January 31, 2025, 23:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818629
A term from the maritime world applies:
This was a negotiated collision.
* back before boats had transponders, ship 1 says to what they think is ship 2 they will pass red-red. Ship 3 responds to confirm. Ship 2 in between is on some other channel and has no idea, but 1 and 3 each think they are talking to 2.
Sure we have a plane in sight. Not THE plane, but a plane nonetheless.
* back before boats had transponders, ship 1 says to what they think is ship 2 they will pass red-red. Ship 3 responds to confirm. Ship 2 in between is on some other channel and has no idea, but 1 and 3 each think they are talking to 2.
Sure we have a plane in sight. Not THE plane, but a plane nonetheless.
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.
February 01, 2025, 16:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819158
Some folks here need to read back through the thread before posting.
The helicopter crew is said to have had NVG's but at this point no information has been provided re their use of NVG's.
The height issue is not the primary issue as the intent of the procedures and ATC instructions was to separate the two aircraft.
Had that separation effort worked there would have been no conflict thus no collision.
It is the failure of the separation and the meeting over the river the two aircraft in the same bit of air that height mattered.
No where in the standard procedure was it intended to have helicopter traffic fly below landing aircraft on RWY 33.
Poll the Pilots here folks....ask them if they would routinely fly 100-200 feet below a crossing aircraft? What do you think the answer would be?
I thank 212 Man for his input reminding me why he was the Teacher's Pet. I depend upon his ability to get into the books to keep me straight.
Now a test question for him.....were you flying the incident airplane doing a Visual Approach to RWY33....would you have tuned up the IAP for that RWY as an additional reference for your approach?
SOP's usually instruct Crews to use ILS data when doing Visual Approaches to runways with that kind of IAP so would that kind of thinking apply in this incident? Would that have been of any benefit considering the existing weather and terrain? Or, would that have been a distraction?
This was not a "Circling Approach" but it was very similar.
The helicopter crew is said to have had NVG's but at this point no information has been provided re their use of NVG's.
The height issue is not the primary issue as the intent of the procedures and ATC instructions was to separate the two aircraft.
Had that separation effort worked there would have been no conflict thus no collision.
It is the failure of the separation and the meeting over the river the two aircraft in the same bit of air that height mattered.
No where in the standard procedure was it intended to have helicopter traffic fly below landing aircraft on RWY 33.
Poll the Pilots here folks....ask them if they would routinely fly 100-200 feet below a crossing aircraft? What do you think the answer would be?
I thank 212 Man for his input reminding me why he was the Teacher's Pet. I depend upon his ability to get into the books to keep me straight.
Now a test question for him.....were you flying the incident airplane doing a Visual Approach to RWY33....would you have tuned up the IAP for that RWY as an additional reference for your approach?
SOP's usually instruct Crews to use ILS data when doing Visual Approaches to runways with that kind of IAP so would that kind of thinking apply in this incident? Would that have been of any benefit considering the existing weather and terrain? Or, would that have been a distraction?
This was not a "Circling Approach" but it was very similar.
Subjects
ATC
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 01, 2025, 16:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819165
Re hovering on the helicopter routes: Perusing some forums where Army pilots post several of them recounted being told to go hover over X point while traffic cleared at DCA. Not all controllers seem willing to run traffic as close together as this one did.
Subjects
DCA
Hover
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819493
I’m 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’ve gone 16 years without a fatal US carrier major accident, which isn’t 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’t 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’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.
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’t 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’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.
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.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
ATC
DCA
FAA
IFR
Separation (ALL)
Situational Awareness
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819813
and from island air photo :
Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .
Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.
I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .
Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .
Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.
I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .
1.The bat-s### crazy way they run helicopters around DCA.
2. The usual practice of visual approaches and spacing in good weather. It has been that way for as long as I have been flying and I am having a hard time even visualizing all IFR spacing to the pavement on a clear day. Maybe asking an American about this is like asking a fish if water is wet?
The OTHER unrelated (?) issue of sorting out ground traffic. I was one on the same trip cleared to take off with an aircraft on short final and then cleared to land with an airplane just pulling out onto the active. To make that one better, I knew the person flying that plane and couldn't resist being snarky: "Ah XYZ tower, we'll be going around, Bob says not to wreck his airplane by landing on it".
Subjects
ATC
DCA
FAA
IFR
Land and Hold Short
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 16:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819907
My guess is a tired and overworked controller will take your word for it you are going to miss the other aircraft and devote their mental energy to other things. To be fair he DID finally realize it looked close and prodded the helo pilot a couple of times.
Subjects
ATC
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 18:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819989
Subjects
DCA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 18:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819999
Do you honestly think that you've just thought of that and the system designers haven't?
In relation to your earlier response to my previous comment, how can the system tell someone to 'remain level' when that aircraft doesn't have TCAS? I am not sure of the Blackhawk fit, but I would be pretty surprised if it has TCAS fitted.
