Traffic in Sight Page: 4 of 4

ATC Watcher
August 14, 2025, 10:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11938285

@ Musician :

Quote:

The procedure calls for the heli pilot to report "traffic in sight", which they did. The unsafe part is that likely they hadn't actually seen the traffic.

Yes but that is only the visual separation procedure .
When we talk about un safe " procedures" (plural) it is mostly the airspace design and the actions written and put in place which have to be performed to keep that design safe . That part : "conflicting paths used simultaneously with only 100 or 200ft separation " is the basic " unsafe " part of the procedures. For me at least .

Subjects 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.

ignorantAndroid
August 15, 2025, 02:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11938729

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

Only the PSA CRJ was scheduled. The PAT flight was an ad hoc VFR Class B transition.

Note that the apparently informal procedure of holding helicopters at Hains Pt or golf balls was an effective method of deconflicting Route 4 and 15/33 traffic. However it appears that the use of this \x93procedure\x94 was left to the discretion of the individual controller.

It's not the controller's discretion, it's the pilot's discretion. If the pilot calls "traffic in sight" then the pilot is taking on the responsibility of ensuring separation. If the pilot hadn't done that in this case, then I'm sure the controller would've directed them to hold.

One of the Army pilots at the NTSB hearing said he'd always been instructed to hold when there was traffic on approach to 33. I'd be willing to bet that he never called "traffic in sight" in those instances. That's the crucial difference.

Subjects ATC CRJ NTSB Route 4 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight VFR

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.

ATC Watcher
August 15, 2025, 06:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11938789

In my ( European) world Procedures are written down and yes they can be altered with a pilot request and controller approval. but it is adherence first .
Taking a road procedure similarity : . at a crossroad you can have a stop sign or a triangle giving priority , or nothing
The written procedures are : at a stop sign you must stop even if there is no traffic.

:Transposing this to DCA route 4 map l the procedure should have been in Europe at least ;
1) hold ay golf balls until you get a clearance to proceed . (so that in case of loss of comms , blocked freq, etc.. you can't proceed ).
2) pilot or controller can request visual separation if all t he following conditions re met : typically VMC, and in daylight and traffic is in sight and maintained in sight and both aircrfat pilots are informed. of each other position
3) lateral deviations by the helicopters to fly over built up areas of the city at 200ft will; not be permitted.

Big differences .

Now a pilot can request visual separation at any time but Controller can refuse at any time to .. To my knowledge requesting visual a night using NVG is not covered in the definition of " visual acquisition " in ICAO, so legally it could be challenged I guess . Same as when a pilot reports "visual" on his TCAS display . It is not valid , and for good reasons .
But KDCA is not in Europe, and ICAO SARPs do not apply to military aircrfat , so the outcome of all this is quite uncertain .In fact i would not be surprised if nothing dramatic changes as far as procedures are concerned, Route 4 will be permanently removed I guess, but other than that ? business a usual with visual separations at night ? .

Subjects ATC DCA ICAO KDCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Route 4 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
August 15, 2025, 09:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11938867

Quote:

Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid

It's not the controller's discretion, it's the pilot's discretion. If the pilot calls "traffic in sight" then the pilot is taking on the responsibility of ensuring separation..

At risk of this point becoming a hamster wheel. Sorry. The pilot didn\x92t just call, \x93Traffic in sight.\x94 He called, \x93Traffic in sight, request visual separation.\x94 Twice. Reduced separation was not his to just take, it was the LC\x92s to permit, and the pilot clearly understood that, or else why use the word \x91request\x92. The airspace is controlled airspace (where VFR traffic is permitted to fly only in accordance with an ATC clearance).

Last edited by Stagformation; 15th August 2025 at 21:48 .

Subjects ATC Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight 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.

Sailvi767
August 23, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11942779

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

Actually, it's not the exact same scenario.

In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC.
In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic?

Tower stated helo traffic was transiting the river at 200 feet and had us in sight. When he closed to less than 3000 feet on a constant bearing on TCAS we went around. Probably would have been fine 999 out of 1000 times. Not odds I accept.

Subjects AA5342 DCA 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Sailvi767
September 29, 2025, 02:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11961287

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

This was a lot of years ago. I believe what was said was, “out of the turn VFR helo traffic will be at your 10 o’clock 1 mile. They have you in sight, cleared to land RWy33”. Don’t recall if a altitude was mentioned. Their altitude was on TCAS as 200’.

Subjects AA5342 DCA Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight 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.

ignorantAndroid
October 21, 2025, 22:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11973919

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

The 78 feet deviation by the Mil Heli is not the cause of this accident . I hope the lawyers during the trial do not focus on that and minimize the rest .

Bit of historical background : when designing this route decades ago they must have followed basic ICAO/ FAA principles . separation IFR-VFR is 500 feet . allowed deviation then was 100 ft either way , so even if one a/c is 100ft above and the other 100ft too low , there would still be 300 ft separation preventing a collision ,

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

When that was introduced decades ago I bet you a bottle of (real) Champagne that the procedure was use of that route 4 was restricted during RWY 33 arrivals and RWY 15 departures. It was one or the other but not both simultaneously .
How , when and why , over time , did it degraded to the point that this restriction could be disregarded would be interested to investigate and unveil .

If the helicopter hadn't called "traffic in sight," they would've been instructed to hold until the CRJ was clear. In general, a VFR aircraft saying "traffic in sight" is effectively exempt from such procedures.

Subjects ATC CRJ FAA ICAO Route 4 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight 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.

ATC Watcher
October 22, 2025, 09:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11974130

Thanks WR-6-3 for the legal perspective , Extremely enlightening for a non-law savvy person like me .I like the " hot dog-warm puppy" analogy between a trial and the truth . Looking forward to the actual trial and your comments on it when the day will come .
@ IgnorantAndroid :

Quote:

I am aware of that as this is what the controllers hang on to since the beginning , since they were trained like that and thought they were just following the rules . . However we are a safety business ,. It is not because it is legal than it is safe

Which safety assessment was made and validated ( and by who) which allowed visual separation for an helicopter at 200ft to pass below the approach path of an aircrfat at 3 or 400 feet ?, resulting in a 100-200ft separation ?
That is the question I would be asking first.
How about which actions were taken after the previous incidents , and possibly acting on the normalization of deviance , would be the next .

Subjects CRJ 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.

Lonewolf_50
October 22, 2025, 21:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11974590

Quote:

Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid

Probably at Hains Point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy Street

==snip the rest of your detailed reply==
Why do I think the IFR ACS might be relevant?

Thank you for your reply. I will offer the view that you are overthinking this.

Subjects CRJ IFR Traffic in Sight 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.

ignorantAndroid
October 23, 2025, 21:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11975262

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

You mean no SA was made because this scenario was not even considered ? That makes things worse for the FAA if this local "visual " procedure was written down somewhere or even just tolerated , because as I understood, it was standard practice .I am not sure if you know how safety assessments are made , but you must consider every possible scenario when designing procedures.

Visual Flight Rules aren't a local procedure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

From a European / EASA perspective :
Re the "Lateral separation" you mention : in that scenario so close to the Runway threshold it would mean only a left turn is possible, i.e. away from the thresholds of both runways , it would mean flying over build up areas , and doing so at 200ft above buildings with possible antennas on top , etc.. ,not really safe , and definitively not at night . As to \x93pass behind\x94 , the standard wake turbulence separation criteria would not be met , especially passing behind/below and I would not even try that at 200ft under a large jet..

I agree. The prudent thing to do would be to not call traffic in sight and let the controller give you a hold. But first you'd have to know the plane is there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

During the interviews, one Heli pilot from that same group ,mentioned that asking for visual separation was a routine request , even if you did not see the traffic at time of the request . That fact alone, if really proven to be systematically the case , would also add to the normalization of deviance case and put full responsibility on the regulator, not the pilots

If that was/is happening, that's a huge problem. But I don't understand how the FAA would be responsible. Visual separation is initiated by the pilot, when they say "traffic in sight." Controllers sometimes prompt it (e.g. "Do you have that traffic in sight?"), but that didn't happen in this case. A pilot should never call traffic in sight unless they truly have it in sight and are completely confident that they can maintain safe separation. I do get the impression that the Blackhawk pilots may not have fully understood that. Both from the NTSB hearings and the ATC recordings (the way they don't even wait for the controller to finish speaking before shouting "traffic in sight request visual separation!")

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) FAA NTSB Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness 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.

ATC Watcher
October 24, 2025, 09:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11975500

Quote:

Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid

Visual Flight Rules aren't a local procedure.
I agree. The prudent thing to do would be to not call traffic in sight and let the controller give you a hold.
" )

Indeed but Visual Flight rules (VFR) and visual separations are two very different things . Visual separation can be ( and are) locally restricted , and even Airlines restricted ( think Lufthansa and the SFO incident) . My point is , with hindsight of course, that here, in this route in DCA it should have been restricted , even more so at night..

Quote:

But first you'd have to know the plane is there.

That is why you have a controller and procedures in place If the procedure says no simultaneous use, no traffic needs to be passed and no request for visual made , unless you allow the normalization of deviance

Quote:

I But I don't understand how the FAA would be responsible. Visual separation is initiated by the pilot, when they say "traffic in sight.

When you say FAA you mean the regulator right ? because here we have the service provider ( making the local procedures) and the Regulator certifying them being the same entity The "regulator " part should make a safety assessment of the procedures and approve them . In this case they were not safe , and, as I said earlier , especially after the numerous incidents a local restriction should have been in place : no visual separation allowed on those portions of the airspace , or no simultaneous use of that portion of the route when 15/33 is in use.

I strongly suspect this is what will come up anyway in the NTSB report .

Subjects ATC DCA FAA NTSB 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.

2 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
December 20, 2025, 19:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12008689

I've seen pictures of US military aircraft using devices such as Sentry to feed EFBs with ADSB data, but have no idea if that's widespread throughout the services or indeed was in use during this accident. However, what I do know is that it would be very unlikely that either helo pilot would have the capacity to scan down onto a knee-mounted EFB while flying VFR over a dark river on NVG at 200 feet (and in the non-handling pilot's case, monitoring the handling pilot's height and talking her down). Integration of an audio warning from the EFB to the intercom system would be needed to draw attention to conflictions, and I very much doubt that would have been implemented. Remember, they thought they had the traffic in sight, so there was nothing pressing them to check for other traffic given they were in (supposedly) fully-controlled Class B.

Subjects ADSB (All) Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Traffic in Sight VFR

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.

ATC Watcher August 14, 2025, 10:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 11938285	@ Musician : Quote: The procedure calls for the heli pilot to report "traffic in sight", which they did. The unsafe part is that likely they hadn't actually seen the traffic. Yes but that is only the visual separation procedure . When we talk about un safe " procedures" (plural) it is mostly the airspace design and the actions written and put in place which have to be performed to keep that design safe . That part : "conflicting paths used simultaneously with only 100 or 200ft separation " is the basic " unsafe " part of the procedures. For me at least . Subjects 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.
ignorantAndroid August 15, 2025, 02:11:00 GMT permalink Post: 11938729	Quote: Originally Posted by BFSGrad Only the PSA CRJ was scheduled. The PAT flight was an ad hoc VFR Class B transition. Note that the apparently informal procedure of holding helicopters at Hains Pt or golf balls was an effective method of deconflicting Route 4 and 15/33 traffic. However it appears that the use of this \x93procedure\x94 was left to the discretion of the individual controller. It's not the controller's discretion, it's the pilot's discretion. If the pilot calls "traffic in sight" then the pilot is taking on the responsibility of ensuring separation. If the pilot hadn't done that in this case, then I'm sure the controller would've directed them to hold. One of the Army pilots at the NTSB hearing said he'd always been instructed to hold when there was traffic on approach to 33. I'd be willing to bet that he never called "traffic in sight" in those instances. That's the crucial difference. Subjects ATC CRJ NTSB Route 4 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight VFR 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.
ATC Watcher August 15, 2025, 06:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 11938789	In my ( European) world Procedures are written down and yes they can be altered with a pilot request and controller approval. but it is adherence first . Taking a road procedure similarity : . at a crossroad you can have a stop sign or a triangle giving priority , or nothing The written procedures are : at a stop sign you must stop even if there is no traffic. :Transposing this to DCA route 4 map l the procedure should have been in Europe at least ; 1) hold ay golf balls until you get a clearance to proceed . (so that in case of loss of comms , blocked freq, etc.. you can't proceed ). 2) pilot or controller can request visual separation if all t he following conditions re met : typically VMC, and in daylight and traffic is in sight and maintained in sight and both aircrfat pilots are informed. of each other position 3) lateral deviations by the helicopters to fly over built up areas of the city at 200ft will; not be permitted. Big differences . Now a pilot can request visual separation at any time but Controller can refuse at any time to .. To my knowledge requesting visual a night using NVG is not covered in the definition of " visual acquisition " in ICAO, so legally it could be challenged I guess . Same as when a pilot reports "visual" on his TCAS display . It is not valid , and for good reasons . But KDCA is not in Europe, and ICAO SARPs do not apply to military aircrfat , so the outcome of all this is quite uncertain .In fact i would not be surprised if nothing dramatic changes as far as procedures are concerned, Route 4 will be permanently removed I guess, but other than that ? business a usual with visual separations at night ? . Subjects ATC DCA ICAO KDCA Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Route 4 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 August 15, 2025, 09:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 11938867	Quote: Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid It's not the controller's discretion, it's the pilot's discretion. If the pilot calls "traffic in sight" then the pilot is taking on the responsibility of ensuring separation.. At risk of this point becoming a hamster wheel. Sorry. The pilot didn\x92t just call, \x93Traffic in sight.\x94 He called, \x93Traffic in sight, request visual separation.\x94 Twice. Reduced separation was not his to just take, it was the LC\x92s to permit, and the pilot clearly understood that, or else why use the word \x91request\x92. The airspace is controlled airspace (where VFR traffic is permitted to fly only in accordance with an ATC clearance). Last edited by Stagformation; 15th August 2025 at 21:48 . Subjects ATC Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight 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.
Sailvi767 August 23, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11942779	Quote: Originally Posted by missy Actually, it's not the exact same scenario. In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC. In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic? Tower stated helo traffic was transiting the river at 200 feet and had us in sight. When he closed to less than 3000 feet on a constant bearing on TCAS we went around. Probably would have been fine 999 out of 1000 times. Not odds I accept. Subjects AA5342 DCA 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. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Sailvi767 September 29, 2025, 02:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 11961287	Quote: Originally Posted by missy Actually, it's not the exact same scenario. In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC. In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic? This was a lot of years ago. I believe what was said was, “out of the turn VFR helo traffic will be at your 10 o’clock 1 mile. They have you in sight, cleared to land RWy33”. Don’t recall if a altitude was mentioned. Their altitude was on TCAS as 200’. Subjects AA5342 DCA Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight 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.
ignorantAndroid October 21, 2025, 22:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11973919	Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher The 78 feet deviation by the Mil Heli is not the cause of this accident . I hope the lawyers during the trial do not focus on that and minimize the rest . Bit of historical background : when designing this route decades ago they must have followed basic ICAO/ FAA principles . separation IFR-VFR is 500 feet . allowed deviation then was 100 ft either way , so even if one a/c is 100ft above and the other 100ft too low , there would still be 300 ft separation preventing a collision , Agreed. Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher When that was introduced decades ago I bet you a bottle of (real) Champagne that the procedure was use of that route 4 was restricted during RWY 33 arrivals and RWY 15 departures. It was one or the other but not both simultaneously . How , when and why , over time , did it degraded to the point that this restriction could be disregarded would be interested to investigate and unveil . If the helicopter hadn't called "traffic in sight," they would've been instructed to hold until the CRJ was clear. In general, a VFR aircraft saying "traffic in sight" is effectively exempt from such procedures. Subjects ATC CRJ FAA ICAO Route 4 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight 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.
