PAT25 Page: 3 of 6

Old Boeing Driver
February 03, 2025, 12:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820496

Just an opinion

I have personally flown the the approach scenario that PSA was flying.

I think I first flew that procedure in the mid 1980's. It has been in use for decades.

I expect most pilots operating into DCA, and possibly this PSA crew have done this.

Based on the NTSB briefing yesterday, the PSA was at 325 feet +/-25 feet.

Had PAT25 been on the east coast of the Potomac, and at or below 200 feet, this accident would not have happened.

Just an opinion.....

Subjects DCA NTSB PAT25

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

9 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

henra
February 03, 2025, 13:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820522

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver

Had PAT25 been on the east coast of the Potomac, and at or below 200 feet, this accident would not have happened.

Mechanically correct. But do you consider this a safe assumption/solution? Where technically everything needs to be (triple)redundant and engineering wise brought with enormous effort to extremely high safety standards. And then you hope no one deviates at night in low level flight 100ft in altitude or a couple of hundred feet in track?
Just a different opinion.

Subjects 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.

YRP
February 03, 2025, 14:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820598

Quote:

Originally Posted by dukof

"do you have the CRJ in sight" .."pass behind the CRJ" shows indeed he's uncertain of their awareness and wants them on a different heading. But the communication is completely inadequate to resolve the concern in the 15 sec time window left to intersection. It brings zero locational information of either the CRJ or the heading change they need to execute. The best possible outcome was clear to be a very near miss. With according to radar PAT at 200ft, CRJ descending from 500 at 600ft/min, and a 100ft radar resolution, there is zero margin here. So if you don't command a snap heading change at zero projected margin, at what point do you..?

Yes the controller was concerned enough to check again, not alarmed though.

But the controller doesn\x92t know they have the wrong plane. Guess: he\x92s just checking they didn\x92t think they\x92d passed it already.

Either way, the controller does not have enough information to use a heading \x97 neither to know one is needed nor what it should be . The radar & display is just not as accurate as a Mark I eyeball in one cockpit seeing the other plane out the window.

When would he? \x93Tower, PAT25 has lost that traffic\x94. Until then a vector might bring them *into* a collision.

Subjects ATC CRJ Close Calls PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar

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.

Hot 'n' High
February 03, 2025, 15:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820651

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver

I have personally flown the the approach scenario that PSA was flying. ........ It has been in use for decades. ......... I expect most pilots operating into DCA, and possibly this PSA crew have done this..........

The events of the actual night backs you up OBD . I noted the CRJ (BS5342) had company traffic(?) (BS5347) joining behind the 2 x AAs (3130 and 5472 ) which checked in with Twr literally seconds after the accident took place so they had no idea anything was up. Their opening call was along the lines of "BS5347, is on final, request 33 ... circle for 33." - a request they even made a second time on their 3rd call attempt. That implies that 33 was quite a regular event (maybe just to cut the taxi time down at the end? Don't know......) so I'd be surprised if the accident crew hadn't used it before as well - maybe a number of times. Certainly the accident crew accepted the Twr request to switch to 33 quite quickly suggesting it was "no sweat" to them. What was sad is the following company traffic (BS5347) checked in 3(?) times trying to get Twr's attention but, of course, Twr was busy with the 2 x G/As ahead of them on 01. Even after they probably realised people are executing G/As from 01, they still don't know whats happened ahead of them and, on their 3rd call, ask for "33" again ..... only to then be sent around themselves.

On the general subject of the 2nd Twr call to PAT25 and issuing avoidance instructions from BS5342, my take would be that maybe Twr saw it so late and simply didn't have an accurate mental picture of the precise trajectories of the helo and the CRJ to actually formulate a plan to deconflict safely. The only hope was that the helo crew "still" had the aircraft in sight (as they had already stated they had) and were still going to pass behind the CRJ............. Sadly, by then, that was just wishful thinking. At that late stage, all ATC probably knew was that ordering an evasion maneuver was just as likely to turn a near-miss into an accident as it was to turn an accident into a near-miss. A "Rock and a hard place springs" to mind....... One can only feel for the ATCO ...............

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ DCA PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (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.

Lonewolf_50
February 03, 2025, 16:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820674

The right turn does not make sense.

If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.

It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 51bravo

So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension before AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!

Speculation follows:
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.

For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd February 2025 at 16:45 .

