Posts about: "See and Avoid" [Posts: 50 Page: 3 of 3]¶

Hiya Capn , that is precisely what I've been saying in my last few posts (while waiting for various builders and plumbers to get back to me!) - have a look at my last few posts. It's also worth reading Post #1365 by layman54 re aircrew to which I was responding - hence the limited reply I gave concentrating on the topic their post had raised.

My view - they were specifically asked to visually identify a/c A. Now, given the stream of a/c, the distance the a/c were away, the angle of the stream, etc, etc how could they reliably pick out a/c A? Almost impossible I'd say. But they said they had, which then formed the basis of the clearance. But, as you say, they were actually looking at a different a/c, a/c B, not deliberately, but mistakenly thinking it was the one ATC had asked them to look out for and pass behind, a/c A.

You are spot on in that there was no way for ATC or the helo crew to verify that the one the helo crew were watching (a/c B) actually wasn't the one that ATC thought they were watching (a/c A). That, as you say, was a very significant weakness. So they were on course to avoid the one they were watching. But that wasn't the one ATC had asked them to watch.

You are dead right in how difficult "see and avoid" is. I'm lucky as I only flew between small UK Regionals and, particularly when in my home patch, I often got from Twr "Visual with a/c A on Final? Join Final as #2 to a/c A!" type stuff. Worked OK when it was only me and a/c A. Any more and usually Approach sequenced me if I'd arrived SVFR by placing me under Radar Control for a short while before then handing me off to Twr to join the cct visually once faster traffic was well ahead of me. That's if they didn't forget me completely .... which happened once ...... but that's another story - they were most apologetic when I reminded them I was still on the last vector they'd given me!!!! "Sorry about that, I'd completely forgotten about you!"! Charming!

Hi layman54 , I think it's much more subtle than that. As you say, other bits of the system may put the pilots into danger but you then need to fully understand why the Pilot(s) didn't save the day. You sort of start off with the premise that the crew of PAT25 took off that evening and certainly didn't want to fly into the CRJ - so, why did they?

To say so-and-so got it wrong is often obvious ........ but why did they get it wrong? That's often very complex and can involve a lot more people and a raft of other factors and that's where the really valuable lessons are to be found. That's the real reason behind any "bias" - it's so we don't simply stop at that first person (or persons) who got something wrong, but look at what led to them doing what they did and what other factors contributed to the end result . That is the real way Safety is improved. You can then look at appropriate mitigation to try and prevent that same scenario from setting up another crew to fail in the same way at a later date.

As others have said, height and track is a red herring TBH as the deal with ATC was for PAT25 to "see and avoid" so they could have quite safely passed behind the CRJ at the same altitude or even above it - but not too close due to things like wake effects. If you can't manage "see and avoid" safely, you need to build in much, much bigger safety margins - such as holding PAT until the CRJ had landed. Many, including me, have asked how on earth the PAT25 crew (or, indeed, anyone) could reliably be expected to pick out the CRJ in that scenario especially at that range. For vertical/horizontal separation, relying on a few 10's of feet up/down or left/right is simply worthless given errors with altimeters and piloting accuracy in such a high-workload situation where it's "eye's out" navigating and looking for traffic all at a couple of hundred feet above land/water which is quite unforgiving if you get too low (I know ex helo crew who are no longer here because they inadvertently hit the sea) - not to mention any issues with NVGs (no idea, never used them!). What the NTSB implied was that, by suggesting that such a set-up as Route 4 passing under the approach to 33 was intrinsically safe through vertical/lateral separation, was madness. The route was pulled almost immediately pretty much on that basis.

So, for example, based on the difficulty in picking out the correct aircraft from the inbound stream, one of the many questions I've been asking myself is "Why were the PAT25 crew so willing to say they had the CRJ in sight (twice they said that) in that environment?". Had that become "normalised" on the Sqdn, or were the risks of miss-IDing a/c not being adequately highlighted in Local Orders, particularly given the geometry of that specific set-up? There may be several reasons - that's for the NTSB to dig out. I used to do a lot of visual separation stuff Commercially and I was nervous as hell - and that was in wayyyyyyyy simpler scenarios in way better conditions usually involving just one other aircraft. ATC were the same - they were very pointed in making sure I'd really seen the a/c in question. Any doubts in my mind or the ATCs mind and it was either an orbit till traffic was well clear or, if busier, it was "Contact Approach ....... lets chat again when they hand you back to me on the ILS.". OK, the ILS bit is not applicable to PAT25 but you get my drift!

There is no one reason why this accident happened - there will be quite a list with each one contributing to the final outcome. Any one of those things, had they been different decisions by those involved on the night, or, for example, by those who designed and approved Route 4 way back when, would have saved the day. So correct not just the 1st issue you find, find out and correct ALL the issues! That's what we really need to do to stop similar things happening again, not just at DCA, but anywhere.

