Traffic in Sight Page: 2 of 4

Undertow
February 03, 2025, 16:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820667

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

The period I was referring to was prior to the GA call. ATC does not acknowledge one call from the landing traffic, which is then repeated. This part of the video is marked as a handover (verified?). As the helicopter and passenger jet are passing close & almost reciprocally (leading to the second CA on the screen), it seems an odd time to handover.

On the face of it, CAs seem to be a regular occurrence and the controllers don't issue separation instructions as the traffic has already reported that they will manage separation visually. There are two CAs in this video and there was also a CA in a video of the crash the following day.

Yes I get they were habituated to the CAs and assume PAT flights will visually deconflict because they confirmed they had traffic in sight. I'm more concerned that this habituation seems to extend even to CAs which actually do result in RA go arounds. At least from that video anyway.

Subjects ATC Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight

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.

Sailvi767
February 04, 2025, 21:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821736

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qbix

Total nonsense. Go around is a normal phase of the flight. Landing is just a bonus.
No threat in execution of TCAS climb in such conditions.

A go around is a planned maneuver. It a bit different with startle factor to initiate a rapid climb from a low energy state while watching TCAS and looking for the traffic. Regardless the TCAS almost certainly gave them a traffic alert while above 500 feet and displayed the traffic all the way to impact for the RJ crew. They did a lot of testing on how to setup the TCAS parameters and modified them over time.
I have flown into DCA at least a hundred times and took my own go-around once even though tower said the traffic had us in sight. If I can\x92t see a TCAS target on a collision course I am going around.

Subjects DCA TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

BrogulT
February 04, 2025, 22:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821762

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

I have flown into DCA at least a hundred times and took my own go-around once even though tower said the traffic had us in sight. If I can\x92t see a TCAS target on a collision course I am going around.

The CRJ CVR transcript does show the "Traffic! Traffic!" callout, but since this was a visual approach (non-precision in VMC even though it was at the end of an IFR flight) and visual separation was in use, why would both parties not be explicitly informed by the controller?

"5342, helo traffic on your right 1/4 mile at 300 feet, has you in sight". The CRJ FO might just have taken a closer look out the side window with that. Or, like you, they might have opted to go around.

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA IFR Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

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

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

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

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

Question: In the last seconds:

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

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

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

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25) Phraseology (ATC) Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

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

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

Subjects ATC CRJ PAT25 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing

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

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

0:26 here:

Subjects CRJ PAT25 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

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

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

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

.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) PAT25 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Stagformation
February 06, 2025, 16:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823104

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

It bit of mystery why the Army was so quick to request visual separation, but I’d guess it’s “Pavlovian”

Very unlikely the helo crew could actually identify the right traffic 7nm away in half a second. My guess is they instantly say, ‘traffic in sight, request visual separation’, because they know that any other response (inferring traffic not in sight) obliges ATC to apply minimum 500ft/1.5mi separation in class B airspace and then a whole can of worms ensues. No other option available to the controller as far as I can see.

Ref para 3.2.3. e. 2 here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...l%20separation .

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.

8 recorded likes for this post.

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

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
February 06, 2025, 18:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823141

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

Very unlikely the helo crew could actually identify the right traffic 7nm away in half a second. My guess is they instantly say, \x91traffic in sight, request visual separation\x92, because they know that any other response (inferring traffic not in sight) obliges ATC to apply minimum 500ft/1.5mi separation in class B airspace and then a whole can of worms ensues. No other option available to the controller as far as I can see.

Ref para 3.2.3. e. 2 here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...l%20separation .

A can of worms or a mid-air collison. I'll take the can of worms please. I can't see any aircrew being worried to give a truthful response just to aid ATC, not when it is their lives at stake. If this does happen then that is a whole new set of lessons that need to be learned.

