Posts about: "Hover" [Posts: 26 Page: 1 of 2]¶

When and where I learned to fly (and on each new rating, refresher and check ride) we had to prove that we knew airspace classification. DCA is listed as class B airspace (and special rules on top).
That should apply worldwide, not just in EASA land.
It seems to be a US speciality that ATC can delegate the separation to aircrews (visually) and this at night! And how the hell can ATC separate vertically near the ground when mode S transponders report pressure altitude in steps of 100 feet only?
I dont know the rules of vertical separation by heart but its certainly not less than 500 feet for crossing paths. Is one last digit more or less a separation? This heli crew should have been told by ATC to hold until the aircraft(s) on final have safely passed. It's one of the benefits of a helicopter that it can hover.

Sorry fdr, I humbly disagree. While it is near impossible to stop a light heli manually like a Robinson R22 without proper ground reference, those big junks used for all-weather rescue operations all have hover-capable autopilots. Press the button and the thing holds position even in strong winds. I am sure a Blackhawk has this feature too. And hover og at sea level is not an issue here. And I am sure you should not be allowed to fly a heli at night if you cannot perform a reasonable 360 flown shy above transition speed. Another question is if you should be allowed to fly at 200 feet at night over a built up area. But that's another story. There are so many risks staring at you with these procedures it's a wonder an accident did not happen before.

Did you ever read the UTTAS LOADS report? A quick stop with a tail wind, at low level at night over water, the issues are not dependent on whether you have franks rotor head or not, nor if you have a SAS system capable of entry into a hover. A level 180 with a confined radius at low level at night is also hardly a great option, one that puts the helo belly up to the traffic to remain over water, or doing a break into the traffic which is towards obstacles. I do not see that this flight path has been safe at any time, irrespective of how lucky the operators have been. If this is the de-confliction plan they need a new plan.

As an aside, the RHC is quite maneuverable, our low level / ag ratings using it require competency in torque turns, pedal turns which are entertaining but hardly beneficial to a UH-60 crew doing 115KGS towards a jet doing 130 KTS GS.

Fully agreed on most of your post. But don't tell me a heli cannot be given a "hold at" , "hold short of" or "hold abeam" instruction, I've got it many times. That does not necessarily require a quick stop. And this before this ridiculous dive to a 200 feet low pass to underfly an active approach barely a 100 feet above. I wonder who invented this procedure and allowed it to be used concurrently with aircraft on finals. If anything is asking for troubles, this is it.

Where did this come from? I've flown helis a reasonable amount in the US, and I've always been on the same freq as everyone else, and talking to the same controllers.

As for hovering, I've twice been asked by ATC to hover, once in the traffic pattern at Palo Alto KPAO and once flying the heli transition at Heathrow, both times in an R44.

Do you have a lot of time on a 'big junk'? Randomly coming to the hover at night is not like stopping your car at a red light. And not all 'big junks' have auto-hover, particularly free-air hover capability. Even if the Blackhawk does have auto-hover, it may well have limitations and it's not always just a simple case of pressing a button. e.g. is the surface (water or land) suitable for rad alt hold? What are the rad alt height limitations? Is the auto-hover based on doppler? If so, is there a max altitude for its use? The 'big junk' I am familiar with even has a min speed on instruments (not that this was instrument conditions, but it was night which has some similar characteristics).

Despite what some people appear to be suggesting here, in my experience it's not normal just to stop a helicopter to wait for a passing aircraft to fly by.

And maybe even more importantly, why would you stop if you have no reason to suspect that the flightpath isn't clear?

Interesting viewpoint.
My take is, in order.
5) No, I don't think he was overwhelmed. He was shot through with adrenaline and shocked as anyone would be having just witnessed two aircraft he was talking to seconds before vanish in a fireball, realising his career, reputation, life and future sanity was irrevocably blown to pieces no matter the cause.
No, no and thrice no. Assuming the tapes are in real time there are considerable gaps between transmissions so he most certainly did not 'have' to speak so quickly. He had plenty of time to speak clearly and coherently instead of spouting those eruptions of incoherent, almost incomprehensible babble.
Sadly - reprehensibly, this style of unnecessarily theatrical auctioneer-style unpunctuated babble seems all too frequent in the States. Tower frequencies are usually if not almost invariably much less time-pressurised as they handle fewer aircraft in a well spaced sequence than in a termnal control area.

