pprune.org Page: 1 of 1

phantomsphorever
January 31, 2025, 11:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818121

I fully agree with Return_2_Stand
To ask somebody if he is visual with a specific aircraft type at night is almost worthy of a Monty Python sketch.
I am old, but 20 years ago - that type of question would be more like:

- "..confirm you are visual with the aircraft at your 12'o clock - 1 Nautical Mile - same altitude - heading your way...." or
- " ..confirm you have traffic on 1 mile final Rwy 33 in sight"

So they will probably crucify the heli pilot or the controller or both.
But in reality these guys had one leg in the grave and the other one in prison, operating in this area under the procedures that were proposed and agreed by the authorities.

Subjects ATC

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

12 recorded likes for this post.

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

PPRuNeUser134364
January 31, 2025, 12:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818163

Quote:

Originally Posted by phantomsphorever

But that isn't the first communication that mentions the CRJ. The heli had previously been told the exact location, altitude, type and which runway the CRJ was positioning for. The heli crew replied that they were visual. It is only later that the controller refers to the CRJ in isolation (with no position) but he is simply querying 'are you still visual with the aircraft that you literally just told me you were visual with?'. There is no need for any night ID skills and even if you don't have a clue what a CRJ looks like, that entire combination of calls still make sense. I agree that if the heli had been made more aware of how proximate the CRJ was then that might have resolved an incorrect SA picture, but the heli had repeatedly told the controller that he was visual. If a procedure is designed that allows a heli to correctly pass under another aircraft by 100-200 feet, at night, is the controller really supposed to be able to judge from the tower whether they are extremely close (as would appear to be the case if they were both on the correct path) or if they were on a collision course?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegss

[sorry, I don't know how to include nested quotes!]

SLF here. During my time working offshore in the North Sea, on a couple of occasions my return chopper to Aberdeen was "held" in the air just off the threshold to allow an incoming FW to land.

If that was a hold in the hover, it would likely have been a low hover on a cross runway (or another safe place on the airfield). I would be amazed if Aberdeen asked a heli to hold in the hover, offshore, at height, at night. Aside from the disorientation issues, it isn't a comfortable place for a heli to be in case of a malfunction. If I was coming back to Aberdeen from the North Sea and was asked to hold to the east of Aberdeen, away from the airfield, I would fly a racetrack/orbit.

Subjects ATC CRJ Hover Situational Awareness

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.

Luc Lion
January 31, 2025, 16:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818345

@ NIBEX2A this list is appalling.

Subjects: None

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.

Luc Lion
January 31, 2025, 16:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818351

Quote:

Originally Posted by kap'n krunch

My understanding is the helo involved was UHF and that the audio presented on various internet sites was manually combined with the normal Live ATC VHF communications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adnoid

That is exactly what VAS Aviation did for the SECOND Youtube video - spliced together the VHF and UHF recordings. His first video only had the VHF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

What's your source on that? You're suggesting that the civilian ATC controller was talking to the helo on UHF and separately talking to the civ traffic on VHF?
Because it's clearly the same controller voice. What's the published UHF frequency for the civ traffic controller to use?
His first video had responses from the helo, just not all of them... The civ ATC is sending to the helo on VHF and receiving on UHF? Is that mentioned anywhere on the VAS Aviation channel? Because the LiveATC recordings page has clips which include all the audio with no mention of splices being made.

This endless discussion about UHF/VHF frequencies is a bit disturbing.
Please read the helicopter route chart.
https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/09-05...-Wash_Heli.pdf
There is a DCA tower frequency dedicated to helicopters: "134.35 (HELI)".
And it looks VHF to me.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see that skwdenyer had already answered

Subjects ATC DCA Frequency 134.35

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.

T28B
February 01, 2025, 03:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818731

I shall remind you all again, as Pilot DAR has already reminded you all: keep the politics out of this.
If you can't post professionally on the aviation matters to hand, then don't post.

