minimum in the US is 1.5nm/500\x92?), at least for night operations. If two routes come closer to each other than that in either dimension, e.g. DCA RW33 approach and helicopter route 1, then traffic must be actively kept apart
However, from a US point of view, this is arguably the solution which was in place on the night. It's just that the means of actively keeping the traffic apart, ie visual separation, failed. I am prepared to accept that FAA-style "visual separation" is slightly more robust than "see and avoid" in that it requires ATC to confirm that the pilot has the specific traffic in sight before relaxing separation minima, but the question for the FAA is whether "slightly more robust" is good enough when airliners are involved, particularly at night given the increased potential for misidentification. I am not sure the subsequent line of discussion over how Class B requires ATC (not pilots) to separate all traffic is a very productive one. Any separation instruction given by ATC relies upon the pilot executing it, for instance by maintaining the cleared altitude. Here, it relied on the pilot not colliding with the specific traffic he had confirmed visual contact with. So far as the FAA is concerned, that's a sufficient degree of control and differs from the "see and avoid" principle applicable to VFR/VFR in Class C, and VFR/Any in Class D. Again, the question is whether that's appropriate. That last point gives me an opportunity to make an observation I've been pondering for a while. Many European airport control zones are Class D, where on a strict reading of ICAO, VFR traffic is not required to be separated from IFR. But how many of us know a Class D zone where the controller gives traffic information and lets VFR traffic merge with IFR under see and avoid? In practice, European and especially UK ATC exercise a greater degree of control than is strictly required by the ICAO classification. At least in my experience, US airspace is operated closer to ICAO specifications ("visual separation" nothwithstanding). Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd February 2025 at 11:31 . Subjects
ATC
DCA
FAA
ICAO
IFR
See and Avoid
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
VFR
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| missy
February 22, 2025, 13:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11833660 |
The glide path for London City is 5\xbd\xb0 and obviously requires some bespoke training and approvals. I am not suggesting that you would do the same at DCA, but a 4\xb0 slope should be achievable for R33, which would add a margin that would take out many of the 'incursions' shown in airplancrazy's excellent diagram. If you don't have the training to fly a 4\xb0 slope, you simply refuse the request to circle.
Subjects
AA5342
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| WillowRun 6-3
February 22, 2025, 19:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 11833828 |
WMF,
\x85 well having searched the usual places and the NTSB, you will have to help with directions and text for reference. There is a NTSB Charter for data, but nothing which explains the link between ICAO and the USA, and thence to the NTSB and investigation, or the required statement of any USA deviation from the ICAO guidance (Annex 13). Notwithstanding https://www.ntsb.gov/about/organizat...office_as.aspx " fulfill U.S. obligations under International Civil Aviation Organization agreements" "to examine specific aviation safety problems from a broader perspective. " But back to the thread. Are there any reasons why NTSB might not comment on the wider organisational aspects as indicated in the discussion. Also noting that the NTSB have no powers of enforcement, relying on the FAA; thus if the FAA process were to be identified as deficient, who mandates change. ,, first, the NTSB's authorization and processes are set by federal law and not by Annex 13 (although as the excerpt you quoted also says, Ann. 13 does apply where the case is international civil av.); and second, the DCA midair is not within international civil aviation (sorry to find it necessary to state the obvious). I cannot cite anything specific to support it but I'm strongly inclined to think Chair Homendy, at this point in her public service career, will insist on a report and supporting analysis that leaves, if you will, political niceties on the bottom of the Potomac shy of the Rny 3-3 threshold -- where they belong. We will see, time will tell. Subjects
DCA
FAA
ICAO
NTSB
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| island_airphoto
February 24, 2025, 14:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11834921 |
It’s anecdata, but I have noticed a trend over the years for US pilots to sometimes call visual with the airfield or other traffic when they may not be as a kind of reflex when asked. This is likely perceived as being on the ball, helping ATC, keeping the flow up but it falls smack under normalisation of deviance.
