Posts by user "Wide Mouth Frog" [Posts: 27 Total up-votes: 65 Page: 2 of 2]¶

Yes I agree. But it's also possible that the maintenance of such 'procedures' in the face of the growing body of evidence of their unsafety is actually part of a policy stance of expediting traffic, particularly given the highly political nature of the helicopter operator.

I've asked a question over on Rotorheads to see if anyone knows the actual clearance and service given to helicopters entering the DCA Class Bravo on the 'routes', and I'm happy to repeat it here. In London it's Radar Control ie. separation provided by ATC supported by radar. That's one part of the picture. The other is this startling revelation from Jennifer Homendy that there are no lateral limits to the 'routes', so in one sense they are not really 'routes' at all just guidelines with defined altitude limits. I can't find even altitude limits on the NY and Boston charts.

In other words, the way the 'routes' are used is quite possibly defined locally by custom and practice rather than designed with safety baked in by the authority, and that may be the way the authority intended things to be. In the UK every towered field has its own safety management system, as does the CAA. If these exist here at DCA and the FAA it would be instructive to have those examined as part of the investigation, because either they are not being used, or they're being ignored. Nobody could maintain that the risks on this 'route' were As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

Well unless you've got a button for 10 degrees or so, I don't think it's going to solve this problem.

Which, put another way, means no visual separation, and I think that's the right answer. I would commend the DCA authorities also to a scheme we had in London where regular users of the routes such as PAT are given a number to call before planned movements to see if it was likely to come off. Another trick that I've seen is to add a suffix to the callsign for aircraft on a priority shout (eg. helimed).

I'm sure it does, but UK helimeds use the suffix to indicate they are actually on a shout, rather than training or positioning.

That's not called for. PEI 3721 has a respectful and thoughtful response to your post.

I personally don't think there's anything to be gained from going down the ICAO route. The NTSB has it's own charter and that's what dictates what happens in the USA.

I can see several ways the NTSB could take this, first the obvious one. The helicopter assumed responsibility for separation when it was not able to do so, and then found itself on track for collision. That's what I would define as true proximate cause. Then there's a step back from there which says nobody should be allowed to request and receive visual separation responsibilities in Class B airspace. That would be a good result as far as I'm concerned.

And the final step, which I think is more contentious and really hard for the US to accept, is that the culture at the FAA and within the industry is to balance safety and boosterism for the industry, and I think that is a recipe for irreconcilable conflicts. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I'm surprised that this is your conclusion. I think what I take away from the conversations on the night was that ATC was divesting himself of responsibility, and the helicopter was trying to expedite his sortie, and nothing in the 'system' prevented them from doing that. Removal of visual separation as an option IMHO deals with that hole in the cheese. It seems like you're suggesting that the helicopter might ignore instructions to hold before the tidal basin ?

Sorry, I may have over-interpreted your response. This is the line that prompted that. I agree there's room for nuances in the visual separation thing, but opposite direction at night is a bridge too far IMHO.

I think that's a bit apocalyptic. SARPS are just that, Standards and Recommended Practices. And I'm not saying that the USA is out of line with them, I'm just saying that if you want to understand what the NTSB are doing you should look at their charter, not something that is once removed.

There you go. A bit of work with google is never time wasted. I offered an opinion about the extent to which the NTSB might be incentivised to explore issues of the mission of the FAA, and like all opinions, it resides in the domain of politics. That's a possible reason why the NTSB might not choose to go there. However an ex-Inspector General of the Dept of Transportation had strong views on the subject, and I give a lot of weight to her opinion, supported as it is by her personal experiences of dealing with the FAA.