Separation (ALL) Page: 2 of 23

toratoratora
January 30, 2025, 13:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817252

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upside Down

The Route 4 restrictions are in the Terminal Chart somebody else posted further up the thread: \x93Rt4: Fort Washington over Potomac River to Wilson Bridge. Then via East bank of Potomac River to Anacostia River. Intercept Route 1 at Anacostia River. Altitudes: At or below 600 feet MSL to Wilson Bridge. Begin descent from 600 feet MSL to arrive at 300 feet MSL over Wilson Bridge. Then at or below 200 feet MSL North of Wilson Bridge.\x94

The chart itself shows the <not above 200 MSL> symbol for the segment where the collision took place. That combined with the \x93via East bank\x85\x94 provides (some) procedural separation with traffic on final.. not much but some if the Route 4 traffic follows the east bank\x85 and stays below 200\x92\x85.

That is how it looks to me.
Southbound, not above 200 feet to Goose Island, then not above 300 before the Wilson Bridge.
Screenshot elsewhere suggests the Blackhawk was initially at 200, then climbed early to 300, and then to 350\x85.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) Route 4 Separation (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.

DonLeslie
January 30, 2025, 13:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817254

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicolai

Neither Lufty nor Iberia will accept a visual night approach (as far as I recall).

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.

The Lufty A380 that went to Oakland looked a lot like they were being sent there by ATC to punish them, since it can't have been news to the SFO controllers that Lufty won't do that approach - when they come there every night at about the same time. The ATC kept him waiting and the Lufty Captain was pretty arsey to the ATC and then they sent him to Purgatory (OAK).

In the San Francisco case (it was an A350, BTW), there was a misunderstanding. Lufthansa are and have always been allowed to do visual approaches at night. At the time, however, they were not allowed to "follow visually behind" at night, that restriction has since been lifted.
Personally however, an LH A350 Captain myself, I would never do it at any airport that I'm not 100% familiar with. Take the Bay Area for example: there are millions of lights, from buildings, street lights, cars and other aircraft. One of the latter may or may not be your traffic, but can you be sure which one is the one? Or judge the distance from your own aircraft correctly? If ATC ask me whether I have traffic in sight, my answer is always "negative".
That American practice is inherently dangerous and, as many of my European colleagues have commented here, it is beyond me how that can be legal.

Subjects 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.

37 recorded likes for this post.

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

PerPurumTonantes
January 30, 2025, 13:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817263

Waiting to happen

Heli route 4 is at or below 200ft if I read the chart correctly.

Approach traffic seems to be approx 400-500ft at this point.

Which turnip decided it would be OK to allow vertical separation of 300ft on a busy approach path? And allow it VFR at night?

This accident was baked in. Bound to happen at some point.

Subjects Route 4 Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical Separation

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.

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817266

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"

sequence is not important . What is is the difference between passing traffic information and delegating separation . . in the US limits are being "pushed" to use a politically correct term in order to allow more traffic than the rules would allow . That is the issue here . Not the phraseology .
Same as using "side step " , a procedure made for parallel runways , here they do with with runways 30 degrees apart . etc..etc..

Subjects ATC CRJ Phraseology (ATC) Separation (ALL)

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

canyonblue737
January 30, 2025, 14:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817292

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

yes. if you look at the longer transcripts his initial call of the traffic was exactly that format and the helicopter acknowledges the traffic in sight and is approved visual separation. they some time later 30-60 seconds at least (maybe more) there are the more common published transcripts where the controller uses non standard phraseology in quick succession to attempt to point out and ask he helicopter to pass behind the traffic. the non-standard phraseology and voice is clearly stressed because its the moment in time the ATC controller becomes first concerned by the proximity of the helicopter and airplane and clearly he is making a quick call to try to see if the helicopter still "has him in sight" or if he needs to take action (like sending the CRJ around). unfortunately after the second quick non standard call the helicopter again responds they have the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation. perhaps 10-15 seconds later the midair occurs. detailed audio long before and after the incident is here:

Subjects ATC CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) 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.

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

copperjob
January 30, 2025, 14:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817301

The best safety systems try to remove humans from critical procedures.
Visual separation at night is a third world solution to a busy traffic zone.

.

Last edited by Pilot DAR; 30th January 2025 at 14:57 . Reason: removed the politics from the post

Subjects Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

JG1
January 30, 2025, 15:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817307

Quote:

Originally Posted by WideScreen

I think, it's pretty early to call out this to be an ATC issue. Not to say, the whole issue is just built into the system being used in crowded airspaces, with very limited reserves for human mistakes.

ATC's paramount role, it's predominant, principal reason for existing is separation. In the US, controllers are much too eager to pass that buck over to the pilots. Far too eager to hand off their traffic onto a visual approach, often intimidatingly so. It happens nowhere else.

