Posts about: "PAT25" [Posts: 116 Page: 1 of 6]ΒΆ

Page Links: First  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last  Index Page

BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 05:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816892
Originally Posted by Capi_Cafre'
A late change to 33 had the potential to put the jet low and in conflict with the helicopter corridor.
Don\x92t think it was a late change. Listening to LiveATC, local controller (LC) calls the CRJ at 1200 ft, inbound 33, over the Wilson Bridge as a traffic advisory to PAT25. Don\x92t hear reply but it sounds like LC then says \x93visual separation approved.

LC then approves AAL1630 for immediate takeoff runway 1 with advisory of CRJ on 2-mile left base for 33.

LC queries PAT25 \x93do you have the CRJ in sight\x94? No reply heard but LC then directs PAT25 to pass behind the CRJ.

PAT25 may have been watching next in sequence, AAL3130, landing runway 1, instead of CRJ.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Pass Behind (PAT25)  Separation (ALL)

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

7 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
MPN11
January 30, 2025, 10:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817076
As a regular tourist to Alexandria, I have often watched the DCA traffic and the helos transiting along the Potomac shoreline north of the Wilson Bridge on Route 4. In this tragic instance, the Blackhawk [PAT25} not only seems to be higher than the published procedure but also further west [ie over the river]. And according to that radar plot [post 80] , in the last moments it seems to rurn right [ie further west] exacerbating the situation.

MPN11, former Mil ATCO

Subjects ATCO  Blackhawk (H-60)  DCA  PAT25  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.
MPN11
January 30, 2025, 12:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817176
Originally Posted by bean
OK, that overlay at least shows PAT25 is no the Route 4 track. Just the height now remains a question. Seems to climb from 200' to 300' at the last minute.

Subjects PAT25  Route 4

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.
BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 15:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817345
Observations after listening to the KDCA 134.35 audio file:

After LC provides CRJ at Wilson Bridge/1200ft/runway 33 traffic advisory, PAT25 requests visual separation, which LC immediately approves. This is several minutes prior to the collision.

LC is working at least 2 other helos in addition to PAT25.

PAT25 is responding to LC on VHF 134.35. LC is simultaneously transmitting on 119.1 and 134.35 so both PAT25 and the CRJ were hearing all LC transmissions but each was not hearing the others replies.

Immediately prior to the collision when the LC queries if PAT25 has the CRJ in sight and to pass behind the CRJ, the immediate response is “[unclear] has the aircraft in sight, request visual separation” to which the LC immediately responds “approved.” The voice sounded the same as earlier PAT25 transmissions. If so, the non-urgent tone of the reply would indicate that PAT25 had no indication that a collision was imminent and was likely looking at the wrong aircraft.






Subjects CRJ  Frequency 119.1  Frequency 134.35  KDCA  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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.
EFHF
January 30, 2025, 17:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817434
Originally Posted by SASless
Do standard IAP Procedures by Airlines require use of Glide Slope information even when VFR.....which would make me ask the question what height the RJshould have been at at the point it collided with t he helicopter.
According to the simulation by VAS, the collision happened between the center and the east bank of the river, approximately at 38.84298, -77.02531, which is 4200 ft from the threshold, so at 3 degree glide slope the correct height for an ILS approach would have been 220 ft AGL. But there was no ILS procedure.

In any case there could not have been any reasonable horizontal separation even if the helo flew within the helo route altitude restrictions. TWR gave instructions for lateral separation with this call:
PAT25, pass behind the CRF.
Last edited by EFHF; 30th January 2025 at 18:00 . Reason: Error in TDZ location corrected, AGL was 175 ft before correction

Subjects PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Pass Behind (PAT25)  Route Altitude  Separation (ALL)

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.
jumpseater
January 30, 2025, 20:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817604
A possibility I can see here is that the PAT25 crew misidentified AAL3130 (on extended final for 01) as the CRJ. If so, they didn't see the CRJ to their left and possibly above them descending. If the CRJ descended into the helicopter from above the CRJ crew would likely not have seen PAT25 as it would have been in the blind spot underneath the nose.