Last time I operated into LAX there was a cloud layer from 7,000’ down to ~2,500’, really thick and solid, bit of drizzle, no breaks until you suddenly came out of the bottom of it into a different airmass. A few people were calling visual from 10-15 miles out which raised eyebrows as it was highly unlikely to be the case. Yes, they were going to be visual at some point but not right then. Would be interested in opinions from FAA-land as to whether this is isolated and/or very abnormal or they’ve noticed it as well... Subjects
ATC
DCA
IFR
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| AirScotia
February 25, 2025, 21:34:00 GMT permalink Post: 11835944 |
Very interesting discussion with a former Blackhawk pilot who's often flown that route.
Interesting that he was often asked to hold at Hains Point. Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| MarkD
February 26, 2025, 01:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11836047 |
Very interesting discussion with a former Blackhawk pilot who's often flown that route.
Former Army Pilot Provides Inside Information On DCA Potomac River Crash Interesting that he was often asked to hold at Hains Point. Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| LowObservable
February 28, 2025, 23:10:00 GMT permalink Post: 11838199 |
28 Days Later
I don't know whether this has been updated farther up the thread, but there is still zero helicopter traffic on Route 5 (Fort Belvoir to Pentagon), whereof LO's Secret Lair has a commanding view. Damn few other helo movements either. Even the DCA Coastie Dolphins don't seem to be around that much and they are part of
National Capital Region Air Defense.
Go-arounds at DCA are a daily occurrence (the Lair is smack underneath the flyout path), sometimes multiple. Subjects
DCA
Route 5
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Commando Cody
March 05, 2025, 01:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11841012 |
Way back on Feb 7, I posted this:"I remember reading from a number of sources years ago that Members of Congress do not like having to travel the distance to/from Dulles and that is a kind of pressure that it is not wise to resist".
Aviation Week letters section in the current issue as well as information on DCA's own website provides some relevant information: 1 DCA is over capacity by 40% 2. 01/19 is the busiest runway in the country for commercial operations https://www.flyreagan.com/sites/flyr...%20Graphic.png , and of course there are some other operations 3. Nonstop services at the airport are supposed to be limited to 1,250 mi, but Congressfolks like nonstop flights to their destinations [without having to go all the way to Dulles). 4. Congressional legislation "empowers" [and we all know what that really means] the Transportation Dept. to issue exemptions to this limit. 5. Between 2000 and 2012, Congress added an additional 54 daily slots exempt from the policy. In 2024 10 more exemptions were added, "over the strong opposition of the Airports Authority". [ https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airp...rimeter-rules] . Now add in a large number of helicopter operations... Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| galaxy flyer
March 05, 2025, 02:50:00 GMT permalink Post: 11841031 |
Way back on Feb 7, I posted this:"I remember reading from a number of sources years ago that Members of Congress do not like having to travel the distance to/from Dulles and that is a kind of pressure that it is not wise to resist".
Aviation Week letters section in the current issue as well as information on DCA's own website provides some relevant information: 1 DCA is over capacity by 40% 2. 01/19 is the busiest runway in the country for commercial operations https://www.flyreagan.com/sites/flyr...%20Graphic.png , and of course there are some other operations 3. Nonstop services at the airport are supposed to be limited to 1,250 mi, but Congressfolks like nonstop flights to their destinations [without having to go all the way to Dulles). 4. Congressional legislation "empowers" [and we all know what that really means] the Transportation Dept. to issue exemptions to this limit. 5. Between 2000 and 2012, Congress added an additional 54 daily slots exempt from the policy. In 2024 10 more exemptions were added, "over the strong opposition of the Airports Authority". [[url]https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airport/aircraft-noise-information/dca-reagan-national-slot-perimeter-rules]. Now add in a large number of helicopter operations... Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Commando Cody
March 05, 2025, 03:25:00 GMT permalink Post: 11841040 |
Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| W9SQD
March 05, 2025, 03:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 11841045 |
Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| WillowRun 6-3
March 06, 2025, 13:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 11841979 |
Assuming they correctly received/understood that the object they were to pass behind was landing runway
33
, not runway 1. That seems to be in some doubt.