Subjects ATC Separation (ALL)

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.

Luc Lion
January 30, 2025, 15:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817309

In my understanding, the minimum safe separation in altitude is 500 feet.
As the approach to R33 crosses IDTEK (over the East bank of the river) at about 490 feet MSL, there is no way another aircraft can safely pass underneath at 200 feet MSL.
Thus, I think, the helicopter route RT 4 must be closed whenever an approach (visual or RNAV) to R33 is underway.
If a southbound traffic request a clearance for RT 4 in such a circumstance, they should be ordered to hold at Hains Point or North of it, or be redirected via routes RT 2 and RT 3 to Wilson Bridge.

And the helicopter route chart precedes the route descriptions with the comment "ALL ROUTES MAY BE ALTERED AT PILOT'S REQUEST OR AS DIRECTED BY ATC".

Last edited by Luc Lion; 30th January 2025 at 15:12 . Reason: more info

Subjects ATC 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.

ALTSELGREEN
January 30, 2025, 15:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817313

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked door

The whole USA aviation sector needs root and branch reform, there have been so many near misses in recent years that this accident was inevitable, it was just a question of when.

The majority of people inside the system don\x92t realise how bad it is because it\x92s all they\x92ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it\x92s ok to switch to TA only to avoid \x93nuisance\x94 RA\x92s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it\x92s acceptable to \x93slam dunk\x94 a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.

I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.

On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.

Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.

Stay safe out there

LD

What a terrible, avoidable accident brought about by woefully inadequate procedures.
Couldn\x92t agree more with everything you say. I\x92m sure we have probably shared a flightdeck in years gone by judging by your experiences. It\x92s this kind of chaos that I have to say I miss very little!!

Subjects ATC Close Calls Land and Hold Short 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.

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.

fdr
January 30, 2025, 15:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817323

Quote:

Originally Posted by copperjob

The best safety systems try to remove humans from critical procedures.
Visual separation at night is a third world solution to a busy traffic zone.

.

Actually, it's not third world, the rest of the world would not accept this procedure. Wheres 2nd world in all of this?

Subjects 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.

Mozella
January 30, 2025, 15:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817324

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

But it's worse than that. The approaches to DCA are only moderately complicated; however, unlike most airports, DCA is surrounded with frustrated people just waiting to call the FAA if you deviate from the published procedure by the slightest amount. Nobody want's to do a rug-dance in the Chief Pilot's office because some Senator's aide gets his/her panties in a wad, or worse, get a violation from the FAA because you flew over someone working for the Secretary of Transportation. I always enjoyed flying in and out of DCA because it was challanging, but I was always on my toes, constantly checking my altitude, position (both visually and via instruments), airspeed, etc. because it is so easy to get your teat in the wringer at DCA.
In this case, the aircraft was flying an approach to one runway with a circle-to-land on RW-33. Ask any pilot; a circle to land in itself ups the work load. The margin for error of any kind at DCA is small and the 5200 foot runway isn't all that long. Even on a simple landing where none of these considerations are an issue, at some point the pilots reduce their "see and avoid" efforts and concentrate their efforts on achieving the proper line up and glide slope, rate of descent, aircraft configuration, flap setting, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the complicated routine required to safely land an airliner these days is already close to task overload even when things are going well. Add in the fact that it's night time at a very busy airport and looking out the window gets shoved pretty far down the "to do" list. But generally speaking, the system works because big busy airports pretty much operate using IFR rules and nearly all the aircraft are under close control. I other words, even on a crystal clear day under VFR flight conditions, someone is keeping a very close eye on the airliners coming and going from major airports. If a pilot makes a mistake and levels off at the wrong altitude, for example, there is a very good chance a controller will catch that error immediately even on a sunny VFR day. And that's a good thing because truth-be-told, when an airliner is seconds from touch down these days, there isn't much "see and avoid" going on. That's just the way it is.

But apparently DCA routinely has all sorts of helo traffic buzzing around under modified VFR flight rules. The pilots are talking to a controller but without being under the same sort of close control which is usually associated with how airliners operate. And they do that night and day, trusting the helo pilots to not make a mistake. But it looks like someone DID make a mistake last night and nobody caught it in time.

Subjects ATC Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA FAA IFR Route 4 See and Avoid Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical 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.

clearedtocross
January 30, 2025, 15:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817334

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).

Quote:

Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.

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.

Subjects ATC DCA Hover IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical 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.

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.

BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 16:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817358

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

IDTEK is actually SE of the east Potomac shoreline. The 3 deg extended centerline from runway 33 aim point to the east Potomac shoreline (west land limit of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling) gives an altitude of just under 300 ft. But I agree with your point about the incompatible nature of simultaneous route 4 and runway 33 ops.

Subjects Route 4 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.

