Posts by user "Stagformation" [Posts: 29 Total up-votes: 30 Page: 2 of 2]ΒΆ

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  Last  Index Page

Stagformation
June 11, 2025, 16:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11898559
NTSB scheduled 3 day investigative hearing starting July 30
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...A20250610.aspx

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.
Stagformation
August 06, 2025, 12:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934105
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
@WillowRun6-3 : Here from what we know so far, the controllers and their supervisors were trained to work on local procedures made long before they came to the facility . Those procedures were or became unsafe but if this is how they were trained to work , you can't blame the operators for faulty procedures .

Not that the NTSB are going to apportion blame in their report, that isn\x92t their function. But it\x92s quite clear there were (and are) unsafe practices going on among controllers and operators in FAA/DOD land. Read the docket testimony here from page 463 onwards to about 468 or until you get bored.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Documen...dacted-Rel.pdf

Clearly Army pilots are calling visual on very distant traffic which they haven\x92t actually identified and can\x92t see, and controllers are believing them and contracting responsibility for collision avoidance to them. The Standards pilot being interviewed here (the most experienced Army pilot NTSB spoke to) even says \x91..I know it\x92s bad\x85\x92 but condones the practice because otherwise the PAT helos would have to hold!

The logic displayed here is totally crazy.

If ATC have taken the trouble to issue a traffic advisory to a helo, why does the helo pilot think it\x92s reasonable to assume the traffic (which they haven\x92t seen!) will be no factor. The Controller has called out that particular traffic to the helo pilot for a reason he\x92s become aware of, like the traffic\x92s intended flight path will shortly become a collision risk to the helo.


Last edited by Stagformation; 6th August 2025 at 15:33 .

Subjects ATC  NTSB  NTSB Docket

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.
Stagformation
August 06, 2025, 18:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934290
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
Because, due to the proximity of Route 4 to runway 1 traffic, 12th AB pilots much more frequently received traffic calls for runway 1 traffic coupled with visual separation, traffic for which there would never be a collision threat. And if there was 33 landing traffic, ATC would just issue a hold. I\x92m still reading through the interviews, but have yet to find an example of a 12th AB pilot that, while on Route 4 with visual separation for 33 landing traffic, actually had to track the aircraft and maneuver to avoid.
In this interview at pages 97 and 112 the pilot says he has operated south on Route 4, and with traffic circling to 33, both accepted \x91hold at Haines Point\x92 and also accepted \x91visual, pass behind\x92 clearances literally dozens of times. Admittedly he wasn\x92t 12th AB. (This is a PSA line check captain who was formerly military UH-1N helicopter pilot operating in the area with USAF at Andrews AFB). Very interesting interview.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Documen...dacted-Rel.pdf

Last edited by Stagformation; 7th August 2025 at 08:57 .

Subjects ATC  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.

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.
Stagformation
August 08, 2025, 10:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11935166
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
On the PAT pilots interviews the most flagrant normalization of deviance is requesting visual separation with an aircraft you do not see ( yet).
Absolutely, but the other side of the normalisation of unsafe practices coin is Local Controllers conveniently believing that pilots have instantly picked up distant traffic visually and granting their request!

Subjects ATC  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.
Stagformation
August 10, 2025, 09:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936070
Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid
Pilot-applied visual separation essentially overrides any procedure used by ATC. When you say "Traffic in sight," you are saying "I don't need your help maintaining separation, I have it under control and I take full responsibility."

Are you sure about that? My understanding of Class B airspace is that all aircraft proceed only on the basis of an ATC clearance. So to re-parse your statement\x85When a pilot says \x93Traffic in sight\x94 it just means he can see it, nothing more. It\x92s when he then says, \x93Request visual separation\x94 that he\x92s suggesting to the Local Controller he doesn\x92t need help with separation. And then it\x92s only when the Local Controller says, \x93Visual separation approved\x94 that the pilot takes on the responsibility for separation.

Subjects ATC  Separation (ALL)  Traffic in Sight  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.
Stagformation
August 12, 2025, 00:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11936996
Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid
No, they're exactly the same. If you say "traffic in sight" then the controller will immediately say "Maintain visual separation."

"Request visual separation" is non-standard.


https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_2.html



Absolutely, it was a non-standard discourse. But however you look at what was said, PAT 25 requested the change to visual separation. Meaning PAT25 correctly believed he was under standard 1.5nm/500ft separation at the time and that he needed LC approval for Visual separation to be applied. The change in the separation standard being applied did not happen until the LC accepted PAT 25\x92s traffic visual report and authorised the change. It\x92s not an automatic change made just on the pilot\x92s say so, ie by reporting visual, which I think is what you may be implying (happy if you correct me). Both pilot and LC are necessary (and both made errors here).

Subjects ATC  PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Traffic in Sight  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.
Stagformation
August 12, 2025, 11:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11937189
Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid
Obviously there's no way for a controller to know whether a pilot truly has the correct aircraft in sight.
Absolutely, but he does have the benefit of his own experience and common sense. Yes I accept that his experience may well have deviated to the \x91new normal\x92 at DCA over time, but common sense would still cast serious doubt on a report of visual on traffic that\x92s seven miles away at night, even using NVGs. The evidence suggests the LC did subsequently have his doubts, because he asked PAT again if he had the CRJ visual, since he wasn\x92t manoeuvring to maintain separation. Really a proactive revised clearance would have been more appropriate.
Last edited by Stagformation; 12th August 2025 at 19:11 .

Subjects ATC  CRJ  DCA  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  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.
Stagformation
August 12, 2025, 13:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11937250
Originally Posted by Senior Controller
But he kind of did issue it : 20:47:42.0 TWR- (LC): " PAT two five pass behind the C-R-J " . [[i]sounds of rapid beeping consistent with conflict alert audible in background while tower is transmitting]
17 seconds before the collision , sadly he did not receive a clear readback on that instruction .

Yes he did, you\x92re right\x97 but it wasn\x92t proactive enough. Clearly the LC was conflicted, his eyes telling him PAT might not be visual, but the pilot saying he was. What an awful situation to be in. One which really needed a decisive move, not the easiest one, eg order a direct turn for PAT and/or a go around for the CRJ.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (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.
Stagformation
August 15, 2025, 09:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11938867
Originally Posted by ignorantAndroid
It's not the controller's discretion, it's the pilot's discretion. If the pilot calls "traffic in sight" then the pilot is taking on the responsibility of ensuring separation..
At risk of this point becoming a hamster wheel. Sorry. The pilot didn\x92t just call, \x93Traffic in sight.\x94 He called, \x93Traffic in sight, request visual separation.\x94 Twice. Reduced separation was not his to just take, it was the LC\x92s to permit, and the pilot clearly understood that, or else why use the word \x91request\x92. The airspace is controlled airspace (where VFR traffic is permitted to fly only in accordance with an ATC clearance).
Last edited by Stagformation; 15th August 2025 at 21:48 .

Subjects ATC  Separation (ALL)  Traffic in Sight  VFR

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.

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  Last  Index Page