Jetstream67 Page: 1 of 1

Jetstream67
January 31, 2025, 13:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818201

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAR Bloke

But that isn't the first communication that mentions the CRJ. The heli had previously been told the exact location, altitude, type and which runway the CRJ was positioning for. The heli crew replied that they were visual. It is only later that the controller refers to the CRJ in isolation (with no position) but he is simply querying 'are you still visual with the aircraft that you literally just told me you were visual with?'. There is no need for any night ID skills and even if you don't have a clue what a CRJ looks like, that entire combination of calls still make sense. I agree that if the heli had been made more aware of how proximate the CRJ was then that might have resolved an incorrect SA picture, but the heli had repeatedly told the controller that he was visual. If a procedure is designed that allows a heli to correctly pass under another aircraft by 100-200 feet, at night, is the controller really supposed to be able to judge from the tower whether they are extremely close (as would appear to be the case if they were both on the correct path) or if they were on a collision course?
.....

In the inevitable "what would we do with 20/20 hindsight" test describing the jet as (e.g.) " Jet on approach, your 10 clock, passing 1200 feet at 2 miles (instead of south of some local bridge) might have been more helpful/ alarming if the Heli pilots were not locals. Moot point as Heli requested/was allowed own lookout (Visual separation) and clearly (rightly) the controller was still worried and checked. .

Last edited by Jetstream67; 31st January 2025 at 13:37 . Reason: clarity

Subjects ATC CRJ Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness Visual Separation

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.

Jetstream67
January 31, 2025, 14:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818231

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

The airspace procedures are to blame, you have an inherent conflict / near miss scenario where a helo route almost perfectly intersects an approach and a very minimal altitude differential (~150ft between the helo route ceiling and approximate altitude of the approach path at the intersection point) ensures separation.
I doubt the helo pilot deliberately flew into the jet so he must have had something in sight and was confident he was avoiding it. Arguably they're more to blame as their movement is less constrained than the jet (in transit vs landing, plus inherent maneuverability characteristics of their aircraft.)
Assigning blame is rarely helpful though. Especially to the deceased.

Agree. Redesigning the Helicopter route or procedure now seems essential.
- but equally describing a fast developing potential collision situation in terms referencing local bridges (was the pilot local ?) is (at least with hindsight) inadequate and something 'far more alarming' could have been said in time.

Subjects Close Calls Separation (ALL)

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.

Jetstream67
January 31, 2025, 17:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818396

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Lion

Jetstream67, "Memorial Bridge", "Hains Point", "Capitol Street Bridge" and "Wilson Bridge" are the names of visual reporting points (VRP) displayed on the "Helicopter Route Chart, Baltimore-Washington". Further, the routes' altitude constraints make reference to these points.
https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/09-05...-Wash_Heli.pdf

I believe the description was \x91south of\x91 which is potentially a tricky ask in a rush if you\x92re not at the waypoint. I\x92m pretty sure if we tried to meet on that location we would never meet ..

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.

Jetstream67
February 01, 2025, 15:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819096

I've thought / made the same point. For a pilot in any way unfamiliar with the area the location of the other aircraft was given (however traditionally etc) in a way that would turn your head down to looking at Nav or Area charts for a few moments (And so not out of the correct window of the Heli at the last moments)

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.

Jetstream67
February 03, 2025, 22:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820948

Quote:

Originally Posted by GroundedDinosaur

The Helicopter wasn't landing at DCA, but, most likely would have the airports barometric setting in it's altimeter? If it was off by 0.2 inches, that would be about 200 ft?
I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance
that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in?

I'm not sure this is the key point here. 100ft vertical separation at 150 Knots +/- equipment error in any safety plan is going to go wrong one day.
Although the route / approach crossed the main plan was surely to never let two aircraft on different courses /stages get even 10 times that close in passing . . which takes us back to the real issue

Subjects ATC DCA Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

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.

