Posts about: "TCAS RA" [Posts: 60 Page: 3 of 3]¶

I agree that the DC controllers should not be scapegoated. At the same time, the concept of professionalism must be addressed. The concept that professionals in a field must alone (without management, without lawyers, without the public) maintain the best practices of the given professional discipline.

In the US, physicians who work for "Health Maintenance Organizations" are asked to practice medicine, at times, in a "basically unsafe" manner...to keep patients moving. On occasion, such practices will bite a patient (and sometimes the physician). As a whole, HMO physicians do not enjoy the best reputation.

From my perspective, there is practically no difference between the plight of an American air traffic controller and an American HMO physician. Both are expected to "squeeze one more in." Both fields are staffed by above-average capable individuals who thrive on challenges. Both are managed in such a manner that they cannot say "no" and also keep their job. In this regard, at least physicians have job portability.

But the take home point is that one cannot admit to knowing a practice is fundamentally unsafe, yet do it anyway. The public, rightfully, should not accept this. I have no solution except more staff and/or more airports (and not some next-gen whizzbang computer system).

No this has not changed, my remark was on RAs not TAs, If I induced confusion my bad ..

There are however also issues with visual acquisitions on TAs , all very well described here , if you want to go further : https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/2051.pdf

Ah, thanks, no prob

It won't be the last time I'll think it compulsory to say this about this accident - I'm not trying to provoke the inevitable lawsuits into higher intensity (despite status as simple SLF/attorney).

Almost invariably lawyers as well as law students and professors, when asked to comment about what is taught in law school, recite the truism that "law school teaches you how to think like a lawyer." Problem is, even quite modest experience in and with the realities and pressures of representing clients - i.e., practicing law - dulls the thinking part and intensifies the hustler mentalities, of which there are many variations. I'm noting this because law school actually trains you how to spot the issues. It sometimes is the case that the standard things lawyers think about a given set of issues are not the most relevant and meaningful things.

With that hopefully not grossly pedantic context out of the way..... in previous comments on this thread I've noted that the federal defendants would be expected to assert sovereign immunity.... more technically, that although the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity in general terms, the statute also contains various exceptions - in other words, the exceptions where they apply keep sovereign immunity in place. The exception relevant here is the "discretionary function" exception, which (pardon the attempt at over-simplifying it) keeps the immunity in place if the allegedly negligent act (or omission) resulted from a federal entity's policy decision or choice.

I previously viewed the discretionary function exception is likely imposing a pretty strong barrier against liability of the (probable) federal defendants. However.

However. However, as I write this somewhere in an aviation law practice a mid-level or even junior associate is pounding their computer keyboard, amassing BASED ON THE ISSUES NOW REVEALED an analysis of how the discretionary function exception has never, never ever ever, been imposed to bar liability for alleged negligence roughly and/or reasonably comparable to the record of "encounters" now documented by NTSB Prelim Report. And that record goes back several years . . . but presumably discovery in United States District Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could easily reach back to even more past years.

Of course, it will be said that ignoring these many encounters was indeed a policy choice, and so the exception does apply, a forum post like this notwithstanding. But that's just the point. The ISSUE here is that there never was a conscious policy directive which the alleged negligence stemmed from. Or stated another way, if I were in the aviation practice imagined above, I'd be running associates ragged to amass the above-mentioned analysis which establishes, among other things, that GROSS NEGLIGENCE by the FAA can never be, and is not as a matter of law, a predicate for applying the discretionary function exception. (For lawyers out there, somewhat akin to prima facie tort.)

By the way, for all the discovery sports fans out there, just think how much fun it will be to run discovery to amass the facts of what actions - meaning by the aircraft in which the RAs were annunciated - were taken as a result of all the RAs as noted by NTSB's Prelim Report.

I don't recall seeing this specific Blancolirio segment previously - and thank you AirScotia for putting it up here.

SLF/attorney as I am, I've looked up some information about ASIAS. Not to bury the lede, the legal issues about whether or not the entities within the federal government which are likely to become defendants in the inevitable litigation will be able to defend successfully on the basis of sovereign immunity will draw, and perhaps draw heavily, on information about ASIAS. This just is my view as (for lack of a better label) an observer, and I'm not part of any legal group or practice currently involved with the matters arising from the accident.

1) Juan overstated one point which could become significant in what I think is the impending legal wrangle over sovereign immunity. The Executive Board of the ASIAS isn't comprised of all the stakeholders shown in one of the slides in the video. The Exec. Board "has representation" from all or substantially all of the stakeholder groups. (Source: portal.asias.aero) Didn't find (or invest more time in looking for) the actual roster of members of that board.

