Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Last Index Page
| ATC Watcher
October 20, 2025, 10:42:00 GMT permalink Post: 11972979 |
, no one not in a mental institution would think helicopters should be dodging and ducking planes below 500 feet on short final.
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 20th October 2025 at 11:59 . Reason: typos Subjects
ADSB (All)
ADSB In
TCAS (All)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
October 21, 2025, 18:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11973808 |
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 , 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 . The why I think we know, i.e. enabling to move more and more traffic, but when and by who we don't. How and on who's pressure did the numerous previous incidents got disregarded is another question worth asking . Not why the Heli pilot was flying 78 ft too high . Throwing the Heli pilot (and perhaps also the controller on duty) "under the bus" as you say in your country, would be so wrong as it would prevent getting to the truth and learn the real lessons of this accident . Subjects
ATC
FAA
ICAO
Route 4
Separation (ALL)
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
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
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
October 22, 2025, 14:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11974342 |
From the Ops group :
A US
Senate Panel is considering a broad aviation safety package
today, Oct 21, that addresses concerns raised by the collision over the Potomac River back in Jan 2025. This includes a
potential mandate for all aircraft already required to have ADS-B Out to also be equipped with ADS-B In
by 2031. It also aims to end most military ADS-B exemptions. If the process runs smoothly, this may become law in a matter of months.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
ADSB In
ADSB Out
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
October 23, 2025, 10:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11974883 |
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.. So , applying standard safety assessment criteria , allowing visual separation to aircraft on that route, even less at night where danger of mis identification is increased . would definitively not be considered \x93 Safe\x94 . 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 Subjects
CRJ
FAA
Normalization of Deviance
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Situational Awareness
Visual Separation
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 |
But first you'd have to know the plane is there.
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.
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
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
December 18, 2025, 08:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 12007341 |
The filing said that an air-traffic controller didn’t comply with a federal order to tell aircraft on converging courses to separate. t
If this will be In my country , there will be an immediate call for " work to rules " in that airport .," I know it is illegal in the US to call for that , but it starts to look like we are going back to 1981, building another perfect storm .. Subjects
ATC
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
December 18, 2025, 16:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 12007556 |
Then :
The government also said the American Airlines pilots should have been alerted to the location of the Black Hawk helicopter by a collision alert system and that
the pilots \x93failed to maintain vigilance\x94 to avoid the aircraft.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
January 31, 2026, 11:31:00 GMT permalink Post: 12030150 |
QUOTE=sunnySA;12030070]FWIW, I don't understand why NTSB didn't recommend re-transmit.
Current Voice Switching Systems allow multiple frequencies and provide re-transmit options, and as such provide instantaneous splitting of frequencies to separate control positions. The standard way to couple frequencies in ATC is what was avail in DC , you can transmit on both, listen to both simultaneously but not retransmitting on both . potentially reducing eventual blocked transmissions , or at least improves the detection of blocked transmissions . in ATC , VHF anti blocking systems are being discussed since Tenerife ( 1977) , CONTRAN was the first one , tested but never really implanted , ,later some copies were made , introduced here and there but with a switch to disable, when traffic got too high ,. not sure what the situation is today but I doubt it changed much. ( waiting to be contradicted) , In the air , most new 8,33 VHFs have a "dual" function , where you can listen to 2 frequency simultaneously , but when the master is receiving , the slave is blocked out , some have a replay function but useless in flight , especially when flying manual VFR at 200 ft .. I doubt this would have made any difference in this case . Plus it would not solve UHF/VHF ground coupling issue. Subjects
ATC
FAA
NTSB
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 06, 2026, 20:38:00 GMT permalink Post: 12033480 |
Whow! Legislation to force the FAA and the US military to fully implement NTSB recommendations ? That will be a first since the grand Canyon collision in 1956 if it really materialize.
