galaxy flyer Page: 2 of 4

galaxy flyer
February 03, 2025, 01:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820224

I’ve used ogimet for years, good source for historical Met data. The one I posted was taken as a result of the accident. Much less wind than the earlier reports.

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
February 03, 2025, 14:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820596

Using visual separation, the system will generate CAs, they’re issued to alert the controller, not to provide guidance. Thats why the controllers ask, “do you have the traffic in sight?”

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.

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 03, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820867

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash8

Go back nearly fifty years with the Cessna and visual lookout from the PSA.. that I believe (could be wrong) led to the advent of TCA's....

NY TCA was first one about 1972. San Diego was later after the mid-air there. TCA (Class B) still uses visual separation.

Subjects Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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 04, 2025, 13:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821410

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21600HRS

There is a problem in the system if you don\x92t react to CA. The visual avoidance should be aborted when the technically calculated separation is lost.

Its VISUAL separation by the pilots, the controller did react, \x93PAT 25, do you have the traffic in sight?\x94

Subjects ATC 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
February 04, 2025, 13:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821443

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

The military somehow exempted themselves with the results we see now.
I was a frequent visitor to DCA in C-150s and C-172s pre 9-11, it was a nice way to get to the city for dinner from the island I live on. Unless the airlines start buying their own private airports there is no sorting out of airplanes like that, public airports are for everyone with an airplane (9-11 bullcrap excepted). They would do "river tours" back then too, you got a trip up and down the Potomac with some great sightseeing. Back then airplane ramp fees were less than you could end up paying to park a car

The military are exempt as \x93state aircraft\x94. We didn\x92t have TCAS, 8.33 radios (EU thing), FM immune radios in C-5s until around late \x9190s (?). FM immune ILS receiver were standard in civil world for decades. FM broadcast would interfere with the ILS signal, but upgrading the radios was about 100 in the budget priority until we couldn\x92t fly ILSs in Europe when they shutdown the ground based immunity because of everybody having the radios except us.

Subjects DCA 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
February 04, 2025, 15:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821499

Quote:

Originally Posted by 51bravo

NTSB on CVR recordings as I understand - however read from a paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bD-hK3MsiA

remarkable: begin of pitch up 1 sec before impact (CRJ).

Having been in a mid-air collision with similar geometry, I would bet it was only normal input to approach path. FDR\x92s are incredibly sensitive recorders. I have a vague memory of the other plane\x92s wing flashing by. It looks slow in the videos, but it\x92s incredibly fast.

Subjects CRJ NTSB

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 04, 2025, 18:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821633

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Question - was the comms with the helicopter to look out for traffic "circling for 33"? If so it was correct but maybe misleading. In my mind I might think of "circling" as actually doing that more or less, i.e. cruising around the airport at pattern altitude to line up with a different runway. That might create a mental false impression the traffic would not be low. Would "sidestepping for 33" be a more useful call?

To answer, no circling is a maneuver to align with the landing runway. No one is flying a traffic pattern at DCA

Subjects 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
February 04, 2025, 19:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821636

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannibal lecter

I've seen sidestep to RWY XX if there was a parallel runway to the one we were approaching and circling if that involved some maneuvring. Actually circle to land is a visual maneuver to a runway which is not suitable for a straight in landing, that is, involves a track difference of 15 degrees or more. But I've heard of all sorts, depends very much on who is in charge and the geographical location.

”Side step” is a specific maneuver and clearance between parallel runways. “Cleared ILS 32R, sidestep 32L”

Circling is a visual maneuver to align with the landing runway but, as opposed to a visual approach” there’s specific airspace to circle within. Circling approaches, by definition, are where the final segment is more than 30 degrees from the runway heading OR a descent gradient greater the 400 feet per nautical mile from the FAF to the MAPpoint.

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 4th February 2025 at 19:16 .

Subjects Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)

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 05, 2025, 15:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822290

I’ve done fair bit of low level in the A-10, being off a hundred feet while flying at night, watching for traffic in dense operating environment is not the sinful. I’m glad some pilots are perfect.
Correcting for wind while having ground references is pretty much a subconscious activity. You catch your drift angle make a correction

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.

galaxy flyer
February 06, 2025, 01:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822687

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbcooper8

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...