EFHF
January 30, 2025, 17:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817434

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

fdr
January 30, 2025, 17:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817466

Quote:

Originally Posted by thparkth

Imagine being that ATC right now. As if yesterday wasn't horrific enough, the President of the USA is now on TV implying that the accident was directly your fault, and that you are a mentally-handicapped diversity hire.

For a minute there, I misread your post, and thought that Trump was the mentally handicapped diversity hire!

Hanging the ATCO on duty will not bring back the dead, and was not the cause of the problem. Having a civil aircraft flight path immediately overhead a LL RW VFR transit lane that guarantees that there is a loss of separation standards is what set this off, and that has been the case for decades. The crews, pax, ATC officers and families just happened to be the ones that got caught out by the insanity that permitted this track and procedure to exist.

Will Mr T go after the ATC guy? probably, the ATC officer doesn't own a kingdom, a corporation, in fact he is highly unlikely to have a DUI, and certainly won't be a convicted felon. So, I would rate the ATC guy as the convenient fall guy for the US Govt, the FAA who should not have permitted the operation of civil aircraft proximate to military LL traffic, and the US DOD, who will have signed off on the practice of disregarding minimum separation per \xa791.111. As far as right of way, the CRJ was landing, \xa791.113(g) applies, notwithstanding 91.113(d). The CRJ had every reasonable expectation of not sharing a cockpit on short finals to a short runway with crossing helo traffic.

IDTEK is 1.4nm from touchdown, 490' PA
the east bank of the river is half way to the runway, ~0.7nm, -> 245'+40' = 285'PA
the collision occurred around mid river, ~0.3-0.4nm from T/D, or 125+40=165'

How does a 200' transit height down the east side of the river overwater provide any reasonable separation for the guys who were unfortunate last night to be the graphic example of normalisation of deviation, by the US GOVT, FAA, and US DOD.

What is particularly annoying is that the generals and other command staff, and Secretaries of Transport, Defence etc are quite happy to cashier the F-18 pilots who do a slow flypast of an arena, or the T-38 instructors who do the same over some other game, and yet, what is the chance that any general takes responsibility for their part in this sorry state of affairs. responsibility like other stuff, only goes downwards,

Its pretty easy for the guy in charge to defame the ATCO.

Glass houses.

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ FAA President Donald Trump Separation (ALL) VFR

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

33 recorded likes for this post.

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

photonclock
January 30, 2025, 18:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817485

Quote:

Originally Posted by thparkth

The longer video shows that the "late warning" was the SECOND time that ATC asked the helicopter pilot to confirm that he was visual with the CRJ, and that he was avoiding it. The ATC followed the established procedure of allowing the heli to visually separate itself from the arriving aircraft, which the heli had specifically requested from ATC. You might argue that the procedure isn't safe, and I would agree... but individual ATCs are expected to follow the procedures they're given.

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?

Subjects ATC CRJ Separation (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.

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 18:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817497

If that published in AIP route 4 crossing under the final approach path of RWY 33 says max 200 ft and according the calculations made by Luc Lion earlier the altitude of the CRJ was, if not exactly on the PAPI , very close to it at 300 Ft in less than a mile before TDZ. But 100 ft separation is not a normal civil vertical separation standard in controlled airspace, for an IFR flight. it is 500 ft minimum in our books. . One of the roots of the problem is right there : a published route where you need a visual military type separation to make it work . And it may have worked hundreds of times before , sometimes with luck I am sure, but this time it did not and this was just an accident waiting to happen written in the book.

To answer an earlier question , Yes they have CISM , NATCA is good at this , they will take care of the controllers.

@ fdr : our posts crossed each other , fully agree with you .

Subjects Accident Waiting to Happen CRJ IFR Route 4 Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

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

6 recorded likes for this post.

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

Toruk Macto
January 30, 2025, 18:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817512

Many years ago the Chinese had big brand new airports , ATC spoke good English , when stressed just raised their voice but speed was same . Good ground aids , wide runways and the military gave some airspace for certain routes to be established but they had issue with increasing the usage and looked around for help . They paid some Americans to come over and they improved things and now it\x92s a very good system .

The American system is confronting , aggressive to pilots that don\x92t do night separation , ATC are passive aggressive then quick to accuse . It\x92s running at %120 and resources are being reduced . For info I already know I can\x92t see airport , preceding traffic , a bridge or a taxiway identifier that\x92s hidden or behind me when I operate there next week .

Subjects ATC Separation (ALL)

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

RatherBeFlying
January 30, 2025, 19:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817562

ATC in the tower would be unable to visually verify separation at that distance.

The earlier radar replay, if confirmed real, raises the question of whether it was monitored by anybody able to warn in time

Subjects ATC Radar Separation (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.

Posts about: "Separation (ALL)" [Posts: 442 Page: 2 of 23]¶