2) skybrary.aero has an interesting page about ASIAS. It notes the involvement of Eurocontrol, ICAO, and Flight Safety Foundation and includes further information about the ASIAS purpose and functions.

3) Most of the slides Juan included in the video appear to have been taken from (or at least those slides appear identical to slides in) a 2007 deck on the Voluntary Information Sharing System Working Group. I won't include the individual's name (just being cautious) but the deck is attributed to the Director, FAA Aviation Safety Analytical Services Division AVP-200. (The slides are marked (in fine print - no irony intended) as "ASIAS Proprietary". Yes, and 67 people were killed in a midair collision in the airspace of our Nation's Capital, so, I'll keep my "fair use" arguments ready if necessary.)

The slides in this deck include a chronological look-back at the genesis and iterations of efforts leading up to ASIAS, from 1995-96 through 2007.

The slide displayed in the video which grabbed my attention was the one indicating that ASIAS is governed by formal principles. Why this is so interesting (imho) is that the legal issue of whether sovereign immunity does or does not apply to FAA and (though it is more complicated) to the Army depends on whether the "discretionary function exception" applies. (That is, a federal statute removes sovereign immunity for negligence in general, but it also includes exceptions where sovereign immunity remains in place as a defense . . . or an affirmative defense, but this isn't law school or actual representation). I'm not drilling into the potential arguments and counters at this time. That being said, I'm quite inclined to think that it will be difficult to prevail on an argument defending the way FAA continued to run DCA because that way was based on policy choices or judgments instead of defined rules - in other words, that FAA exercised discretion in a matter of judgment about policy issues. To reduce this to some absurdity, "show me the policy decision memo that was written about a choice between tolerating the risk, now revealed as obvious - and didn't Board Chair Homendy say it was "intolerable" - of midair collisions, instead of applying all the safety principles embedded in the very existence of ASIAS itself." I'm not waiting for such a memo to surface, but if it exists, surely it will be found in discovery.

4) Not least, Juan walks through some specific reports of previous aircraft-helicopter encounters at DCA. At about 8:50, no. 1458911, he relates an incident with chilling parallels to the fateful night of January 29. I mean, if our court and legal system in the United States still has any meaningful relationship to "the interests of justice" . . . this will be (imho) powerful and effective evidence. And it's not from a distant past - just 2015. If my notes are accurate, the incidents just after this one (a Captain who calls DCA the most dangerous airport he's familiar with or words to that effect), and the previous incident also (a TCAS RA, complied with, but then a GPWS from the tower was triggered, incident 1558721 at about 8:15) - when was a specific policy judgment made to shrug off incidents such as these, and what were the alternatives then considered? Or was it "system drift, this is the way we've always done things, National is close to the Hill you know" .... these explanations do not constitute policy, in my view, but rather negligence that can and should be held to adjudicated responsibility and accountability in the United States District Court.

One last point is that Juan's calling attention to the swift and unequivocal actions taken by the Secretary of Transportation is something everyone involved with aviation safety and operations ought to concur with. Not even a month in the role yet - and this tragic calamity occurs. Salute!, Mr. Secretary!

Wondering if this was support for an Arlington funeral given altitude and flight path. Appears it was a flight of two T-38s as DO61 is tracked continuously but DO63 pops up only briefly in formation with DO61 as the jets pass over Falls Church.

DAL2983 (A319) and DO61 had an altitude separation of about 100 ft and 0.5 nm at closest point of approach with a relative closure rate of 440 kts.

Two interactions just prior to above that may not have generated RAs: RPA4500 (E75L) passed DO61 with no lateral separation and about 1800 ft vertical separation with a relative closure of 540 kts. JIA5308 (CRJ7) passed DO61 with no lateral separation and 1200 ft separation with a relative closure of 475 kts. Unknown where DO63 was with respect to DO61.

I'm applying SLF/attorney license here (hey, there's poetic license, so why not?) of repeating - with some editing - a post I placed on the R&N thread about testing at DCA.

1) Regarding ADSB-Out being turned off, what is the reason there was such emphasis placed on this at the recent Congressional hearing (and just scoring media points per usual in Committee hearings doesn't qualify as a "reason" in this context). Is the reason that there are objections to running the kinds of tests in question (per the R&N thread) in or near DCA airspace? Is it valid to say there is no connection to the chain of causes-and-effects which led to the midair collision on Janaury 29 (but if there is, what is that connection, specifically)? Is the reason some connection with the occurence of TA's and RA's on TCAS as documented by NTSB? (although other posts on the R&N thread indicate that ADSB-out isn't connected to TCAS advisories . . . that is, if I understood those other posts). Or something else? I'm dismissing the mere fact that FR24 doesn't provide information to enthusiasts as the reason for such emphasis in the hearing.