ATC Watcher October 22, 2025, 09:30:00 GMT permalink Post: 11974130	Thanks WR-6-3 for the legal perspective , Extremely enlightening for a non-law savvy person like me .I like the " hot dog-warm puppy" analogy between a trial and the truth . Looking forward to the actual trial and your comments on it when the day will come . @ IgnorantAndroid : Quote: If the helicopter hadn't called "traffic in sight," they would've been instructed to hold until the CRJ was clear. In general, a VFR aircraft saying "traffic in sight" is effectively exempt from such procedures I am aware of that as this is what the controllers hang on to since the beginning , since they were trained like that and thought they were just following the rules . . However we are a safety business ,. It is not because it is legal than it is safe Which safety assessment was made and validated ( and by who) which allowed visual separation for an helicopter at 200ft to pass below the approach path of an aircrfat at 3 or 400 feet ?, resulting in a 100-200ft separation ? That is the question I would be asking first. How about which actions were taken after the previous incidents , and possibly acting on the normalization of deviance , would be the next . Subjects CRJ 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.
Lonewolf_50 October 22, 2025, 21:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11974590	Quote: Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid If the helicopter hadn't called "traffic in sight," they would've been instructed to hold until the CRJ was clear. In general, a VFR aircraft saying "traffic in sight" is effectively exempt from such procedures. Probably at Hains Point. Quote: Originally Posted by Easy Street ==snip the rest of your detailed reply== Why do I think the IFR ACS might be relevant? Thank you for your reply. I will offer the view that you are overthinking this. Subjects CRJ IFR Traffic in Sight 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.
ignorantAndroid October 23, 2025, 21:30:00 GMT permalink Post: 11975262	Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher You mean no SA was made because this scenario was not even considered ? That makes things worse for the FAA if this local "visual " procedure was written down somewhere or even just tolerated , because as I understood, it was standard practice .I am not sure if you know how safety assessments are made , but you must consider every possible scenario when designing procedures. Visual Flight Rules aren't a local procedure. Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher From a European / EASA perspective : Re the "Lateral separation" you mention : in that scenario so close to the Runway threshold it would mean only a left turn is possible, i.e. away from the thresholds of both runways , it would mean flying over build up areas , and doing so at 200ft above buildings with possible antennas on top , etc.. ,not really safe , and definitively not at night . As to \x93pass behind\x94 , the standard wake turbulence separation criteria would not be met , especially passing behind/below and I would not even try that at 200ft under a large jet.. I agree. The prudent thing to do would be to not call traffic in sight and let the controller give you a hold. But first you'd have to know the plane is there. Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher During the interviews, one Heli pilot from that same group ,mentioned that asking for visual separation was a routine request , even if you did not see the traffic at time of the request . That fact alone, if really proven to be systematically the case , would also add to the normalization of deviance case and put full responsibility on the regulator, not the pilots If that was/is happening, that's a huge problem. But I don't understand how the FAA would be responsible. Visual separation is initiated by the pilot, when they say "traffic in sight." Controllers sometimes prompt it (e.g. "Do you have that traffic in sight?"), but that didn't happen in this case. A pilot should never call traffic in sight unless they truly have it in sight and are completely confident that they can maintain safe separation. I do get the impression that the Blackhawk pilots may not have fully understood that. Both from the NTSB hearings and the ATC recordings (the way they don't even wait for the controller to finish speaking before shouting "traffic in sight request visual separation!") Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) FAA NTSB Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness 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.
ATC Watcher October 24, 2025, 09:49:00 GMT permalink Post: 11975500	Quote: Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid Visual Flight Rules aren't a local procedure. I agree. The prudent thing to do would be to not call traffic in sight and let the controller give you a hold. " ) Indeed but Visual Flight rules (VFR) and visual separations are two very different things . Visual separation can be ( and are) locally restricted , and even Airlines restricted ( think Lufthansa and the SFO incident) . My point is , with hindsight of course, that here, in this route in DCA it should have been restricted , even more so at night.. Quote: But first you'd have to know the plane is there. That is why you have a controller and procedures in place If the procedure says no simultaneous use, no traffic needs to be passed and no request for visual made , unless you allow the normalization of deviance Quote: I But I don't understand how the FAA would be responsible. Visual separation is initiated by the pilot, when they say "traffic in sight. When you say FAA you mean the regulator right ? because here we have the service provider ( making the local procedures) and the Regulator certifying them being the same entity The "regulator " part should make a safety assessment of the procedures and approve them . In this case they were not safe , and, as I said earlier , especially after the numerous incidents a local restriction should have been in place : no visual separation allowed on those portions of the airspace , or no simultaneous use of that portion of the route when 15/33 is in use. I strongly suspect this is what will come up anyway in the NTSB report . Subjects ATC DCA FAA NTSB 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. 2 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 December 20, 2025, 19:34:00 GMT permalink Post: 12008689	I've seen pictures of US military aircraft using devices such as Sentry to feed EFBs with ADSB data, but have no idea if that's widespread throughout the services or indeed was in use during this accident. However, what I do know is that it would be very unlikely that either helo pilot would have the capacity to scan down onto a knee-mounted EFB while flying VFR over a dark river on NVG at 200 feet (and in the non-handling pilot's case, monitoring the handling pilot's height and talking her down). Integration of an audio warning from the EFB to the intercom system would be needed to draw attention to conflictions, and I very much doubt that would have been implemented. Remember, they thought they had the traffic in sight, so there was nothing pressing them to check for other traffic given they were in (supposedly) fully-controlled Class B. Subjects ADSB (All) Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Traffic in Sight VFR 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: "Traffic in Sight" [Posts: 72 Page: 4 of 4]¶