BugBear Page: 1 of 1

BugBear
March 08, 2025, 13:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11843428

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21600HRS

This altitude discussion is totally irrelevant to the accident: \x94Do not cross final 33 before CRJ\x94 would perhaps have saved the day.

Without question. With it the helo would never have turned to starboard. Never. Also "No, you cannot leave the tower...." From ATC supervisor
By the time the H60 realized the lights on the CRJ were too high too fast and too bright to be on final for #1, it was a half second too late... does the tail on the helo seem to drop just before impact, ?? Think they wanted to climb?

Congressional perks in this case make me "see" red. All of Congress should be made to Uber from DCA for a full year or until changes are made. By FAA, not by Congress.

...selfish dolts.

Last edited by BugBear; 8th March 2025 at 14:14 .

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA FAA

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.

BugBear
March 08, 2025, 19:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11843593

Quote:

Originally Posted by hans brinker

They should be required to take an uber to IAD, and all the added flights out of DCA beyond the perimeter should be cancelled.

DCA Perimeter Rule:

The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles ( 49 U.S. Code \xa7 49109 ). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport.

Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

what I meant actually. Departing and arriving IAD ? And ground by Uber, not those fancy limos

Subjects DCA

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.

BugBear
March 18, 2025, 18:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11849743

If Sixty four Sovereign citizens and their Flag Carrier prevail, even collect damages, said damages will be paid with their own money, And yours. One cannot punish, sanction or fine the Federal Government. He/She is us.

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.

BugBear
March 18, 2025, 18:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11849745

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

Too cynical for my view.
The tug-of-war about Article II Executive authority doesn't determine the merits of legal and factual lawsuits arising from this accident. That power struggle at the constitutional level may not even be relevant to how the lawsuits over this accident will proceed and what results they'll produce.

Precisely

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.

BugBear
March 24, 2025, 20:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11853528

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter H

I would readily accept the reprimand if I had an any way been trying to imply that being on a training exercise reflected on the abilities of the pilot.

What I was suggesting was that being on a NVG training exercise required (or very strongly recommended) the pilot to use NVGs regardless of their impact on the pilot's performance at the task in hand.

I totally agree with your last two sentences.

With greatest respect... I think this was a "checkride"...dunno if that pertains
....

Subjects Night Vision Goggles (NVG)

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.

BugBear
March 24, 2025, 20:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11853538

Howdy. Your exemplar attorney needs to go back to law school. An attorney never asks a question for which he/she has no answer...

No like surprises. Also, adjectives are just opinions. Nouns are the Genesis of discussion. imo

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.

BugBear
March 29, 2025, 18:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11856814

Apologies if I have missed it, is any mention of the “missing LC” present of late? Seems an (extra) set of ears and eyes would’ve helped identify the conflict.

BugB(ear)

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.

BugBear
March 29, 2025, 18:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11856833

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

If the US Army has to keep its flights on published routes in the nation\x92s capital \x93secret\x94 and turn off ADS-B (not saying ADS-B would have saved the day here); we\x92ve already lost the \x93war\x94. There\x92s simply no need for this training\x97in a national emergency where continuation of government mission is necessary\x97there won\x92t be any civilian traffic at DCA. We\x92re talking 9/11 or nuclear war, not \x93do you I need to get to the Pentagon for PowerPoint briefing now, CWO\x94.

There would be hundreds if not thousands of demands for entrance, egress by "critical" players... Mostly egress

Subjects ADSB (All) 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.

BugBear
March 31, 2025, 22:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11858228

"There's no one on 2-8-Right but you" 759 in San Francisco in 2017. But not the same as what has issued from NTSB now. Perhaps I missed some salient details but the review which FAA became instructed and/or motivated to conduct would have a total NAS scope.". (WillowRun hat tip,)

Howdy. Are you aware of any interviews the AC pilot did?
The video is damning. Besides thinking Charlie was the runway, he missed a direct hit on the tail of a holding aircraft by less than 100 feet.

Enjoy your thoughts, and objectivity....bb

Last edited by BugBear; 31st March 2025 at 22:28 .

Subjects FAA NTSB

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.