2) If the Army operates certain "missions" with ADSB-Out turned off, and it conducts these operations based on national security concerns, my initial thought about this practice is, . . . . . . . hey, isn't there a discretionary function involved in deciding what avionics (or electronics system if this isn't within the technical definition and scope of "avionics") to operate based on national security concerns? So the Senator declaring that there is "no justification" seems to deliberately overlook the existence in the Federal Tort Claims Act of the exception. (I realize there has not been, to my knowledge at least, any lawsuits filed yet. But they're certainly going to happen.)

Of course, this all said, the indictment of the structure and operation of the portion of the NAS in which DCA is situated might (as suggested previosly) itself be adjudged inconsistent and non-compliant with basic standards of aviation safety. The only not-crazy-sounding justification for that state of affairs would seem to be "but we have to move traffic in volume." As a legal wrangle over whether that obvious judgment of a "policy" nature is or is not a proper basis for keeping federal immunity in place in a particular matter . . . I am quite skeptical such a legal wrangle would ever make it as far as an actual courtroom proceeding. But will Congress not try to manuever itself into the issue for all the usual reasons - some people want actually to address the problem constructively, some just want to please their donors, and some just follow the crowd, or so it always appears.

3) Something about discovery in civil litigation was underscored by the exchange in the video clip: there's an Army memo, dated Aug. 9, 2024 as referenced by Sen. Cruz, about operating in the NAS with ADSB-Out turned off. And the Army so far declines to turn it over to the Committee. (Applying the rough equivalent of a pre-snap read by a QB, the manner in which the Army witness replied to Sen. Cruz's questions gave the impression that the Army and DoD will strongly resist the memo in question becoming public.)

[Okay, I'll refrain from speculating how much fun it would be to decide which officer or officers would be presented as the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable about the matters discussed in this memo (on the Army side, receiving the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice), or similarly, how much fun would be had by counsel describing the "subject matter(s)" which must be specifically iterated in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (on the plaintiffs' side).]

4. I'm very determinedly hoping this won't be read or even misinterpreted as an offensive point. In the YT video produced by "Mover" in which he interviewed a former Army helicopter aviator (post 1228), it was possible to draw the impression that Army helicopter pilots operating in the airspace in which DCA is situated have a certain attitude toward FAA ATC. That is, the Army operates - one could get the impression - in its own "airspace system" and deals with FAA ATC only as much and only as quickly as necessary. Listening to the pertient Jan. 29 ATC R/T, and knowing the visual difficulties presented by the basic facts of nighttime in that specific area of the DCA airspace, plus NVGs, an observer could get the impression that the Army aviator handling the R/T was doing so in a perfunctory manner on Jan. 29.

To explain further, upthread (in post 1261) in the context of a Mover/Gonky YT video (post 1228) someone much more knowledgeable than myself observed that the way in which the Army pilot interviewed in the video described communications with FAA ATCOs in DCA airspace was as if Army chopper pilots view FAA ATCOs somewhat as a nuisance. Far be it from me to fault any pilot over any practice or custom in anything, including comms with ATCOs. But faulting any pilot is not the point. The point is that in that YT video, as related that other poster, --
"it was suggested that it\x92s perfectly OK to second guess what ATC might have said to you, reply to that, and then if no correction is forthcoming you can comply with your guess. As others have pointed out implicitly, that works if there\x92s only one error involved, but here there were three: an untrue statement, leading to a wrongly issued clearance, and a missing read back."

It is known that ADSB-Out is not active on the Army and other certain missions in the relevant airspace. Is there also a pattern or practice of operating with a mindset that FAA ATC is a necessary nuisance, to be indulged but not focused upon as closely as other airspace users? If any reader asserts this question accuses the Army pilots or any one of them in the helicopter on January 29 of negligence - that would be incorrect. The way in which the airspace had been designed, managed and operated handed those pilots a pre-determined normalization of complacency - so it appears, does it not?. They operated their flight within the system they had been given, which does not constitute negligence. The designers, managers, and operators of that system . . . well, it will be for the courts to sort out whether the exception to the removal of federal immunity to tort claims applies to those systemic level actions, or not. If it were not for the existence of the discretionary function exception, I personally believe the race to the courthouse would already have been a feeding frenzy worthy of the most biting negative stereotypes about lawyers.

