SINGAPURCANAC Page: 1 of 1

SINGAPURCANAC
January 30, 2025, 14:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817270

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Normally I get a call like "Your traffic is at X altitude at your 3 o'clock, they have you in sight" or similar. I have flown into DCA at night and would have been more than highly surprised to have a helicopter directed to fly basically 100 feet under me, in sight or no.

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
January 31, 2025, 06:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817956

Once again simple rule played significant role.

One runway, one ATCO, one frequency , one language ( not issue here- but there are again number of phraseology deviations)

Yes I know, system is more sensitive to money than to safety.

N.B. what I find interesting, systems that are richer are more prone to safety savings.
You will never find in " small and poor " country one ATCO working on 3 rwys withIin busy CTR .

Subjects ATCO Phraseology (ATC)

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 01, 2025, 11:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818925

Quote:

No, I don't think he was overwhelmed

No, they just not following phraseology rules.

Every single transmision has " a few" words more than needed

These youtube videos are perfect "devices" to learn youngsters why phraseology has no alternative.

Subjects Phraseology (ATC)

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 08, 2025, 06:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824114

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf

As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies.

Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo.

This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it.

However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky.

Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes.

Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation?
He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable.
Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point)
or
At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point.
What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment?

Yes , I know it is Burund....

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) 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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 08, 2025, 21:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824590

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Coast

How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed .

there is no word IDENTIFIED b efore any other instruction.

It is esential basic for radar/ surveilance. How the hell you could give vectors for non identified aircraft?

And the above post of island_photo gives exact link with explanation that is officially valid in USA.
No full radar service if it is not " radar contact"( or identified)

It is so logic and simple to remember and to apply.

Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 8th February 2025 at 21:45 .

Subjects ATC Radar

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

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 12, 2025, 17:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11826835

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

The situation was actually more visually complicated. Screenshot below is about 5 seconds prior to collision with red arrow pointing at 5342 turning into 33. There are 5 aircraft on final for 1 with a 6th joining the parade. AAL 3130 is over the Wilson Bridge and as I recall, UAL 472 next with a couple more JIAs in the stack. Adding to the background against which PAT25 is target hunting is National Harbor with some lesser contribution from the Naval Research Lab and Blue Plains.

I would like to ask if it is known number of aircraft at TWR Frequency( ies) at the moment of collision?
One ATCO, worked , at three separate frequency, three runways, 6 aircraft for arrival 01, one a/c 33, plus three helicopter, plus how many departures ( both active and approaching/crossing active runways) ?
Plus active estimate for a few aircraft more?
Ground vehicles, any?

Subjects ATCO PAT25

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
October 22, 2025, 09:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11974140

Quote:

Which safety assessment was made and validated ( and by who) which allowed visual separation for an helicopter at 200ft to pass below the approach path of an aircrfat at 3 or 400 feet ?, resulting in a 100-200ft separation ?That is the question I would be asking first.How about which actions were taken after the previous incidents , and possibly acting on the normalization of deviance , would be the next

You may bet:
1. These persons, making such SA, won't be part of any investigation especially not part of court trial process.
2. Bad systems do not have independent and respecred SA - that is the first reason- why they are bad for workers, customers and society
3. Last, but no least, it is very hard to prove financial benefits of making independent SA and respect it afterwards.

Subjects Normalization of Deviance 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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 07, 2026, 10:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12033718

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I think not.

When I first heard of concept " Safety firts, but at affordable price"- I was young and naive.

Unfortunately concept expanded over years into :
Not only safety first but at affordable price including our ( ruler cast) own financial interests as well.

It means - we will only invest into safety when we buy products from our close companies ( we keep shares, enjoy dividends etc) or our brother is vendor to such company, or bank transactiom ( especially loan for safety improvmens) is done by our relative who is paid comision for selling credits at higher rates ( because we have to invest in safety- in order to save lives. &#128121

etc..

Things that should be done- are contrary to our political and economic interests.

That is why it wont be changes in this case.

Subjects: None

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 07, 2026, 12:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12033796

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equivocal

Safety should always be the first consideration but the concept of safety being the highest priority is not realistic. People who still champion the 'safety has the highest priority' policy have missed a key element of safety management. What all the safety management system rules should achieve is a minimum acceptable level of safety - once that has been done, make money, buy from your brother/sister, have fun. Sadly, this often appears to be misunderstood or overlooked.

Some of the NTSB's recommendations centre on making the task of investigating future accidents easier rather than improving flight safety directly - not a bad idea - but not so easy to evaluate or justify.