BugBear
March 31, 2025, 22:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11858238

Quote:

Originally Posted by framer

If someone at AA had said \x93hey I don\x92t like this side-step procedure at DCA, I think it\x92s dangerous and we have safety reports to back it up, let\x92s tell the pilots not to do the side-step until further notice\x94\x85\x85how would that have been received by their colleagues and DCA? Would DCA execs have pushed back on AA and threatened delays? If AA had implemented a policy like that ( easy for me to say with hindsight) what effect would that have had on the operating crews?
Would it have been like the Lufthansa who received no end of grief over the airways while trying to adhere to company policy?
If a CP had put their foot down and implemented policy like that would they be thought of as troublesome within their own Airline?
On that note\x85.. did any Airline have policy refusing the side-step in certain conditions? ie at night?
I\x92m enjoying the conversation and appreciating the thought that people are putting into their contributions so thank you.
Framer

"Unable"

Subjects Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA

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.

BugBear
April 01, 2025, 14:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11858658

Quote:

Originally Posted by abax

It is buried in all these pages of this thread,,,but it seems that tragically so, 2-3 aircrafts before the fatal 5342, ATC requested rwy33 to another crew (same aircraft, same airline iirc) , and they declined ("Unable")

The geometry of the conflict resembles allowing Right and Left traffic to the very same runway, save two hundred feet (or less) altitude, with one LC to manage two discrete frequencies, two radar screens, neither opposing aircraft privy to the other’s comms. At night in a sea of lights? Oh, and two quite different airframes and maneuvering capabilities....something like that.....??

Not to mention one of the two is not going to turn Final... head on Base Legs? Not foolin here.

Last edited by BugBear; 1st April 2025 at 14:27 . Reason: Gramer

Subjects ATC Radar

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.

BugBear
April 04, 2025, 21:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11860845

BugBear ": In your post above you appear to imply that the LC had to work 2 different radar screens. (Memories of Uberlingen?)"

"Are you sure about that?"
Nope

"And to manage two discrete VHF frequencies. What, two different ?headsets? Is that what you are implying?"

Yes. LC could hear both Heli and AA. Neither AA Nor helo could hear the other ....."
From ATCDumbo......
"And where do you think the ADS-B information from the CRJ was displayed in the TWR Cab, on one or more of the radar screens?"
One hopes. If not to both pilots, then eyes on by LC ?? How are two conflicted aircraft that close in not aware of each other ?? Doesn't AA get a chance to look for traffic??

Even if traffic is changing orientation from Four 0'clock to12 in ten seconds????

Last edited by BugBear; 4th April 2025 at 22:09 .

Subjects ADSB (All) CRJ Radar

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.

BugBear
April 08, 2025, 18:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11862879

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

Website of Chicago law firm with very significant practice representing families of victims of aviation accidents has information that preliminary procedural claim was filed on February 18, on behalf of one of the DCA accident victims for $250 million. The filing relates to the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act which must be fulfilled prior to filing a lawsuit in federal district court.

The preliminary claim process ostensibly or superficially provides a vehicle for dispute resolution and monetary settlement prior to litigation. (I am not expressing or implying any view with regard to the likelihood of any such resolution and settlement being reached for the claim of this specific plaintiff or any larger set of plaintiffs' claims, or with regard to the prospects of "negotiations" starting, progressing, or producing results.)

WillowRun

From your perspective then, could you clarify :

Controlled Airspace, See and Avoid re same, duty of care re ATCre controlled Airspace, specifically short finals, etc?
May as well add split or proportional liability??

I am trying to get even a basic understanding of how a large helicopter flew in visual flight rules into a jetliner on short final, which was on an IMC approach, on slope. Both were “legal”. The helicopter busted altitude by 125 feet vertically, and just exactly enough horizontally. Que?

Last edited by BugBear; 8th April 2025 at 22:34 .

Subjects Accountability/Liability DCA See and Avoid

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.