6) Concur 100%. And they failed miserably to achieve this. I've been flying for several decades and struggle to hear one word in three (and only assume much of the rest because I know what to expect - a human factors disaster) of that controller's outbursts, and the shoddy partial readbacks are shocking to European ears.

7) Once again, NO! Even if super-busy (and I'd argue especially if super busy) it is essential to keep r/t steady, clear and comprehensible; gabbling that fast might save half a second on an exchange, but no frequency is so busy it requires that, least of all a Tower. He only had three or four aircraft to deal with for simple go-arounds, all well spaced out on approach. He pretty much had time to recite half the Lord's Prayer to each.

This crazy r/t seems to be a cultural thing and needs to be changed, as do some fundamental procedures like having helo lanes crossing final approach tracks at essentially the same height instead of with decent vertical separation. Why wasn't the helilane at 800ft or 1000ft as a Heathrow? No aircraft is up there one mile out from finals while every single one is at 300ft. Madness. Just madness. It's like a figure 8 banger race dodging cars at the intersection. If there was a flyover - vertical separation too accidents would be all but eliminated.

And this buisness of "...pass behind the CRJ on finals" when no none can determine whether the lights in sight are a CRJ, a Cessna or the Space Shuttle or in what sequence they are landing. It might work in daylight but imho it assumes unreasonable levels of instant almost head-on aircraft recognition - a disastrous human factors trap quite aside from the additional one of assumption.

I'm not having a go at the poor controller who imho is compleely blameless, he did his job as well as the flawed system that indoctrinated him allowed.

As for 'stopping' helicopters in a free- air hover. This is (in my experience) never ever requested, done or attempted as a traffic avoidance method. I can only assume people suggesting this have absolutely zero knowlege of flying helos and the litany of pitfalls and hazards it would generate, helos simply do not 'stop' in midair unless they have to for SAR, load-lfting ot maybe surveillance. If necessary, as in holding at 'dual taxiways' between the Heathrow runways at 1000ft you'd slow to a sensible speed, maybe 50-60Kts in a tight orbit and even that is 'interesting' in 40Kts of wind. "Are you visual with landing traffic 2 mile final" identifies the traffic far, far better than "the CRJ on finals" when there might be three in a row, not to mention assuming superhuman powers of head-on distant aircraft recognition even in daylight - and impossible at night!!! Crossing clearance is then "cross over the threshold after the landing traffic" where no aeroplane ever is at 1000ft. (bar a g/a when there is enough time to skedaddle and avoid) With any significant wind a hover would have to be into wind, ie more or less tail -on to the conflicting traffic, an utterly absurd concept. Bin this one people, please.

As for the appalling behaviour of the 'president' to instantly apportion blame with no understanding of either the situation or accident investigation in general whatsoever - which anyway is not his job and none of his business, thereby prejudicing any enquiry (what pressure does this put on the investigators and report writers, federal employees, when they are all but directed by their deranged and vindictive boss what they are expected to report? This is a very, very dangerous precedent that smacks more of a shonky third world dictatorship than a western democracy.

Presumably by orbiting at some convenient point, rather than going to a hover ?

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?

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.

It was long time ago and, granted, I could be "remembering" it wrongly (too focussed on what I was planning to do once I'd got home?&#128514 but I seem to remember them being in the hover (in one I was seated such that I could clearly see the incoming FW on short final.). The only time I remember being held in a "racetrack" pattern was over the beach whilst wating for a snow... flurry? ...burst? to move away from the airfield.

