galaxy flyer Page: 1 of 4

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 03:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816811

Likely, if US Army, no TCAS or ADS.

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.

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 15:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817340

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

When I was working as a CFI out of VKK, literally right outside the DCA Class B, we did training flights at DCA. It was not unusual, how were the students supposed to learn to deal with it if we never went there? One lesson was the "Big 3", going to DCA, IAD, BWI, and back home. ATC was happy enough, they surely didn't want n00bs blundering around there on their own with a fresh license and no clue.

In the military, there\x92s training and training. This is a high profile unit assigned the most experienced US Army pilots. More likely training a newly assigned H-60 pilot who has thousands of hours\x97 call it, local qualification. Additionally, Army pilots are pilots, not officers with other tasks or politics.

Subjects ATC DCA

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.

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 16:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817393

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattern_is_full

That is partly how it works. Dulles-IAD and Baltimore-Washington-BWI serve as the "Hanging off the end...about 50 miles away" airports for Washington. D.C.

But the folks who vote to fund the FAA's budget (Congress) find it - convenient - to also have a civilian passenger airport just 2 miles away. For their jaunts back to their home states to "massage" the voters.

So the FAA does their bidding. And so do the airlines.

One of the Senators from Kansas at the original "midnight press conference" after the accident, with no apparent irony, said that he had pressured American Airlines' CEO for this direct and specific Wichita-to-DCA non-stop route. He happens to be a GOP Senator. But two of the "news interviewees" regarding the collision - Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif) and perennial-FAA-thorn-in-the-side Mary Schiavo - both said they had also arrived at DCA shortly before the accident.

So it goes.

Ansolutely. Ernie Gann, writing 75 years ago, called out DCA as a hazard to DC-3 operations.

It’s a political football that will not be closed or reordered because the politicians won’t be without it. All the more reason to close it down.

Subjects DCA FAA

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.

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817622

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdracer

At the risk of adding more politics to this, I've read elsewhere (more than once) that the only reason Reagan National hasn't been closed years ago is because the various politicians in DC want the convenience of the close by airport (instead of having to travel out to Dulles).
IF this is a case of 'stuff happens' and not someone's serious error, maybe it's time to put human lives above the convenience of some politicians and close this airport.

Having been in business for too long and flown in/out of DCA, both airline and private, I don\x92t think actually closing has ever been discussed once it was ruled out when Dulles opened. Certainly, the politicians wanted it open and played all sorts of politics with things like mouse curfews, perimeter rules, facility improvements. There\x92s no reason it couldn\x92t be closed, KIAD has lots of room to expand. It was a miserable place 40 years ago in a 727 with half the operations.

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.

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 21:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817683

Not so in the US, somewhere I saw they were on UHF.

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.

galaxy flyer
January 30, 2025, 23:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817745

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

a good test of that principle is what happens if the crew go around having commenced a visual approach. They are expected to fly the MAP and not go off script.

In Europe, the radar service can be terminated on an instrument approach once descending into uncontrolled airspace. But the a/c is still IFR.

There is no MAP for a visual approach. And, no MAP to fly, just inform ATC and expect instructions.

Subjects ATC IFR 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.

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 00:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817780

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

which will be vectors or the MAP, not the local visual procedures. No need to request a pick-up; you\x91re still IFR

This has been \x93litigated\x94 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.

Subjects ATC IFR Separation (ALL)

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

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 14:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818269

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpine Flyer

If it was circling they‘d be expected to join the missed approach of the approach they executed.

In real life they‘d most likely get vectored.

Actually, IF the plane was cleared for an approach that’s true, however IF on visual as the CRJ was, you cannot rejoin the IAP missed approach because you weren’t cleared for an IAP. At DCA, they use visual to 33 is used because airlines do not have circling in their OpsSpecs, so it’s a visual to 33. DC, like Teterboro and DuPage (Chicago) use this weird approach to a visual because the controller cannot protect the MAP due to airspace. Teterboro gives an ILS 6 circle to 01 but begin the circling well outside the circling airspace. DuPage will give you an approach but you have to cancel IFR to visually line up with the NW runway. Both of these “workarounds” have resulted in accidents.

JFK’s Canarsie in the old days was straight in that wasn’t to get around the rules. There’s a lot of normalization of deviance in FAAland.