By the time the lights were shining in PAT 25\x92s cockpit, it was way too late\x97collision was inevitable and unavoidable.

Not the latest model? Guess what, combat units get the latest models. These missions are transport, not combat roles. Budgets and priorities rule. There are VH-60s in the battalion, they\x92re probably not scheduled for check rides or training flights.

One RA does not rewrite the schedule, likely not even unusual in DCA. The previous crew may not have passed the event on. I\x92ve had numerous RAs, never a report. The NTSB has stopped asking for reports for events involving VFR traffic.

While nice to have, there\x92s no place for a second crew chief to have a forward view. And the CC may or may not be \x93in the loop\x94. They\x92re crew chiefs, not pilots. We had them on C-5 and they mostly slept in flight as they too much to do on the ground.

Subjects ATC CRJ Close Calls DCA NTSB Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Route 4 TCAS RA 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 06, 2025, 13:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822989

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked door

This goes back to my comment about USA aviation safety being broken but the people in it don’t realise it as it’s all they’ve ever known.

How can you make that statement without realising how many red flags are in it?

LD

I didn’t deny there’s problems with the safety mgt, just stating the facts as I’ve seen them. Before retiring last year, I was working on an SMS for a corporate flight dept including FOQA. GE Digital has quarterly reviews for those on the contract. One the most interesting displays was ALL TCAS RAs world-wide using their data and FAA ASIAS data. Just a “heat map” of dots—at a guess, 90% of the world’s TCAS events are in the US. Add up military, GA, and airline flights, half of all daily flights in the world are in US, probably half of all mid-airs, too.

Again, not excusing things, not saying it can’t improve, but the size of the problem is huge. Ultimately, the solution is less aviation. I’ve flown all over the world, nowhere has the traffic the US has. ATL, for example has a mix of traffic unheard of in Europe. I’ve been in the bizjets, airliners, I’ve seen jet fighters parked there and a Piper Cherokee on the GA ramp. Same in LAX, DFW, LGA, BOS. We do not expect the restrictions on aviation acceptable elsewhere and we have plenty of it.

Our GA safety record is pretty awful, but at glance it’s probably 75% of the world’s total GA flying. It’s also no accident to see FAA-registered GA planes in the EU. Guess why?

Subjects FAA TCAS (All) TCAS RA

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 06, 2025, 13:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822995

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

The crew chiefs that I flew with in Blackhawks (Army) didn't sleep in the back.
You are partly right, in that their look out is lateral (8-10 o'clock or 2-4 o'clock, depending on which seat they are in) which is very handy during hovering operations and during flight where another set of eyes is needed. IME, they were actively engaged in keeping their eyes out and calling traffic over the ICS when we flew near urban areas or airports.

I didn\x92t say they slept in back in BlackHawks, just in the C-5. Besides they didn\x92t do gear swings and engine changes on layovers, either.

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
February 06, 2025, 14:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823020

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHBM

Not quite. They were asked if they were visual with a CRJ. How would they know, at that point still a couple of miles away, which aircraft lights all around them in the dark were "the CRJ" ? In fact there was more than one of this type around.

The accident aircraft was making a sidestep curving manoeuvre, a late change from a straight in to 01. The only message passed about this was it was landing on 33. No comment that it was going to break off the 01 approach. No questioning that the heli crew even understood how an aircraft now approached 33, making this unusual and last-minute change, nor that it would compromise them routing along the river.

.

Circle to 33 is a very common and understood maneuver at DCA. The clearance was issued to CRJ and visual approved to PAT 25 while the CRJ was outside the Wilson bridge, about 7 miles from the airport. Both crews were familiar with the procedure. It bit of mystery why the Army was so quick to request visual separation, but I\x92d guess it\x92s \x93Pavlovian\x94

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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 06, 2025, 19:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823184

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

Very unlikely the helo crew could actually identify the right traffic 7nm away in half a second. My guess is they instantly say, \x91traffic in sight, request visual separation\x92, because they know that any other response (inferring traffic not in sight) obliges ATC to apply minimum 500ft/1.5mi separation in class B airspace and then a whole can of worms ensues. No other option available to the controller as far as I can see.