Because without that information, they could IMHO quite happily look at the A319 approaching runway 1, intend to pass behind it to head south down-river until the A319 was no longer over the river, and loiter around the runway 33 approach until that happens. Shift the times by ten seconds and the same accident could have still occurred. Visual simply doesn't work at the required level of safety if there are multiple aircraft to be visual with. Reading this thread since the night of the accident, many have noted the "wrong-thinking" (for lack of a better term) underpinning the way traffic was managed by FAA and ATC. I'm not enthused about the litigation that almost certainly will be intense once it commences. But reading the thread I've started to wonder..... What would a chronological reconstruction of each incremental decision by FAA about the operation of DCA look like, a chronology that would (of course) include each Congressional enactment requiring or allowing further intensity of operations? The airport did not go from a nominal operational environment, with typically safe procedures and airspace usage rules very similar to or the same as any other major urban airport in the country, to the situation which obtained on January 29, overnight - or so it would seem. (Yes, reconstructing the facts to build such a chronology would involve quite a lot of discovery activities in the presumably forthcoming lawsuits, but I'm not veering off into any further comment about why that would matter or which party or parties it would help or hurt..... other than to say, very often, cases are won and lost in discovery.) Some years ago, on a trip to Capitol Hill hoping to find gainful employment on a Congressional staff somewhere, on the return flight from what then was Washington National, the aircraft's cockpit door was open as the boarding process was being completed (it was 1987). I recall being seated close enough to the flight deck - leaning a little into the aisle (a Midway Airlines DC-9 iirc) - to be able to see the pilot in the LHS and part of the D.C. skyline through the cockpit's front windows. Maybe that is why my mind somehow can't quite comprehend the recollections from kidhood of reading about the midair collision over New York City which is featured prominently in the book Collision Course , together with the events of the night of January 29. Added: Wall Street Journal, March 6: "Air-Traffic Staff Rules Tightened After Crash." Also reports previous "close call" incident. Highly recommended reading (and I didn't see anything to contradict the above post, WR 6-3). Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 6th March 2025 at 13:46 . Subjects
ATC
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
Close Calls
DCA
FAA
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Wall Street Journal
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| BugBear
March 08, 2025, 13:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843428 |
By the time the H60 realized the lights on the CRJ were too high too fast and too bright to be on final for #1, it was a half second too late... does the tail on the helo seem to drop just before impact, ?? Think they wanted to climb? Congressional perks in this case make me "see" red. All of Congress should be made to Uber from DCA for a full year or until changes are made. By FAA, not by Congress. ...selfish dolts. Last edited by BugBear; 8th March 2025 at 14:14 . Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| hans brinker
March 08, 2025, 19:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843569 |
DCA Perimeter Rule: The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles ( 49 U.S. Code \xa7 49109 ). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. Subjects
DCA
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| BugBear
March 08, 2025, 19:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843593 |
They should be required to take an uber to IAD, and all the added flights out of DCA beyond the perimeter should be cancelled.
DCA Perimeter Rule: The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles ( 49 U.S. Code \xa7 49109 ). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| BFSGrad
March 08, 2025, 19:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843597 |
Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| vegassun
March 09, 2025, 15:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843966 |
So the DCA Perimeter Rule was already a thing before the Wright Amendment/DAL/SWA thing? I did not know that and I lived/worked there.
Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| galaxy flyer
March 09, 2025, 15:20:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843969 |
Here’s the perimeter story from the DCA website..
“The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute mile“ Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| LowObservable
March 10, 2025, 20:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11844860 |
In '05, no, but within the last three (four?) years, they got the Metro all the way to Dulles, with Reston and Herndon stops included.
For Low Observable: no, it's called "an overreaction"
Spoiler
- Military organizations and government organizations have a long history of doing stuff like that. However, if you look at facts on the ground: Helos using Route 5 routinely followed I-395 and hooked around the east side of the Pentagon, which is closer to the RW15 piano keys than Route 4 is to RW33. Moreover, that stretch of roadway is elevated and has high-level lights, so the space under 200ft relative to river or runway level is that much tighter. I also wonder how Route 5 traffic got tracked on DCA radar given high buildings and the Arlington ridge. . Last edited by LowObservable; 10th March 2025 at 22:14 . Subjects
DCA
Radar
Route 4
Route 5
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 14 15 16 17 Next Last Index Page