Welcome to more modern times. The last Seahawks I flew (Late 1990s) had radios that could do both UHF and VHF. The last T-34C trainers I flew as an instructor had VHF installed (mid to late 90's) to overcome that very issue, and to allow Instructors and Students to do approaches to and land at more airfields than just military ones. The last Black Hawk (L) I flew (early 00's) had radios that allowed us to transmit and receive on VHF. Since that Black Hawk Battalion does VIP flights in the DC area a lot, I seriously doubt that they do not have VHF radios equipped.
The SH-60B Seahawks I flew had that feature, which required a doppler system to work like that. (If I recall the NATOPS terms correctly, it's called a coupled approach and you entered it well below 90 knots). The Black Hawks I flew (UH-60L) did not have that feature as they did not have the doppler system installed, and thus no collective inner loop actuator. (One of many differences between Seahawks and Black Hawks). Can't say if the UH-60Ms do or do not, but I doubt it. Added weight that hardly helps their core mission, and with GPS some of what that system does for nav stability is taken care of anyway.
My most common instruction from tower when I had requested clearance to cross the extended centerline of a runway (on a VFR helo route through their ATA) was either "cleared as requested" or "Do a left 360 for spacing"... they never asked me to go into a hover . (My clearest memory of this comes from flying in the Tidewater region of Virginia (Norfolk, Hampton Roads, etc).

I am not sure what local rules, MOUs, and agreements that Army flying unit had, or has, with the ATC and Reagan tower, but I suspect that they are more involved than just the helo routes already discussed in this extended thread. Given that they habitually fly across the river in pursuit of their mission, and that Reagan/National is used to them being there on a daily basis, there may be MOUs and special procedures pre-agreed (Probably under an MOU or formal letter) and signed off by the FAA.
I know that we had a couple of such letters (a couple of decades ago) for the various MOAs and operating areas in Texas, but that was a different kind of flying. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

From the pictures where I can see the stabilator it looks like a UH60L. The UH60M does have hover hold but using GPS/inertial instead of doppler.

I have about 5500 hours, much of it at night low level over water, on a type with zero-visibility-rated auto let-down to the autohover. Yes, you "press the button" and it comes to a stop all on its own - eventually. But it's a complex checklist to set up for pressing the button, the programme to get you to the hover takes time to run (in the Sea King 78+/- 4 seconds) and the process requires the full attention of both pilots and either a crewman on radar or, if practicing in visual conditions in daylight, a crewman augmenting the very limited lookout capability of the pilots.

Re hovering on the helicopter routes: Perusing some forums where Army pilots post several of them recounted being told to go hover over X point while traffic cleared at DCA. Not all controllers seem willing to run traffic as close together as this one did.

Yes, the CRJ could have not accepted ATC's request to divert to 33. They would have then been set to go around to set up again for Runway 1, the usual runway.

ATC put the CRJ on an intersecting runway, which added complexity to the pattern picture. The helo would have only had to hold for a short time to wait for the CRJ that was diverted to a runway not normally used for commercial air carriers.

Knowing that, they asked the helo to maintain visual separation, placing everything on that crew to see and avoid the CRJ. I have read that they didn't even tell them where to actually look to see the traffic, no bearing, no altitude. The helo likely saw traffic, just not where they were supposed to look. There were plenty incoming and departing Runway 1, which is why the CRJ was asked to divert. Add to that, both aircraft were low and operating over an urban area at night where it is difficult to see other aircraft. Worse even if the helo crew was using NVG.

ATC should have held the helo short, waiting for an unusual approach to a runway not used normally, so to let the CRJ pass. The CRJ crew was already saturated in tasks at the time I have not hear ATC asking them to look out for the helo.

IMO, ATC created a "single point of failure" relying on the helo to see and avoid the CRJ. Had they held the helo, and helos can hover, for even a minute, this doesn't happen. ATC's main purpose is to keep aircraft from occupying the same place at the same time. In this case, they didn't.

I am sure that the helo pilots made]mistakes. But, this appears to be a massive failure of ATC.