I have watched these comments in two threads with interest. Helo routes under busy approach lanes was (and I believe, still is) the norm at Boscombe Down when I arrived there in th eearly 90s. When the civvy incumbants left and the military took over we had to learn from scratch and one of the first things was to sort out the procedure for helicopters routing from Middle Wallop, along the railway line towards Boscombe Down before making a sharp right to go under the approach path to 23 before heading of north west into the Salisbury Plain play areas. As far as I remember this was a no-RT route and was a akin to a child crossing the road (look left, look right and when safe, cross). It was not unusal to have a jet on PAR and then a little blip appear about 2 miles finals crossing at 90 degrees. I seem to think this had been going on like this for years. After that it was mandated that a call to ATC must be made, and if traffic was busy, the helos held clear of the appraoch path. I cannot remember the exact details but think there was a150ft cap as well and a conspicuity squawk. Back then Boscombe was incredibly busy.

IMHO the crew on the helo were alerted to traffic, a misident occurs and they press on, maybe relaxing their altitude accuracy as they are not aware of any other threats besides the one they can see in the distance, which they will clearly pass behind as requested. They would have no clue as to aircraft type.

A very sad incident indeed and my heart goes out to all involved.

Subjects ATC Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight

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.

galaxy flyer
February 06, 2025, 19:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823184

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

I agree, requesting visual separation was a means of \x93moving the mission\x94. Not doing so would create a real problem, probably delays, turnbacks, etc. \x93We can do that, we\x92re Priority Air Transport, says so right in the call sign\x94. It\x92s pretty simple because, in the dark, at low altitude, no one can positively identify one plane, by specific type, at 7 miles. No one is that good.

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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Hot 'n' High
February 08, 2025, 20:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824572

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

Well, in GA yes... and obviously the airfield movements you're describing. Not quite sure that's going to hack it in a commercial air transport environment...

Doing commercial stuff (talking UK here) I was often cleared by Approach for a visual join, say, downwind and then handed to Twr. Twr would then deconflicted me from, say, faster traffic on the ILS. If I had the traffic in sight it was "Extend downwind to join Final as #2 behind the 737 currently on a 3 mile Final. Caution wake turbulence. Report Final." If I didn't have the traffic in sight, or was at all unsure, it was something like "Extend downwind. Report when you have that traffic in sight." after which I'd get onwards clearance on from Downwind to Final. Same at at least 5 other UK regional airports, day or night. Clearly, if the weather was poor I'd be on the ILS anyway so Approach did the sequencing under IFR but mostly Twr had the job. But, as people say, other places have other rules but that was what used to happen to me as standard practice several times a day.

Subjects IFR Traffic in Sight

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.

Someone Somewhere
February 11, 2025, 09:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11825962

This kind of smells like a "gentleman's agreement" to me, if not implied threats of retaliation.

Speculation : The helicopter crews know that if they don't report traffic in sight as soon as it's called, they'll be slowed down and deprioritised by ATC and eventually held back until they either do report the traffic, or there's a substantial gap in arrivals - see the LH A380. That makes them unpopular with their passengers and/or superiors, so they are very flexible with what 'in sight' means.

ATC likewise knows that if they push helicopter crews too hard on altitude busts, report anything involving a helicopter, or hold up either kind of traffic, they might get people breathing down their neck and certainly nothing good comes of it.

Calling traffic immediately and not enforcing separation too strictly allows both parties to 'get on with their jobs' while looking more-or-less by-the-book - until an incident like this happens.

I'm hopeful I'm wrong, but given there seems to be a long history of near misses and altitude busts this seems like the obvious conclusion. No-one high-up wanted to hear about it or change anything , because no-one had died yet.

On a slightly different note, I'm curious whether anyone is familiar with the Hierarchy of Controls by NIOSH? It doesn't map 1:1 to aviation, but it codifies some things that are 'obvious' in hindsight:

Broadly speaking, some controls are more effective than others. Wherever possible, you should attempt to use more effective controls in place of less effective ones. More effective means not just that it reduces the risk the most, but also the most reliable over time and most resistant to having rules bent, being left broken, being ignored due to alarm fatigue, or 'normalisation of deviation'. Procedures that assume everything is working perfectly and everyone is 100% competent will fail; see MCAS and a great number of other accidents.