Subjects CRJ  PAT25

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.
TEEEJ
January 30, 2025, 21:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817674
Originally Posted by jumpseater
A possibility I can see here is that the PAT25 crew misidentified AAL3130 (on extended final for 01) as the CRJ. If so, they didn't see the CRJ to their left and possibly above them descending. If the CRJ descended into the helicopter from above the CRJ crew would likely not have seen PAT25 as it would have been in the blind spot underneath the nose.
Yes, that is very much a possibility. Confirmed via US Defence Secretary that the crew were on night vision goggle flight. Did the helo pilot call visual on AAL3130 Airbus A319 that was on approach?

See following video.

Subjects CRJ  PAT25

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.
shared reality
January 30, 2025, 22:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817695
Originally Posted by photonclock
Yes, I saw that. Why wasn't ATC more specific, ie, do you see the traffic at your 1 o'clock, etc? Still, the question stands: ATC sees both aircraft, so why is ATC putting them on a collision course with AA setup to turn in front of the helicopter with almost no separation? The clock was ticking and ATC wasn't reacting with instructions \x96 ATC was just asking questions. Is that SOP?
Listening to the ATC transcript on YouTube, one can clearly hear ATC receive a conflict warning as the CRJ and the Blackhawk get close. Why on earth didn't ATC immediately instruct the helo simply to "PAT25 turn left hdg xxx IMMEDIATELY, I say again ..." , instead he again asked for verification that PAT 25 had the CRJ in sight?

In such close distance, on a collision course, there is no place for a question, but an INSTRUCTION, as ATC is the only one with a clear overview of the situation.
Not trying to put blame here, but the controller needs to step up once he gets a conflict warning and act, and ask questions later.

RIP to all involved, a truly sad and avoidable event.

Subjects ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  PAT25  Separation (ALL)

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.
CayleysCoachman
January 30, 2025, 22:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817697
Originally Posted by shared reality
Listening to the ATC transcript on YouTube, one can clearly hear ATC receive a conflict warning as the CRJ and the Blackhawk get close. Why on earth didn't ATC immediately instruct the helo simply to "PAT25 turn left hdg xxx IMMEDIATELY, I say again ..." , instead he again asked for verification that PAT 25 had the CRJ in sight?

In such close distance, on a collision course, there is no place for a question, but an INSTRUCTION, as ATC is the only one with a clear overview of the situation.
Not trying to put blame here, but the controller needs to step up once he gets a conflict warning and act, and ask questions later.

RIP to all involved, a truly sad and avoidable event.
in a place where controllers give headings to aircraft flying visually well below MSA, perhaps, but no such place exists. Controllers provide a service, they are not an authority.

Subjects ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  PAT25

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.
canigida
January 31, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817851
Originally Posted by visibility3miles
I almost didn\x92t bother replying because I originally posted that Hains Point, the peninsula in the river, is not a residential area. I didn\x92t say it was a gated community.

Who cares if it is a municipal golf course or not, because nobody is going to play golf at around 8:40 PM in the dark of night.

My point was that helicopters might fly over it because nobody would care about the noise, and people in residential neighborhoods do, whether the residential neighborhoods are officially listed as a noise abatement areas or not.

https://www.flyreagan.com/about-airp...raft-noise-faq
sorry if I was not clear. What I am saying is that what you are saying makes zero sense to me. PAT25 was evidently following southbound on helo route 4 midway down the hains point, and then you are saying for some reason they cross over the peninsula a 1/3 mile before it ends, the traverse the peninsula east to west and you claim the turn " was probably done for noise abatement reasons" , . That makes no sense at all. Why would you cross a peninsula to abate noise if you're already over water? Listening to the tower and previous Potomac sector recording they were handed off from, I don't hear any atc instruction to turn/ deviate. . And there's nobody living on the other east side of the river to protect from the noise, it's also military (ft. mcnair, Nat'l War College, etc.) . there's not really anyone living in that part of the District south of SE waterfront.
And it's pretty clear there's no turn at all in the first place, and that since there's no ads-b, this data point is an interpolation error. there's several other PAT ATC tracks from a the last few weeks doing the same training loop and the are all keeping in the rt4 and keeping 300ft msl

Subjects ATC  PAT25  Route 4

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.
Chesty Morgan
January 31, 2025, 08:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818003
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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.
xetroV
January 31, 2025, 09:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818020
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
But blame is not what we\x92re searching for in accident investigations.