Ref para 3.2.3. e. 2 here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...l%20separation .

I agree, requesting visual separation was a means of \x93moving the mission\x94. Not doing so would create a real problem, probably delays, turnbacks, etc. \x93We can do that, we\x92re Priority Air Transport, says so right in the call sign\x94. It\x92s pretty simple because, in the dark, at low altitude, no one can positively identify one plane, by specific type, at 7 miles. No one is that good.

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.

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 07, 2025, 00:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823328

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan

Yeah, but they can because they're cool and good and better than the rest of us and stuff....

IFR separation is not appropriate for VFR traffic. Class B airspace has specific rules for separation of VFR/VFR and VFR/IFR aircraft. The helicopter routes do not appear designed to provide the required separation for VFR helicopters, at least where Route 4 and RWY 33 final approach cross each other. Was the design at fault OR was the daily application at fault? If the design was at fault, it\x92s an FAA DOD problem. I find it hard to believe the FAA didn\x92t address the correct separation distances in the design phase\x97it\x92s pretty clear. The FAA may have planned crossing traffic wouldn\x92t happen or there\x92s a FAA LOA defining how crossing traffic would be controlled, but the FAA didn\x92t say \x93okay, let\x92s go with 150\x92 vertically\x94.

Did the FAA or the Army assume they would always be able to apply visual (NOT VFR) separation. Visual separation does not necessarily mean 500\x92 vertically and 1.5 nm or radar target separation; it means \x93I see you, I miss you\x94. Did the operating plan always direct crews to use visual separation as the default plan? I hope not, but it is only I see it being written.

Subjects FAA IFR Radar Route 4 Separation (ALL) VFR 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.

galaxy flyer
February 14, 2025, 22:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828242

Well, 9 degrees pitch up AND full up elevator is rather different than \x93slight pitch up\x94 just prior to impact, as reported earlier. That sounds like the beginning of an evasive climb

Subjects: None

3 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 15, 2025, 03:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828347

Quote:

Originally Posted by averow

Novice question here but would the Blackhawk usually have a CVR onboard most of the time?

CVRs are permanently installed equipment, not carried aboard. They are wired in to both record each pilot plus area microphones.

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60)

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 17, 2025, 01:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829588

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

You should feel rage. Managing control of airspace is not a matter of political interest any more than the rules of the road for driving cars is. And in my previous tirade I forgot the earliest parts of this ****show which was an aircraft on a stabilised approach asked to circle to a lesser equipped runway in order to expedite traffic. The next time I hear someone in authority say that safety is our number one concern, I think I'll probably choke on my own vomit.

KDCA 01 visual to 33 (note: not circle, 121 carriers are not circling authorized in the US) has been a standard procedure for, at least 45, that I flew there. Expediting, moving more planes is always one of the goals. Sure, we can make it safer, only one plane flies on each side of the Mississippi. After that, it’s a negotiation.

I’m very much opposed to the helicopter routes, both in planning and execution. The routes shouldn’t exist, if DCA is to remain open. But, to say safety trumps (excuse me) everything is unrealistic. As soon as the wheels leave the runway, there’s risks. This case someone is government accepted too much risk; crews accepted too much risk and normalized that risk. Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.

Subjects DCA KDCA

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 17, 2025, 03:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829613

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

So how else are we supposed to interpret 'safety is our number one priority' ?

Taken literally, it means nothing moves. Safety is not an absolute, it\x92s an array of acceptable and unacceptable risks. What\x92s the benefit, what\x92s the risk.

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.

galaxy flyer
February 19, 2025, 14:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11831496

I’m not sure about that. I went from 1950s B727 and 1960s C-5 into a Global Expess. The improvements in information processing for the crew was astounding. Then, add in SMS at the airlines, including FOQA, and it’s not an accident (pardon the pun) that safety has improved.

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.

Posts by user "galaxy flyer" [Posts: 70 Total up-votes: 92 Page: 2 of 4]¶