BugBear March 08, 2025, 13:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843428	Quote: Originally Posted by 21600HRS This altitude discussion is totally irrelevant to the accident: \x94Do not cross final 33 before CRJ\x94 would perhaps have saved the day. Without question. With it the helo would never have turned to starboard. Never. Also "No, you cannot leave the tower...." From ATC supervisor By the time the H60 realized the lights on the CRJ were too high too fast and too bright to be on final for #1, it was a half second too late... does the tail on the helo seem to drop just before impact, ?? Think they wanted to climb? Congressional perks in this case make me "see" red. All of Congress should be made to Uber from DCA for a full year or until changes are made. By FAA, not by Congress. ...selfish dolts. Last edited by BugBear; 8th March 2025 at 14:14 . Subjects ATC CRJ DCA FAA 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.
BugBear March 08, 2025, 19:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 11843593	Quote: Originally Posted by hans brinker They should be required to take an uber to IAD, and all the added flights out of DCA beyond the perimeter should be cancelled. DCA Perimeter Rule: The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles ( 49 U.S. Code \xa7 49109 ). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport. Congress must propose and approve federal legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue "beyond-perimeter" exemptions which allows an airline to operate non-stop service to cities outside the perimeter. As a result of recent federal exemptions, non-stop service is now offered between Reagan National and the following cities: Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, San Juan, Seattle and Portland, Ore. what I meant actually. Departing and arriving IAD ? And ground by Uber, not those fancy limos Subjects DCA 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.
BugBear March 18, 2025, 18:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11849743	If Sixty four Sovereign citizens and their Flag Carrier prevail, even collect damages, said damages will be paid with their own money, And yours. One cannot punish, sanction or fine the Federal Government. He/She is us. 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.
BugBear March 18, 2025, 18:18:00 GMT permalink Post: 11849745	Quote: Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 Too cynical for my view. The tug-of-war about Article II Executive authority doesn't determine the merits of legal and factual lawsuits arising from this accident. That power struggle at the constitutional level may not even be relevant to how the lawsuits over this accident will proceed and what results they'll produce. Precisely 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.
BugBear March 24, 2025, 20:34:00 GMT permalink Post: 11853528	Quote: Originally Posted by Peter H I would readily accept the reprimand if I had an any way been trying to imply that being on a training exercise reflected on the abilities of the pilot. What I was suggesting was that being on a NVG training exercise required (or very strongly recommended) the pilot to use NVGs regardless of their impact on the pilot's performance at the task in hand. I totally agree with your last two sentences. With greatest respect... I think this was a "checkride"...dunno if that pertains .... Subjects Night Vision Goggles (NVG) 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.
BugBear March 24, 2025, 20:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11853538	Howdy. Your exemplar attorney needs to go back to law school. An attorney never asks a question for which he/she has no answer... No like surprises. Also, adjectives are just opinions. Nouns are the Genesis of discussion. imo 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.
BugBear March 29, 2025, 18:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 11856814	Apologies if I have missed it, is any mention of the “missing LC” present of late? Seems an (extra) set of ears and eyes would’ve helped identify the conflict. BugB(ear) 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.
BugBear March 29, 2025, 18:58:00 GMT permalink Post: 11856833	Quote: Originally Posted by galaxy flyer If the US Army has to keep its flights on published routes in the nation\x92s capital \x93secret\x94 and turn off ADS-B (not saying ADS-B would have saved the day here); we\x92ve already lost the \x93war\x94. There\x92s simply no need for this training\x97in a national emergency where continuation of government mission is necessary\x97there won\x92t be any civilian traffic at DCA. We\x92re talking 9/11 or nuclear war, not \x93do you I need to get to the Pentagon for PowerPoint briefing now, CWO\x94. There would be hundreds if not thousands of demands for entrance, egress by "critical" players... Mostly egress Subjects ADSB (All) 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.
