Posts by user "Denflnt" [Posts: 8 Total up-votes: 8 Page: 1 of 1]¶

I have seen comments that the AA CJ was diverted to a different runway. In the video I've seen, there was an aircraft taking off and banking to the left when the incident happened. I am wondering if the helo crew figured the AA flight was landing on the main runway and when asked, couldn't see them among the ground light clutter. Still, no reason I can see for that helo to be anywhere near that spot and ATC asking them if they had a visual on the CRJ indicates, to me, that ATC didn't have a picture was to what was going on.

I tend to think ATC and, likely, the FAA will be shown as primary at fault with this:

1. The CRJ was on approach to 1 and then was asked to divert to 33. They complied, which added to their workload. From what I understand, that runway is rarely used for commercial aircraft. So, ATC added to the CRJ's workload while introducing and "unusual event." The CRJ crew appears to have acted professionally in changing their approach.
2. ATC didn't hold the helo short of the runway path, instead relied on them to correctly identify an aircraft, at night, over an urban area. That introduced a "single point of failure" to an already complex situation.
3. There was no way for the helo to pass safely under the CRJ at the altitude of impact.
3. I don't recall hearing ATC asking the CRJ if they could see the helo, though they already overtasked them. At that point, I don't think they could do anything at that point to prevent the collision.

Other factors may come into play, such as if ATC was properly staffed that night. I've read that DCA had two incidents that week where an aircraft had to perform a "go around" because of helo traffic. Also, was the CRJ's TCAS system operational?

This was completely preventable if things work they way they're supposed to.

Yes, the CRJ could have not accepted ATC's request to divert to 33. They would have then been set to go around to set up again for Runway 1, the usual runway.

ATC put the CRJ on an intersecting runway, which added complexity to the pattern picture. The helo would have only had to hold for a short time to wait for the CRJ that was diverted to a runway not normally used for commercial air carriers.

Knowing that, they asked the helo to maintain visual separation, placing everything on that crew to see and avoid the CRJ. I have read that they didn't even tell them where to actually look to see the traffic, no bearing, no altitude. The helo likely saw traffic, just not where they were supposed to look. There were plenty incoming and departing Runway 1, which is why the CRJ was asked to divert. Add to that, both aircraft were low and operating over an urban area at night where it is difficult to see other aircraft. Worse even if the helo crew was using NVG.

ATC should have held the helo short, waiting for an unusual approach to a runway not used normally, so to let the CRJ pass. The CRJ crew was already saturated in tasks at the time I have not hear ATC asking them to look out for the helo.

IMO, ATC created a "single point of failure" relying on the helo to see and avoid the CRJ. Had they held the helo, and helos can hover, for even a minute, this doesn't happen. ATC's main purpose is to keep aircraft from occupying the same place at the same time. In this case, they didn't.

I am sure that the helo pilots made]mistakes. But, this appears to be a massive failure of ATC.

There is a reason for redundancy.

Have we learned nothing since PSA Flight 182? And that was in daylight.

125'? God no.

The helo should have been told to hold some half mile away and wait for crossing traffic to clear.

The NTSB is going to have a field day with the FAA on this.

The CRJ was diverted to 33 because of traffic. No other reason. The pattern was congested, so ATC diverted them to relieve those issues for them at the time. The CRJ could have declined the ATC's request, but they would have had to circle for another approach to R1. From what I have seen, the CRJ adapted to that request professionally and ATC should have made sure that they were safe. Instead, ATC put the onus on the helo crew to maintain a safe airspace. That't the ATC's job, especially given the situation.

Ws should expect more.

The helo was always always flying VFR. ATC's job was protecting the CRJ.

OK, let's go down that route, as dumb as it is. How many times was the CRJ warned of traffic? I don't recall hearing them being alerted at all, though on short final, low and configured for landing there wasn't much they could do at that point. It is ATC's job to ensure separation for controlled aircraft. If ATC relied solely on the helo to keep from hitting the CRJ, that is a big effing problem.