It is always pleasure to read your wise words. Precise and balanced approach. 👍

I forgot to write: Today, I am neither young nor so naive....
So, they read your words but with reverse order: buy from brother/ sister- make money- safety...

I.e. I would like to say they will not buy/do what is essential and minimum neccessary for safety but shoping with best" economic" view.
it is always higher 10 % of1million rather than 10% of 10 000.

😇

Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 7th February 2026 at 13:27 .

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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 17, 2026, 06:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038394

Interesting or not, "Uberlingen" has made over time the most significant changes in modern aviation ( safety, accountability and rensposibility....) that lead us to these days where it is bussiness as ussual , predictable, profitable even for wide range of investors...

Once happened, DCA crash had the same potential to change things- at least in USA. It seems that it wont happen- due many reasons- as we have already discussed here.

Subjects Accountability/Liability 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.

SINGAPURCANAC
February 17, 2026, 09:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038501

Quote:

Indeed they did, the deep structural changes Skyguide made afterwards were used and sometimes followed by many European ANSPs , but not all .

If I undestand correctly, Uberlingen bring changes in terms of accountability and responsibility not alone SMS. That case brings us that managers/ owners of bussiness can not be non accountable.
And I asked if it was accepted by all ICAO states including biggest ( Russians, USA etc). Of course. They accepted it? Yes, russians children died at that accidents. And no owners of bussiness were ever prosecuted.

That is the reason, why at some aviation providers managers are accountable for accidents not only legally but financially.
It is not unheard that financial accountability for medium level managers is 600 000\x80 - if legal process proves their mistake or misjudgement.
For that amount money, overall risk is reduced, ( yes I know that is small amount but....) and one by one- total cost are down - that push forward bussiness..
Interesting or not, some systems do not have so strict definied amount- but there is no managerial promotion , regardless of knowledge and ability, if candidate for manager has no real estate owned on his name. Less legal- but quitte effective.

Subjects Accountability/Liability ICAO

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.

