Separation (ALL) Page: 3 of 23

Luc Lion
January 30, 2025, 19:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817598

As many others said earlier, it is unfair to blame an individual, pilot or ATCO, who made a honest fatal mistake when the system allows that very mistake to have catastrophic consequences.

Adding an additional slice of cheese in the sandwich is very easy: just state that when 2 tracking routes provide less than 500 ft of separation, then they are mutually exclusive.

A clearance for route RT4 and a clearance for an approach RW33 cannot be active at the same time.
If an approach is underway, the route is closed. And if a clearance for the route has been issued, then the approach to RW33 is not available.

And the FAA would be well inspired to investigate all other similar conflicts across the USA and implement the same principle.

Subjects ATCO FAA Separation (ALL)

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

10 recorded likes for this post.

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

hans brinker
January 30, 2025, 20:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817606

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud Cutter

This could well be an example of why visual separation at night is not a good idea.

Couple of companies ago, we were allowed to do visuals in day VMC, but not night VMC, unless we could stay above MSA until established on the approach used to back up the visual. It is just too easy to not see things at night. Completely agree

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.

pax britanica
January 30, 2025, 20:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817610

I have flown in and out of DCA often and listening to the ATC recording , I am only a humble PAX but I think most people would find it alarming the amount of instructions that have to be issued to keep traffic flowing at DCA, Flying an approach to Rwy 1 and then skipping across to 33 so they can run a kind of pseudo parallel operation all mixed with VFR traffic in darkness , You can hear the strain/stress in the controllers voice as he tries to issue instructions to traffic that doesnt automatically deconflict . And thats without several seconds of the two incident aircraft head on to each other with 200 ft separation at less than 400 ft agl !!! Just tragic

Subjects ATC DCA Separation (ALL) VFR

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.

henra
January 30, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817621

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

Adding an additional slice of cheese in the sandwich is very easy: just state that when 2 tracking routes provide less than 500 ft of separation, then they are mutually exclusive.

This is the really puzzling part. Looking at the expected altitude of an approaching Airliner with a 3\xb0 G/S at the expected crossing point it would be at 250 ft +/-50 That leaves a mere 0-100ft to the helicopter route (and that is assuming the Helo path along the East side of the Potomac, if it deviates somewhat to the West the default altitude of the Airliner will drop below 200ft at the crossing). This is simply insane. You could count the number of bolts in the rotor head if everything goes according to plan. If not -well we saw that last night. How can this be allowed? What was the plan? Did ATC assume the Helo would duck under? At night over water? And visual separation in case of a circle to land -not a straight in- at night? Courageous. Note to self: Never take a flight into DCA.

Subjects ATC Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA Separation (ALL) 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.

MissChief
January 30, 2025, 20:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817632

Stop night visual separation in Class B airspace, and accidents such as this will not happen. Sure, other accidents might, but this one was and should be avoidable. Radar control is required.

Ideally in daytime ops too. Visual separation is hazardous in congested airspace at all times.

Subjects Radar Separation (ALL) 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.

C0ir3all
January 30, 2025, 21:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817657

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fonsini

Visual separation at night and LAHSO need to go. It\x92s that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervish

Having listened to the 8 minute audio clip linked earlier, it never ceases to amaze me how aircrew and ATCOs manage to understand each other. I got maybe 5% of what was said. Too quick, no diction.
RIP

so so right. As well as rubbish procedures, the speed of conversation and lack of pauses for responding is disastrous, US ATC needs a whole review from top to bottom.

Subjects ATC Land and Hold Short 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.

shared reality
January 30, 2025, 22:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817695

Quote:

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.

Captain Biggles 101
January 30, 2025, 22:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817700

See and avoid in airline operations simply does not work. High workload, human factors, visual limitations, high closing speeds simply make it unreliable.

There have been countless similar cases of near misses. Near airports, crossing traffic, especially helicopters is a real issue, as is the totally inappropriate see and avoid principle with commercial traffic. In my view we need a complete rule change and rethink around lack of radar separation between IFR and VFR traffic.

