Posts about: "FAA" [Posts: 266 Page: 5 of 14]¶

N123, join the downwind, your traffic is a 737 on final 2 miles out, turn base behind him, you are #2. I can do that at night unless there are other 737s lined up and then I have to figure out which one.
N123, do you see the closest plane lined up, pass right below and behind him and never mind all the other planes right behind. Ah......NO.
There is night visual and there is night nutty visual. The first example leaves a lot of room for error and time for ATC to see if it is going wrong.

Easy Street:
"However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved."

Aircraft accidents bring lawsuits - like it or not.

I'm not a member now, nor have I been a member, of the part of the profession which specializes in suing usually anybody plausible as a defendant. That doesn't mean, as an attorney first and SLF second, I don't see big problems looming ahead. (A prior post on legal factors was junked by the mods, but that was then, this is. . . .)

The FAA and the U.S. Army are privileged with sovereign immunity, as a general rule. A federal statute - the Federal Tort Claims Act - enacted a waiver of sovereign immunity BUT with an important exception. If the allegedly negligent act (or omission) was taken (or failed to be taken) as part of a "discretionary function", immunity still exists. The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.

Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."

And will our fine feathered legal eagles sue American too, just to go after the deep pocket, and try to force the airline to take a position on the federal immunity questions?

It's too bad so much attention is focused on the dumb shows and noise currently meant to entertain the grandstands (if you get my meaning). There should be a way to compensate the families of the people who perished in this awful, tragic, and ultimately senseless midair collision. Is the United States civil justice system really going back to 1960 and pretending that what we are dealing with is the December 16 1960 DC-8 - L-1049 Super Constellation midair?

As another poster way, way upthread said, I feel rage.

Let's see if I have understood "plug and chug" correctly!

If we took the FAA to be undertaking "plug and chug" regulatory and procedural activities, unburdened by political considerations and at risk of having EASA or UK CAA regulations and procedures held up as comparators in negligence cases against it, then I think it is highly unlikely that FAA regulations would be as permissive as they are in respect of visual separation and runway occupancy (the two most obvious and frequently cited points of difference, at least where airline operations are concerned), or that DCA\x92s helicopter routes would have existed. So why such a difference in approach? Economic factors are usually held up as the reason, and I fear this takes us away from "plug and chug" regulation into policy territory where immunity would seemingly apply.

I very much doubt that any politician, corporate lobbyist or general would explicitly advance the argument that occasional accidents are a tolerable price for the traffic capacity enhancements enabled by visual separation. It'll be interesting to see whether the NTSB forces that argument into the open, or enables it to be avoided by distracting itself with altimetry and other such matters.

You should feel rage. Managing control of airspace is not a matter of political interest any more than the rules of the road for driving cars is. And in my previous tirade I forgot the earliest parts of this ****show which was an aircraft on a stabilised approach asked to circle to a lesser equipped runway in order to expedite traffic. The next time I hear someone in authority say that safety is our number one concern, I think I'll probably choke on my own vomit.

I agree the altimeters are not as an important an issue as the flawed policies and procedures were. Were the helicopter routes originally approved for day VMC only while, years ago, the airport was much less busy and over time due to pressures layers of added operations were added such as night and NVG operations?



While the PAT 25 pilots, prior to take off, would set the barometric pressure each gauge must have no more than a +/- 75 foot error (FAA). One gauge may have read + 50 feet high while the other one read - 50 feet low which would account for the 100 foot difference in flight between the two barometric altimeters. Many mechanical and pilot input errors would be potential factors. Not common but sometimes a pilot will read back the correct setting while at the same time setting a different value by mistake. IF the 100 foot discrepancy was discussed initially on the ground it may account for the lack of discussion , later in the flight, while at 400 feet PM and 300 feet PF. It begs the question was radar altimeter planned to be used and if so when?