Whether or not the FAA has, or has not, fulfilled it's role is a functional, not political, matter if you can be bothered to constrain yourselves to the functional aspects of regulation.

You will not be warned again.

EDITED this post due to a link problem:
AA5342 Down DCA

Quote:

The moderators have had a background discussion about this situation, and agreed to stand by the exclusion of political discussion as is the policy of PPRuNe. That said, this accident, and the investigation and introspection to come are going to run the ragged edge of political discussion. We want the aviation safety discussion, we don't want it lost in discussion and emotion about politics - we just don't have the page space! (and it's a lot of work to moderate!).

Posts referencing actual facts, reported from authoritative sources, and primarily on the topic of the accident, the investigation, and associated safety are welcomed here. If in doubt, just leave out the political part of what you're thinking to write, we all know that you have an opinion, we don't need to read it here. If your post touches to role of a government official as a factor of the event, without inflaming discussion, the moderation team will do it's best to find a favourable interpretation.

Thanks for working with the moderation team on this...

Pilot DAR

Carry on.

Last edited by T28B; 2nd February 2025 at 19:01 . Reason: link problem required an edit

Subjects AA5342 DCA FAA Thread Moderation

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.

kap'n krunch
February 01, 2025, 03:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818753

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

Ugh, for the umpteenth time, and put it to bed, helo frequency to DCA CT is 257.6. Take another look at the chart, please. Army helicopters in that area communicate with DCA on UHF.

FYI, the PP in PPRUNE stands for Professional Pilots, stick with playing X-Plane in moms basement.

Subjects DCA Frequency 134.35

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.

Easy Street
February 02, 2025, 02:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819470

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport

If the Army pilots mistook another aircraft for the CRJ they were warned of at least three times, can someone look at the radar and explain which aircraft they thought was the CRJ? I see none they could have possible been watching instead. Considering the distance from one warning to the next and the Army pilot's assurance of seeing the CRJ both times, I don't see how any light on the ground could have been their focus either.

AAL3130 on final to runway 1. The diagram at my #432 shows how there was only 12 degrees difference in bearing between it and the CRJ. Someone else did a reconstruction showing that the differences in height and range made the elevation angles similar too. It's very difficult to judge distance at night (and impossible on NVGs). And unlike the CRJ, the AAL was pointing directly towards the helo so its landing lights would have looked brighter.

I suspect the helicopter's gradual turn to the right was a result of the pilots fixating on AAL3130 and instinctively flying to pass just behind it, without realising how far away it was.

Edit: this is the reconstruction which shows the similarity in elevation. Captain Steve and Juan Browne have put forward the same theory on their channels but without quite the same compelling graphics.

Last edited by Easy Street; 2nd February 2025 at 03:09 .

Subjects CRJ Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar

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.

T28B
February 02, 2025, 19:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820017

Greetings, esteemed colleagues.
Before Monday arrives and the posting rate increases, I will repeat the guidance that Pilot DAR provided a few days ago.

Quote:

AA5342 Down DCA

The moderators have had a background discussion about this situation, and agreed to stand by the exclusion of political discussion as is the policy of PPRuNe. That said, this accident, and the investigation and introspection to come are going to run the ragged edge of political discussion. We want the aviation safety discussion, we don't want it lost in discussion and emotion about politics - we just don't have the page space! (and it's a lot of work to moderate!).

Posts referencing actual facts, reported from authoritative sources, and primarily on the topic of the accident, the investigation, and associated safety are welcomed here. If in doubt, just leave out the political part of what you're thinking to write, we all know that you have an opinion, we don't need to read it here. If your post touches to role of a government official as a factor of the event, without inflaming discussion, the moderation team will do it's best to find a favourable interpretation.

Thanks for working with the moderation team on this...

Pilot DAR

I will offer one further point of guidance:

If you are (as many PPRuNe members are) a fixed wing civil aviator, or air transport pilot, I'll ask you not to post about (1) helicopter operations and (2) military flying unless you also have experience in both of those areas of endeavor that relates to this tragic accident. There are a number of our members who have that experience, so let's not let our noise drown out their signal.