Subjects
FAA
NTSB
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 14, 2026, 09:44:00 GMT permalink Post: 12037077 |
I have unfortunately witnessed this almost all the time in the accidents I surveyed. On the legal front , only in my home country, France , it always has been a disaster for the families , from the 1968 AF Caravelle shot down , the 1973 Iberia mid air collision in Nantes, the 1986 UTA DC10 bombing , the Concorde, or AF447 , every single time , it took well over 10 years to get a trial and every time the judgement was absolving , what the families saw as the real culprits, and the wounds are still open for them , decades later Justice in the US is much faster , but I am not convinced the result will be better for the families. I hope for them I am wrong . Keep us posted WR 6-3. . Last edited by ATC Watcher; 14th February 2026 at 11:35 . Reason: typos Subjects
Grief
Wall Street Journal
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 16, 2026, 19:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 12038200 |
paulross
, when you say :
Firstly, immediately after an accident the friends and relatives are desperate for information, first the What, then the Why. They will look anywhere and everywhere for this information. In this modern world this might well lead them here. When I post on this forum I am always conscious that some of the bereaved are most likely reading. If that is you then I hold you in the light.
I was sadly involved in the aftermath of the Uebrlingen collision , and I am still to this day so upset at this ignorant Swiss journalist that printed the nationality, name of the controller on duty and the village where he lived at a time where only wild speculations were around as to what really happened, and that directly led to his murder by the father of one of the victims, in his home in front of his wife and 2 small children. Designating who to blame hours after an accident seem to be the norm on social media today , but at least , here on PPRuNe , let's try to be professionals and not doing that . Thanks for posting your story Paulross. Subjects
ATC
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 17, 2026, 08:38:00 GMT permalink Post: 12038456 |
from WR-6-3 :
Those presentations, as the old saying goes, "left a mark."
Subjects
Accountability/Liability
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 17, 2026, 11:23:00 GMT permalink Post: 12038569 |
We are going now a bit off topic , but there are indeed similarities between DCA and Uberlingen on how the families and lawyers react , and most likely how the judges will react in the end to find who are responsible and award damages to the families.
Lawyers represent both sides so sometimes it is shocking for us professionals who know the truth , confirmed by the official accident report to hear their arguments . . In Uberlingen there were 13 holes in the cheese layer , any one of them closed and there would likely not have been an accident .For the judges to select only a few of them and concentrate on the person responsible for that hole is not what we, professionals would do , but this is how their system works. , Some of the holes were plain bad luck , but many others were man made. The BFU investigated and (tried to) explain all the holes, , the judges only a couple. The similarities with DCA : on the accident itself , , for the controllers : normalization of deviance , being trained to do things which are not in the book .The judge will look at the book and say the controller did not follow the procedures . . Lawyers from the other side will be exploiting this loophole . On the pilots : both the Russians and the Bluestreak did things not in their book either , for instance on reactions to TCAS alerts , or on accepting a procedure not briefed.. Lawyers are likely to exploits that as well.
From blind pew
:
Accidents have far reaching consequences and surely we owe it to the victims and their families to be told the truth.
But the cover ups keep coming Still today , 50 years later , the French Government and especially the Armeee de l'Air , still refuse the judgement conclusion ( saying that they are responsible for the collision ) , saying it was false , and still refuse to acknowledge the evidence . For the victim's families , mostly British and Spanish, the wound is still wide open as no-one was held responsible in the end , only "the State " in all its anonymity . Subjects
ATC
DCA
Grief
Normalization of Deviance
TCAS (All)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| ATC Watcher
February 18, 2026, 16:22:00 GMT permalink Post: 12039242 |
The 100ft in the altimeter is within IFR tolerance , not really the point here , yes you should check against elevation airfield before start , but we learn there is a small discrepancy when on the ground and when the rotor blows over the static holes, and ATC will check again in flight the alt against mode C, it is mandatory on first contact with ATC , but mode C is calibrated on 1013 not QNH , anyway not the major cause here, just another hole on the cheese that night .
As to the lack of experience of the PF , I think 56 h of flying visual and manual an helicopter is significantly more important experience wise that the same number on say, a 747 .I also do not think this was factor. The reasons and direct causes of this accident are within the 50 NTSB recommendations , not in the altimeter or experience of the PF , unless she had a couple of close calls herself doing visual separation at night before and did not learn from that. Last edited by ATC Watcher; 18th February 2026 at 16:35 . Subjects
ATC
Altimeter (All)
Close Calls
IFR
NTSB
QNH
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |