Posts by user "ATC Watcher" [Posts: 68 Total up-votes: 161 Page: 1 of 4]ΒΆ

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

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 10:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817078
on Juan video, I did not hear ATC passing traffic info on the Helicopter . something we would normally do in Europe, , something like : PSA , you have Heli on your right at 300 Ft has you in sight. passing being you " is that not standard in the US ?
especially with the fact that possibly the 2 were on different frequencies seems odd .
Anyway the whole procedure is very odd to me . Lots of holes in the cheese legally opened here .

Subjects ATC

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
January 30, 2025, 11:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817135
Originally Posted by nicolai

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.
).

That is part of the safety lectures' I gave ; in VFR ,using the see and avoid concept, the danger is not the one you see but the one you do not see and : : You can fly as safe as you want , the danger will come from someone else which does not ". .
Airliners cockpits are not designed for see and avoid.. not on daylight , so much worse at night where distance of lights is almost impossible to determine

@ 172 Driver : I used to enjoy the free use of airspace in the US
yes me too but above Nevada , not under the Glideslope close to a runway of a major airport at night ..


Subjects See and Avoid  Separation (ALL)  VFR  Visual Separation

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.
ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 12:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817200
Originally Posted by chuks
This might come down to the helo crew simply picking out the wrong aircraft on final, Number 2 instead of Number 1..
Unlikely that one I would say because he was cleared to go behind, ,, it would then have to make a sharp left urn then , not a slight right one ..as it looks like he did on he FR24 track.



Subjects Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)

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.
ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 13:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817256
Originally Posted by skippybangkok
have flown small planes at 900ft under the approach path at VTBS ( Bangkok ) with A380's going over the top of me. ATC was constantly on the mic making sure i understood clearly to stay below 1000 ft .
This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.
@upsidedown L I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*
Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

Subjects ATC  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
January 30, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817266
Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins
For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"
sequence is not important . What is is the difference between passing traffic information and delegating separation . . in the US limits are being "pushed" to use a politically correct term in order to allow more traffic than the rules would allow . That is the issue here . Not the phraseology .
Same as using "side step " , a procedure made for parallel runways , here they do with with runways 30 degrees apart . etc..etc..

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Phraseology (ATC)  Separation (ALL)

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.
ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 18:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817497
If that published in AIP route 4 crossing under the final approach path of RWY 33 says max 200 ft and according the calculations made by Luc Lion earlier the altitude of the CRJ was, if not exactly on the PAPI , very close to it at 300 Ft in less than a mile before TDZ. But 100 ft separation is not a normal civil vertical separation standard in controlled airspace, for an IFR flight. it is 500 ft minimum in our books. . One of the roots of the problem is right there : a published route where you need a visual military type separation to make it work . And it may have worked hundreds of times before , sometimes with luck I am sure, but this time it did not and this was just an accident waiting to happen written in the book.

To answer an earlier question , Yes they have CISM , NATCA is good at this , they will take care of the controllers.

@ fdr : our posts crossed each other , fully agree with you .



Subjects Accident Waiting to Happen  CRJ  IFR  Route 4  Separation (ALL)  Vertical Separation

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
January 31, 2025, 10:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818059
Originally Posted by nonsense
"Do you see the traffic?" invites the pilot to confirm "yes" if they see something plausible.
It encourages confirmation bias; "I see something so it must be what I'm being told to see".
"Do you see the CRJ" invites the helicopter pilot to find something out there in the dark, which might or might not even be *a* CRJ in the dark, never mind the right CRJ, then feel he's now identified the threat. It invites him to concentrate on one threat and fail so see others.
Excellent remark . Unfortunately this how TWR controllers are being instructed in academies to do visual separation. In my (old) days visual separation was an exception, today in the US it is a standard method of working to enable more traffic in the system that the standard rules would allow.

Subjects CRJ  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 02, 2025, 09:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819621
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service......... Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.
.
and from island air photo :
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams
Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .

Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.

I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .

Subjects FAA  IFR  Land and Hold Short  NTSB  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

9 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 02, 2025, 10:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819672
Originally Posted by Easy Street
I the idea that while the extra airspace capacity afforded by visual separation at night may come at the price of occasional accidents such as this, that price is worth paying for passenger, government and economic benefit. Those kind of ideas don't tend to be well received or understoood by the public, or by extension by elected representatives, so a prediction of my own: every single agency and authority involved will go out of its way to avoid acknowledging that idea, and instead will pretend that visual separation at night is a fundamentally sound practice let down by poor procedure design and/or ATC at DCA.
I hope you are wrong t but I reluctantly tend to agree. One thing not to forget however : A big Damocles sword is hanging above the whole system : just like with the MAX , jt now would need just another similar accident in the not so distant future and we are in a totally different scenario.

Subjects ATC  DCA  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 02, 2025, 10:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819676
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
Heavens above!
Just because the helilane has a cieling of 200ft and the glideslope is 325 or whatever does not imply that helos can, would or might pass 125 ft under an aircraft on finals. That would be insane, as surely common sense tells you? Have you not read/heard the ATC transcripts? Helos are held short until landing traffic is clear - ie until it has passed unless the incoming is sufficiently far away for there to be no possible confliction.
How far off minimums (actually maximum) - you've already answered that question yourself. 125ft.
But this is not how the visual separation delegation concept works, and was used which is our main problem here

Subjects ATC  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

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

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 03, 2025, 15:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820640
the controller does not have enough information to use a heading
Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings, while they might have a copy of the Approach radar picture on a TV monitor somewhere , it is to verify actual positions not to issue vectors.. In addition some TWR controllers are just TWR rated, not Approach radar rated.
​​​​​​​ flight recorder show the collision occurred at an altitude of about 325 feet, plus or minus 25 feet.
25 ft is the accuracy of mode S, transmit data so let's take 300 ft , Heli was apparently 100 ft higher than its altitude restriction , doing a separation maneuver ? (*) question to my US friends , : when delegating separation VFR to an aircraft does that automatically cancels its previous altitude restrictions ?
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.

Subjects ATC  FAA  ICAO  Radar  Separation (ALL)  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.
ATC Watcher
February 03, 2025, 20:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820865
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
From the FAA website:“When Radar Came to Town

On January 7, 1952, after five years of testing and modifications to a radar system used

by the Army and Navy in World War II, the Civil Aeronautics Administration

inaugurated radar departure control procedures at its Washington National Airport. Six

months later it began radar approach control procedures at the airport.”

How do we connect the dots from 1952 to the tragedy described in this thread? 72 years later we have devolved to visual separation.
indeed, Indeed . interesting to remember where it all comes from and having the first collision this century coming back in the same airport they introduced APP radar over 70 years ago while doing a visual approach a night following a PAPI .
But remember , here the APP radar controllers with the proper ratings and radar tools ( including Conflict alerts) are not in the TWR cab in DC, , they are located in Potomac TRACON , another town , in Warrenton , Virginia ,

.
​​​​​​​ Jumseater
A UK Tower/LC can’t give headings unless they are radar qualified and current, and have the appropriate equipment.
Correct , Same in EASA land. in addition in FAA web site DC TWR is classified as TWR only .
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 3rd February 2025 at 20:24 . Reason: adding comment to jumpseater post

Subjects FAA  Radar  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

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

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 03, 2025, 21:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820895
Originally Posted by MPN11
That is a question I posed way back. Does DCA Tower have a slaved radar display?
I do not know , what kind and how it is used. Some US controllers said in another forum they now have one , but what is it , where it is located and what the procedures are I do not know. Normally at large airports you have a radar picture repeater for situation awareness not for providing radar control unless you are in a TWR-APP combined facility of course , but DC is not.
and
Does a non-trained/qualified controller have the authority to use that data in extremis?
if you mean in emergency , to prevent a collision ? , yes absolutely because in legal terms you always have the duty of care That is what the judge will come back to in the end. Now that said, where was the display located ? remember the guy was working 2 positions at same time . If there was a radar repeater display somewhere , was it located at the position he was working from ? The NTSB investigation will tell us that
.
If you are a controller you know how we work , Problem identified , = Conflict with PT detected , solution found = delegate separation , delegation accepted = problem solved. Next ... The guy was quite busy with departing and arrival traffic in runway one . Now of course with hindsight ,, what he should, and could perhaps have done is very easy for us to say . Feel very sorry for the guy . I hope he is not made the scapegoat for this mess.

Subjects ATC  DCA  NTSB  Radar  Separation (ALL)

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

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 04, 2025, 09:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821217
Originally Posted by uncle_maxwell
P

All i am really saying is that:
(1) TCAS II can still be improved
(2) Other systems (like ADS-B) can, as can their adoption
(3) Interoperability between them can be enhanced
(4) Procedures can be improved (like mindset and division of tasks with TCAS TA on approach, especially in IMC and at night)
)
Allow me few comments based on a long experience with TCAS evaluation et deployment .

1) TCAS II can still be improved : No end of the story by now , no version 8 in the pipeline . We spent millions and years on getting 7.1 accepted .. and even not everyone mandates it .

2) ADS-B gets already saturated , add TCAS type system and it will be .But developing a new Anti-collision system based on ADS-B is in the pipeline however it will; mean ASD-S be out mandated for every flying aircraft , including military . Here is your problem . Some military aircraft cannot be retrofitted , no space ..

3) interoperability .? No , 2 completely different systems , TCAS is analog 1970 technology ,

4) TCAS RAs on approach? you mean below 1000 ft ? No , in our scenario here , with the Blackhawk climbing , the logical RA would be a descent RA for the CRJ ,, you want a Descent RA at 300 ft ?

The only solution I personally see is airspace segregation based on equipment . Class A, B and C restricted to aircraft carrying ADS-B out and TCAS equipped , and both Working and on the MEL as no go item s ( not the case today ) Waiting for AOPA and ATA remarks

Subjects ADSB (All)  ADSB In  ADSB Out  Blackhawk (H-60)  CRJ  TCAS (All)  TCAS RA

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.
ATC Watcher
February 04, 2025, 12:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821404
Originally Posted by island_airphoto
i thought ADS-B was already required for Class B or under it. It certainly is for DCA. No way are you convincing anyone to put TCAS in a C-150 when they already ponied up for ADS-B.
I was taking Military , and here in DC airspace Class B you had one aircraft without ADS-B. out.( not that it would have changed anything ,) but if you want to devise /create a performant CAS using ADS-B it starts there .
Then there is the question of the C150s, you raised , of course no TCAS, we are talking ADS-B out, but even then, do you really want to have them anywhere near the approach path of a major busy airport airspace to start with ?

Subjects ADSB (All)  ADSB Out  DCA  TCAS (All)

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

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

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 05, 2025, 08:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821971
Originally Posted by triadic
I suggest it is now the time for the FAA to review the PROCEDURES that allowed this collision to occur.
As a previous poster has said, they are using third world procedures at what is a very busy and high-density traffic area. I doubt if this collision would have occurred in many other countries as positive separation and/or significant restrictions are provided to ALL aircraft, be they IFR or VFR, and certainly not at night.
I suspect however that the DoD would not be too happy with not being able to operate VFR. h.
They do not have to cancel the helicopters routes altogether, just not design one that crosses below the short final to a runway or cancel delegation of separation between VFR and IFR in class B airspace. Relatively simple.

Subjects FAA  IFR  Separation (ALL)  VFR

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
February 09, 2025, 17:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11825026
Just to put the things back into perspective : whether the controller had a radar display in front of him or not ,, whether there should have been a separate controller in the Heli frequency ,both would not have changed anything in this case since he delegated separation to the helicopter , The visual identification by the helicopter was confirmed ( twice) , instruction to pass behind was confirmed = controller no longer responsible , standard procedure in DC since the guys worked there , and he had a lot of other traffic to attend to.

To discuss what he could or should have done is just playing " Captain hindsight "

The procedure was wrong , the safety case botched , and as I understand, the " book " allowing all this was followed by both the controller and the helicopter pilot .
Let's discuss the procedures and visual separation delegation at night in busy airports instead on focusing on what the controller should have done , implying indirectly some form of responsibility in this accident..

Subjects ATC  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Radar  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

15 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 09, 2025, 21:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11825124
Originally Posted by deltafox44
Not implying any form of responsibility to anyone, the "book" says that in the case of a visual separation, if the 2 traffics converge, the controller should advise the other pilot. Perhaps the same controller on both frequencies was too busy to do so, and a second controller would have helped.

cf FAA Order JO 7110.65AA 7.2.1.a.2 Pilot-applied visual separation
Yes ,you are right regarding the federal rules book , I would however like to see what the local procedures addendum says````` ,and what were the standard operating best practices being used to train people in DC TWR , Because assuming the Heli position was opened in the TWR , from the R/T exchange, it looks like asking for visual separation was kind of standard , and would in that case the info be passed to the TWR controller who will then advise the aircrfat on final APP , as both were then on different frequencies ? sounds improbable to me . But speculating of course. .
@ YRP : Having the helicopters on a separate frequency from the fixed wing would certainly not have helped anyone's situational awareness.
​​​​​​​Absolutely .

Subjects ATC  FAA  Separation (ALL)  Situational Awareness  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
February 11, 2025, 19:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11826274
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.
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.
ATC Watcher
February 11, 2025, 19:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11826293
Lomon , asking questions is fine , but have you listened to the R/T in any busy airport in the US like DCA is ? the traffic levels and the phraseology , or slang I would say used, ?This not ICAO land with little traffic . The guy here was trained to work like this , single position , 2 runways and VFRs crossings on 2 different frequencies. Your suggestion of what he should have said like " if not sighted do that ,etc," does not fit in here . No time for long sentences,,. The procedures were completely wrong , not the controller...
When it comes to flight safety I was always told there is no such thing as a a stupid question.
Absolutely , but you were not asking a question , you were making suggestions on what the controller could have done ,.

Subjects ATC  DCA  ICAO  Phraseology (ATC)

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

5 recorded likes for this post.

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

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