We've had to remove some noise. I have received a few well founded complaints about the uninformed commentary about both rotary wing flying, and military flying.

Please do not play the role of the sciolist, but instead speak from your own actual professional experience and knowledge. If you have something to critique about the mixing of helicopter and fixed wing operations at and around civil airports, please be temperate and professional in your language.

Thank you all in advance for your cooperation in keeping this discussion professional.

Subjects AA5342 DCA Thread Moderation

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

23 recorded likes for this post.

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

Easy Street
February 02, 2025, 21:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820111

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brigadier

The CRJ700 was likely approaching Runway 33 at a heading of approximately 330 degrees, meaning it was moving northwest. The UH-60 Black Hawk may have been traveling at a heading roughly 240 to 270 degrees (west or southwest), which would place it on a near-perpendicular course relative to the plane.

If the aircraft were at a close to 90-degree intersection, then the CRJ700 would have been moving across the field of vision right in front of the helicopter, thus making the collision all the more perplexing, not withstanding night vision goggles (if indeed worn) interfere with depth perception and can reduce field of view to as low as 40\xb0. Of course there also remains the reported disparity in flying height, with the UH-60 100 feet above it's flight ceiling

See the marked up radar diagram at my #432 . I didn't annotate the CRJ's track, but the 33 centreline is 324 degrees true. The helo was turning from 187 to 189 degrees true, making it roughly a 135 degree track crossing angle: halfway between a head-on collision and a ninety. The final, constant bearing from the CRJ to the helo in the seconds before collision was 356. There was a slight left crosswind, so the CRJ would have had to look about 35 degrees right to see the helo. Meanwhile the CRJ was at least 11-13 degrees left of the helo's nose (more, given the westerly wind) and with the helo crew probably fixated on the A319 (AAL3130) to the south, they didn't see the CRJ until too late.

I can't access the METAR history any more, but I think it was 270V330 with gusts above 20kts. With the helo showing a groundspeed of 80kts on the radar trace, a westerly wind of just 12kts would give 9 degrees of drift and therefore a helo heading of 196, putting the CRJ just outside the 20 degree semi-angle of NVG with 40 degree field of view if the pilots were looking straight ahead.

If anyone can supply the METAR info (there was a report just 10mins after the accident), I'll update my radar diagram with the helo heading and a superimposed field of view. (Edit: done at #729 )

Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd February 2025 at 02:04 .

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Radar

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.

IFMU
February 03, 2025, 03:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820254

Quote:

Originally Posted by photonclock

Fair enough. I inferred his experience in military helos from his many discussions of his experience training flight crews. I'm not sure what other of his statements you consider "inaccurate" though, and you don't bother to back that statement up with any specifics.

One thing about his video first caught by Sven in the linked thread, and also by myself and one other is his lack of aircraft systems knowledge:
Mid-Air Collision - US Military Blackhawk & Regional Jet

That's private pilot stuff. I'd question anything he has to say.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)

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.

airplanecrazy
February 05, 2025, 19:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822469

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

Dibo/fdr: keep wondering why the Hawk crew made that last correction to the right.

I don't think it make a significant turn right, and I believe that what you are seeing is positional inaccuracy due to MLAT position limitations in the ADS-B Exchange data. According to Flightradar24, " MLAT position calculations have a general accuracy of 10-100 meters and 1000 meters in the worst cases." Given that, I believe this previous post from MikeSnow AA5342 Down DCA represents our best current understanding of the actual helicopter track and its relation to Route 4 (until we get more information from the NTSB). I generated my own zoomed overlay and got essentially the same results

The position of the collision shown in the radar data overlay is consistent with the position of the RJ as shown in ADS-B Exchange at the time of the collision (approximately 01:47:59Z according to the NTSB timeline). See this link from DIBO for the RJ Track with timing AA5342 Down DCA In my experience, times in ADS-B Exchange are generally accurate to within 2 seconds. Given all that, I believe that the Black Hawk was within the horizontal bounds of Route 4 at the time of the collision and that it did not make the right turn we see in the ADS-B Exchange map.