Speaking of immunities, wasn't it generally believed that the airspace within the NAS, and especially airspace in which major airports in the United States are situated, was immune to midair collisions, in general and not only collisions sudden, without actionable warning, and with at most two or three seconds' knowledge of impending death and disaster? Mere SLF/attorney as I am, I had believed that. It follows, but only under that mindset, that what occurred was obviously negligence, and even gross negligence. The point is, expect the lawsuits to be, in a word, consistent with the ugliness one feels seeing the wreckage pulled from the Potomac, or reading about the backgrounds of 67 people. Or both.

Hiya WR 6-3 , the fact the RJ crew had a TA (IIR) has been mentioned/discussed a few times in this Thread - it's easy to forget!!! There is a problem with this tho.....

To briefly reiterate what has been said before, in such a complex airspace environment TA's (which is a step down from an RA, which requires mandatory action on the part of a crew, but RA's are inhibited by TCAS at that low level) can happen fairly frequently due to the proximity of adjacent aircraft which are not necessarily a threat - such as when helo traffic is close but is due to be avoiding you. You could get a TA and yet the helo will pass, say, just behind/below you - and all is well. If you recall, the number of TA's noted in the various Safety Databases has also been discussed and points to issues with 33 and R4 being fairly frequent - the warning bells re the 33/R4 airspace configuration had been ringing in the months/years leading up to this sad event - even if it had always ended OK ......... until this time.

The problem really comes when you regularly get such warnings; they become almost "normal". Normally, if you execute a go-around (not mandatory) against such traffic which ATC has specifically organised to miss you, ATC would rightly ask why plus, if you can't see it, you could go-around into it. Here the RJ crew were involved in the execution of the side-step on to 33 and were fully concentrating on rolling out on quite a short Final and would be expecting ATC to keep traffic away from them. So they would likely have noted the TA (I only use "likely" as I can't recall any facts on that) but now you have a highly split focus; flying the last bit of the approach where you have to monitor the PF/aircraft on the approach, ensure you remain stable to touchdown, keep a check that the a/c on 01 was not moving...... etc, etc and trying to see TA traffic - at low-level against a sea of lights. High workload, a belief/trust that ATC has you covered, and a rubbish environment to pick up the helo which is also not an uncommon event at DCA.................... Not a good hand of cards to hold at all.................. That's a polite way to put it!

So, this was definitely not a case of "Well, they had the traffic info so they should have avoided it!" - it's wayyyyyy more subtle and complex than that. That last bit of the cheese, if not having an actual hole in it, was so thin as to effectively be useless......... On your "legal culpability" point (where I have absolutely no quals!!!) I did mention, during discussions of the reports on the Safety Databases, that airlines and airports have a duty of care and so they could (should?) have been conducting Safety Audits which may have highlighted this Risk. Maybe they did and people picked the Risk up but continued to assess it as being "safe". Who knows..........................

"..... this was definitely not a case of "Well, they had the traffic info so they should have avoided it!" - it's wayyyyyy more subtle and complex than that. . . ."

Regrets: in my post trying to comment on Sailvi767's observation regarding the RJ crew having the best situational awareness, in retrospect I should have emphasized and explained what I meant by using the the word "imminent". The thread previously did clearly reference factors such as the inhibition of TAs and RAs at specified heights, and the TA alert. What seemed different in the post about the RJ crew's SA was what I, as only SLF/attorney, understood as the suggestion that a different crew with different mindset might have realized before the last second prior to impact that "erring on the side of caution" was the correct action to take. Please note - this is not an effort to put words into Sailvi767's post whatsoever.

Perhaps it was already pretty clear to others, but I had thought - for the reasons your post H&H talks about - that naming the airline as a defendant in the lawsuits would be just for form's sake at best, and to draw in its insurance coverages. Every law student (in the U.S. that is, I don't know about other systems) is taught that a shorthand for negligence is whether the alleged negligent party "knew or should have known" about the risk of harm the party was creating. The observation that I think the post about the RJ crew's SA justifies is certainly not that they "knew". But it does suggest that although it is highly unlikely they "should have known", there either are some facts supporting the assertion that they "could have known", or at least enough facts to warrant making the airline a defendant.

About prior safety-related reports and whether any risk assessments were done and what those assessments showed, it appears very likely if not certain that some answers to "who knows" will be found through the discovery process particularly, although not only, if the airline is named as defendant.

(Lastly, I apologize for convoluting the thread.)
WR 6-3

Lawyers will sue everyone remotely involved. It is throwing pasta against the wall to see what sticks.
In real life the pilots were on short final and paying attention to airspeed and glideslope lights. Traffic that said they had them in sight and would fly behind them would not be a priority. Even if there was no tower at all, they owned that last 500 feet, random crossing traffic would not have right of way.

Unfortunately the RJ crew would not have known that the other traffic had them in sight and were looking to avoid because, if I recall correctly, they were on a different frequency to the helicopter. If I get a traffic alert in my personal aircraft (I don't get RAs, just traffic warnings), I'm taking action to increase the altitude difference between me and the conflicting traffic. As others have said: Hoping the other aircraft has me in sight to avoid is not a foolproof plan of action.....

That\x92s perhaps a VFR response and appropriate here, but you cannot deviate from a clearance on just TA. TCAS training since its adoption has been to not maneuver for a TA, only for an RA.

Hiya WR 6-3 , always worth discussing so no worries.

The baseline is that a TA on it's own is not enough and can even lead to issues if reacted to without knowing exactly where that contact is and what it is doing. You should, if you have the time (hence my comment re workload for the RJ crew at that point), try and get visual on the traffic but, tbh, it's very difficult to do, especially at low level at night against backlighting. You don't even really have time to "debate" a "shall we react (against SOP) to (yet another?) TCAS alert at DCA?" with all else that is going on at that point of a flight. SOP/Training says "fly on"! You need compelling evidence to go against that. I fact, IIR, the NTSB noted that the CRJ had full "up" elevator at the time of impact - that implies the crew finally saw the helo and reacted ..... but with no time to change their flight path.

If you want to "do" the airline - I feel a much better case could be made based on the fact the evidence of issues for that approach at DCA was sat in the Safety Databases for anyone who went looking, that maybe even crews had raised the issue themselves through internal reporting in the Airline, and/or there was no process in place within the Airline to review operations into DCA - or any other airport. This is promoted by the FAA who state that "The [airline] SMS promotes a defined structure and a \x93learning culture\x94 within an aviation organization that continually seeks and analyzes information, then turns that information into action that eliminates or mitigates safety risks, before they become unwanted events.". The full ref is here. And that also applies equally to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority who I believe operate DCA as an independent organisation. How the MWAA fit in to US Government - I'm not sure!

Anyway, hope this helps. Cheers, H 'n' H

I know RAs are tracked in FOQA and forwarded to ASIAS. What the FAA or MITRE does with the data is unknown. GE Digital, who did our FOQA crunching had lots of data on the mid-air threat at Teterboro, so I assume data for else where is available. We briefed the mid-air threats for several airports, TEB and LA area at monthly safety meetings. Again, TAs were not recorded.

"Originally Posted by FullMetalJackass
If I get a traffic alert in my personal aircraft (I don't get RAs, just traffic warnings), I'm taking action to increase the altitude difference between me and the conflicting traffic. ."

Yes, we are trained to use TAs to find traffic, and RAs to avoid, but I think 767 is right about things being different when you know that you wont get an RA.

The NTSB specifically stated they will reconstruct the TCAS data onboard the RJ. It is possible even though they got a traffic alert that the TCAS target dropped off the display. This can happen for several reasons. I am however fairly sure they can reconstruct all of that. At some point there will be a full accounting.

Quick take after looking at ADS-B data and listening to some LiveATC:

DCA LC helicopter and fixed wing positions were combined (Bueller? Bueller?)

PAT23 was a Gold Top (Mike) UH-60

PAT23 was issued two holds along Route 5: (1st) 3 mi W of DCA, and (2nd) at \x93Glebe\x94

LC then cleared PAT23 from \x93Glebe\x94 along Route 5 to the Pentagon

LC made multiple requests to PAT23 to report landing assured. It seemed to take an unusually long time for PAT23 to get to the JPN landing pad. Unclear why PAT23 (and apparently other helicopters) fly counter-clockwise; i.e., continue to follow 395 S of Pentagon (past south parking), then turn N to follow 110 (past the Metro entrance) to the JPN landing pad. Why not use the charted transition route along 27/Washington Blvd?

LC seemed unclear of PAT23\x92s position. At one point directed PAT23 to fly westbound while PAT23 appeared to be landing.

Both DAL1671 and RPA5825 go-arounds were LC directed. No pilot reports of TCAS RA heard. After checking in with departure/approach, PCT didn\x92t request reason for go-around and pilots made no comment about go-around.

