Posts about: "Final Report" [Posts: 8 Page: 1 of 1]¶

absolutely . the altimeter talk is just a distraction or at best contributing factor, Not the cause .. which brings us back to the safety assessment of the procedure , which the NTSB did not mention at all,, but I am sure , or at least I hope they will go into in their final report.
In any case the procedure us currently withdrawn until end of March and I sincerely doubt they will re-install it before the final report is out. ..

A couple of new info points the NTSB clarified : Both aircraft were on VHF , so we can drop this UHF discussion , the Blackhawk had ADS-B equipped but was not transmitting , it was check ride with NVG, and they most probably all had them on .and there was a last second evasive action attempt by the CRJ crew, which go a TA previously . On the TWR, the CAs are displayed in the BRITE even with audio on ..
For the rest we have to wait until the next NTSB briefing

+1 to everything you and Wide Mouth Frog said.

I sincerely hope the NTSB can avoid being distracted by the distractions of altimetry and the missing ATC words on the Blackhawk CVR.

Upthread, Luca Lion calculated the 3 degree PAPI approach path as crossing the eastern riverbank at 270ft. If that's correct, then the CRJ's 313ft radar height 2 seconds before collision puts it at least 43ft above the approach path, so the Blackhawk's radio height deviation of 78ft would have contributed only about 35ft to the erosion of any intended "procedural separation" (*) between the aircraft. Or, to put it another way, the same outcome would have resulted if the Blackhawk had been at 235ft radio and the CRJ on the glide. Height keeping of plus or minus 35ft can only be achieved by instrument flying, which is obviously not compatible with visual separation (or indeed VFR) so cannot be reasonably cited as part of a safety case for the procedure. And of course a landing aircraft could easily be below the glide. Altimetry and height keeping are not the cause of this accident.

Missing the word "circling" wouldn't have influenced the helo crew getting visual with the CRJ at the time of the trasnmission. At best, it would have given them an extra nudge that "runway 33" (which was audible) meant the CRJ would be taking an easterly flight path. Missing "pass behind" with only a few seconds to collision was irrelevant if, as seems likely, the helo crew did not see the CRJ at that point.

(*) The quotes around "procedural separation" are intended to convey a tone of disgust and sarcasm.

After having completed three days of its formal proceedings - which I'll predict will long be remembered for the Board Chair ordering witnesses from FAA to turn off their cellular devices and to relocate because one had been seen elbowing another during the latter's testimony - the Board may be about to enter a new kind of Washington ball game.

Twelve billion dollars here, eighteen billion dollars additional there, pretty soon you're talking real money (with apologies to anyone who recalls the originator, Illinois Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen). With all that federal largesse provided by the American taxpayer destined to be spent on the so-called "new ATC system", I have a question. Isn't it necessary to know what conclusions the Board reaches in this investigatory process before committing to - and I'm going to use my own phrase - the "new National Airspace Architecture"?

The United States needs a new FAA organization, on two fronts at least. One, separate the ANSP from the regulator (as probably hundreds of real-life aviation industry worthies have long advocated). Second, a new organizational structure, ethos, culture, set of career pathways, and everything else that is not fit for purpose for the immient and dramatic changes dead-ahead (such as automation, Advanced Air Mobility, environmental pressures, and oh yeah, increased traffic correlated with increased demands from the traveling public for the precise kind of bag of peanuts to which they believe they're entitled). Is it not the case that FAA has failed in its fundamental mission, because under no ConOps should it have been possible for this accident to take place? (Of course, there will never be a guarantee against one or more persons conducting relevant activities with gross negligence - but if that harsh judgment is levied against the Black Hawk, nonetheless the system should have provided stronger procedural separation.)

And all this is before decisions are made about what technologies to build into the new Nat'l Airspace Arch., what vendors, what geographic arrangement, and what connectivity the entire system will have with ATM in Europe and globally (and European ATM especially is moving rapidly into the future).

But the Board final report is what, 12 months away? 18 months perhaps?

And as the new National Airspace Architecture is supposed to be undergoing definition and development, what assurance is there that the upcoming 42nd Triennial Assembly of ICAO in Montreal will not take action which will seriously impact the U.S. process? Or set ICAO on further intitiatives which would constrain U.S. plans, and not necessarily for the better? Recall that the United States has not had a designated Permanent Representative to ICAO since Capt. Sully abruptly resigned (July 2022), and while the career Foreign Service officials heading up the U.S. Mission undoubtedly are fine and excellent public servants, they are not ( afaik ) aviation industry professionals.