Even though there are some transmissions stepped on for various reasons, the words runway thirty three were mentioned a number of times. As crossing the threshold to runway 33 posed a significant risk to PAT 25 I would have thought the PAT 25 crew, to know from experience, that in 3 to 4 minutes from the time ATC reported the CRJ crossing the bridge the CRJ would pass directly in front of them at or near the same altitude. It's not clear to me why PAT 25 would not have reduced airspeed and or held at HAINS point.

I belive the simultaneous helicopter and runway 33 operations should never have been permitted. Clearance limits and expected further clearance times mirroring the ETA for rwy 33 given to helicopters to arrive at or hold at HAINS point would have be helpful in preventing conflicts.

The diagram shows the route up the east ~half of the river, solidly over water. The inset seems to show it within perhaps the east quarter, but still 100% over water. Asking crews to follow the riverbank therefore seems to be a direct contradiction.

You could reasonably define the bank as the water's edge, and therefore expect crews to fly along an infinitesimally narrow path. Or as the space between the water's edge and the [edge of the flood plain | first flat area | something else], which would imply that the western boundary changes with the water level. Both imply the route is substantially above land.

Neither are useful for precise navigation, but the map and the description are probably 'close enough' if they are only needed for general route guidance and knowing that structures on the east bank need to be NOTAMed for helicopters, but probably not the west bank.

A good reminder that measurements/specifications without tolerance are often worse than useless.

If it quacks like a duck... this kind of "It can't be an X because we can't do it, so we'll call it a Y" leads to a culture that gets used to massaging the truth for convenience. Did we hear more on the Alaska door plug that was an 'opening' not a 'removal'?

This just a catchy phrase to make passengers comfortable, just like the : " Staff are the most important asset of our company " on can see in the reception hall of many companies nowadays . The shareholders must be smiling a bit when passing thought those banners...

As many and I said before, discussion about Altimeters or width of VFR routes are just distractions to deflect from the real cause , which for me can be resumed into the lack of a safety assessment and safety case of existing procedures. We all had to do this when SMS was widely introduced in the late 90s It was not that easy , but we discovered a few holes that were closed.
Here in DCA we see a couple of procedures that would not have passed a safety case : e.g Route 4, Circling to RWY 33 with that route active, visual separation at night , use of NVG on that route ..etc,,

Flying in itself always bares a risk,, our job is to minimize the risk , not to eliminate it , but here the Regulatory ( i.e FAA) failed to minimize the risks.
As in the US the FAA is both the service provider and the Regulator , and is in addition dependent of political will and pressure for its funding , the willingness to implement unpopular measures, may be limited. A Judge might look into this differently but for those part of the discussion I hand over the floor to .Willow run 6-3 .

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, if the heliroutes are published for the common sense use of participants, not for the protection of air transport, and we further accept that it is not within the purview of ATC to question the discretion of willing users, I'm afraid we can only fall back on this accident being the sole responsibility of the helicopter. Which I guess is is another way of re-stating your last post.

I wouldn't put it past the FAA to pull a stunt like that, read Mary Schiavo's (ex IG of the Dept. of Transportation) book if you want to know how wily they can be. And Jennifer gave them the perfect lay up in the last briefing.

The more posts I've read on this thread, the more I'm anticipating that court actions seeking compensation for the families of the people killed in this accident will encounter very tough barriers.

This is an excerpt from a website of an actually well-known, very accomplished, and respected group of lawyers who specialize in (among other things) aviation matters. I'm not using their name and I don't have any approval, express or implied, to use information from their website - but if justice is to be sought for the victims' families, public discussion is - or should be - encouraged.

"A discretionary function is an action of a governmental nature exercised by a federal employee, but in order for that action to be considered a discretionary function, it must pass a two-part test:

There must be an element of judgment or choice. That is, if a federal statute or regulation prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow, there is no discretion.
That judgment or choice must be susceptible to policy analysis.
The Federal Tort Claims Act contains a discretionary function exception that says the U.S. cannot be held liable for any employee\x92s failure to exercise or perform a discretionary duty.