One of the main reasons that TCAS alerts are inhibited at low altitude is to avoid distraction during the landing phase, in an area that has a high traffic density and a high probably of nuisance alerts. The system would constantly be giving RAs and people would be going around and deviating all over the place. Even if just TAs were left active then it would be going off all the time, and we would be having the same conversation about becoming blase to the warnings as we are about the repetitive conflict alerts that were being given to the LC.
Getting TCAS to give RAs on final is not the solution in my opinion.
In relation to your earlier response to my previous comment, how can the system tell someone to 'remain level' when that aircraft doesn't have TCAS? I am not sure of the Blackhawk fit, but I would be pretty surprised if it has TCAS fitted.
One of the main reasons that TCAS alerts are inhibited at low altitude is to avoid distraction during the landing phase, in an area that has a high traffic density and a high probably of nuisance alerts. The system would constantly be giving RAs and people would be going around and deviating all over the place. Even if just TAs were left active then it would be going off all the time, and we would be having the same conversation about becoming blase to the warnings as we are about the repetitive conflict alerts that were being given to the LC.
Getting TCAS to give RAs on final is not the solution in my opinion.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
Blackhawk (H-60)
TCAS (All)
TCAS RA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820562
I am surprised with the NTSB statement that the CRJ was at 325 ft altitude: the collision appeared to have taken place over the water (the helicopter had a track parallel to the bank and its hull splashed in the water) and, even if computed overhead the river bank, 325 ft gives a glide slope with an angle of 3\xb0 and 28 minutes. This is between 3 and 4 whites on the PAPI (the angle separating 3 and 4 whites is 3\xb0 and 30 minutes).
* Not to say anything against the CRJ pilots, when getting night runway changes at DCA myself I would line up first and deal with the PAPI second. Flying over black water in the dark that seems a normal thing to do.
Subjects
CRJ
DCA
NTSB
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820688
Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings, while they might have a copy of the Approach radar picture on a TV monitor somewhere , it is to verify actual positions not to issue vectors.. In addition some TWR controllers are just TWR rated, not Approach radar rated.
25 ft is the accuracy of mode S, transmit data so let's take 300 ft , Heli was apparently 100 ft higher than its altitude restriction , doing a separation maneuver ? (*) question to my US friends , : when delegating separation VFR to an aircraft does that automatically cancels its previous altitude restrictions ?
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.
25 ft is the accuracy of mode S, transmit data so let's take 300 ft , Heli was apparently 100 ft higher than its altitude restriction , doing a separation maneuver ? (*) question to my US friends , : when delegating separation VFR to an aircraft does that automatically cancels its previous altitude restrictions ?
(*) I mean control input to maintain visual separation . not last second collision avoidance maneuver.
Subjects
ATC
FAA
ICAO
Radar
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820702
A few points, perhaps helping the Swiss cheese line up:
1) There seems to be a big push, especially in the US, to get traffic to go visual and do visual approaches, in order to squeeze in more traffic. I know of several European carriers that prohibit visual approaches at night. Is this really a sensible trend?
1) There seems to be a big push, especially in the US, to get traffic to go visual and do visual approaches, in order to squeeze in more traffic. I know of several European carriers that prohibit visual approaches at night. Is this really a sensible trend?
One night over at BWI the controller hinted he could tighten things up if everyone reported the airport in sight, so the incoming push played along and I guess they lost track of the real ceiling and vectored me right into IMC going past and then if I complained it would mess up the whole thing.
Underfunded Understafffed Overloaded and In a Hurry has been a thing for ages, maybe since the strike.
Subjects
ATC
DCA
IFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 19:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820830
There have been a couple of posts up thread about 15/33 and 04/22 being temporarily closed after this tragic accident - until 9th Feb IIRC. No one seems to have commented on this. So a couple of questions.
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Has the FAA or MWAA given any official reason for these closures?
As 01/19 is currently the only runway available at DCA, has there been any reduction in flow, and if so, has this caused any increased delays, or forced airlines to cancel services?
Subjects
DCA
FAA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 20:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820877
There were a number of aircraft around in the dark, which makes repeated unqualified reference just to "the CRJ" quite liable to error. I still wonder if the "Can you see the CRJ ... pass behind the CRJ" was being interpreted as the aircraft on the ground lining up on 01, the nearest aircraft to them and just on their right. They could see it, and they turned to pass behind it.
Subjects
CRJ
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 11:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821350
Allow me few comments based on a long experience with TCAS evaluation et deployment .
The only solution I personally see is airspace segregation based on equipment . Class A, B and C restricted to aircraft carrying ADS-B out and TCAS equipped , and both Working and on the MEL as no go item s ( not the case today ) Waiting for AOPA and ATA remarks
The only solution I personally see is airspace segregation based on equipment . Class A, B and C restricted to aircraft carrying ADS-B out and TCAS equipped , and both Working and on the MEL as no go item s ( not the case today ) Waiting for AOPA and ATA remarks
Subjects
ADSB (All)
ADSB Out
ATC
DCA
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 13:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821423
I was taking Military , and here in DC airspace Class B you had one aircraft without ADS-B. out.( not that it would have changed anything ,) but if you want to devise /create a performant CAS using ADS-B it starts there .
