Page Links: Index Page
| WideScreen
January 30, 2025, 06:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 11816903 |
Could it be this becomes another case that the regulatory defined airplane exterior (including landing light) lighting (especially for small RJ) is simply insufficient to let it stand out in the airport / city Xmas tree of lighting?
And the chopper crew simply had the next airplane in sequence of landing in sight and not the one they collided with? RIP Subjects: None 5 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| WideScreen
January 30, 2025, 06:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 11816919 |
This feels like an alarm fatigue/ever-brighter-light problem. If you make aircraft lights even brighter, you'll start asking questions about other safety lights in the area and going round and round in circles.
Visual management of traffic isn't really acceptable, especially at night against a backdrop. I think, the better option would be to not rely on "bright lights" but suitably illuminated big surfaces, IE an airplane should illuminate its own surfaces. For this particular case, that might not have made a big difference, given the near head-on approach for a long time.
I really hate to say it, but I kind of have to agree. See above. This helicopter path may as well be a taxiway crossing an active runway, with the same levels of risk. Why are they allowed to loiter on the runway path; why are they allowed into the approach corridor with an aircraft on approach?
Can I argue this is the 'fatal runway incursion' everyone has been warning the US is going to have? For this case, the helicopter corridor was designed to be below the approach path, though when the human makes even a small mistake and/or the weather makes the approach path a bit lower, things can go haywire quite easily. 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. |
| WideScreen
January 30, 2025, 07:54:00 GMT permalink Post: 11816966 |
RIP.
US ATC has been screwing up a lot over the past 2 years. Runway incursions and near misses in the air. Tonight the Swiss cheese holes have aligned and 16 years of US aviation safety has come crashing down into the icy cold Potomac river. Anybody remember our last hero of that river Lenny Skutnik? US ATC needs an immediate review because this crash might not be the only one for us in 2025... Subjects
ATC
Close Calls
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| WideScreen
January 30, 2025, 08:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 11816997 |
Not to say, the helicopter declared a "CRJ in sight", which also implies from that moment on, the separation became their responsibility. When flying myself, I am very hesitating to "accommodate" to ATC's information about other aircraft around me, since I then take over the separation responsibility, even when losing sight of the other aircraft(s). Subjects
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| WideScreen
January 31, 2025, 04:58:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817916 |
TWR gives AA5342 as traffic to the helicopter, stating they are over the Woodrow (Wilson) bridge, however the helicopter crew keeps flying into the final approach path of R33. 40 seconds later TWR again asks if they have the “CRJ” in sight, and they reply they have, but at this point the CRJ is less than 200’ above them and only 0.5nm away. At the same time the following aircraft on approach to R01, an AA A319 on flight 3130, is above the Woodrow Bridge on finals. Possibly the helicopter crew at some point confused the A319 for the CRJ.
The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
It seems pretty clear what happened. The helicopter crew had confirmed they had the CRJ in sight and were happy to remain clear and pass behind. The ATC cleared them to maintain visual separation, the helicopter turned right as presumably this put them on the shortest course to where they wanted to go. At this point the ATC has NO further responsibility for separation, that is now the SOLE responsibility of the helicopter crew who accepted it. Clearly they did not have the CRJ in sight, what they were looking at will only ever be conjecture. Visual separation at night in such a busy piece of airspace is clearly a ridiculous procedure..... but it is a procedure that can currently be used. The ATC did nothing wrong, the CRJ crew did nothing wrong and more than likely the helicopter crew PROBABLY didn't do anything g wrong on purpose, there was o ly one airaft though out of place, a situation ONLY possible through an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure. My airline doesn't allow visual separation either day or night and only allows visual approaches by day, why be GA in Jets with paying passengers?
With only one other airplane, it's clear, with more than 1, it becomes a gamble.
This has been “litigated†before on PPRUNE. In the US, there is NO Missed Approach Procedure.
AIM 5-4-23 e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances. One can discuss whether this is a procedure or not, though there is at least "something". Subjects
AA5342
ATC
CRJ
IFR
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
Page Links: Index Page