Within the legal field of aviation accidents, discretionary duties for which the U.S. is not liable include the following:

Aircraft \x93spot check\x94 certifications
Weather forecasting
Failure to install equipment
The FAA\x92s design of flight procedures
The types of actions that are considered not discretionary, and therefore, open the U.S. government to litigation are:

The failure to issue air traffic control manual warnings
If air traffic control fails to warn of weather dangers
The failure to maintain equipment
Relaying incorrect instructions to pilots."
END OF EXCERPT [not intended as legal advice here or on its original internet page]

So to return to ATC Watcher's point...... the more posts I read about this midair collision (plus other information such as NTSB briefings) the more I am anticipating that it will require an act of Congress to provide for compensation for the families of the victims. Isn't it the obvious fact that convenience for people who work in Washington and travel "back home" generally speaking on weekends and when Congress isn't convened, is a prime and central reason for the way DCA airspace has been constructed and managed? Is it really going to be the case that because the lawsuits will - in all likelihood - fail to overcome the "discretionary function" exception, that the 67 families will be without a remedy? Is that how it works, then?

In case anyone thinks my sense of being horrified at this accident is clouding reason or logic, consider this - the book Collision Course discusses the PATCO union's genesis, the strike, and so on. PATCO's earliest stirrings resulted in large part from the 1960 midair over New York. Is the United States aviation sector willing to accept an outcome of this accident that in effect travels back over six decades? The point is, given the long-term shortage of ATCOs in this country . . . I don't think a court is capable of ruling that the situation, allowed and in fact enabled by Congress and successive White House presidential administrations, is subject to "negligence" analysis in the currently applicable legal sense. All this being said, this is how I arrive at thinking that in the interests of justice, some other means of providing for the loved ones of 67 souls who were on board needs to be determined and implemented.

Absolutely . Lack of Wake turbulence separation is something that immediately came to my mind when discovering the procedure . That should have been another red flag in the Safety assessment , but I assume initially the H routes were designed with RWY 1 OPS in mind and 33 only for departures. Combining 33 Arrivals with route 4 is the initial issue .
Indeed , and there is a precedent : the 1986 Cerritos collision : the NTSB found no responsibility to ATC as the pilot of the PA28 that hit the DC9 had entered Los Angeles Terminal Control Area airspace without the required clearance. However a judge found the FAA partly responsible to make sure the families of the pax , mostly Mexicans , would be compensated , as the responsible private pilot's wealth would not have been able to cover those.
Here if you want to learn or just refresh your memory ; https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...%20government.

As an aside , the NTSB conclusions of that collision are interesting compared to our DCA accident : ( exactly 40 years ago !)

Yes history often repeats itself . just like the PATCO history...

I wasn't insinuating that -- or really trying to be clever, either. I should have said this more directly, but the legal defenses that might be available with respect to the FAA's actions almost certainly won't apply to the Blackhawk crew. And the Government won't pay twice for the same accident in any event. So if the Blackhawk crew was negligent, which I have to say seems likely, the FAA's possible defenses are pretty much irrelevant.

An interesting point. But, consider first how frequently on this forum posters have observed that the FAA (and Congress) have favored higher capacity of operations over stricter safety-related operational procedures. It has been noted on many threads about many incidents. So - while admitting there could be legal reasoning that has eldued me - the presence of policy judgments in the FAA situation looks pretty strong, and very likely preclusive.

But, you're asserting that the Army can be sued - it's covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, as far as I know. Which is to say it will be claimed that the Army as an organization, and perhaps the pilots, were negligent. There isn't a separate exception to the FTCA's immunity waiver for the military in general although there is an exception for combatant activities in time of war (not applicable, right?).

But not so fast. The operation of training and/or check rides for VIP transport- especially as related to continuity of government operations - carries lots of policy judgments. It could be a more intense legal fight than scoring the FAA for favoring traffic capacity over stricter safety rules. For one thing, the continuity of government stuff probably is largely meant to be kept out of the public record, making litigation involving it more challenging.