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

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.

patrickal
February 03, 2025, 18:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820767

Quote:

Originally Posted by 51bravo

patrickal, very good argumentation! I have though one question, which was highlighted also some pages before but I didnt register an answer:

I fully sign your deduction, but granted your assumptions are true that PAT25 was mentally focused on passing behind AA3130 (which I fully believe too), but they also received the information that it is RWY33 that is to be used for landing of the CRJ. So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension before AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!

I think you have hit on a good point that very well may be valid. If they thought AA3130 was indeed on approach for RWY33, then they would assume they were east of that approach. Another factor that I have not seen discussed in any major way is the winds at the time. The landing clearances given to several of the flights, including the accident CRJ, indicated winds from 320 at 17mph, gusting to 25 mph. I have to believe they were getting bounced around by this, and also constantly correcting for what was a moderate quartering tail wind at that moment. I really do believe that use of the NVG's along with confirmation bias led them to believe they were clear of the traffic landing on RWY 33.

Subjects CRJ DCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) 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.

IFR Buzzard
February 03, 2025, 18:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820772

Agree with this. Also, seems like the lack of both PAT25 and PSA apparently hearing all sides of tower coms about deconfliction is another whole in the cheese. My main question/interest would be to see an accurate depiction of position and altitude of PAT25 relative to PSA as it was rounding Hanes Point until POI. I say this because if PSA flew the depicted RNAV 33, the path of the helicopter was likely visible even through the beginning of the turn to line up for short final to 33. I say this expressly NOT to say the PSA crew should be criticized, but as an area where better procedures could mitigate risk (like ensuring all three communicators were equally apprised of critical developments and comms, and able to perceive burgeoning risk as the aircraft converged). RIP to all. And courage to the leaders in a position to make safety changes.

Subjects 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.

WHBM
February 03, 2025, 20:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

There were a number of aircraft around in the dark, which makes repeated unqualified reference just to "the CRJ" quite liable to error. I still wonder if the "Can you see the CRJ ... pass behind the CRJ" was being interpreted as the aircraft on the ground lining up on 01, the nearest aircraft to them and just on their right. They could see it, and they turned to pass behind it.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

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.

BrogulT
February 04, 2025, 21:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821702

Quote:

Originally Posted by EGPFlyer

Yes, it\x92s a moot point. I suspect the low altitude on the heli routes are to allow them passage when the main runway 01/19 is in use, rather than to provide any vertical separation if there\x92s an aircraft using 33. The helicopter chart has holding points along it that probably should have been used.

If I understand the sequence of events, PAT25 requested visual separation before they got to the report/hold point near Hains Point. IDK what they refer to this point as, but if the controller had denied the request and instructed them to hold at Hains Point, what would everyone have done? Is that a normal procedure? We're told that we have knowledgable senior people here so I'd like to know if that's plausible or doesn't work for some reason.

Subjects ATC PAT25 Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation 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.

DIBO
February 05, 2025, 00:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821822

Quote:

Originally Posted by airplanecrazy

the helicopter ground speed appears to be closer to 80 kts.

I think we can take this (radar recorded) data-source as pretty reliable, it matches (rounded) the ADS-B reported CRJ speed of 121kts at 375ft (QNE)

I think the confusion comes from the "amateur MLAT" tracking, which calculates the GS based on the multilaterated position calculations, which have a (relatively) large margin of error:

And probably PAT25 was doing initially something in the region of 100kts GS (edit: averaging all but last calculated GS, gives 105kts as average - and over more datapoints, longer trajectory, calculated average GS becomes more reliable)

but at the end it seems there might possibly have been a decreasing GS trend:

Last edited by DIBO; 5th February 2025 at 00:10 . Reason: added calculated average GS

Subjects ADSB (All) CRJ PAT25 Radar

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.

BrogulT
February 05, 2025, 20:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822511

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Since they were flying at roughly 100kts (based on the evidence so far presented) a smooth slowdown to 60 knots works, you aren't doing a quick stop, and the plane handles easily.
2. I was sharing (IME means In My Experience) my experience with flying that family of helicopters.

And thank you for sharing your experience. I asked this earlier but haven't gotten a direct reply: If you know, what would have happened if the controller had asked PAT25 to "hold" at the holding point near Hains Point? Is that the function of those holding points and is there some set procedure or pattern?

Subjects ATC 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.

Commando Cody
February 05, 2025, 20:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822517

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

Pat I was referring to the ground track change. At their altitude, it wasn\x92t something that would be unnoticed.
Just thinking: they are coming up on the extended centerline of 33, and keep going? Were there any tower or CRJ transmits that indicated the CRJ was on short final?

Tower pointed out the CRJ twice and PAT25 affirmed they had traffic in sight and twice requested visual separation, which was approved. Controller did everything right.