All too frequently ATC allow IFR and VFR far too close on approach and are permitted to just inform the VFR traffic to visually manoeuvre themselves all too close to IFR traffic. The book 'The Naked Pilot' years ago established that see and avoid does not work, simple as that.

Class D airspace whilst not necessarily involved here often causes such issues. Pilot's wrongly believe ATC separates IFR and VFR. Frequently ATC allow conflicts to develop on the basis of law, rather than duty of care. We need to get back to common sense, and that is ATC must stop VFR traffic getting anywhere near airliners on final approach or from crossing the go around track. Either lateral or vertical separation needs to be enforced or repeats of this type of accident will definitely repeat.

Lessons have not been learned previous to this accident. I fear we will see a repeat, and low level near airport ATC separation needs to improve.

We need the industry to wake up and realise, see and avoid is unreliable, and air law does not protect IFR traffic from VFR traffic enough.

Subjects ATC Close Calls IFR Radar 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.

3 recorded likes for this post.

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

alfaman
January 30, 2025, 22:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817716

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rushed Approach

OK so what's your interpretation of the rules here then?

The airliner is under IFR rules on its flight plan until it gets changed to a different runway, when it's then VFR.

The chopper is under VFR, stooging along a river at 200 ft and avoiding traffic on approach to Reagan by visual clues alone.

Radar useless as the aircraft are too low.

Airliner TCAS useless as inhibited, even if it can decode the military transponder's data.

Radio situational awareness compromised as chopper on UHF, airliner on VHF. So each aircraft can neither hear the other nor the ATC instructions to that aircraft.

It's difficult to see aircraft at night against a backdrop of a city with thousands of lights. And when you're gonna hit something, as others have said, that light doesn't move relative to you, so you don't notice it - it just blends into the background lights.

It only takes the chopper to misidentify the aircraft it's supposed to go behind and to therefore turn into the path of the airliner it was supposed to avoid - draw the map with the vectors and it all makes sense. These two aircraft ended up in the Potomac, but they could have ended up in much worse places in terms of loss of life on the ground.

Seems to me it's been an accident waiting to happen for some time.

I can't speak for the USA, but my understanding was always that the flight rules for the CRJ don't change, unless the crew cancel their IFR plan: ie flying a visual approach doesn't change the flight rule status. The crew can still expect IFR separation from other IFR & SVFR flights, & traffic information on conflicting VFR flights.

Subjects ATC Accident Waiting to Happen CRJ IFR Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness TCAS (All) VFR

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

17 recorded likes for this post.

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

kontrolor
January 30, 2025, 22:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817719

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG1

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.

as European ATCO I can hardly believe the way some of my US colleagues are conducting their duties. I think the state ATC in US is today is in large part residue of Reagan firing of 10.000 ATCOS. I think you are very right. First of all, night visual approach in so densely lit environment, night VFR in very close proximity of runway...all this is just a recipe for disaster. Which unfortunately arrived in worst form.

Subjects ATC ATCO Separation (ALL) VFR

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.

Pilot DAR
January 30, 2025, 23:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817736

Quote:

but my understanding was always that the flight rules for the CRJ don't change, unless the crew cancel their IFR plan: ie flying a visual approach doesn't change the flight rule status. The crew can still expect IFR separation from other IFR & SVFR flights, & traffic information on conflicting VFR flights.

Yes, that would be my understanding also.

Subjects CRJ IFR Separation (ALL) VFR

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.

jumpseater
January 30, 2025, 23:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817743

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaman

I am wondering the same thing, in the UK/EU unless the IFR crew specifically cancels their IFR plan with ATC, (it can be done immediately on frequency), IFR separation requirements still apply.

In the US does an agreement to make a visual approach regardless of airspace classification, cancel IFR separation requirements for the ATCO?

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ IFR Separation (ALL) VFR

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.

digits_
January 30, 2025, 23:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817762

Assuming the youtube clips are accurate, why did ATC tell the helicopter to pass behind a CRJ when both aircraft were approaching each other head on? How would that even work?

And as stated by other people earlier, but it bears repeating, at night you're *never* sure what traffic you are seeing. Even during the day it's extremely hard to differentiate between different aircraft types. At night *everyone* is guessing that the light blob they see is a CRJ or a 737 or even a PC12 or a C172. Visual separation only works when it's not necessary: in low traffic areas.

And to deviate a little bit, I'm afraid the next incident will involve landing clearances to runways that are not clear at all.

Subjects ATC CRJ 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Pearly White
January 30, 2025, 23:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817772

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Unlikely that one I would say because he was cleared to go behind, ,, it would then have to make a sharp left urn then , not a slight right one ..as it looks like he did on he FR24 track.

If the UH60 pilot was, in fact, maintaining visual separation from the CRJ as claimed, none of us would be here discussing this.

The real problem here is expecting one pilot to be responsible for visual separation (at any time, but especially at night). At what point do we agree to release ATC from the responsibility of keeping us separated by sufficient margins? I know a miss is as good as a mile but if I've got a bunch of people sitting behind me, I'd prefer 500/1000 feet just to be on the safe side thanks.

Subjects ATC CRJ 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.

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.

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 00:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817780

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

which will be vectors or the MAP, not the local visual procedures. No need to request a pick-up; you\x91re still IFR

This has been \x93litigated\x94 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.

Subjects ATC IFR 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.

Easy Street
January 31, 2025, 00:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817798

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpseater

No, a visual approach started under IFR remains under IFR unless IFR is explicitly cancelled.

However, note that the airspace class at major US airports is B (rarely used elsewhere). Cancelling IFR in Class B does not relieve ATC of separation responsibility because VFR flights must still be separated from all other flights ( VFR separation standards here ). Separation responsibility only transfers to a pilot when they accept ' visual separation ' and the controller must continue giving separation instructions until that point. Aircraft can be given 'visual separation' against other aircraft, including IFR aircraft as happened here, without the other aircraft needing to have the traffic in sight. The controller must advise the other aircraft that visual separation is being applied if the flight paths are converging .

None of that is necessarily a problem.

The problem is reliance on visual separation at night. The ease with which the eye is drawn to bright lights (which may not be the lights of interest) and inability to perceive depth and distance from a point source of light (made worse by NVG) make it a high risk activity even between combat aircraft. To permit it to be relied upon for protection of airline traffic is madness.

Last edited by Easy Street; 31st January 2025 at 01:14 .

Subjects ATC ATCO IFR Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Separation (ALL) 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.

7 recorded likes for this post.

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

paperHanger
January 31, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817845

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessThanSte

Seems baffling that this could happen in such a tight controlled environment...

It is not a tightly controlled environment. It should be, but it clearly isn't. The helicopter was allowed to cross through the approach path, while accepting a visual separation, to route at his/her discretion to pass clear of the CRJ. This would never happen in most other countries in the day, let alone at night where identifying other aircraft agaisnt a backdrop of a brightly lit city skyline is close to impossible. The helicopter should have been vectored by ATC to be exactly where they wanted him, when they wanted him. Asking him to visually identify traffic and choose a route around it is just asking for trouble. Whoever designed a helicopter low level corridor that passed through the approach path of a major international airport also needs a psych exam.

Subjects ATC CRJ Separation (ALL) 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.

Ollie Onion
January 31, 2025, 02:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817852

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?

Subjects ATC CRJ 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.

10 recorded likes for this post.

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

artee
January 31, 2025, 03:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817877

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

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???

SLF here, so please don't shout.

It doesn't seem "fair" for aircraft like the CRJ, that in busy, complex airspace, another aircraft can request and receive VFR, meaning in broad terms, they're outside of ATC's guardrails. CRJ now have an aircraft in the vicinity that isn't being controlled by ATC.

Doesn't seem like a good process to an outsider.

Subjects AA5342 ATC CRJ Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

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.

Bratchewurst
January 31, 2025, 04:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817897

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.

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.

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.

Posts about: "Separation (ALL)" [Posts: 442 Page: 3 of 23]¶