Edit: Corrected route number and helicopter

Last edited by airplanecrazy; 6th February 2025 at 01:24 .

Subjects AA5342 ADSB (All) Blackhawk (H-60) DCA NTSB Radar Route 4

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.

DIBO
February 14, 2025, 21:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828208

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltafox44

Just heard NTSB briefing. It seems that the scapegoat will not be any of the humans involved, nor even the procedures, but the altimeter system of the black hawk (a 100 ft discrepancy) and the radio ( they did not hear "circling" and "pass behind" )

(my bold in quote) well.... that doesn't surprise me.
For a couple of days now, was thinking about posting something on an "extra noise" I keep hearing in the R/T comms, when TWR gives the ' pass behind ' instruction. Was wondering whether TWR's Tx wasn't stepped over by someone.
My first impression was that the extra noise came from an radio call from a turbine helicopter (given the typical background noise often heard in radio calls from turbine helicopters). And was wondering if it wasn't PAT25 that started replying to TWR's first ' in sight? ' call, effectively blocking part of TWR's second call, the ' pass behind ' part of the instruction.

In attached mp3 (in .zip per forum attachment requirements) around 00:05 I hear this 'extra noise'.

Edit:
well, this seems to confirm my initial impression:

Quote:

Originally Posted by parabatix

Briefing the RT comms, NTSB stated that a portion of the ATC instruction to the BlackHawk to 'pass behind the CRJ' was received in the Blackhawk (according to the CVR), truncated due to the BlackHawk keying the mic at the same time. Apparently, the words 'pass behind the' were missing from the BlackHawk CVR.

Attached Files

KDCA1-Twr-Midair - PAT25 pass behind.zip (89.1 KB, 20 views)

Last edited by DIBO; 14th February 2025 at 21:07 . Reason: last posts with NTSB info seem to confirm my suspicion

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ NTSB 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

alf5071h
February 17, 2025, 07:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829688

benefits to the organization at the expense of the public

For those considering the wider issues and background to this accident consider:-

The underlying issue is the social structure that results in “regulatory capture,” and the organizational, institutional, and legal framework that allows individuals to justify their own actions, hide them when inconvenient, and leave no records in order to avoid responsibility.
Across the board, the Commission found ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organization that deals with nuclear power.
We found a disregard for global trends and a disregard for public safety.
We found a habit of adherence to conditions based on conventional procedures and prior practices, with a priority on avoiding risk to the organization.
We found an organization-driven mindset that prioritized benefits to the organization at the expense of the public.

Discussion @ Pprune Safety forum

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Investigation

Subjects: None

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.

MechEngr
February 19, 2025, 23:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11831852

airplanecrazy , This is a good image, and I hope this analysis is done in the accident report, with the level of detail that the NTSB can gather. I have done a similar analysis with the addition of a statistical analysis for production problems and it allowed a prediction of the expected rate of failure. It looks to me like separating out the dimensions - how the along-course spacing was maintained, the height, and the horizontal offset - would give some estimate for when all 3 overlap at the same time.

Subjects NTSB

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.

PEI_3721
February 22, 2025, 08:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11833475

shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards

# 1194 Caley,
"… and yet that is precisely how ICAO stipulates that accident investigation should work. The consequent focus on such things as ‘proximate cause’ and the inherent unwillingness to deal with underlying aetiology work against holistic approaches and generate exactly the outcomes you warn against. "

In part yes, I agree.
However, as you might know, ICAO does not 'stipulate', it provides recommendations and standards of practice (SARPS), e.g. Annex 13, on which nations can base their investigation and reporting.
As such it is the interpretation of by individual nations and their investigators which direct investigation, findings, and recommendations.

Some nations interpret SARPS better than others.

