January 31, 2025, 04:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817916
TWR gives AA5342 as traffic to the helicopter, stating they are over the Woodrow (Wilson) bridge, however the helicopter crew keeps flying into the final approach path of R33. 40 seconds later TWR again asks if they have the “CRJ” in sight, and they reply they have, but at this point the CRJ is less than 200’ above them and only 0.5nm away. At the same time the following aircraft on approach to R01, an AA A319 on flight 3130, is above the Woodrow Bridge on finals. Possibly the helicopter crew at some point confused the A319 for the CRJ.
The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
It seems pretty clear what happened. The helicopter crew had confirmed they had the CRJ in sight and were happy to remain clear and pass behind. The ATC cleared them to maintain visual separation, the helicopter turned right as presumably this put them on the shortest course to where they wanted to go. At this point the ATC has NO further responsibility for separation, that is now the SOLE responsibility of the helicopter crew who accepted it. Clearly they did not have the CRJ in sight, what they were looking at will only ever be conjecture. Visual separation at night in such a busy piece of airspace is clearly a ridiculous procedure..... but it is a procedure that can currently be used. The ATC did nothing wrong, the CRJ crew did nothing wrong and more than likely the helicopter crew PROBABLY didn't do anything g wrong on purpose, there was o ly one airaft though out of place, a situation ONLY possible through an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure. My airline doesn't allow visual separation either day or night and only allows visual approaches by day, why be GA in Jets with paying passengers?
With only one other airplane, it's clear, with more than 1, it becomes a gamble.
This has been “litigated†before on PPRUNE. In the US, there is NO Missed Approach Procedure.
AIM 5-4-23
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
AIM 5-4-23
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
One can discuss whether this is a procedure or not, though there is at least "something".
Subjects
AA5342
ATC
CRJ
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 07:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817966
Class B
VFR flights not being separated form each other is a class C thing. VFR not being separated from IFR is a class D thing. In class B all flights are separated from each others regardless of flight rules. So all the discussions on flight rule changes are irrelevant for ghis incident anyhow.
Subjects
IFR
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818229
Kenny, I respect your experience with landing in KDCA 15 years ago but, either the 3.00\xb0 published angle of the PAPI is a lie, or Google map scaling is wrong, or your memories are distorted.
As per Google map, the distance from the TDZ to the eastern bank of the Potomac is 1635 m and, with 3.00\xb0 angle, the glide path is supposed to be at an height of 85.5 m, or 280 ft at that point.
Reversely, a height of 500 ft above TDZ is on the glide at a distance of 9540 ft or 2908 m from the TDZ. Google map shows that overhead the northbound lane of I-295.
I think that it's plausible that you aligned your plane with RW33 centerline over the Potomac's East bank if you were flying a steep VFR approach, not a night IFR approach.
Note: 450 ft overhead the eastern bank gives you a 8.4% slope or 4.8\xb0 to the TDZ.
As per Google map, the distance from the TDZ to the eastern bank of the Potomac is 1635 m and, with 3.00\xb0 angle, the glide path is supposed to be at an height of 85.5 m, or 280 ft at that point.
Reversely, a height of 500 ft above TDZ is on the glide at a distance of 9540 ft or 2908 m from the TDZ. Google map shows that overhead the northbound lane of I-295.
I think that it's plausible that you aligned your plane with RW33 centerline over the Potomac's East bank if you were flying a steep VFR approach, not a night IFR approach.
Note: 450 ft overhead the eastern bank gives you a 8.4% slope or 4.8\xb0 to the TDZ.
Last edited by Luc Lion; 31st January 2025 at 14:29 . Reason: grammar
Subjects
IFR
KDCA
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 14:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818269
JFK’s Canarsie in the old days was straight in that wasn’t to get around the rules. There’s a lot of normalization of deviance in FAAland.
As a survivor of an A-10 mid-air with similar geometry and height, it easy to imagine the event.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 31st January 2025 at 15:00 . Reason: Clean up a mistake
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
IFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 15:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818288
I expect the current system will not last, at the very least they'll go back to a dedicated helicopter controller that could have devoted his full attention to vectoring the Black Hawk somewhere else. I expect an overloaded controller will mentally dump a helo pilot that says he sees the other traffic and will go behind it from his top worry if he has airplanes too to deal with as well.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 17:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818399
In defence of the helo crew: operating in class B (VFR, IFR no matter), who could have expected that when LC asked them to spot the CRJ and pass behind, they would be already so terribly close and closing in rapidly.....
Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 17:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818407
I was also a little surprised at the suggestion that the helicopter crew may have been using NVGs. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this sort of thing might comment? Would that be normal - it seems that on a fine bright night, in a busy tight environment, as well lit as it is NVGs would seriously add risk. Whjy not fly out normally then go to NVGs once out of the high intensity area? It sounds as if NVGs add flare, reduce SA and make scan much harder. I guess that is an acceptable trade of when dealing with typical military operations at night, but it rather surprises me they might be used in this emvironment.