I\x92ve been listening to the NTSB hearings while doing other things last couple of days. All I can say is the FAA testimony is wild .

Normalisation of deviance doesn\x92t even come close.

- Airspace design. The heli route stepping down to 200ft max lead some army pilots to believe it gave clearance from DCA traffic. Spoiler. It did not.
- Controller workload \x93Just make it work\x94 was a common attitude at DCA
- FAA not actively tracking TCAS RA \x93incidents\x94 as it could skew data.. maybe it was correctly applied visual separation etc. Need to look at the background etc. Yeah. But it generated an RA 🤬
- FAA refusing requests for traffic \x93hot spots\x94 on low level VFR charts as \x93hot spots\x94 are on ground charts only.
- PAT25 wanted visual separation from the CRJ. ATC was required to inform the CRJ crew another aircraft was applying visual separation to them. They didn\x92t.

Honestly from a European perspective. It\x92s quite bone chilling.

I feel this was a systemic failure. Airspace design and Risk Normalisation.

And my heartfelt condolences for the pilots, of both aircraft, and everyone else involved including the ATCOs. Not that there weren\x92t issues\x85 but in the Swiss cheese model, the FAA bought the cheese, drilled holes in it, and invited everyone to take a look inside.

Slightly surprised by some NTSB comments as well\x85 they were presented that the heli was straight ahead on the CRJ TCAS simulation presentation. But in actual fact the CRJ was circling in a left turn for runway 33. It was stable at 500ft but in a left turn to line up with the runway\x85 wings level at 300ft. It was challenged by the airline/ALPA but I would hope the NTSB would have picked up on that.

Low point of the whole hearing was Jennifer Homendy halting proceedings and moving witnesses to different seats, as one of the FAA managers elbowed a colleague while she was giving testimony - at which point she went quiet. Infernce being she was being reminded to stop talking.

Trying to understand how the individuals and organizations responsible for the operation of the DCA airspace and associated helicopter routes expected it all to operate safely. Also not exactly trying to anticipate lines of inquiry to be conducted by the Dep't of Transportation Inspector General, although I think Sailvi767's comment points to a key area that will be examined.

My understanding is that TCAS RA's are inhibited below some specified altitude, in order to reduce or minimize nuisance alerts. Is it a correct statement to say that when the CRJ received the TCAS TA's referenced by Sailvi767's comment, it already was below the altitude at which RA's were inhibited?

If that is correct, then doesn't it follow that the CRJ crew - intently focused on the approach to and landing on 33 - were following procedure that has long been acknowledged for DCA Rnwy 33 - the LC will keep helicopter traffic from becoming conflicting traffic? It is (I think, but only as a non-pilot and non-ATCO) obviously true that in this instance, there were a number of inputs (and lackof inputs) by ATC, and likewise several acts and omissions by PAT25 which led to the procedure failing badly, with the tragic result. In other words, the clearest root cause is the fact that the acknowledged procedure over a period of years was that the LC (and sometimes a helicopter position in the tower) would keep the helicopters from becoming conflicting traffic - and through normalizationi of deviance, when this procedure eventually failed, it failed all the way.

In a previous post I mentioned that one of the attorneys representing the families of accident vicitims has said that claims against the airline would be investigated and possibly included in the forthcoming lawsuits. I suppose it is not talking like a stark raving lunatic to point to the many reports filed about overly close encounters in the airspace, especially in light of information found and then released by NTSB soon after January 29 which detailed many close encounters (as a non-frivolous basis to assert claims against the airline). But wait. They are going to argue that, during the last few hundred feet on final approach to Runway 33 at night, after having been more or less directed by ATC to switch from Runway 1, running through all the steps outlined (by Capn Bloggs) to look for the possibly conflicting traffic took priority over flying the approach - especially in light of the long-acknowledged procedure at DCA? I'm admittedly shouting from down in the cheap seats but this attack by plaintiffs on the CRJ pilots, as an means to advance claims against the airline, strikes me as a legal obscenity.

WR 6-3 : our posts crossed each other :
when you say : Correct .
Yes , but the CRJ did not receive one TA but 2 , one ( the PAT ) 200ft below , and the other 600 above , most probably the aircraft on finals for runway 1 . , it is quite normal to receive TAs on that kind of tight sequence scenario,. Finally a TA is not an RA. Pilots do not have to react on a TA. In fact some airlines Training programs specify that no horizontal maneuvers are to be made based solely on information shown on the TCAS traffic display. (TAs)