Jetstream67 January 31, 2025, 13:31:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818201	Quote: Originally Posted by SAR Bloke But that isn't the first communication that mentions the CRJ. The heli had previously been told the exact location, altitude, type and which runway the CRJ was positioning for. The heli crew replied that they were visual. It is only later that the controller refers to the CRJ in isolation (with no position) but he is simply querying 'are you still visual with the aircraft that you literally just told me you were visual with?'. There is no need for any night ID skills and even if you don't have a clue what a CRJ looks like, that entire combination of calls still make sense. I agree that if the heli had been made more aware of how proximate the CRJ was then that might have resolved an incorrect SA picture, but the heli had repeatedly told the controller that he was visual. If a procedure is designed that allows a heli to correctly pass under another aircraft by 100-200 feet, at night, is the controller really supposed to be able to judge from the tower whether they are extremely close (as would appear to be the case if they were both on the correct path) or if they were on a collision course? ..... In the inevitable "what would we do with 20/20 hindsight" test describing the jet as (e.g.) " Jet on approach, your 10 clock, passing 1200 feet at 2 miles (instead of south of some local bridge) might have been more helpful/ alarming if the Heli pilots were not locals. Moot point as Heli requested/was allowed own lookout (Visual separation) and clearly (rightly) the controller was still worried and checked. . Last edited by Jetstream67; 31st January 2025 at 13:37 . Reason: clarity Subjects ATC CRJ Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness Visual Separation 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.
Jetstream67 January 31, 2025, 14:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818231	Quote: Originally Posted by Lascaille The airspace procedures are to blame, you have an inherent conflict / near miss scenario where a helo route almost perfectly intersects an approach and a very minimal altitude differential (~150ft between the helo route ceiling and approximate altitude of the approach path at the intersection point) ensures separation. I doubt the helo pilot deliberately flew into the jet so he must have had something in sight and was confident he was avoiding it. Arguably they're more to blame as their movement is less constrained than the jet (in transit vs landing, plus inherent maneuverability characteristics of their aircraft.) Assigning blame is rarely helpful though. Especially to the deceased. Agree. Redesigning the Helicopter route or procedure now seems essential. - but equally describing a fast developing potential collision situation in terms referencing local bridges (was the pilot local ?) is (at least with hindsight) inadequate and something 'far more alarming' could have been said in time. Subjects Close Calls Separation (ALL) 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.
Jetstream67 January 31, 2025, 17:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818396	Quote: Originally Posted by Luc Lion Jetstream67, "Memorial Bridge", "Hains Point", "Capitol Street Bridge" and "Wilson Bridge" are the names of visual reporting points (VRP) displayed on the "Helicopter Route Chart, Baltimore-Washington". Further, the routes' altitude constraints make reference to these points. https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/09-05...-Wash_Heli.pdf I believe the description was \x91south of\x91 which is potentially a tricky ask in a rush if you\x92re not at the waypoint. I\x92m pretty sure if we tried to meet on that location we would never meet .. 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.
Jetstream67 February 01, 2025, 15:27:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819096	I've thought / made the same point. For a pilot in any way unfamiliar with the area the location of the other aircraft was given (however traditionally etc) in a way that would turn your head down to looking at Nav or Area charts for a few moments (And so not out of the correct window of the Heli at the last moments) 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.
Jetstream67 February 03, 2025, 22:06:00 GMT permalink Post: 11820948	Quote: Originally Posted by GroundedDinosaur The Helicopter wasn't landing at DCA, but, most likely would have the airports barometric setting in it's altimeter? If it was off by 0.2 inches, that would be about 200 ft? I assume the altitude reading that the Altimeter in the aircraft displays in the cockpit is identical to the Transponded signal that ATC shows on it's screen? Is there a chance that the Helicopter would have a different altimeter setting set? A new ATIS came out recently, or a pressure front was moving in? I'm not sure this is the key point here. 100ft vertical separation at 150 Knots +/- equipment error in any safety plan is going to go wrong one day. Although the route / approach crossed the main plan was surely to never let two aircraft on different courses /stages get even 10 times that close in passing . . which takes us back to the real issue Subjects ATC DCA Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation 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 "Jetstream67" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 1 Page: 1 of 1]¶