Anyway, hope the above helps with the context of the word "bias". It was not that long ago it was "Hang the crew! Erm, oh no! Someone else has done it now! Hang them too!" Rinse & repeat! Thankfully, we are much better at digging out all the issues these days. But we have to constantly remind ourselves to "Look for everything, not just the 1st thing you find!". Cheers, H 'n' H

WillowRun

From your perspective then, could you clarify :

Controlled Airspace, See and Avoid re same, duty of care re ATCre controlled Airspace, specifically short finals, etc?
May as well add split or proportional liability??

I am trying to get even a basic understanding of how a large helicopter flew in visual flight rules into a jetliner on short final, which was on an IMC approach, on slope. Both were “legal”. The helicopter busted altitude by 125 feet vertically, and just exactly enough horizontally. Que?

The entire thread is devoted to that!
The airplane was not in IMC, it was a clear night. They were on a visual approach to 33 and got hit by a helicopter. The helicopter said they had the traffic in sight and obviously didn't. That is the short version.

Apart from the IMC non-issue, the cause-and-effect chain of events and omissions in this accident is still under investigation. But I'll try to give some answer to your post - although I doubt my mind will latch onto anything new compared to the volume of this thread to date.

There are unknowns at this point about what information the Army PAT25 crew had in front of them about the altitude at which they were operating. There also are unknowns about the Army crew's visual scan (which, as a non-aviator, sounds to me like a complex subset of facts; I do work on maintaining strong visual scan plying limited access highways and even local streets and roads in my car but the instrument panel of my vehicle is, shall we say, somewhat limited in comparison). Add in the relatively fixed attributes of the physical environment, the background lights of the city and surrounding areas, the river, and so forth. Plus, NVGs, plus experience using same by the particular crew.

Then with all those factual matters still subject to fairly significant unknowns (at least as I am able to follow the developments), your question(s) turn to the acts or omissions of ATC. I am fairly strongly inclined to "stay in my lane" - meaning, there is a lot more about how ATC functions are performed that I don't know, compared to what I might actually have picked up from forum threads and other sources. It stands to reason that the visual separation set-up is subject to formal written rules and procedures, but I don't know to what extent these presumed rules and procedures reach down to very specific operational details. Beyond that, the signal-to-noise ratio of what more I might say would not be too especially good.

I'm reminded of the old saw that some one or another fairly well-versed individual has already forgotten more about a given subject than some smart-aleck will ever be able to master about such subject. I don't want to trip over that . . . altitude restriction.

One other perhaps non-trivial item I can add is that the attorney whose office has filed the preliminary claim (as required pursuant to the federal statute) is very accomplished in this field. I've met him at professional (Aviation Law) conferences. I have enough respect for other members of the bar who have amassed vastly larger public records of accomplishment - even those records which prompt lawyer-bashers to decry the profession and all who practice in it - not to try to pass off forum talk as the equivalent, or even merely reflective of, the serious legal thinking going on in that attorney's conference room. And many other law firm conference rooms. The issues in this matter aren't going to be simple, neat, or pleasant. Perhaps the air has been deflated out of the emotional shock-balloon the midair collision visited upon many folks; it is still my view that this was a catastrophe, wrenching in many respects the NAS all the way back to the skies over New York City in 1960 and the midair which ultimately gave rise to the formation of PATCO. And the strike, which led to, with respect to controller staffing . . . . .

This is a photo of Washington, DC, at night on the approach to National. Lots of lights. You might mistake automobile headlights for the plane you say you have in sight, or, as mentioned before, they might have fixated on the plane behind the plane they were supposed to see and avoid.

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/125...gcSoTmRDpMdzk=

Hiya Capt B , true but I sort of see 2 related issues - (a) airspace design and (b) how things are conducted within that airspace.

If the airspace design had been used with positive control (ie holding traffic off R4 while 33 was in use or even holding R4 traffic at bridges or somewhere clear of 33 while it was in use) that would work.

Using that same airspace design with "see and avoid" was far less safe and, as reported, led to quite a few incidents of TA's before this fateful day.

But, as the "see and avoid" system was seen by the users at the coal face at least to work, despite the TA's, the operational use of the design became "normalised" to use "see and avoid".

Sadly, no-one (such as DCA management) seems to have studied the extra issues so this more dangerous way of using the design has became "normalised", particularly where ATC is busy.

That's just my take on it.

The summary of the admission of liability was:

"GENERAL ADMISSION OF LIABILITY The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, which it breached, thereby proximately causing the tragic accident on January 29, 2025, as specifically set forth below. The United States admits that it, among other tortfeasors, is liable to a Plaintiff who is legally eligible to recover monetary damages, as permitted by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. \xa7\xa7 1346(b), 2671\x9680, in an amount yet to be determined and apportioned among other tortfeasors."

