Posts by user "BFSGrad" [Posts: 48 Total up-votes: 52 Page: 3 of 3]ΒΆ

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  Last  Index Page

BFSGrad
September 25, 2025, 00:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11959243
In video, Clifford claims 110-page lawsuit is publicly available. No luck in locating. Clifford makes following points regarding liability:

American Airlines
- Knowingly operated and expanded operations into an airport (DCA) with \x93massive congestion\x94
- Operated in airspace subject to numerous near-miss reports

AA/PSA Pilots
- Failed to respond to traffic alert 19 sec before collision
- Accepted visual approach to runway 33

Subjects Accountability/Liability  DCA

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.
BFSGrad
September 27, 2025, 16:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11960626
Originally Posted by layman54
The best (in my view) argument against the airlines is that it was PSA policy that their pilots should not accept a diversion from runway 1 to runway 33 if they had not already briefed this approach (in addition to briefing the approach to runway 1). The pilot in charge hadn't done this but nevertheless accepted the diversion. This looks bad of course but there is little reason to believe that the omission of the briefing made any difference.
I think the point here is that, had the 5342 pilots followed PSA procedures (i.e., not accepting an approach that wasn\x92t previously briefed), they would have refused the circle 33 offer by ATC, thereby avoiding the accident.

Reviewing the 5342 CVR, runway 33 was not included in the CA/PF\x92s approach briefing about 35 minutes prior to the expected landing time. The CA/PF did do an abbreviated briefing for 33 after the circle 33 option was accepted.

Subjects ATC  CVR  PSA Procedures

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.
BFSGrad
October 17, 2025, 22:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11971786
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
As we saw here, ATC can fall short and altitudes can be missed. An ADS-B display is a valuable backstop - for a small fraction of the cost of TCAS.
Recall that the accident Blackhawk flight crew likely had a Stratus 2S onboard that could have provided ADS-B traffic info via the flight crew\x92s Army-issued EFBs loaded with ForeFlight. There is no evidence from the Blackhawk CVR (or the aircraft\x92s flight path) that this feature was used.

As I recall from the interviews, there was no Army aviation policy about how this technology was to be used during DC area flights. Some crews used it, but most did not.

Subjects ADSB (All)  ATC  Blackhawk (H-60)  CVR  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.
BFSGrad
October 21, 2025, 16:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11973734
Originally Posted by Easy Street
...and the pilots were using the (badly named...) radalt as their height reference.
The interview transcripts indicated that the 12th AB Blackhawk pilots used barometric altitude as the reference for flying the DC routes.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)  Radio Altimeter

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.
BFSGrad
January 28, 2026, 01:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12028315
Originally Posted by Equivocal
I haven't read the report yet but if this is what it concludes, it looks like it's going to be a disappointing read. Aircraft move around and it's not possible to design routes that never intersect....in an environment such as the one in question, ATC should be authorising the aircraft to follow specific routes only when the requisite separation will exist.
Agree. Disappointed with this PC. It would be like a DCA arrival landing on 1 has an intersection collision with an aircraft landing on 33 and the cause is the existence of one or the other intersecting runways. There\x92s a nearly infinite number of points in the NAS where two aircraft can occupy the same point if not procedurally separated.

Subjects ATC  DCA  Separation (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.
BFSGrad
January 31, 2026, 22:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12030414
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
The radar altimeter ( APN-171 or later APN-209 ) accuracy is similar at +/- 3 ft then 3% of indicated altitude, so, for the H-4 Route Maximum altitude of 200 ft. The Rad Alt could be as much as 9 ft off. The NVGs do show Rad Alt. Haven\x92t seen any submittal indicating the Rad Alt was inoperative or unusable.
Extensive discussion in the interview transcripts about why all of the DC area helicopter pilots (medical, LEO, military) use baro rather than radar altitude when flying the DC helicopter routes.

Subjects Altimeter (All)  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  Radar  Radio Altimeter

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.
BFSGrad
February 16, 2026, 16:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038133
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
I'd have to say that my already low opinion of lawyers (present company excepted, obviously!) took a further hit when I read that they were preparing a case against PSA.
Isn\x92t the lawsuit mentioned in the WSJ article the same lawsuit announced back on 9/24/25 (see post #1666)?

Without willing plaintiffs, there is no lawsuit.

Subjects: None

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.
BFSGrad
February 17, 2026, 16:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038698
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
The company or their pilots?
In the Crafton lawsuit, AA and PSA are listed as defendants in addition to the U.S. Government. However, the PSA5342 pilots are cited within the lawsuit for failures; e.g., non-response to TCAS TA, not briefing the 33 approach. But the bulk of the PSA5342 criticism is leveled at AA and PSA for failure to properly train PSA flight crews about the risks of DCA ops.
Last edited by BFSGrad; 17th February 2026 at 20:59 . Reason: Replaced erroneous "TCAS RA" with correct "TCAS TA"

Subjects 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.

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  Last  Index Page