As a survivor of an A-10 mid-air with similar geometry and height, it easy to imagine the event.

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 31st January 2025 at 15:00 . Reason: Clean up a mistake

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA IFR

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.

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 19:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818459

Look at SMS in private jet aviation. We have IS-BAO, Wyvern, ARG/US all doing audits, issuing pretty certificates, gold labels and then the operators have hideously stupid and predictable accidents. My rumor mill told me years ago, much of the FAA views SMS has some ICAO idea they don’t need. Is it any wonder their SMS is dead?

Subjects FAA ICAO

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.

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 20:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818517

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

Based on the videos there should have been no difficulty picking out the lights of the CRJ, the helo is approaching it not quite head-on but definitely in the right front quadrant. And the CRJ is above all the city lights.

It is genuinely odd how they flew directly into this thing which must literally have been lighting up the interior of their cockpit. Also, why were they above the 200ft route ceiling?

(Still from the video referenced above by ORAC.)

Helo on the left

With respect, I was flying an A-10 on a bright, sunny day, 40 years ago. A separate A-10 struck me at a geometry and height very similar to this collision. Sun was a factor. The geometry was plotted out at Wright-Pat. The Board set up a flight to confirm the findings of the AF lab. Until the fourth set up, nether pilot, squirming in their seats despite safety zones established before they got sight of each other. What looks obvious to you, most likely did not in the cockpits. At night, it is would far harder to spot each other, lots of stray lights, darkness, attention focused on landing by the CRJ crew, on spotting and tracking the plane they had agreed to visual separation. Trying to maintain visual separation requires constant focus on the plane you’re supposed to maintain separation with.

I have ZERO doubt that either crew had a slightest idea of what was about to happen. I can fill 30 minutes explaining my next 10 seconds but suffice to say, a complete surprise. “WTF was that” will be the short version.

Subjects CRJ Findings Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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

16 recorded likes for this post.

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

galaxy flyer
January 31, 2025, 21:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818532

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdr

The new view of the event on the military forums is the clearest imaging yet. It shows the attitude of the helicopter from 5 seconds before the impact and finishes after surface impact of the two aircraft. It appears that the helicopter commenced a pitch up somewhere near 0.5s before impact, having had a fairly stable pitch up to that point. Would suggest the 60 crew detected the CRJ not much more than 0.5s before that point, ~1 before impact. A full aft cyclic at that point is not going to change the outcome, the impact was inevitable from shortly after the start of this video, and that is the fundamental physics problem with reliance on visual de-confliction.

Hope the pax on the RH side were fully distracted with a beautiful view of the capitol and Washington monuments. The 60 has nav, beacon/strobe and landing light on, which would have still been hard to see on a steady bearing line.

from the video here are observations that can be drawn, without the trauma of viewing the video (this is brutal, you are forewarned ) :

Spoiler

That was the same outcome in mine, testing showed visual sighting reaction would have only changed the impact angles. The point of impact on the CRJ was exactly the same as mine—right front, just behind the cockpit.

Subjects CRJ

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.

galaxy flyer
February 01, 2025, 01:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818686

It’s not always been this way. This is a product of security mindset, post-9/11. There were rarely helicopters flying on the Potomac in the area of DCA before. Now, there’s a spotters webpage—all police, Army, CG, etc.

Subjects DCA

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.

galaxy flyer
February 01, 2025, 14:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819067

The NYT link should work. It shows the helicopter v. Airplane traffic for the week (!) prior. There’s is no way in heck, that much helicopter traffic needs to be integrated with air carrier traffic. The govt hasn’t been in danger of continuity challenges in decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ane-crash.html

Subjects New York Times

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.

galaxy flyer
February 01, 2025, 20:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819276

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nipper2

Question for those more knowledgable than me:

In finding ‘probable cause’, do the NTSB’s terms of reference provide any guidance on the proximity (in time) of that cause to the accident?

Not in any way wishing to prejudge the outcome of the enquiry, I’ll pick a couple of hypothetical examples.

Could the NTSB for example say, “it all goes back to 1991 and the firing of the striking Controllers”.

Or closer to the accident in the timeline, “the number of movements at the airport was excessive and the procedures in use were unsafe and we see that as root cause”.

Or are they limited to something completely specific and timely along the lines of, “the altimeter was out of calibration and that put the two aircraft in conflict”.

thanks.

The PATCO strike was in 1981 and with one or two generations of new controllers and management over those 43 years, is irrelevant to the accident. Any controllers were invited back to the FAA during the Clinton administration. I know several. Is short staffing released, of course, it’s a systemic problem and was in 1981.

Subjects FAA NTSB

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.

galaxy flyer
February 01, 2025, 21:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819313

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlew2012

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, the only way, the only chance, was up. Put yourself in their shoes suddenly knowing the plane was descending, from left to right.

From experience, I’m pretty convinced the Army crew never saw the CRJ and vice versa. IF they did, there was no time t9 take evasive action to miss—it’s just too late. In my mid-air,the investigation showed that, once visual, any action would only change in the impact angles.

However, there is a case where, due to visual illusions, the crew took “evasive” actions that created a mid-air collision. EAL and TWA over the Carmel VOR in 1965. The cloud deck was angled in a fashion that created the illusion they were head-on co-altitude, when in fact, they were separated. EAL FO pulled up to avoid and collided.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Aviat...-air_collision

Subjects CRJ

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.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 03:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819478

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denflnt

The helo was always always flying VFR. ATC's job was protecting the CRJ.

In Class B, all aircraft are separated, it might visual, it ATC is required to provide separation, IFR or VFR traffic. This standard goes back to the original TCA in 1972.

Subjects ATC CRJ IFR Separation (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.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 03:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819484

Quote:

Originally Posted by gretzky99

I agree completely.

It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.

Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worse of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".

I\x92m not in job of defending the US system, but there needs to be some perspective. The US airspace operates about 40%-50% of all global aviation. Only half of daily flights are air carrier. For lot of reasons outside this discussion, air carriers are the default transport, trains and buses are a tiny fraction of long distance transport. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service. We\x92ve gone 16 years without a fatal US carrier major accident, which isn\x92t different than the rest of the world, especially when the US has a 50% share. Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.

All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200\x92 in 2023 due to noise complaints.

Subjects ATC DCA FAA Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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

6 recorded likes for this post.

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

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 04:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819500

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

The area is extraordinarily sensitive to noise complaints. I muffed a landing at KVKX just a few miles away after the takeoff curfew and someone called the cops on me for going around and I got a bit annoyed with them and told them they weren't the air police.
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams.
* IMHO they need the dedicated helicopter controller on at ALL times the helicopters are flying and they need to be held for crossing traffic. They also all need ADS-B, no private pilot that wasn't totally skint would be running around with the lack of situational awareness the helos seem to have in an area like that.

Well, they got an earful of noise the other night, didn\x92t they? Maybe, the politicians that cry for ever more service at DCA AND robust \x93continuity of govt\x94 programs (utter tosh IMO), need to tell the constituents and residents that the noise is necessary. But, that\x92d take courage.

Subjects ADSB (All) ATC DCA IFR Situational Awareness

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.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 14:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819828

Quote:

Originally Posted by DP.

Mere SLF here - I work in risk management (in a different industry) and so have an interest here, along with a lifelong interest in aviation - fully ready to be modded if I'm talking out of turn!

I accept the point regarding the likely economic impact. However I think its worth making the point that in the context of that '16 years without a fatality' record. there have been a number of potentially serious near-misses on the ground (JBU at BOS, AAL/DAL at JFK, SWA/FDX at AUS, etc etc) that are indicative of a system operating beyond its capacity and implementing procedures that are deemed to be of an acceptable risk profile in order to stretch that capacity. It was fortunate that those previous incidents were narrowly avoided. Wednesday night was where that luck, sadly, ran out.

I agree and if the FAA were “on the job” they would taken those events more seriously. They were strong signs of an operation under stress. The problem is they are both the regulator and the operator. Keeping the planes moving is their primary task and especially at DCA politics reigns. True, elsewhere but slow things for safety there, cut operations, and you’ll be speaking to Senator’s aide in hours.

Subjects DCA FAA

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.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 21:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820141

Here’s the special

SPECI KDCA 300245Z 29007KT 10SM CLR 09/M07 A2993 RMK AO2 ACFT MSHP T00891067=

https://www.ogimet.com/display_metar...f=59&send=send

Subjects KDCA

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 "galaxy flyer" [Posts: 70 Total up-votes: 92 Page: 1 of 4]¶