There is an interesting example (amongst many others) of wider investigation and reporting in the Fukushima accident report: Pprune Safety Forum Fukushima Nuclear Accident Investigation

Reforming the regulators
The Commission has concluded that the safety … cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformation process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. … regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity .

P.S. Re the investigation above, also noting 'Cosmetic Solutions'; if the findings from this DCA investigation warrant it, would the NTSB conclude 'This was a manmade accident, made in the USA'
.ii

Last edited by PEI_3721; 22nd February 2025 at 08:56 . Reason: PS

Subjects DCA Findings ICAO NTSB

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.

CayleysCoachman
February 22, 2025, 09:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11833498

Quote:

Originally Posted by PEI_3721

My apologies, I tend to regard the conversation here as being reflective of the lounge bar rather than the witness box. You're right, 'recommends' is a better word and I will try to be more pedantic.

Regarding Fukushima, the problem lies not with regulators, but with regulation and its evil twin, compliance. And on your last line, I might add, 'by politics'. The process of sharing draft reports with interested parties is harmful enough to the investigative process, as we have seen with crystal clarity over the Clutha case for example, but is even more damaging in its influence to the jobbing investigator sitting at a word processor, thinking not only of that process, but all the petty politics which are exercised by managers in SIAs. Sometimes the investigator feels charged with writing a benign account of a series of improbable, unfortunate, and unforeseeable coincidences, which aligned with previously unknown holes in otherwise-solid cheese, despite being fully aware that there is much more to it than that.

Subjects DCA Findings ICAO NTSB

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.

ST Dog
August 07, 2025, 01:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934436

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

My inquiry was meant to refer to an internal investigation process, possibly with witness testimony. Or does the NTSB investigation in effect preempt any internal Army investigation and reporting functions which presumably are conducted when there is no civilian involvement in an Army aviation accident?

If such an internal investigation happens it won't be public. Just look at how sparse accident investigations are when the NTSB/civilians aren't involved.
I've not seen a public release for the AH-64 that crashed in Galveston Bay Dec 2016. I know a few ASAMs were issued late 2017/early 2018, basically some pre and post flight inspections. Apache helicopter down in Galveston Bay, Texas

And that's about par for the course, particularly the Army.

Quote:

It wasn't mentioned ( afaik ) in the NTSB hearings but does the Policy Board on Federal Aviation (which I understand is situated within DoD) have any investigation role in this accident? Or in deciding upon and possibly implementing recommendations the NTSB presumably will make when its report is complete, to the extent the recommendations are directed to Army aviation specifically (or other types of military aviation generally) as these operate in the NAS?

I doubt they have an investigative role. They probably will be involved with policy changes once the report is final, though we likely won't hear much about it.

Subjects NTSB

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
August 11, 2025, 08:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936560

@ Sailvi767 : Are you suggesting that somehow the CRJ crew bears some responsibility in not acting on a TA and therefore bears some responsibility in this accident ? At least this is what I am making of your posting .
If I am correct can you stop this discussion Remember journalists and possibly families members of those 2 pilots are watching too.
To close that bit just read the CRJ CVR transcript (*)
47:29 : eGPWS : 500 hundred
47:35 : I got 2 whites and 2 red
47:37 : cool ( my note : so they were looking at the PAPI )
47::40 : "Traffic traffic " ( my note : TA audio)
47:47 : TWR :" PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ "
47:55 : eGPWS : ...hundred ..
47:58 " Oh Sh!!!!!
47:59 : sound of impact .

Subjects CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25)

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.

Sailvi767
August 11, 2025, 17:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936840

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

As I posted on here before I had that exact same scenario happen to me on runway 33 in DCA. Traffic closing on a collision course on TCAS. Tower reported the traffic had us in sight. When the traffic closed to \xbd mile with no vector change apparent We went around from 400 feet. We never saw the traffic. Tower chewed my butt saying the traffic had us in sight. I didn\x92t care.

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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.

Posts about: "pprune.org" [Posts: 19 Page: 1 of 1]¶