Sailvi767 Page: 1 of 1

Sailvi767
January 30, 2025, 11:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817160

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowObservable

I live near there. Most days I walk within sight of the Pentagon and DCA. I have full view from my Secret Lair of the helo traffic on the other main route from Fort Belvoir to the Pentagon, northeast along 395.

I suspect that this is either going to be one of those "we have been playing Russian Roulette for decades" investigations, or a normalization-of-deviance/boiled frog issue where a difficult situation has been made worse over time.

Factors in the boiled-frog situation would be more use of 15/33 as RJs have become more prevalent; not well regulated growth in helicopter traffic to the Pentagon; and a lot more lighting in the area.

DCA generally is a complex traffic situation with very regular go-arounds (the standard fly-out path is over my building so I hear them). I saw an RJ missing an approach to 15 just yesterday.

But one thing that I'm thinking now: there is no way in hell that a civilian heliport as busy as the Pentagon would be allowed 1,000 yards from a very busy final approach to an airport.

I used 33 in a 727 quite a bit so it\x92s not a RJ only runway. If I recall we did however have a landing weight limit on that runway.

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.

Sailvi767
February 04, 2025, 01:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821065

Quote:

Originally Posted by RudderTrimZero

I also believe the concept of ignoring RAs below a certain altitude is outdated. It needs to be revisited.

Testing has been done and the determination was that commanding a climb at low altitude in a fully configured aircraft at approach speed was a bigger threat.

Subjects TCAS RA

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.

Sailvi767
February 04, 2025, 21:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821736

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qbix

Total nonsense. Go around is a normal phase of the flight. Landing is just a bonus.
No threat in execution of TCAS climb in such conditions.

A go around is a planned maneuver. It a bit different with startle factor to initiate a rapid climb from a low energy state while watching TCAS and looking for the traffic. Regardless the TCAS almost certainly gave them a traffic alert while above 500 feet and displayed the traffic all the way to impact for the RJ crew. They did a lot of testing on how to setup the TCAS parameters and modified them over time.
I have flown into DCA at least a hundred times and took my own go-around once even though tower said the traffic had us in sight. If I can\x92t see a TCAS target on a collision course I am going around.

Subjects DCA TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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.

Sailvi767
March 06, 2025, 14:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11842012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Yes that as the old way , the JAL/JAL encounter and Ueberlingen changed that to : forget visual acquisition just follow the RA, The traffic you see might not be the one giving the RA and even if you do the maneuver you might take will increase the risk , as in the 2 cases I mentioned.

You should still attempt to acquire TCAS threats visually. The only change is that even if you believe you have the TCAS displayed target in sight you must follow all RA vertical speed requirements if TCAS generates a RA.

Subjects ATC TCAS (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.

Sailvi767
April 16, 2025, 14:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11868036

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

Previous comments about runway 33 at DCA being used only for RJ or smaller. Today with winds howling out of the northwest, 33 is being used for all types (runway 1 also in use). Watched a SWA B737 and AAL A21N land on 33.

If you want to see the standard visual flight path into 33 at DCA, today is a good day to observe. IAD also operating single crosswind runway for arrivals.

I landed many times on 33 in a 727. It was not even considered difficult with a reasonable headwind which is why you would take 33 in the first place. Today with the children of the magenta line flying I suspect it might be considered a bit more challenging even though more modern aircraft with autothrust and excellent mapping it should make it even easier.
There is one point not mentioned in the thread. The two people with probably the best overall situational awareness of what was developing would have been the RJ crew. They received a traffic alert 18 seconds before the collision and the TCAS should have displayed the threat all the way to impact. I never allowed a threat inside a half a mile on a collision course even if they claimed they had me in sight unless I could visually see the threat. I got scolded by tower at DCA for going around once when we could not see VFR traffic tower said had us in sight. I didn\x92t care even though it was daylight. With a threat bearing down on TCAS you need to take action to mitigate the threat. Hoping they really have you in sight is not a good strategy.

Subjects DCA Situational Awareness TCAS (All) VFR

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

9 recorded likes for this post.

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

Sailvi767
April 22, 2025, 13:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11871579

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

That’s perhaps a VFR response and appropriate here, but you cannot deviate from a clearance on just TA. TCAS training since its adoption has been to not maneuver for a TA, only for an RA.