Elimination is rarely possible but substitution (radar vs visual) and isolation (separate helicopters from other traffic) amongst other engineering controls are potentially more feasible, and much higher up the hierarchy than a glorified instruction not to crash (the very bottom of administrative). Engineering a problem out of existence is far superior to having a procedure to fix it in the QRH.

I list things like TCAS, GPWS, RSAs, and crash-proof seating as broadly being under PPE: they're nice to have and certainly worth pursuing, but unless there is no other alternative, they should never be your primary protection. Something has gone wrong if they get used.

Subjects ATC Close Calls Radar Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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.

ATC Watcher
February 11, 2025, 19:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11826274

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomon

Iht.
Now if the controller had offered something more like:
"Traffic left 10' o clock, descending, crossing left to right, if not sighted......."
That would have given the helicopter crew a place of reference to look for the traffic.

Quote:

Bill Fly wrote : If the ATC controller has a conflict warning (STCA) he shouldn't just ask or confirm if traffic is in sight but call out immediately "Conflict Warning, take evasive action". Preceded by respective callsign this could save lives.

Please, can you stop this witch hunt on finding someone to blame , and what the controller should have said or should have done ? Are you both controllers qualified in DCA ? if not may I suggest you just read and learn? .

Subjects ATC DCA Traffic in Sight

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

12 recorded likes for this post.

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

FullWings
February 13, 2025, 10:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11827259

Quote:

Originally Posted by YRP

I am not a US controller but as I understand it their conflict alert is not a last minute save in the way TCAS is.

TCAS RA says that a collision is imminent (within the accuracy of the system, ie it probably means the system can\x92t prove the planes won\x92t hit).

Conflict alert is to notify the controller well in advance \x97 maybe a few minutes for en-route. It isn\x92t a loss of separation, it is so they can avoid a loss of separation (3 or 5 miles for radar).

I would say that TCAS is designed to issue guidance on a projected loss of separation, not necessarily an imminent collision (although it does that too). A highly simplistic explanation would be that it projects a nested set of egg-shaped volumes around the aircraft, which if it looks like they will be infringed can generate a TA or RA, depending on where the intruder is projected to make its closest approach. These volumes have nothing whatsoever to do with ATC separation standards.

The problem with conflict alerting is that in mixed-use airspace you will get a lot of warnings; I hesitate to say false as they are defined by preset parameters that may or may not be relevant to the potential conflict. Talking to controllers in the UK, they often turn this feature (STCA) off as GA traffic happily avoiding each other by visual and/or electronic means can fill the screen with so many alerts it distracts from the main job, especially if you are not in communication with either aircraft.

I would expect, given the traffic density around DCA, that CAs are so commonplace they have become unremarkable, indeed expected. Twice the controller was told that the traffic was in sight, so in their mind they are applying visual separation (no minima, just don\x92t collide). The takeaway has to be that IFR/VFR separation at night by visual means is inherently risky and so a questionable pursuit.

Subjects ATC DCA Radar Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) TCAS RA Traffic in Sight 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.

Easy Street
February 22, 2025, 11:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11833584

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWings

I can think of one: you apply IFR separation standards (the minimum in the US is 1.5nm/500\x92?), at least for night operations. If two routes come closer to each other than that in either dimension, e.g. DCA RW33 approach and helicopter route 1, then traffic must be actively kept apart

I agree that is a solution, indeed the obvious one from my European point of view. What I was trying and failing to think of was a route design which guaranteed separation without ATC intervention, which is what I thought meleagertoo was asking for.

However, from a US point of view, this is arguably the solution which was in place on the night. It's just that the means of actively keeping the traffic apart, ie visual separation, failed. I am prepared to accept that FAA-style "visual separation" is slightly more robust than "see and avoid" in that it requires ATC to confirm that the pilot has the specific traffic in sight before relaxing separation minima, but the question for the FAA is whether "slightly more robust" is good enough when airliners are involved, particularly at night given the increased potential for misidentification.