BugBear March 31, 2025, 22:18:00 GMT permalink Post: 11858228	"There's no one on 2-8-Right but you" 759 in San Francisco in 2017. But not the same as what has issued from NTSB now. Perhaps I missed some salient details but the review which FAA became instructed and/or motivated to conduct would have a total NAS scope.". (WillowRun hat tip,) Howdy. Are you aware of any interviews the AC pilot did? The video is damning. Besides thinking Charlie was the runway, he missed a direct hit on the tail of a holding aircraft by less than 100 feet. Enjoy your thoughts, and objectivity....bb Last edited by BugBear; 31st March 2025 at 22:28 . Subjects FAA NTSB 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.
BugBear March 31, 2025, 22:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 11858238	Quote: Originally Posted by framer If someone at AA had said \x93hey I don\x92t like this side-step procedure at DCA, I think it\x92s dangerous and we have safety reports to back it up, let\x92s tell the pilots not to do the side-step until further notice\x94\x85\x85how would that have been received by their colleagues and DCA? Would DCA execs have pushed back on AA and threatened delays? If AA had implemented a policy like that ( easy for me to say with hindsight) what effect would that have had on the operating crews? Would it have been like the Lufthansa who received no end of grief over the airways while trying to adhere to company policy? If a CP had put their foot down and implemented policy like that would they be thought of as troublesome within their own Airline? On that note\x85.. did any Airline have policy refusing the side-step in certain conditions? ie at night? I\x92m enjoying the conversation and appreciating the thought that people are putting into their contributions so thank you. Framer "Unable" Subjects Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA 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.
BugBear April 01, 2025, 14:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11858658	Quote: Originally Posted by abax It is buried in all these pages of this thread,,,but it seems that tragically so, 2-3 aircrafts before the fatal 5342, ATC requested rwy33 to another crew (same aircraft, same airline iirc) , and they declined ("Unable") The geometry of the conflict resembles allowing Right and Left traffic to the very same runway, save two hundred feet (or less) altitude, with one LC to manage two discrete frequencies, two radar screens, neither opposing aircraft privy to the other’s comms. At night in a sea of lights? Oh, and two quite different airframes and maneuvering capabilities....something like that.....?? Not to mention one of the two is not going to turn Final... head on Base Legs? Not foolin here. Last edited by BugBear; 1st April 2025 at 14:27 . Reason: Gramer Subjects ATC Radar 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.
BugBear April 04, 2025, 21:49:00 GMT permalink Post: 11860845	BugBear ": In your post above you appear to imply that the LC had to work 2 different radar screens. (Memories of Uberlingen?)" "Are you sure about that?" Nope "And to manage two discrete VHF frequencies. What, two different ?headsets? Is that what you are implying?" Yes. LC could hear both Heli and AA. Neither AA Nor helo could hear the other ....." From ATCDumbo...... "And where do you think the ADS-B information from the CRJ was displayed in the TWR Cab, on one or more of the radar screens?" One hopes. If not to both pilots, then eyes on by LC ?? How are two conflicted aircraft that close in not aware of each other ?? Doesn't AA get a chance to look for traffic?? Even if traffic is changing orientation from Four 0'clock to12 in ten seconds???? Last edited by BugBear; 4th April 2025 at 22:09 . Subjects ADSB (All) CRJ Radar 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.
BugBear April 08, 2025, 18:08:00 GMT permalink Post: 11862879	Quote: Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 Website of Chicago law firm with very significant practice representing families of victims of aviation accidents has information that preliminary procedural claim was filed on February 18, on behalf of one of the DCA accident victims for $250 million. The filing relates to the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act which must be fulfilled prior to filing a lawsuit in federal district court. The preliminary claim process ostensibly or superficially provides a vehicle for dispute resolution and monetary settlement prior to litigation. (I am not expressing or implying any view with regard to the likelihood of any such resolution and settlement being reached for the claim of this specific plaintiff or any larger set of plaintiffs' claims, or with regard to the prospects of "negotiations" starting, progressing, or producing results.) WillowRun From your perspective then, could you clarify : Controlled Airspace, See and Avoid re same, duty of care re ATCre controlled Airspace, specifically short finals, etc? May as well add split or proportional liability?? I am trying to get even a basic understanding of how a large helicopter flew in visual flight rules into a jetliner on short final, which was on an IMC approach, on slope. Both were “legal”. The helicopter busted altitude by 125 feet vertically, and just exactly enough horizontally. Que? Last edited by BugBear; 8th April 2025 at 22:34 . Subjects Accountability/Liability DCA See and Avoid 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.

Posts by user "BugBear" [Posts: 13 Total up-votes: 4 Page: 1 of 1]¶