Then there is the question of the C150s, you raised , of course no TCAS, we are talking ADS-B out, but even then, do you really want to have them anywhere near the approach path of a major busy airport airspace to start with ?
Then there is the question of the C150s, you raised , of course no TCAS, we are talking ADS-B out, but even then, do you really want to have them anywhere near the approach path of a major busy airport airspace to start with ?
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
Subjects
ADSB (All)
ADSB Out
ATC
DCA
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 15:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821515
Having been in a mid-air collision with similar geometry, I would bet it was only normal input to approach path. FDR’s are incredibly sensitive recorders. I have a vague memory of the other plane’s wing flashing by. It looks slow in the videos, but it’s incredibly fast.
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 4th February 2025 at 22:04 . Reason: Clarification that it was not THIS incident
Subjects: None
1 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 17:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821563
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?
Subjects: None
1 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 19:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821662
Blancolirio says at his latest update that the helicopter should have been told to hold before crossing the approach patch of 33. My post saying the same was deleted. I dont know why our very senior pilot is adamant that an army crew in a combat ready chopper cannot stop. Me, just a lowly private R22 driver, had to perfom quick stops on my examination flight for the PL(H) licence and we were trained to avoid and/or get out of a possibly ensuing vortex ring state. If I could do it in this wobbly contraption of Robinsons, anybody else can, because I am not Top Gun.
We used this quite often when parachute jumpers crossed our approach path to the homebase (from above of course
). We could have done a 360 , but then we would have lost sight of our vertical traffic and a quick stop is more fun.
I my country we widely use a wonderful device called FLARM. It is sort of a pour man's TCAS, using a similar protocol as ADS-B but on a free to use frequency. Shows traffic of other live FLARMS and warns if a Mode-S transponders is approaching (using field strength) . It has another optional feature: a database of low strung cables, power lines and other obstructions our country is infested with. Guess what we had to do in a heli when this alarm went of? Indeed, a quick stop and then a good lookout for cables!
We used this quite often when parachute jumpers crossed our approach path to the homebase (from above of course
). We could have done a 360 , but then we would have lost sight of our vertical traffic and a quick stop is more fun.
I my country we widely use a wonderful device called FLARM. It is sort of a pour man's TCAS, using a similar protocol as ADS-B but on a free to use frequency. Shows traffic of other live FLARMS and warns if a Mode-S transponders is approaching (using field strength) . It has another optional feature: a database of low strung cables, power lines and other obstructions our country is infested with. Guess what we had to do in a heli when this alarm went of? Indeed, a quick stop and then a good lookout for cables!
Subjects
ADSB (All)
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 06, 2025, 13:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822971
The following article may not have a direct connection to the Collision being discussed but it certainly does mention issues that bear on the general environment under which the aircraft were operating and on how ATC capability might not have had assets that would have assisted in enhancing safety. It does mention DEI, the efforts to privatize the ATC function in the United States to a system similar to those in the UK and Europe and provides some background to why that has not happened. What it does point to is the question of if the US ATC system is adequate to today's needs of the Aviation Industry within the United States.
https://www.city-journal.org/article...control?skip=1
https://www.city-journal.org/article...control?skip=1
Subjects
ATC
DEI
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 06, 2025, 15:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823040
Island,
What an enlightened approach to discussing aviation safety you have.
You attack the source and ignore the content.
Others have already made note of their perception that the UK and EU have better ATC systems than does the United States..
That is raised in the article.
What say you discuss issues rather than sources as that might allow you to be seen in a far better light than you are with the quality of your post.
People that have flown the London and Paris helicopter lanes as well as the DC routes see the DC method lacking in the level of safety the other two provide.
Efforts to change the US ATC system to similar to that of the UK and the EU have been tried and failed....the article get that wrong?
Why not just discuss the issues raised in the article and prove your comment has some basis in fact.
What an enlightened approach to discussing aviation safety you have.
You attack the source and ignore the content.
Others have already made note of their perception that the UK and EU have better ATC systems than does the United States..
That is raised in the article.
What say you discuss issues rather than sources as that might allow you to be seen in a far better light than you are with the quality of your post.
People that have flown the London and Paris helicopter lanes as well as the DC routes see the DC method lacking in the level of safety the other two provide.
Efforts to change the US ATC system to similar to that of the UK and the EU have been tried and failed....the article get that wrong?
Why not just discuss the issues raised in the article and prove your comment has some basis in fact.
NO ONE is arguing that what goes on at DCA is a good idea and NO ONE thinks it is a good idea to do it without the helo controller on duty.
"A poor plan poorly executed"
Subjects
ATC
DCA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.