Posts by user "MPN11" [Posts: 6 Total up-votes: 15 Page: 1 of 1]ΒΆ

Page Links: Index Page

MPN11
January 30, 2025, 10:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817076
As a regular tourist to Alexandria, I have often watched the DCA traffic and the helos transiting along the Potomac shoreline north of the Wilson Bridge on Route 4. In this tragic instance, the Blackhawk [PAT25} not only seems to be higher than the published procedure but also further west [ie over the river]. And according to that radar plot [post 80] , in the last moments it seems to rurn right [ie further west] exacerbating the situation.

MPN11, former Mil ATCO

Subjects ATCO  Blackhawk (H-60)  DCA  PAT25  Radar  Route 4

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.
MPN11
January 30, 2025, 12:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817176
Originally Posted by bean
OK, that overlay at least shows PAT25 is no the Route 4 track. Just the height now remains a question. Seems to climb from 200' to 300' at the last minute.

Subjects PAT25  Route 4

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.
MPN11
February 02, 2025, 18:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819995
@ JohnDixson \x85 thanks for that. Nobody that I can recall here has mentioned Tower having (or not) a slaved radar display from somewhere/someone. Lateral separation seemed to me a simple solution to the ensuing confliction, but \x85 is the TWR controller also radar rated? Could he legally even use the information that may have been presented to him (if such existed).

I had my Mil Tower and (DF) Approach ticket at least a year before I went on the GCA Course. OK, it was 1965 and no remote displays in Local, but would I have been legal to use what I could see?

Subjects ATC  Radar  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.
MPN11
February 03, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820868
Originally Posted by jumpseater
Did you have, or need a radar based qualification to do that?

A UK Tower/LC can’t give headings unless they are radar qualified and current, and have the appropriate equipment.

That is a question I posed way back. Does DCA Tower have a slaved radar display? Does a non-trained/qualified controller have the authority to use that data in extremis? Personally, as an ATCO, and presented with imminently co-altitude and virtually head-on conflicting traffic, I would have intervened. But then I was always an interventionist Tower controller!

My earlier questions remain unanswered … does DCA Tower have a slaved radar display ?
And thus could Tower have used that data to direct PAT21 out of the way, regardless of qualification or licensing? Or did Tower have a Radar qualification anyway, but didn’t use it?


Subjects ATC  ATCO  DCA  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.
MPN11
February 15, 2025, 18:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828759
Whilst these are valid observations, it is also micro-managing a procedure whose altitude separation was always totally flawed. I cannot personally attribute any blame to ATC or either pilot when the scenario was so badly devised ... and that means not only the infamous Route 4 but the concept of visual separation in the dark.

It was doomed to fail, eventually, but sadly someone [other than those directly impacted] never saw it coming. THEY are the culprits.

MPN11, former Mil ATCO

Subjects ATC  ATCO  Route 4  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

12 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
MPN11
February 16, 2025, 10:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829142
Sad to see the NTSB reporting PAT25 was between 278" and 313' in the seconds before the collision instead of 'at or below' 200' OK, PAT25 seems to attract much of the blame for the impact, but that doesn't detract from the unsuitability of Route 4 in the broader sense.

Subjects NTSB  PAT25  Route 4

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: Index Page