None of this is to say that the NTSB should speed up its process and deliberations. But at the same time, if during this Assembly the Secretary of Transportation shows up - as happened during the previous Assembly - to speak on behalf of the United States, I hope the Secretary has very, very good speechwriters because it will be hard to say anything meaningful when the state of affairs is in such disarray.

Edit:
On July 17 the White House nominated former Delta Airlines Capt. and U.S. Navy aviator Jeffrey Anderson to the position of Permanent Representative to ICAO with the rank of Ambassador. Timing of Senate confirmation hearing is presently unknown.

NTSB Overview/Updates
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...CA25MA108.aspx
The docket is linked at the bottom of that page.

NTSB Public Docket
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA25MA108
The docket contains evidence related to the investigation. Many NTSB investigations have public dockets; often they're released with the final report.

In the docket:
10-HELO-A FLIGHT DATA RECORDER - HELICOPTER - GROUP CHAIRMAN'S FACTUAL REPORT
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Documen...0L_FDR-Rel.pdf

H 'n' H.
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes).

Before stating why I object to the aspersion you've cast on legal types in the context of the DCA mid-air collision and the litigation arising from it, I'll suggest that probably most all forum posters (and readers), if not literally all, have heard either an ex-husband or ex-wife relate their unrequited frustration and anger at how the other spouse "got everything", "ripped me off", "took me to the cleaners" and so on. And then someone else will say, "yeah, and the lawyers are the only ones who profit in a divorce." The contradiction is rarely called out, but it is no less a contradiction.

But as to this case. The passenger manifest of the PSA flight isn't necessary to make this point, but I'm sure the estimable Mr. Clifford would consume hours of argument and pages of supporting documents making it clear that 64 lives were cut short, and many were people in the prime of their adult lives - not that one life should be worth more than any other life in compensation in court proceedings, but taking for example the relatively early career attorneys who perished in the accident, their earnings potential over the course of their careers is less speculative than, say, projections about one of the youthful skaters (although I'm pretty sure there are standards which have been worked out in the mine run of personal injury and wrongful death cases). My point is, this case will yield quite significant damage awards in the end. Yes, I realize that issues of immunity of federal agencies will have to be surmounted; having posted a lot about theses issues I realize they exist. Yet the citations of FAA orders, procedures, and rules in the Complaint does suggest that plaintiffs are ready to overcome the immunity argument. And I'm leaving for another day and place the consideration, how do you think it would affect the FAA in the long run to argue that "na na you can't get me" because of "legal technicalities" when it is pretty predictable at this point that NTSB in its final report will be, shall we say, either unkind or unsparing to FAA, or both, in assessing causes and effects.

So the case is likely, if not certain, to pay out big. The lawyers will get - unless legal counsel are using very different formulas than are typical in cases of this type - about one-third.

How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.

This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3

Looks basically correct, though I would add some points.

- The bill mandates a "risk assessment", but does not explain what that entails, or how the person making that assessment should be qualifed. A simple check box on the waiver form, "I assessed the risk to civil aviation", would presumably suffice.

- The civil aviation authorities (DOT, FAA, airlines) have no input on these assessments. This is why Homendy calls it a "whitewash", because it sounds like someone cares about risk, but there's no actual assurance the risk would be managed.

- Because these and other important provisions are so poorly defined, Homendy called the section badly written, and she's right. You need to know what the bill is talking about, or the ambiguity leads to court cases.

- we have seen a legislative effort to mandate ADS-B IN, which may be ongoing behind the scenes, and possibly scheduled to a push with the release of the final report. However, ADS-B IN is useless (in this context) if the military doesn't send ADS-B. I think that explains Homendy's level of anger.

I believe, without this provision, the Army needs to fix their ADS-B gear, and go to the FAA if they need a waiver for those top secret missions.

According to reporting published today by The Air Current - one of its periodic articles reporting on air safety which are not paywalled - the NTSB will meet on January 27. The meeting will include revealing and voting on the probable cause determination produced by its investigation into the DCA midair collision 29 January 2025.

The reporting indicates that the Board's final report is expected within two weeks.

Various safety recommendations also are anticipated to be on the agenda for the NTSB's January 27 meeting.

Of particular interest, among many other factors involved in this horrifically senseless accident (my characterization, not found in TAC reporting as such), is whether the NTSB's meeting which will mark the end of its official investigatory process will touch upon the controversial section of the NDAA, Section 373 (subject of previous posts at the time of passage, upthread).

A lot of what you guys are complaining about was in fact adressed by the hearing, and will be addressed by the final report.