If you put bad data into the best computer in the world, you will get bad data coming out of it. I would rather set the blame to the procedure designers and those who approved these Heliroutes.
It's way to easy to blame the pilots, over the years there have been incidents due to incorrect QNH settings, were both pilots and ATC have failed to catch the error, in a busy airspace with overworked ATC, late change of runway for airlines, and military helicopters using Night Vision Goggles, altimeter equipment failure/error.

Even the Max 200 ft altitude under the approach to a major US airport is an accident waiting to happen, and whoever approved this to be used during normal operations should be investigated. The CRJ was at around 325 ft on a visual/circling approach when it crashed, does anyone really think it's great airmanship to have a Black Hawk helicopter at 200 ft passing under you?

That's what made the Swiss Cheese model line up perfectly, a planned approved separation of 125 ft was the "best case" scenario.

Yes I agree. But it's also possible that the maintenance of such 'procedures' in the face of the growing body of evidence of their unsafety is actually part of a policy stance of expediting traffic, particularly given the highly political nature of the helicopter operator.

I've asked a question over on Rotorheads to see if anyone knows the actual clearance and service given to helicopters entering the DCA Class Bravo on the 'routes', and I'm happy to repeat it here. In London it's Radar Control ie. separation provided by ATC supported by radar. That's one part of the picture. The other is this startling revelation from Jennifer Homendy that there are no lateral limits to the 'routes', so in one sense they are not really 'routes' at all just guidelines with defined altitude limits. I can't find even altitude limits on the NY and Boston charts.

In other words, the way the 'routes' are used is quite possibly defined locally by custom and practice rather than designed with safety baked in by the authority, and that may be the way the authority intended things to be. In the UK every towered field has its own safety management system, as does the CAA. If these exist here at DCA and the FAA it would be instructive to have those examined as part of the investigation, because either they are not being used, or they're being ignored. Nobody could maintain that the risks on this 'route' were As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Thanks for clarifying that, makes more sense when you spelled it out more fully.

Another case is the 1971 midair between Hughes Airwest Flight 706 (DC-9) and a USMC F-4. The backstory of the maintenance status of the Phantom is a mess.

The catch here is that we have had roughly two decades of (to my mind) inexplicable fatality-free aviation safety bliss in the US despite significant and slowly rising rates of runway incursions and near misses, and although it's great that everyone except for one Southwest passenger survived all of that, the good fortune has, I think, been mistaken for validation of procedures.

Indeed , as reminder this is the official ICAO definition of class B airspace :
My bold. so in essence not by one of the pilots. But this is ICAO, not FAA .

I agree that is a solution, indeed the obvious one from my European point of view. What I was trying and failing to think of was a route design which guaranteed separation without ATC intervention, which is what I thought meleagertoo was asking for.

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).

I'm sure it does, but UK helimeds use the suffix to indicate they are actually on a shout, rather than training or positioning.

That's not called for. PEI 3721 has a respectful and thoughtful response to your post.

I personally don't think there's anything to be gained from going down the ICAO route. The NTSB has it's own charter and that's what dictates what happens in the USA.

I can see several ways the NTSB could take this, first the obvious one. The helicopter assumed responsibility for separation when it was not able to do so, and then found itself on track for collision. That's what I would define as true proximate cause. Then there's a step back from there which says nobody should be allowed to request and receive visual separation responsibilities in Class B airspace. That would be a good result as far as I'm concerned.

And the final step, which I think is more contentious and really hard for the US to accept, is that the culture at the FAA and within the industry is to balance safety and boosterism for the industry, and I think that is a recipe for irreconcilable conflicts. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I'm surprised that this is your conclusion. I think what I take away from the conversations on the night was that ATC was divesting himself of responsibility, and the helicopter was trying to expedite his sortie, and nothing in the 'system' prevented them from doing that. Removal of visual separation as an option IMHO deals with that hole in the cheese. It seems like you're suggesting that the helicopter might ignore instructions to hold before the tidal basin ?