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

11 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Chesty Morgan
January 31, 2025, 09:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818047
Originally Posted by xetroV
But blame is not what we\x92re searching for in accident investigations.
Quite right. However, I'm not investigating this accident. Nobody on PPRuNe is. It's a rumour network.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Responsibility for separation was given to PAT25. Failure to maintain separation was caused by PAT25 not maintaining the separation that they were responsible for. Ergo, the collision was caused by a reduction in separation to zero, which was the responsibility of PAT25.

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)

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.
Final 3 Greens
January 31, 2025, 10:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818061
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
For direct cause, I would agree. However, IMO, one needs to look into the system of root causes that enabled the direct cause to occur, to learn lessons and take meaningful action.

Others, far more qualified than me, have already described these root causes.


Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

8 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Lead Balloon
January 31, 2025, 10:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818064
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
Quite right. However, I'm not investigating this accident. Nobody on PPRuNe is. It's a rumour network.

Perhaps I should rephrase. Responsibility for separation was given to PAT25. Failure to maintain separation was caused by PAT25 not maintaining the separation that they were responsible for. Ergo, the collision was caused by a reduction in separation to zero, which was the responsibility of PAT25.
As it's a rumour network...

Perhaps the "responsibility" should never have been "given" to a helicopter to maintain separation on the basis of visual identification of another aircraft, at night, in close proximity to an airport in Class B airspace.

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)

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.
henra
January 31, 2025, 10:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818073
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.
Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
Are you sure that makes for a good strategy to prevent future re- occurrence?

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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.
xetroV
January 31, 2025, 11:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818111
Originally Posted by Prob30Tempo TSRA
Is there any audio suggesting the heli acknowledged the instruction to pass behind ?
This version of the Vasaviation video includes the heli R/T.

At 00:26 ATC informs them about the CRJ, and PAT25 requests visual separation. At 01:08 the conflict alert sounds and ATC instructs them to pass behind. This is not read back; instead PAT25 affirms they have the traffic in sight and asks again for visual separation. ATC seems to approve this request for the second time, but this transmission is not very clear.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  Traffic in Sight  Visual Separation

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.
GoWest
January 31, 2025, 11:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818119
Originally Posted by Prob30Tempo TSRA
Is there any audio suggesting the heli acknowledged the instruction to pass behind ?

it seems fairly obvious where the blame lies but more interesting is the systematic failures that lead to them being there .
There is some audio around on Youtube. Scanner stuff for arrivals at Reagan. CRJ can be heard accepting runway 33.

Arrivals tells PAT25 Heli to keep watch for CRJ. There is no acknowledgment. Arrivals then tells PAT 25 to pass behind CRJ. There is no acknowledgment. Then boom.
Capt Sully responded today. Said dark water gives no indication of height or direction of other aircraft. Put to bed Trumps remarks that it was a clear night so should have seen aircraft but then he now reckons it's the control tower that are the problem.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 31st January 2025 at 11:28 . Reason: Remove the political comments

Subjects CRJ  PAT25  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.

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.
Capn Bloggs
January 31, 2025, 11:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818126
Originally Posted by GoWest
Arrivals tells PAT25 Heli to keep watch for CRJ. There is no acknowledgment. Arrivals then tells PAT 25 to pass behind CRJ. There is no acknowledgment.
Rubbish. Listen to the YT video directly above your last post.

Subjects CRJ  PAT25  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.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Lascaille
January 31, 2025, 12:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818151
Originally Posted by GoWest
There is some audio around on Youtube. Scanner stuff for arrivals at Reagan. CRJ can be heard accepting runway 33.

Arrivals tells PAT25 Heli to keep watch for CRJ. There is no acknowledgment. Arrivals then tells PAT 25 to pass behind CRJ. There is no acknowledgment. Then boom.
Do you have a link to any such video? Because if this is genuinely what you've heard I'd like to know the source and origin. Because there's other content out there which has the helo acknowledging (twice) sight of the aircraft and requesting visual separation. But they then proceed to fly right into the traffic they apparently have sight of. So...

Subjects CRJ  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Pass Behind (PAT25)  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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.

Page Links: First  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last  Index Page