Any comment or enlightenment welcomed !
Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Situational Awareness
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 17:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818418
When the CRJ traffic was first called to the heli, and the heli acknowledged that they were visual, the CRJ looks to have been around 4NM south of the field.
NVGs probably aren't ideal in that environment and I haven't seen any factual statement that they were using them. Even if they were wearing them it doesn't mean they were actively using them (it is usually possible to lift them up out of the way). My only concern would be flying below 200ft, at night, across multiple bridges in an environment where there may be obstructions (not knowing the specifics of that portion of airspace). It may (or may not) have been advantageous to have one person using NVGs for ground collision avoidance, but it's a balancing act that depends on the conditions on the specific night.
Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 17:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818419
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 21:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818547
SAR Bloke
Easy Street
Nicd
Comments appreciated of course. Indeed, I was referring to the second LC comms with the helo (coinciding with CA alerts). Class B mandates ATC to ensure separation , no matter VFR (indeed twice requested and twice accepted) or IFR (on the question whether AA by/when accepting 33 canceled IFR or not). This IMO implies much more on ATC than re-requesting whether A/C in sight, in particular in case of CA alert, less than one good/bad minute apart.
Comments appreciated of course. Indeed, I was referring to the second LC comms with the helo (coinciding with CA alerts). Class B mandates ATC to ensure separation , no matter VFR (indeed twice requested and twice accepted) or IFR (on the question whether AA by/when accepting 33 canceled IFR or not). This IMO implies much more on ATC than re-requesting whether A/C in sight, in particular in case of CA alert, less than one good/bad minute apart.
Last edited by D Bru; 31st January 2025 at 21:41 . Reason: clarity :)
Subjects
ATC
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 22:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818564
Many years ago, shortly after I got my instrument rating, I flew a friend from St. Paul to St. Louis in a rented C172. Of course I filed IFR, being anxious to get more practice in the system. We were maybe 10-20 miles SW of MSP in level flight when I heard the controller tell a Northwest flight of Cessna traffic somewhere in our direction; there was another Cessna in the area as well. NW called \x93traffic in sight.\x94 Maybe 10 seconds later my passenger pointed very excitedly behind us and to our left. There was a NW 727, maybe 200-300 yards behind us and climbing through our altitude from left to right.
Very
fast.
I\x92ve always wondered if they really saw us or the other Cessna. It was probably the closest I\x92ve ever been to another aircraft not in the pattern. It felt way too close.
\x93See and avoid\x94 is really not the basis for safe separation of traffic in the air. Depending on it at night in airspace as busy as DC is choosing poorly.
TCAS has mostly solved the separation problem for every phase of flight except very close to the airport or on the ground. If the industry is going to short-staff ATC and keep cramming more traffic into the same airspace, the industry needs to develop and equivalent solution for those phases of flight as well.
I\x92ve always wondered if they really saw us or the other Cessna. It was probably the closest I\x92ve ever been to another aircraft not in the pattern. It felt way too close.
\x93See and avoid\x94 is really not the basis for safe separation of traffic in the air. Depending on it at night in airspace as busy as DC is choosing poorly.
TCAS has mostly solved the separation problem for every phase of flight except very close to the airport or on the ground. If the industry is going to short-staff ATC and keep cramming more traffic into the same airspace, the industry needs to develop and equivalent solution for those phases of flight as well.
Subjects
ATC
IFR
Separation (ALL)
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 22:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818566
SAR Bloke
Easy Street
Nicd
Comments appreciated of course. Indeed, I was referring to the second LC comms with the helo (coinciding with CA alerts). Class B mandates ATC to ensure separation , no matter VFR (indeed twice requested and twice accepted) or IFR (on the question whether AA by/when accepting 33 canceled IFR or not). This IMO implies much more on ATC than re-requesting whether A/C in sight, in particular in case of CA alert, less than one good/bad minute apart.
Comments appreciated of course. Indeed, I was referring to the second LC comms with the helo (coinciding with CA alerts). Class B mandates ATC to ensure separation , no matter VFR (indeed twice requested and twice accepted) or IFR (on the question whether AA by/when accepting 33 canceled IFR or not). This IMO implies much more on ATC than re-requesting whether A/C in sight, in particular in case of CA alert, less than one good/bad minute apart.
VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft/ helicopter/rotorcraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
- 1 \xbd miles separation, or
- 500 feet vertical separation, or
- Visual separation, as specified in paragraph 7-2-1 , Visual Separation, paragraph 7-4-2 , Vectors for Visual Approach, and paragraph 7-6-7 , Sequencing.