The admission is based on the failure of the helicopter pilots to see and avoid traffic. The US also accepts that the air traffic controller failed to comply with a regulation but denies that this was a proximate cause of the accident and therefore that this incurred legal liability. The US briefly makes reference to the policy and political questions exemption with reference to some of the plaintiff's broader claims. The US also appears to be claiming that the jet pilots also had a duty to see and avoid traffic and so that the US is not solely liable.

Some reactions and at least attempts at valid observations.

FAA and ATCOs. Did the Department of Justice's Answer to the Complaint throw the controller(s) "under the bus?" Yes, and no. In brief, the Answer does not state that the controllers' acts or omissions were a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the accident.

The Complaint alleges a long list of allegedly negligent acts by the controller(s) in Paragraph 250, which starts on page 158 and runs on to 164 (in the Answer). Without having studied the pleadings for hours upon hours (as one might do in actual practice) perhaps I've missed something -- but I think the only admission made by DOJ with regard to the controllers is that a very specifically cited FAA rule or procedure of some sort was not followed: "the DCA local controller did not comply with \xb6 7-2-1(a)(2)(d) of FAA Order JO 7110.65AA, chg. 3, Air Traffic Control (Sept. 5, 2024)." This specific admission is made recurrently in the Answer, amidst many other denials of (again, unless I missed something) everything else in the massive and detailed Paragraph 250 of the Complaint.

Edit [forgot to include]: the Complaint alleges generally the following about FAA and the ATCOs.
"the Federal Aviation Administration\x92s air traffic controllers failed in their two most important priorities, namely to separate aircraft in airspace and issue Safety Alerts when aircraft are in an unsafe proximity to one another; that the air traffic controllers on duty failed to abide by numerous other policies and procedures, including that air traffic control failed to provide traffic advisories to both aircraft and air traffic control failed to resolve an aural and visual Conflict Alert that advised air traffic control that the two aircraft were on an unsafe and converging collision course; and that the air traffic controllers failed in their duties concerning the \x93tower team concept\x94 within an air traffic control facility so that all controllers assist each other to prevent, amongst other things, a mid-air collision. The Defendants\x92 [meaning, both the U.S. and the airlines] collective failures (for which they are jointly and severally liable) caused, and/or contributed to this senseless and entirely avoidable tragedy."

So, "no", because the DOJ does not admit ATC was a cause-in-fact and proximate cause (both needed for liability, if I recall 1-L) but yes, first, specifically with regard to the FAA Order, and second, for all of the reasons ATC Watcher invokes. Whether those several factors would ever be considered for inclusion in an Answer to a big tort case such as this is doubtful . . .BUT especially after the fireworks over Section 373, watch for the NTSB report to lay it all out. (And incidentally, the Complaint now includes several excerpts from NTSB hearing and docket - not sure if these were part of the original Complaint. The Answer is the first pleading in response to the Complaint and it has become the Master Complaint, as I understand it, because it is the pleading on behalf of all the plaintiffs, regardless of whether they are represented by the attorneys who filed the very first Complaint in the case. Further, according to press reports (WSJ print edition today) both the airline companies filed motions to dismiss. Thankfully, or maybe not, my Pacer account is acting up, so, no comment....)

2. The airline and its parent company. The Complaint paints a very negative picture about the acts and omissions of the airline companies and the two pilots of 5342. The Answer was filed only on behalf of the United States (FAA and Army) and so the DOJ does not address the specific allegations forming the claims against the airline - this is standard practice. Still, I found this in the Answer (re: Para. 174): "The United States admits that the AE5342 pilots failied to maintain vigilance and to see and avoid PAT25".

I am refraining from trying to summarize or comment on the many aspects of the story about the airline pilots and airline companies alleged in the Complaint. It is a very detailed story. It probably if not certainly will outrage people in the industry writ large. I've not practiced tort law, either suing or defending, but that won't stop me from saying that it seems pretty clear that the trial lawyers are gunning for the airline company deep pockets, the availability of punitive damages when those are not awardable against the Federal Government, the availability of a jury trial, and insurance policies. To state the obvious.

As for the Army, Para. 253 starts on page 168 and runs to 176; the DOJ admits some but not all of the many specifically alleged negligent acts and omissions by the Army and those pilots.

One other little item caught my attention. In paragraph 106, reference is made to "risk assessment" stuff the Army aviation unit conducted or did not conduct. "Risk Assessment", that wouldn't be the same thing as showed up in Section 373, by chance?

(For information, the case number in federal district court in D.C. is 1:25-cv-03382-ACR.)

Probable Cause Statement: