Posts by user "ATC Watcher" [Posts: 68 Total up-votes: 161 Page: 3 of 4]¶

Yes , this is the word I teach and hammer my students who are afraid to contradict an ATC instruction with which they are uncomfortable with . Very difficult for a under 100 hors student to get this , but I know 10.000 h ATPLs who have the same problem
That said it does not always work , the Lufthansa SFO R/T exchange was an abnormality to stay politically correct . But , back to DCA , I I would be interested to know if previous instructions to circle 33 while on finals 01 was a commonly used procedure , and if it was occasionally refused by some pilots in the past and what was then the reaction of ATC .. divert to Dulles ?

I do not intend to make a lecture on how ATC works but you mix up Tower and Radar controller's work . Tower is visual aided by tools to aid determine positions , but it is not issuing instructions ( i.e. vectors) based on those tools ( here a radar display ) Those tools displays might or might not even be in front of the Tower controller working position .
Radar control is done by Approach control , ( Potomac in this case) and here done from another city .

action is taking place with changes on the routes : (source Ops group Briefing ).

Agee, but always the pressure not to say " negative " or " unable " even when not feeling comfortable with an ATC request.

What is likely to make a media deal is the wrongly calibrated ( or QNH setting) of the PAT altimeters which might open discussion on the real issue : the initial 100 feet procedural separation

A must read/listen . The holes in the cheese layers were quite big
just a few :
-UH60-L Heli altimeters accuracy .80 -130 ft systemic error due position of the static sensors affected by rotor blades in cruise
-80 ft error deemed within acceptable tolerance by Army pilots
-flying at 300ft targeting 200ft is "acceptable" by the Army
-200ft restriction on the chart is a only a "recommended target" in VFR not a hard restriction i unless instructed by ATC ..
-Lack of regulatory oversight by FAA despite many previous incidents .
-FAA (bureaucratic) refusal to put a 'Hot spot" symbol on routes crossings.
-Lack of ADS-B compliance on Army helis, due maintenance documentation errors during installation
-lack of experience of heli pilots on specific areas due frequent rotation of staff and lack of training hours in general.
-Lack of continuity in of DCA ATC operations supervision , 10 managers in 12 years and 5 in last 5 years.

In fact on some of the Reason's layers there were more holes than cheese.

Yes , but for me more important is the fact that a single controller was handling 2 frequencies that were not really coupled, the CRJ did not hear the RAT and vice versa, both only heard what the controller said not the questions asked , The single controller was also busy doing 2 jobs and quite busy with Runway 1 OPS , so probably that is why he did not find the time top pass essential traffic info to the CRJ . 2 controllers might have changed something, yes, but only " might" because in that case , both would have been on 2 separate frequencies , if traffic info was not passed to the CRJ , the result could have been the same .

For me the key point of this accident is the 100 ft procedural separation planned between a Heli route and a non precision ( e.g visual) approach path . The rest are just more holes in the cheese.

Really do not physically have the time to listen to all the tapes .and watch all the videos, In case someone did , was there anything of relevance , ( e.g. new) from the ATC staff interviews ?. Was the missing traffic info discussed , the phraseology used , why previous incidents were not followed by changes in procedures ? That sort of things. Thanks in advance,

No , of course not, they can start the work right now.if they got the political will and budget .BUT :

And that is they key , that must come first in my view, first the new structure then the road map to your "new" airspace infrastructure and governance , with new guys and fresh ideas, and yes, some can be copied on what Europe is trying to do .

Good news that the chair will not be empty but I am not sure an airline guy is the best choice for the job , I do not know the guy but as an airline Capt he might be OPS orientated so he will, just like Sully did , become extremely frustrated on discovering how ICAO works. It is by consensus , the best ideas can be rejected by a few States and then discussions and negotiations must start again , even obvious solutions will; take years to be implemented , not weeks. In ICAO the USA has the same voice as a small State with no airline.
​​​​​​​A diplomat with civilian airline background fits better the post. A Military's background is of absolute zero use in ICAO.

@WillowRun6-3 : First a couple of replies to your earlier comments :
No the FAA cannot copy Europe, in fact the initial Single sky (SES) plan was the other way around, copying what the US had, based on a biased report that the US system was better and more productive than Europe . a single airspace structure under a single authority, When they realized it would not be possible, they then invented the FABs ( airspace blocks) that did not work either , so they went for technical harmonization , that is how SESAR grew . . Yes the current US-Europe discussions are about harmonization between NextGen ( what is left of it ) and SESAR . No-one wants to "copy" the other today but I suspect that the FAA 2.0 will most probably "copy" the technological path of Europe , with an ambitious master plan etc...Do not rock the boat just believe technology/ automation, now AI, will eventually solve all the problems.
on the NTSB powers :
As Lonewolf 50 correctly said and reminded us, the FAA does not have to follow NTSB recommendations . In fact they mostly don't , I have been told or read some time ago that over the last decades there were a few hundreds NTSB recommendations that remained open unactioned., But that is not a US alone issue, same in many other countries. An Investigation Board is not a Regulator, which is what is missing in the US.
as to how ICAO works :
I have been attending ICAO meetings . part of Panels and various working group ( still do it today ) The ANC is where the decisions are voted but not when the work is done and proposals are made. . There is not like in the UN , no State has a priority seat there, all equals , big and small.. And that causes difficulties My example was correct , for instance in Europe there are 2 large non-EU States both with very large international airlines and a dozen smaller ones , also both aircrfat manufacturers which are constantly blocked by very small countries with no airline but members of the EU. ( PM me if you want the names)
Military background, no use for me because we do not discuss Military matters in ICAO ( the "C" in ICAO is sacred ) and over-playing the sovereignty card is creating opposition , not consensus . Some States think it is is a nice retirement present to send a former Air Force General to ICAO : big mistake . You lose influence, not gain any, in my experience at least , but I will give Mr Anderson my full attention and will judge him on his actions , not his past .He might prove to be excellent in that role , who knows,
now about retaliation :
Not sure if this is the case., In Europe we do not do this .We suspend people involved in accidents, this is standard , some need retraining ,some come back to work ( almost always in the same facility) and some want to change jobs, but they are generally seen more as victims than culprits.
Here from what we know so far, the controllers and their supervisors were trained to work on local procedures made long before they came to the facility . Those procedures were or became unsafe but if this is how they were trained to work , you can't blame the operators for faulty procedures . OK but what about supervision ? 10 managers in 10 years, 5 in the last 5 years , show that some possibly felt vey uncomfortable with what they were seeing. But for me they also were kind of victims of the system

Just went ,very selectively of course, through the thousand of pages of to the dockets and they give a clearer picture , to me at least . of the huge normalization of deviance that took place from both the DCA control staff and the RAT pilots.. I went mainly thought the interviews and the TCAS dockets.
What I learned:
Interestingly the Local controller involved was also a CPL pilot
Pressure to use 33 for landing during high departure rates was there to avoid the queue blocking the taxi ways for arriving aircraft : ( my comment : when you get to that situation traffic should be reduced by departure slots , that what we do in Europe with the Network manager CTOTs..)
No reaction to Conflict alert because visual acquisition was prioritized , i.e if you saw the helicopter passing behind you disregarded the CA. and this was almost always the case so CA with helicopters became disregarded
Advanced training was poor or non existent ( e.g Threat/Error management training).
On the PAT pilots interviews the most flagrant normalization of deviance is requesting visual separation with an aircraft you do not see ( yet) I realize that was declared by pilots other that the one operating that flight , but gives a good indication of the local " best practices " in that area.
Finally on the TCAS issue, one of the screenshots shows other traffic, and we can see that there were 2 TAs one in front -2 and one behind +6 , that could ( emphasis on could) have been one of the reason the CRJ crew missed the urgency of the -2 , but also probably were more focusing on the PAPI so both looking outside instead of at the display .

And to reply to a question earlier by DIBO on the discussion about ADS-B out not avail on the RAT, and its relevance for TCAS, well it would have influenced the degree of accuracy of the Tau calculation ( with Alt returns every 25 ft instead of 100 feet) and could ( again emphasis on could) have changed the alert logic/timing of the TA. Non installation of ADS-B and flying 70 ft too high are probably one of the points the lawyers are going to get into to prove negligence from the military to get more money for their clients , possibly shadowing the real causes. ; which for me are still the design of the procedure and routes, and the failure of the Regulator to act on the alerts. . Love to hear Willow-Run 6-3 comment on this .
.

Bit of confusion here . TCAS is not a separation tool , it is a last minute anti collision system . You are not obliged to monitor the screen, definitively not at 300ft on finals Not sure the CRJ crew noticed it . . Fact is the CRJ crew was not passed the traffic info . the reason why has been covered in the NTSB docket ( interview of the controller)
In class B , controllers will provide separation between IFR and VFR however they can delegate separation to an aircrfat visually following a strict procedure and phraseology .and issuing an ATC Instruction : " maintain visual separation "

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

@ Sailvi767 : Are you suggesting that somehow the CRJ crew bears some responsibility in not acting on a TA and therefore bears some responsibility in this accident ? At least this is what I am making of your posting .
If I am correct can you stop this discussion Remember journalists and possibly families members of those 2 pilots are watching too.
To close that bit just read the CRJ CVR transcript (*)
47:29 : eGPWS : 500 hundred
47:35 : I got 2 whites and 2 red
47:37 : cool ( my note : so they were looking at the PAPI )
47::40 : "Traffic traffic " ( my note : TA audio)
47:47 : TWR :" PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ "
47:55 : eGPWS : ...hundred ..
47:58 " Oh Sh!!!!!
47:59 : sound of impact .

It does.. About the flawed published procedures , I do not know what standard they use in the US, . Maybe someone here does, because establishing a route a 200ft inside a CTR crossing a runway approach path would not be possible in Europe, First we have SERA ( Standardized European rules of the air ) which mandates a minimum of 500ft , above highest obstacle Then the design : . If I take the Paris TMA as example where heavily helicopters routes exists between the 3 airports and the heliport , the minimum altitude on those routes is 700 ft .and none the routes conflict with any runway approach path .
Then 3rd , if you have to be designing a conflicting route system , it would be procedurally clear that the 2 could not be used simultaneously . In other word , here in DCA, when runway 33 is in use for landing . Route 4 would be closed, and vice versa, when you have an Heli on route 4 you can't use runway 33 for landing.
But it is not only DCA, I have been flying regularly VFR in Vegas a few years back , and what the tourist helicopters companies were allowed to do there was. let's say " amazing " compared to what we are allowed to do in Europe.

@ Musician : 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 .

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 ? .

Thais reminds me of the trail of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" ferry back in 80s. The Company procedure was clear : it was prohibited to start moving the RORO ferry if the front door was still open . But it had become common practice to gain time ,to leave harbor while the doors were closing When the guy in charge of the door overslept during his break the door remained fully open while the ship was leaving port , and when accelerating water came in and the boat capsized .killing 200 people . During the trail the company executives showed the SOP, and got away with blame , The Guy that overslept and the captain took all the blame . (All this from memory , check Internet for the full report if you want more info)

We could maybe potentially see something similar here , blaming the PSA captain for accepting without prior briefing a visual Circle 33 to gain time , things he probably had done many times before to the satisfaction of his employer .

@ WillowRun 6-3 : Is normalization of deviance a mitigating circumstances in the US legal system ?

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanations WR 6-3 . One is nearly always feeling more educated after reading your lengthy posts .

To answer your 2 questions , the fist one is easy , over my nearly 50 years of aviation experience , except recently where we start to discuss seriously Human factors, Fatigue , Mental well being , it was always to blame the Pilots or the controllers first when you can , and protect management and manufacturers was the priority
Al Wiener had even a law for that in the 1980s : . To the second question , concrete examples, yes there are . For instance ,nearly all the Japanese accidents and serious incidents resulted in pilots or controllers" being thrown under the bus" as you say , ,some sent to jail, and fired , because in their legal system someone has to be blamed . Watch the upcoming Haneda one .
It you want one , the one I know pretty well is . the Nantes ( France) collision , 2 civil aircrfat under military ATC ) Iberia and Spantax) back in 1973 , at the first trial the Spantax pilot was blamed to protect the military ATC institution , (but overturned in appeal a few years later )
In the US I do not immediately recall any particular involving military ops but there must be some similar to KDCA,, maybe someone has time to run through a proper judicial database .

I personally do not think ADS-B on the helicopter would have changed anything , From what I understand , if it had it could have been spotted earlier by ATC , the conflict alert might have sounded a couple of seconds earlier , etc .. pure speculation .

It would not have changed much for the AA CRJ either , the TA would have been more precise and maybe a second or two earlier , but he had already 2 TAs and most certainly so short from landing the PF was focusing on the PAPI not his TA display

It might have changed something if the Heli was equipped with a CDTI ( ADS-B in display) as it is a powerful tool to help identify traffic visually. But not separate yourself from another aircraft . One thing people in offices making such statements forget is that to provide separations maneuvers ATC needs a stable radar picture , with antennas firmly on the ground facing North . Inside an aircraft constantly moving the picture moves with it , (as you can see on your TCAS display ) Extremely complex to separate yourself using that kind of picture when both you and the target are moving. AWACS operators are trained to do this , but not your average pilot .

So I think this ADS-B on the Military Helis is a red herring made by politicians wanting to appear to \x93do something \x93 and perhaps distract the public from the FAA and regulator failures on both the design of the airspace / routes and the lack of action after numerous previous serious incidents reports ,

I think we misunderstood each other or I was was not clear enough : I was refereeing to ADS-B out not in ;
That would mainly be for the benefit of ATC .
ADS-B in, together with a CDTI, is what I said to be L So in fact we both agree .