The rules for pilot-applied visual separation state:
- If the aircraft are on converging courses, inform the other aircraft of the traffic and that visual separation is being applied.
- Advise the pilots if the radar targets appear likely to merge.
Subjects
ATC
IFR
Radar
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Vertical Separation
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 22:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818579
TCAS has definitely not mostly solved separation. Your example cites that, unless you were not IFR, in contrary to what you wrote. I experienced pop-up traffic at 5200 feet, north of Daytona, which passed 100-150 yards to our left at the same altitude. RA was extremely late for us. ATC had given no indication of conflicting traffic. Nor was it on frequency. I was operating an A330 with 325 pax and 12 crew. .
Subjects
ATC
Close Calls
IFR
Separation (ALL)
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 01, 2025, 14:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819060
From what I have read, & presuming that I have interpreted this correctly; it would seem that helicopters can operate through the final approach area at approximately one & a half miles from touchdown provided they are 200’ or below - giving them 100’ approx. vertical separation from landing aircraft which would be at 300’, or so, in that area. If this is true, it represents, to my mind , a gross dereliction of duty on the part of whichever body approved this procedure. 100’ separation is absolutely nothing in practical terms - whether or not you are visual with the traffic. Aircraft which are intentionally flying in formation often have more separation than this ! Whoever sanctioned this procedure, if I have got this perception correct, effectively caused this collision; & should be prosecuted. This represents absolutely NO separation at all; whether or not the aircraft were separating themselves visually (or if at least one of them was doing this). If this is the case, I am amazed that this was allowed at a very busy IFR aerodrome.
Subjects
IFR
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 01, 2025, 14:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819065
Which could indicate that the controller was simultaneously transmitting on two frequencies (VHF+UHF) and the frequencies were not cross-coupled, resulting in the traffic on VHF not being able to hear the traffic on UHF, and vice-versa.
Cross-coupling, whereby aircraft transmissions are re-broadcast on the other frequency being used is a mandatory requirement at civil ATC units in UK. This being done to facilitate situational awareness of other traffic by all crews.
Cross-coupling, whereby aircraft transmissions are re-broadcast on the other frequency being used is a mandatory requirement at civil ATC units in UK. This being done to facilitate situational awareness of other traffic by all crews.
It\x92s pretty common in Canada, both at Tower and enroute IFR sectors.
It\x92s not just for situational awareness, also to prevent overlapping transmissions from aircraft on the two frequencies. So you don\x92t have to try to listen to both as the controller.
Even without that the controllers here almost always transmit on all their frequencies rather than just the one the aircraft is on.
Subjects
ATC
IFR
Situational Awareness
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 01, 2025, 15:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819090
200 ft is not the separation between the 2 aircrafts, it's the maximum altitude allowed in the helicopter corridor. As the airplane on approach is supposed to be at about 250 ft when crossing this corridor, there is no way a 200 ft separation could ever have been achieved.
500' is also the VFR and IFR vertical offset standard. If unable to achieve, should not be allowed. 200' leg must be to be 500' below south flow DCA departures, so North flow arrivals need a better gate.
Subjects
DCA
IFR
Separation (ALL)
TCAS (All)
TCAS RA
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 00:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819412
That's assuming perfect equipment accuracy. My understanding is that the tolerance of e.g. an IFR altimeter in the USA is 75'. If that's correct, one IF aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 325' could in fact be at 250' and another IFR aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 175' could in fact be at ... 250'. I'm hoping that the avionics in the aircraft involved in this terrible tragedy were more accurate than that, but I always exercise caution in taking numbers out of avionics and ATC systems as 'gospel truth' to the foot. The altitudes on RADAR displays don't increase and decrease in 1 foot increments; nor do the outputs of aircraft transponders. RADALT is different.
Subjects
ATC
IFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 00:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819419
That's assuming perfect equipment accuracy. My understanding is that the tolerance of e.g. an IFR altimeter in the USA is 75'. If that's correct, one IF aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 325' could in fact be at 250' and another IFR aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 175' could in fact be at ... 250'. I'm hoping that the avionics in the aircraft involved in this terrible tragedy were more accurate than that, but I always exercise caution in taking numbers out of avionics and ATC systems as 'gospel truth' to the foot. The altitudes on RADAR displays don't increase and decrease in 1 foot increments; nor do the outputs of aircraft transponders. RADALT is different.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
IFR
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819478
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819485
FAA Order JO 7110.65AA - Air Traffic Control
7.9.4 SEPARATIONa. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
b. VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft/ helicopter/rotorcraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
1. 1 \xbd miles separation, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
3. Visual separation, as specified in paragraph 7-2-1 , Visual Separation, paragraph 7-4-2 , Vectors for Visual Approach, and paragraph 7-6-7 , Sequencing.
7.2.1 VISUAL SEPARATION
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.
Subjects
FAA
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Vertical Separation
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.