I never received that training. You can as a pilot use your emergency authority to deviate from any clearance. Responding to a RA is mandatory. Responding to a traffic alert is up to the pilot flying. Yes they don’t want pilots routinely violating clearances for initial Traffic alerts. They want you to respond to the RA if it occurs. Many pilots do take action within their clearance to prevent a TA from becoming a RA. A simple change in rate of decent or climb can often accomplish that. Below 1000 feet knowing that RA’s are inhibited you are saying you would do nothing with a threat displayed on a collision course? What will your thought process be after the collision? Hey, that TCAS was right!
Keep in mind they were on a visual approach and that you can go around from any approach for any situation you deem unsafe. We will agree to disagree that a threat at the same altitude and constant bearing decreasing range displayed on the TCAS inside 3000 feet does not warrant crew action.

Last edited by Sailvi767; 22nd April 2025 at 17:19 .

Subjects TCAS (All) VFR

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.

Sailvi767
April 22, 2025, 19:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11871756

Quote:

Originally Posted by hans brinker

"Originally Posted by FullMetalJackass
If I get a traffic alert in my personal aircraft (I don't get RAs, just traffic warnings), I'm taking action to increase the altitude difference between me and the conflicting traffic. ."

Yes, we are trained to use TAs to find traffic, and RAs to avoid, but I think 767 is right about things being different when you know that you wont get an RA.

The NTSB specifically stated they will reconstruct the TCAS data onboard the RJ. It is possible even though they got a traffic alert that the TCAS target dropped off the display. This can happen for several reasons. I am however fairly sure they can reconstruct all of that. At some point there will be a full accounting.

Subjects NTSB TCAS (All) TCAS RA

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.

Sailvi767
April 28, 2025, 17:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11874939

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringy

In what direction and what's your source/citation?

The gender involving crews in accidents and incidents. It\x92s not proportionally with actual numbers. Delta or its subsidiary has had two minor and one major accident in the last 2 years. All three involved female crew members. Southwest has had at least two serious incidents in the last six months with the same. United has had a similar issue including a severe tailstrike at EWR. Some of the best pilots I flew with were female. The best CA I ever flew with was female. There does however seem to be more of a pass for training issues based on gender. Training to proficiency is not a good safety concept. There needs to be a reasonable standard for how much extra instruction will be provided before someone is asked to leave. I actually believe DEI is a worthy concept but not if you lower standards.

Subjects DEI

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.

Sailvi767
April 29, 2025, 13:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11875418

Quote:

Originally Posted by andycba

Now do the stats based on the presence of male crew members...

If 5% of your crew members are female but statistically they are involved in 60% of your incidents it’s worth looking at why that is happening. As I posted I believe it’s a training issue and possibly hiring issue. That will be my last post on the subject. I knew it would get testy.

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.

Sailvi767
April 29, 2025, 16:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11875501

Quote:

Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA

She wasn't the aircraft captain? Why is everyone so desperate to destroy this girl while leaving out she was under instruction?

She was not under instruction. Regular line trip.

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.

Sailvi767
August 03, 2025, 16:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11932824

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Something smells wrong about some of this.
(I need to see a bit more of the documentation on the difference between the hard altitude (200') that I was under the impression was on that route, as opposed to the "recommended altitude" statement made there...maybe it will make more sense to me then).
As to altimeter errors.
The UH-60L has a radalt.
Are you trying to tell me that the alleged acceptable error for a rad alt is 80'-130'?
I think not.
I doubt that the rules have changed that much since I was last flying a Blackhawk. (yes, it has been a while).
Will do a bit more reading, thanks.

My question exactly. Where is the radar altimeter in this discussion. I also can\x92t believe that when flying a helo at night over water cross checking the radar altimeter with the baro altimeter is not just good practice but required!

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) 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.

Sailvi767
August 06, 2025, 12:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934114

Does anyone have a link to the TCAS simulation. That is of interest to me since I had a go around off runway 33 based on TCAS.

Subjects TCAS (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.

Sailvi767
August 07, 2025, 21:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934890

The TCAS display according to the video in the investigation docket did show the traffic all the way to impact. It was the last chance to avert this accident.

Subjects NTSB Docket TCAS (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.

