Page Links: Index Page
| dbcooper8
February 05, 2025, 23:51:00 GMT permalink Post: 11822641 |
Questions
Condolences to all impacted.
Questions: Why was PAT 25 search light in the stowed position and not motored to a more forward position? Why are PAT helicopters not M models with FD's so PAT 25 could have been coupled on route 4 while at 200' giving the PF more time to look for traffic? Was there pressure to use NVG along route 4 to meet the hourly requirements for currency? Why did PAT 25 not slow down or hold at Hains in order to pass behind the CRJ as per their clearance? Why was it ops normal after a near miss the previous day and then only one crew chief instead of two for PAT 25? Why was the controller task saturated? Why over the years, as the airport got busier, someone didn't suggest, for night operations, only one aircraft on route 4 or only one aircraft on the approach to 33 at a time and prohibit simultaneous operations? IMO while the CRJ was turning final to rwy 33 PAT 25 may have experienced the CRJ landing lights in the cockpit and may have chosen up and right rather than left and down. Note worthy, PAT 25 RAD ALT gauge scale changes dramatically at 200'. Maybe an upgrade to Dulles with a high speed train connection... Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Close Calls
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Route 4
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| dbcooper8
February 07, 2025, 15:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11823730 |
With proper ATC staffing would it be a practicle proceedure for helicopter traffic travelling Southbound on route 1 to be given an expected further clearance time for Hains Point. This would allow the helicopter to adjust its speed or hold at Hains until traffic on approach to 33 is clear before the helicopter is then given clearance to enter route 4 and proceed Southbound crossing the approach to 33?
Subjects
ATC
Route 4
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| dbcooper8
February 15, 2025, 10:10:00 GMT permalink Post: 11828480 |
The L model radar altimeter indicators each contain a pointer that indicates altitude on a linear scale from 0 to 200 feet (10 feet per unit) and a second-linear scale from 200 to 1500 feet (100 feet per unit). In other words 300 feet could easily be misread as 210 feet for the uninitiated. Worth noting the pointer is the width between 200 feet and 300 feet. Also, was the bug in use and if so what altitude was it set to?
Disconcerting that the PAT 25 crew, about to descend and fly less than 200 feet AGL , would not have investigate the discrepancy of 100 feet between their respective altimeters... Subjects
Radar
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| dbcooper8
February 17, 2025, 03:42:00 GMT permalink Post: 11829612 |
I agree the altimeters are not as an important an issue as the flawed policies and procedures were. Were the helicopter routes originally approved for day VMC only while, years ago, the airport was much less busy and over time due to pressures layers of added operations were added such as night and NVG operations?
While the PAT 25 pilots, prior to take off, would set the barometric pressure each gauge must have no more than a +/- 75 foot error (FAA). One gauge may have read + 50 feet high while the other one read - 50 feet low which would account for the 100 foot difference in flight between the two barometric altimeters. Many mechanical and pilot input errors would be potential factors. Not common but sometimes a pilot will read back the correct setting while at the same time setting a different value by mistake. IF the 100 foot discrepancy was discussed initially on the ground it may account for the lack of discussion , later in the flight, while at 400 feet PM and 300 feet PF. It begs the question was radar altimeter planned to be used and if so when? Even though there are some transmissions stepped on for various reasons, the words runway thirty three were mentioned a number of times. As crossing the threshold to runway 33 posed a significant risk to PAT 25 I would have thought the PAT 25 crew, to know from experience, that in 3 to 4 minutes from the time ATC reported the CRJ crossing the bridge the CRJ would pass directly in front of them at or near the same altitude. It's not clear to me why PAT 25 would not have reduced airspeed and or held at HAINS point. I belive the simultaneous helicopter and runway 33 operations should never have been permitted. Clearance limits and expected further clearance times mirroring the ETA for rwy 33 given to helicopters to arrive at or hold at HAINS point would have be helpful in preventing conflicts. Subjects
ATC
CRJ
FAA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Radar
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| dbcooper8
February 27, 2025, 00:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11836728 |
Very informative video thanks to Austin Roth.
The chart for route 4 shows a single line above 200 ft indicating its the maximum permissible altitude. Also the wording on the chart is "at or below". IF, as the video suggests, 200 ft was the only recommended altitude then I would expect it to have a line above and below it with the appropriate wording "at" only. Route 6 has a 1500 ft altitude with a line above and below and with "at" only in the wording. From the FAA chart I believe altitudes below 200 ft are permissable and expected along route 4. Subjects
FAA
Route 4
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
Page Links: Index Page