Posts by user "BrogulT" [Posts: 6 Total up-votes: 7 Page: 1 of 1]¶

No need for emergency maneuvers or quick-stop aerobatics here. If they had adopted and enforced reasonable separation rules, compliance could have been had by simply having the helicopter slow down (earlier), hold (earlier) or do a right-hand orbit around the river (earlier). Every reasonable chance to avoid this collision was *earlier*. IDK how many warning signs are needed to take some sort of action, but clearly various people simply ignored them or set up procedures that required ignoring them.

Now here we are having a public debate about whether the helicopter was at 200 or 300 feet. My question is at what point would you consider the CRJ to be impermissibly low at that point? At the point of impact they were less than 5000 feet from the aiming point and, I presume, the PAPI. That's less than 4000 feet from the numbers. It's a short runway, 3 degrees to the numbers is 208 feet, to the aiming point 260 feet. So how low can they be at this point without violating some FAR or other rule? Keep in mind it is a visual approach at this point.

If I understand the sequence of events, PAT25 requested visual separation before they got to the report/hold point near Hains Point. IDK what they refer to this point as, but if the controller had denied the request and instructed them to hold at Hains Point, what would everyone have done? Is that a normal procedure? We're told that we have knowledgable senior people here so I'd like to know if that's plausible or doesn't work for some reason.

The CRJ CVR transcript does show the "Traffic! Traffic!" callout, but since this was a visual approach (non-precision in VMC even though it was at the end of an IFR flight) and visual separation was in use, why would both parties not be explicitly informed by the controller?

"5342, helo traffic on your right 1/4 mile at 300 feet, has you in sight". The CRJ FO might just have taken a closer look out the side window with that. Or, like you, they might have opted to go around.

And thank you for sharing your experience. I asked this earlier but haven't gotten a direct reply: If you know, what would have happened if the controller had asked PAT25 to "hold" at the holding point near Hains Point? Is that the function of those holding points and is there some set procedure or pattern?

We keep going back to the altitude, but even if a 100 foot discrepancy were relevant, the ATC playback shows PAT25 displaying "003" immediately before the collision. It had been previously showing 003, then went to 002 for a while and then back to 003 right as the traces intersect. What data is there that shows that the helo was transmitting 200 feet at the time of the collision? Where it was 15 seconds before the collision is irrelevant.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aircrashinv...radar_sources/

Of course, I think the whole altitude issue is a red herring and the concentration of attention on this "discrepancy" reduces the attention on other issues that aren't as easily "corrected".

There's a designated holding point on the route. IDK exactly what that means, but it must mean something, right?

The river is 4000 feet wide just south of that designated point. I imagine there is a procedure otherwise what would be the point?

The other option is that they would have to have the landing traffic go around.