Posts about: "Traffic in Sight" [Posts: 77 Page: 4 of 4]ΒΆ

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  Last  Index Page

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

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 :
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  Normalization of Deviance  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
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.
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
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.

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.

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  Normalization of Deviance  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
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..

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
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  Normalization of Deviance  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.
Musician
January 29, 2026, 13:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12029155
Originally Posted by Ver5pen
weird that they don’t even mention the Blackhawk PF’s straying from altitude constraints, the IP repeatedly tells her about her deviations multiple times as per the transcript, baro altitude limitations or not they were both aware she wasn’t meeting the limits of the corridor (that the margins are so fine in that airspace is absurd of course)
It's in the findings.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...CA25MA108.aspx
31. Due to additive allowable tolerances of the helicopter’s pitot-static/altimeter system, it is likely that the crew of PAT25 observed a barometric altimeter altitude about 100 ft lower than the helicopter’s true altitude, resulting in the crew erroneously believing that they were under the published maximum altitude for Route 4.
.
Originally Posted by Ver5pen
that recreation is incredible, kudos to NTSB I don’t know why they chose to create it from the IP’s (RHS)’s point of view though, the PF was LHS and arguably had a better view of the CRJ the entire time
I'm guessing because the IP reported the aircraft in sight, the PF didn't.
27. The PAT25 instructor pilot did not positively identify flight 5342 at the time of the initial traffic advisory despite his statement that he had the traffic in sight and his request for visual separation.

Subjects Altimeter (All)  Barometric Altimeter  Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  Findings  NTSB  PAT25  Route 4  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.
Easy Street
January 30, 2026, 09:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12029574
Originally Posted by Musician
I'm guessing because the IP reported the aircraft in sight, the PF didn't.
27. The PAT25 instructor pilot did not positively identify flight 5342 at the time of the initial traffic advisory despite his statement that he had the traffic in sight and his request for visual separation.
As some won't follow the link and read all of the findings, I think it's only fair to the IP to quote the next finding as well, which speaks to concerns over the inherent (un)safety of visual separation at night in dynamic traffic environments:

28. With several other targets located directly in front of the helicopter represented by points of light with no other features by which to identify aircraft type, and without additional position information from the controller, the instructor pilot likely identified the wrong target.

Subjects ATC  Findings  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.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Musician
February 18, 2026, 19:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039332
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
Wrong. Visual lookout is a responsibility for all members of the crew. That's a shared responsibility, and briefed before every flight.
The PIC reported 'traffic in sight' when he clearly hadn't, he should never have asked for visual separation (normalisation of deviance).
We don't know of any gestures, if any pilot pointed at lights, but there is nothing in the CVR transcript that indicates the PF was aware of the traffic, or that the PIC pointed the traffic out to her; the PF certainly did not factor in the decision to request visual separation.

So when the PIC transmitted,
20:46:07.9 RDO-1 PAT two five has the traffic in sight request visual separation .
what would you have the PF do? Ask the instructor where it is? Or trust the instructor, and concentrate on flying?
or did the PF know that neither of them could identify the traffic, but accepted it as normal?

Subjects CVR  Normalization of Deviance  Separation (ALL)  Traffic in Sight  Visual Separation

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
island_airphoto
February 19, 2026, 04:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039466
Originally Posted by Musician
The PIC reported 'traffic in sight' when he clearly hadn't, he should never have asked for visual separation (normalisation of deviance).
We don't know of any gestures, if any pilot pointed at lights, but there is nothing in the CVR transcript that indicates the PF was aware of the traffic, or that the PIC pointed the traffic out to her; the PF certainly did not factor in the decision to request visual separation.

So when the PIC transmitted,
20:46:07.9 RDO-1 PAT two five has the traffic in sight request visual separation .
what would you have the PF do? Ask the instructor where it is? Or trust the instructor, and concentrate on flying?
or did the PF know that neither of them could identify the traffic, but accepted it as normal?
Any student flying in some scenario where they don't have good vision themselves like wearing NVG gear or foggles puts an enormous amount of trust in their instructor.

Subjects CVR  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  Normalization of Deviance  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.
Musician
February 19, 2026, 18:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039831
Originally Posted by Ver5pen
repeatedly in the CVR transcript of the Blackhawk the instructor tells the PF they are straying from their clearance
Once only, not repeatedly. She's following the river when they come out of the side arm, but in the wrong direction. My understanding is that the PNF is supposed to be navigating, though.
the PF had also shown their handling skills were not to standard earlier in the check ride (I’ve seen it mentioned their abandoning a manoeuvre earlier would’ve been a fail normally) hence monitoring their trainees parameters would’ve been even more taxing for the instructor
The landing at the helipad where she abandoned because the wind made the helicopter hard to control, and she lost sight of the landing zone? and then the instructor calls "go around", possibly because of some deer?
I don’t know how anyone can pretend these things didn’t at least play a part in the Swiss cheese.

if the PF had been as equally capable as the instructor and performing their scan (the CGI reenactment shows that much of the CRJ’s flatboats occurred within the PF’s side of the scan) would the outcome have been different? Possibly.

the conduct of that flight was the final hole in the Swiss cheese arguably
I don't think the handling played a part at all.

What I do see is that when the instructor is flying, he's having some altitude excursions as well.

There's also a visual separation while the instructor is flying, and it plays out like this:
20:00:11.0 APR-P PAT two five if you hear Potomac acknowledge with an IDENT. traffic at your nine to ten o'clock in two miles eastbound one thousand eight hundred indicated its a helicopter.

INT-2 [trainee] do you see him?
INT-1 [instructor] nope.

INT-2 do you see him?
INT-1 no. nine to ten o'clock. *.

20:00:22.7 RDO-2 * * traffic

INT-1 yeah. I got it. tally. coming left.
INT-1 alright you want me to keep chasing this number one needle or-
INT-2 yeah. just avoid traffic at this point.
INT-1 yup. I got the traffic out the right door
.
and only then does she call 'traffic in sight maintaining visual separation'.

For the CRJ, the instructor calls 'traffic in sight' without ascertaining that the PF sees it. When the tower cautions them again, the CRJ still hasn't turned, so while it's visible, it doesn't appear a threat. I think both pilots expect the CRJ to be to their right, because that's where the bridge is when ATC tells them where the CRJ is initially, and because the instructor thinks that ATC wants them to move left. They don't understand that the CRJ is on their left and will be turning onto the runway heading.

I imagine, based on that, that the PF believed the instructor has the CRJ in sight on his side. If she did see the CRJ, it would've been well above and on a diverging course, except for the final 6 seconds or so; it wouldn't have appeared to be a threat.

With his radio call, the instructor put himself in the position of being responsible for avoiding AA5342, but he didn't actually know where it was (maybe he thought he did).
There are a lot of factors contributing to that, but that's the big hole here for me.
Last edited by Musician; 19th February 2026 at 18:47 .

Subjects AA5342  ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  CVR  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.

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  Last  Index Page