SINGAPURCANAC January 30, 2025, 14:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817270	Quote: Originally Posted by island_airphoto Normally I get a call like "Your traffic is at X altitude at your 3 o'clock, they have you in sight" or similar. I have flown into DCA at night and would have been more than highly surprised to have a helicopter directed to fly basically 100 feet under me, in sight or no. Shouldnt it be: Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight ?? 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.
SINGAPURCANAC January 31, 2025, 06:47:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817956	Once again simple rule played significant role. One runway, one ATCO, one frequency , one language ( not issue here- but there are again number of phraseology deviations) Yes I know, system is more sensitive to money than to safety. N.B. what I find interesting, systems that are richer are more prone to safety savings. You will never find in " small and poor " country one ATCO working on 3 rwys withIin busy CTR . Subjects ATCO Phraseology (ATC) 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.
SINGAPURCANAC February 01, 2025, 11:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818925	Quote: No, I don't think he was overwhelmed No, they just not following phraseology rules. Every single transmision has " a few" words more than needed These youtube videos are perfect "devices" to learn youngsters why phraseology has no alternative. Subjects Phraseology (ATC) Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 2 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
SINGAPURCANAC February 08, 2025, 06:22:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824114	Quote: Originally Posted by Stagformation To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies. Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo. This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it. However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky. Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes. Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation? He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable. Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point) or At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point. What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment? Yes , I know it is Burund.... Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) 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.
SINGAPURCANAC February 08, 2025, 21:34:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824590	Quote: Originally Posted by West Coast How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed . there is no word IDENTIFIED b efore any other instruction. It is esential basic for radar/ surveilance. How the hell you could give vectors for non identified aircraft? And the above post of island_photo gives exact link with explanation that is officially valid in USA. No full radar service if it is not " radar contact"( or identified) It is so logic and simple to remember and to apply. Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 8th February 2025 at 21:45 . Subjects ATC Radar Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 2 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
SINGAPURCANAC February 12, 2025, 17:30:00 GMT permalink Post: 11826835	Quote: Originally Posted by BFSGrad The situation was actually more visually complicated. Screenshot below is about 5 seconds prior to collision with red arrow pointing at 5342 turning into 33. There are 5 aircraft on final for 1 with a 6th joining the parade. AAL 3130 is over the Wilson Bridge and as I recall, UAL 472 next with a couple more JIAs in the stack. Adding to the background against which PAT25 is target hunting is National Harbor with some lesser contribution from the Naval Research Lab and Blue Plains. I would like to ask if it is known number of aircraft at TWR Frequency( ies) at the moment of collision? One ATCO, worked , at three separate frequency, three runways, 6 aircraft for arrival 01, one a/c 33, plus three helicopter, plus how many departures ( both active and approaching/crossing active runways) ? Plus active estimate for a few aircraft more? Ground vehicles, any? Subjects ATCO PAT25 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.
SINGAPURCANAC October 22, 2025, 09:42:00 GMT permalink Post: 11974140	Quote: Which safety assessment was made and validated ( and by who) which allowed visual separation for an helicopter at 200ft to pass below the approach path of an aircrfat at 3 or 400 feet ?, resulting in a 100-200ft separation ?That is the question I would be asking first.How about which actions were taken after the previous incidents , and possibly acting on the normalization of deviance , would be the next You may bet: 1. These persons, making such SA, won't be part of any investigation especially not part of court trial process. 2. Bad systems do not have independent and respecred SA - that is the first reason- why they are bad for workers, customers and society 3. Last, but no least, it is very hard to prove financial benefits of making independent SA and respect it afterwards. Subjects Normalization of Deviance 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.
SINGAPURCANAC February 07, 2026, 10:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 12033718	Quote: Originally Posted by DaveReidUK I think not. When I first heard of concept " Safety firts, but at affordable price"- I was young and naive. Unfortunately concept expanded over years into : Not only safety first but at affordable price including our ( ruler cast) own financial interests as well. It means - we will only invest into safety when we buy products from our close companies ( we keep shares, enjoy dividends etc) or our brother is vendor to such company, or bank transactiom ( especially loan for safety improvmens) is done by our relative who is paid comision for selling credits at higher rates ( because we have to invest in safety- in order to save lives. &#128121 etc.. Things that should be done- are contrary to our political and economic interests. That is why it wont be changes in this case. Subjects: None 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
SINGAPURCANAC February 07, 2026, 12:55:00 GMT permalink Post: 12033796	Quote: Originally Posted by Equivocal Safety should always be the first consideration but the concept of safety being the highest priority is not realistic. People who still champion the 'safety has the highest priority' policy have missed a key element of safety management. What all the safety management system rules should achieve is a minimum acceptable level of safety - once that has been done, make money, buy from your brother/sister, have fun. Sadly, this often appears to be misunderstood or overlooked. Some of the NTSB's recommendations centre on making the task of investigating future accidents easier rather than improving flight safety directly - not a bad idea - but not so easy to evaluate or justify. It is always pleasure to read your wise words. Precise and balanced approach. 👍 I forgot to write: Today, I am neither young nor so naive.... So, they read your words but with reverse order: buy from brother/ sister- make money- safety... I.e. I would like to say they will not buy/do what is essential and minimum neccessary for safety but shoping with best" economic" view. it is always higher 10 % of1million rather than 10% of 10 000. 😇 Last edited by SINGAPURCANAC; 7th February 2026 at 13:27 . 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.
SINGAPURCANAC February 17, 2026, 06:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 12038394	Interesting or not, "Uberlingen" has made over time the most significant changes in modern aviation ( safety, accountability and rensposibility....) that lead us to these days where it is bussiness as ussual , predictable, profitable even for wide range of investors... Once happened, DCA crash had the same potential to change things- at least in USA. It seems that it wont happen- due many reasons- as we have already discussed here. Subjects Accountability/Liability 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.
SINGAPURCANAC February 17, 2026, 09:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 12038501	Quote: Indeed they did, the deep structural changes Skyguide made afterwards were used and sometimes followed by many European ANSPs , but not all . If I undestand correctly, Uberlingen bring changes in terms of accountability and responsibility not alone SMS. That case brings us that managers/ owners of bussiness can not be non accountable. And I asked if it was accepted by all ICAO states including biggest ( Russians, USA etc). Of course. They accepted it? Yes, russians children died at that accidents. And no owners of bussiness were ever prosecuted. That is the reason, why at some aviation providers managers are accountable for accidents not only legally but financially. It is not unheard that financial accountability for medium level managers is 600 000\x80 - if legal process proves their mistake or misjudgement. For that amount money, overall risk is reduced, ( yes I know that is small amount but....) and one by one- total cost are down - that push forward bussiness.. Interesting or not, some systems do not have so strict definied amount- but there is no managerial promotion , regardless of knowledge and ability, if candidate for manager has no real estate owned on his name. Less legal- but quitte effective. Subjects Accountability/Liability ICAO 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 "SINGAPURCANAC" [Posts: 11 Total up-votes: 8 Page: 1 of 1]¶