I am not sure the subsequent line of discussion over how Class B requires ATC (not pilots) to separate all traffic is a very productive one. Any separation instruction given by ATC relies upon the pilot executing it, for instance by maintaining the cleared altitude. Here, it relied on the pilot not colliding with the specific traffic he had confirmed visual contact with. So far as the FAA is concerned, that's a sufficient degree of control and differs from the "see and avoid" principle applicable to VFR/VFR in Class C, and VFR/Any in Class D. Again, the question is whether that's appropriate.

That last point gives me an opportunity to make an observation I've been pondering for a while. Many European airport control zones are Class D, where on a strict reading of ICAO, VFR traffic is not required to be separated from IFR. But how many of us know a Class D zone where the controller gives traffic information and lets VFR traffic merge with IFR under see and avoid? In practice, European and especially UK ATC exercise a greater degree of control than is strictly required by the ICAO classification. At least in my experience, US airspace is operated closer to ICAO specifications ("visual separation" nothwithstanding).

Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd February 2025 at 11:31 .

Subjects ATC DCA FAA ICAO IFR See and Avoid 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.

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.

Easy Street
February 22, 2025, 18:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11833817

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

From what I understand the delegation of separation used in the US is based on the "see and avoid ", It is basically delegating the positive control (ATC separation instructions ) from the controller to the pilot , who has to acquire the traffic visually and maintain visual contact and maneuvers to avoid it . = traffic info from ATC + See and avoid.

"Visual separation" is different from "see and avoid" in that the controller must confirm that the pilot has the factor traffic in sight before approving visual separation. The controller is only delegating the "avoid" part of the task, not the "see", which must be confirmed before the separation minima are removed. That, at least in my understanding, is how the FAA argues it to be compliant with Class B requirements. It's obviously vulnerable to misidentification of the factor traffic; don't think I'm defending it!

When genuine "see and avoid" applies (Class C VFR/VFR, Class D VFR/Any) the controller does not need to confirm that VFR pilots have visual contact before allowing separation to reduce, because there *are no* separation minima. At least, not according to ICAO.

As I mentioned earlier, European and especially UK ATC tends to apply more stringent separation than ICAO requires. The 'ATC duty of care' argument in the UK results in its Class D being operated in a similar way to US Class B, in my experience.

Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd February 2025 at 19:10 .

Subjects ATC FAA ICAO See and Avoid 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Capn Bloggs
March 05, 2025, 11:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11841230

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stag

simply confirms the helicopter crew had no idea of the imminent danger they were in.

In this scenario, there is zero information in the call to "pass behind" that indicates any imminent danger. All it does is further legitimise the previous two approvals for visual separation.
Now if the controller had said "you look to be tracking very close to the CRJ are you sure you can pass behind?" or similar, then maybe the helo crew would have got excited. A call like that might have even triggered a "holy sh1t" moment about the TCAS "Traffic". But as far as they were concerned, they knew they had the traffic in sight and could do the visual sep thing and even if they had heard "pass behind" they would have said/thought "well, obviously". Except they had the wrong aircraft. ATC had an idea they had the wrong aircraft but didn't get the message across.

As for the reference, same thing. The helo crew could have read-back "pass behind" but it wouldn't have achieved anything.

Subjects ATC CRJ Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Separation (ALL) TCAS (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.

Stagformation
March 05, 2025, 19:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11841477

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Yes, the RT added no more traffic information than before and completely failed to get the imminent danger across to the IP on the helicopter. However someone may have got a hint because there was a subsequent conversation between crew members about whether they should move further east. But we don’t know yet if that conversation was actually about traffic deconfliction. It could just be about accurate tracking of the left bank of the Potomac or something else entirely.

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: "Traffic in Sight" [Posts: 72 Page: 2 of 4]¶