Sailvi767
August 10, 2025, 12:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936208

Quote:

Originally Posted by andihce

And yet as we saw, this approach failed. So something has to be wrong with it.

Yet was not the controller required to inform the CRJ of the helicopter, which (as the inquiry noted) he failed to do? Thus a possible cross-check was lost.

The CRJ crew was aware of the traffic. They received a Traffic alert from TCAS 18 seconds prior to impact.

Subjects ATC CRJ TCAS (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.

Sailvi767
August 11, 2025, 02:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936469

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

The minimum RA altitude is 900\x92 AGL, I think based on RADALT. They CRJ was below the RA envelope.

Correct, they received an alert only to the traffic. RA would have been inhibited. The traffic then tracked in on the TCAS display to the collision. Some are posting that their company policy prohibits taking action. Watching an aircraft track in on a collision course and doing nothing takes a lot of courage. At my airline and most others what the policy means is that you should not deviate until you get a RA to avoid other issues or conflicts. When you know you are below the altitude a TA will function on final a go around is always acceptable for anything the PIC deems a potential safety hazard. Your airspace is protected. The policy deals with most other situations where you might create another hazard.

Subjects CRJ TCAS (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.

Sailvi767
August 11, 2025, 17:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936840

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

@ Sailvi767 : Are you suggesting that somehow the CRJ crew bears some responsibility in not acting on a TA and therefore bears some responsibility in this accident ? At least this is what I am making of your posting .
If I am correct can you stop this discussion Remember journalists and possibly families members of those 2 pilots are watching too.
To close that bit just read the CRJ CVR transcript (*)
47:29 : eGPWS : 500 hundred
47:35 : I got 2 whites and 2 red
47:37 : cool ( my note : so they were looking at the PAPI )
47::40 : "Traffic traffic " ( my note : TA audio)
47:47 : TWR :" PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ "
47:55 : eGPWS : ...hundred ..
47:58 " Oh Sh!!!!!
47:59 : sound of impact .

As I posted on here before I had that exact same scenario happen to me on runway 33 in DCA. Traffic closing on a collision course on TCAS. Tower reported the traffic had us in sight. When the traffic closed to \xbd mile with no vector change apparent We went around from 400 feet. We never saw the traffic. Tower chewed my butt saying the traffic had us in sight. I didn\x92t care.

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Pass Behind (PAT25) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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

5 recorded likes for this post.

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

Sailvi767
August 12, 2025, 18:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11937389

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIBO

with hindsight, this must have been one of your top 10 or even top 3 best pilot-decisions ever?

Likely the traffic did have us in sight as we were a 727 and there was still some light. Likely was however not going to give me the warm and fuzzy feeling I wanted.

Subjects Traffic in Sight

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.

Sailvi767
August 23, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11942779

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

Actually, it's not the exact same scenario.

In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC.
In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic?

Tower stated helo traffic was transiting the river at 200 feet and had us in sight. When he closed to less than 3000 feet on a constant bearing on TCAS we went around. Probably would have been fine 999 out of 1000 times. Not odds I accept.

Subjects AA5342 DCA Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight

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.

Sailvi767
September 29, 2025, 02:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11961287

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

This was a lot of years ago. I believe what was said was, “out of the turn VFR helo traffic will be at your 10 o’clock 1 mile. They have you in sight, cleared to land RWy33”. Don’t recall if a altitude was mentioned. Their altitude was on TCAS as 200’.

Subjects AA5342 DCA Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight VFR

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.

Sailvi767
October 20, 2025, 23:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11973389

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Sort of. I think everyone needs ADS-B in and out. That said, in this particular case it would have helped the helicopter immensely and AA maybe. It also is no substitute for common sense, no one not in a mental institution would think helicopters should be dodging and ducking planes below 500 feet on short final.

They had TCAS in the RJ. I am not sure what additional aid ADSB would have provided. ADSB would however have provided extremely valuable data to the Helo if the RJ had ADSB out. It still may have provided data even without ADSB out if the RJ was still painting on the approach radars depending on altitude. A radar rebroadcast is not quite as accurate but at least as good as TCAS.

Subjects ADSB (All) ADSB In ADSB Out Radar TCAS (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.

Posts by user "Sailvi767" [Posts: 20 Total up-votes: 18 Page: 1 of 1]¶