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Commando Cody
February 05, 2025, 20:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822518

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrogulT

DCA had multiple inbounds. With an acknowledged instruction to pass behind traffic that was reported in sight, holding isn't necessary and can set up problems of its own.

Subjects ATC DCA PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (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.

MarkD
February 06, 2025, 01:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822673

One thing I\x92ve been wondering about is the PAT mission parameters.

This was a check ride wearing NVGs while runway 33 was open. Do PAT night flights with passengers operate with NVGs all the time, or was this an attempt to check multiple boxes (e.g. NVG currency, route currency, night flight currency) in a single flight?

if the answer to the question above is \x93NVGs are generally worn if the Washington area is under some sort of security situation which reduces lit points of reference, but not otherwise\x94 would DCA civil flight ops be continuing in such conditions?

What I\x92m driving at is - wouldn\x92t it have been a good idea to reduce the degree of difficulty by squaring in advance with DCA ATC a pause of 33 ops when PAT25 came by, even if an aircraft or two had to hold/delay departure?

Subjects ATC DCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) 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.

51bravo
February 06, 2025, 10:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822897

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

Tower pointed out the CRJ twice and PAT25 affirmed they had traffic in sight and twice requested visual separation, which was approved. Controller did everything right.

Question: In the last seconds:

Controller instructed very firmly: "PAT25, pass behind the CRJ"

There was no such readback, instead:
PAT25: "PAT25 has CRJ in sight, request visual separation"
Controller: "vis sep approved"

Does the "request visual separation" undo the "pass behind"?
(just trying to refresh my phraseology understanding, its long time passed, my PPL is not current a long time since)

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25) Phraseology (ATC) 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.

ehwatezedoing
February 06, 2025, 11:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

Tower pointed out the CRJ twice and PAT25 affirmed they had traffic in sight and twice requested visual separation, which was approved. Controller did everything right.

That could have been better, he didn't give a traffic distance/bearing and I don't recall him (I would be happy to be corrected) Mentioning that the CRJ was transitioning from RWY 01 to RWY 33

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Easy Street
February 06, 2025, 11:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822919

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing

That could have been better, he didn't give a traffic distance/bearing and I don't recall him (I would be happy to be corrected) Mentioning that the CRJ was transitioning from RWY 01 to RWY 33

Tower: "PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1200 feet setting up for runway 33"
PAT25: "PAT25 has the traffic in sight, request visual separation"
Tower: "Visual separation approved"

0:26 here:

Subjects CRJ PAT25 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

missy
February 06, 2025, 11:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822926

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy Street

I have struggled to understand why PAT requested visual separation the 2nd time given that it had been approved in the first instance.

Perhaps, and this is big perhaps, it's a pavlovian response to whenever PAT is advised of other traffic. I listened to the TCAS RA missed approach from the previous day, and once again the response from PAT is "request visual separation". It's highly likely that the pilot requests for visual separation is the only way that this Class B airspace can operate with the mix of IFR vs VFR, and aerodrome traffic vs transits.

I fail to understand why PAT is using UHF, surely this is another slice of cheese.

The use of RWY 33 for arrival makes it easier for the ATC and the aircrew with one less runway crossing after they have landed. To emphasis the point, the following PSA actually requests RWY 33.

Subjects ATC CRJ IFR PAT25 Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) TCAS RA Traffic in Sight VFR Visual Separation

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.

Lonewolf_50
February 06, 2025, 13:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822970

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrogulT

I am not going to pretend familiarity with the local procedures, but if the aircraft was (a) in the tower's airspace and (b) they got "hold at {holding point} for spacing" I expect that the crew would have done just that. (And likely would have reduced airspeed. The holding airspeed I remember from Seahawk days was 90 knots, but their unit may have an SOP covering stuff like that which I of course am not privy to).

Subjects ATC 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.

WHBM
February 06, 2025, 14:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823014

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

Tower pointed out the CRJ twice and PAT25 affirmed they had traffic in sight and twice requested visual separation

Not quite. They were asked if they were visual with a CRJ. How would they know, at that point still a couple of miles away, which aircraft lights all around them in the dark were "the CRJ" ? In fact there was more than one of this type around.

The accident aircraft was making a sidestep curving manoeuvre, a late change from a straight in to 01. The only message passed about this was it was landing on 33. No comment that it was going to break off the 01 approach. No questioning that the heli crew even understood how an aircraft now approached 33, making this unusual and last-minute change, nor that it would compromise them routing along the river.

.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) PAT25 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "PAT25" [Posts: 116 Page: 3 of 6]¶