Here's a Blackhawk pilot saying, and I quote, "they could have totally pulled that thing into a hover and stopped". Can't post a link. Tack on to youtube dot com.

He is not a Blackhawk pilot, and has given quite inaccurate advice

Senior Pilot

Heavens above!
Can all these non-aviation pundits here please get it into their heads that just because the helilane has a cieling of 200ft and the glideslope is 325 or whatever it does not imply that helos can, would or might EVER be allowed to pass 125 ft under an aircraft on finals nor would any sane helo pilot (there are some!) do so. That would be insane, as surely this common sense you speak of should tell you? What's a lateral 500ft got to do with air law or anything else, ever? You're muddling completely unconnected and irrelevant matters. Have you not read/heard the ATC transcripts? Helos are not given clearance to and cannot cross until landing traffic is clear (as this helo one was told) - ie until it has passed unless the incoming is sufficiently far away for there to be no possible confliction.
How far off minimums (actually a maximum)? - you've already answered that question yourself. 125ft.
The insanity of this routing procedure is that in the event of an accidental horizontal incursion into the track of an inboud as happened here there is in theory only 125 ft of vertical clearance to prevent a disaster which is nowhere near enough of a safety margin. That route should have been, imho, at least 5-800ft or more above two dots up on the glideslope.

Once again, helicopters never, never ever come to a free air hover for separation purposes - this is a ridiculous concept for numerous reasons that are too long to go into here, and would be downright dangerous at night over a black hole at 200ft. They slow and orbit if they have to, maybe slow right down if wind direction and speed allows, but never hover.

I know not everyone here is experienced on helos but if so could they please refrain from speculating on operating procedures? All this guff about altimeter accuracy is completely irrelevant and has created a huge amount of unnecessaty noise. The aircraft was flying a visual sight-picture approach where an altimeter barely features at all and helos at low level, especially at night and over water do not use the baro altimeter. They exclusively refer to rad-alt.

Finally, all those who think a visual self-positioning clearance as employed in this case behind crossing traffic is somehow hazardous are completely incorrect. Once again, at Heathrow the helilane crosses 27 L and R thresholds at (iirc)1000ft. The only clearances given as you approach the boundary is to the effect of 'cross NOW (directly) over the threshold', 'hold (at a VRP clear N/S of the threshold)' or, having confirmed and read back landing traffic visual and identified the formula is repeated, 'after the landing traffic 2 miles cross behind'. It's perfectly safe as as it isn't done at the same height as the airliner but with a large vertcal clearance too.

btw, does Marine One fly this route?

As one that used to operate day and night around a busy UK international airport I disagree with this statement. For many reasons, both safety and operational, coming to the hover and waiting for the arriving or departing aircraft to pass was regular practise.

I'm sure that many helicopter pilots are content to do that, at night, on NVG or not, or go into a steep. bank over water to not cross paths of traffic that has ROW under the regs.(thats the landing guys)

You can do pretty much anything in a helicopter, they also bite back "biggly" quicker than a heart beat, and there are a lot of UH-60's sitting in water where the crew were disoriented, SAS n' all.

An R-22 doing its stuff in the GAFA


A UH 60 doing its thang of a "quick" stop


A nice view of the Hathaway bridge just near the USN Panama City NSF, with a MH53 doing a turn from cruise, and a subsequent "quick" stop.


How on earth a helo driver is expected to do any hard maneuvering while maintaining visual contact with conflicting traffic is lost upon me, with or without NVG. Most of the time, a crew will do it and not have a problem, on other occasions the next day there are headlines of "Blackhawk crew lost in training mission over the ICW" etc.. Hope is not a plan, the crews deserve better and the passengers do as well.

The YouTube clip you refer to is not a Blackhawk pilot saying that - it is (according to his own description) a 777 pilot , also with extensive aerobatic experience, but as far as I can tell, no military or helicopter background, and that video contains much inaccurate and misleading information.
(My credentials for that viewpoint - 16,000+ hours, inc 10,000+ heavy helicopter and 6,000+ light and medium fixed wing).