February 06, 2025, 16:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823105
Subjects: None
2 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 06, 2025, 18:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823160
A can of worms or a mid-air collison. I'll take the can of worms please. I can't see any aircrew being worried to give a truthful response just to aid ATC, not when it is their lives at stake. If this does happen then that is a whole new set of lessons that need to be learned.
Subjects
ATC
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 07, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823361
Conflating VFR and Visual Separation is driving me nuts. Is this an EU thing?
You can be VFR in the Class B and treated exactly like an IFR flight. The clearance requirement from clouds VFR is just "clear of" clouds. You can have clouds three inches over you and five inches under you with each wingtip 3 inches away from them and still be VFR. This is much reduced from C, D, and E because you are under positive control. The helo was let loose to provide their own visual separation, which is a totally separate thing.
You can be VFR in the Class B and treated exactly like an IFR flight. The clearance requirement from clouds VFR is just "clear of" clouds. You can have clouds three inches over you and five inches under you with each wingtip 3 inches away from them and still be VFR. This is much reduced from C, D, and E because you are under positive control. The helo was let loose to provide their own visual separation, which is a totally separate thing.
Subjects
IFR
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 07, 2025, 16:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823780
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?
* re the NVGs, I found an old video I shot of trying to drive with mine and coming around a corner to a bright street light at first the light bloomed across a good portion of the display and then the thing ramped down gain until the light was a pinpoint surrounded by black. Good thing I had it on one eye! I assume that if you have them on and look at a landing plane with lights on you get the same, either blooming or black with pinpoints.
Last edited by island_airphoto; 7th February 2025 at 17:16 .
Subjects
ATC
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Route 4
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 07, 2025, 19:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823874
Was it ?
It was first described as a training flight. When this was severely criticised the account changed to a 'continuity of government' flight. When this oblique phrase was questioned it changed again to a recertification flight. As a number above have commented, it seems to have been missing a number of aspects typically done properly on a formal check ride.
It was first described as a training flight. When this was severely criticised the account changed to a 'continuity of government' flight. When this oblique phrase was questioned it changed again to a recertification flight. As a number above have commented, it seems to have been missing a number of aspects typically done properly on a formal check ride.
What I think was going on was someone was getting checked out on these specific routes and obviously learned too late they were doing it wrong
Subjects: None
6 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 08, 2025, 16:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824439
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.
February 08, 2025, 16:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824444
This seems to be an EU-centric idea, one could get the impression there is no such thing as VFR over there, or if there is it is restricted to some farm field far away from anything.
Subjects
ATC
VFR
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 08, 2025, 16:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824451
Here you go: Read All About It.
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/tower-brites/
This explains the different phraseology between a tower using a BRITE to help out vs. the phraseology of tower certified and equipped for full radar separation. It also explains LOAs for airspace. Where I learned to fly at KMLB the tower only owned up to about 1800 feet IIRC and approach had above that. In those pre-BRITE days it helped a lot for handling IFR traffic.
( I sometimes flew a Bell 47 helicopter there and the tower managed to organize it such that I never came close to any airplanes)
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/tower-brites/
This explains the different phraseology between a tower using a BRITE to help out vs. the phraseology of tower certified and equipped for full radar separation. It also explains LOAs for airspace. Where I learned to fly at KMLB the tower only owned up to about 1800 feet IIRC and approach had above that. In those pre-BRITE days it helped a lot for handling IFR traffic.
( I sometimes flew a Bell 47 helicopter there and the tower managed to organize it such that I never came close to any airplanes)
Subjects
IFR
Phraseology (ATC)
Radar
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 08, 2025, 22:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824604
That is not a thing in the USA. Prior to security crap I flew to DCA in C-150s and C-172s to grab dinner frequently.
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 09, 2025, 01:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824674
Whatever the procedure used in this instance, correct or 'made up on run' something went terribly wrong somewhere. Until the inquiry is done, speculation is of zero value in this instance, but a system overload and compromise in safety appears to be a rising risk in US flight traffic.
Sadly I would suspect individuals will be 'hung out to dry' for what is more likely systemic failure, starting from the top management trying to more with less.
Sadly I would suspect individuals will be 'hung out to dry' for what is more likely systemic failure, starting from the top management trying to more with less.
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 09, 2025, 19:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11825080
Just to put the things back into perspective : whether the controller had a radar display in front of him or not ,, whether there should have been a separate controller in the Heli frequency ,both would not have changed anything in this case since he delegated separation to the helicopter , The visual identification by the helicopter was confirmed ( twice) , instruction to pass behind was confirmed = controller no longer responsible , standard procedure in DC since the guys worked there , and he had a lot of other traffic to attend to.
To discuss what he could or should have done is just playing " Captain hindsight "
The procedure was wrong , the safety case botched , and as I understand, the " book " allowing all this was followed by both the controller and the helicopter pilot .
Let's discuss the procedures and visual separation delegation at night in busy airports instead on focusing on what the controller should have done , implying indirectly some form of responsibility in this accident..
To discuss what he could or should have done is just playing " Captain hindsight "
The procedure was wrong , the safety case botched , and as I understand, the " book " allowing all this was followed by both the controller and the helicopter pilot .
Let's discuss the procedures and visual separation delegation at night in busy airports instead on focusing on what the controller should have done , implying indirectly some form of responsibility in this accident..
The specific one only applies to DCA, so unless you fly there for your job or want to fill out 1001 forms to get your own airplane in there, no worries, no one else does crazy stuff like that with helos.
The general one for me so far is how easy it is to see the wrong traffic at night and the next "do you see X" I get at night I am going to be triple-redundant sure and then some before saying I do.
Subjects
ATC
DCA
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
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 10, 2025, 16:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11825597
Yes
The tower managed a TON of traffic with no BRITE back then, I think we were the 10th busiest airport in the country. One airliner on final got very annoyed at doing a go-around due to some student mishap and complained it cost his company $3,000 to go around. The tower replied "Roger that, please do a $3,000 go around".
Patrick Air Force Base right next door trained controllers, so sometimes over there you got a new guy that would keep telling you to speed up on downwind and the fighter jet #2 behind you to slow down and you might drop a hint like "it would be easier if he just went around me".
We never hit any helicopters ever though, so there is that.
The tower managed a TON of traffic with no BRITE back then, I think we were the 10th busiest airport in the country. One airliner on final got very annoyed at doing a go-around due to some student mishap and complained it cost his company $3,000 to go around. The tower replied "Roger that, please do a $3,000 go around".
Patrick Air Force Base right next door trained controllers, so sometimes over there you got a new guy that would keep telling you to speed up on downwind and the fighter jet #2 behind you to slow down and you might drop a hint like "it would be easier if he just went around me".
We never hit any helicopters ever though, so there is that.
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 15, 2025, 00:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828309
TX inhibit works with CTCSS on FM. On an aircraft AM radio any kind of interference or noise could lock out transmit if you tried to do it on just breaking squelch. Even FM set to inhibit on squelch instead of tone would work much better, FM is far more noise resistant.
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.
February 15, 2025, 00:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828316
I can't see how this can be done with aircraft and REALLY not with handhelds.
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.
February 15, 2025, 14:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828641
Subjects
ADSB (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 15, 2025, 20:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828824
Whilst these are valid observations, it is also micro-managing a procedure whose altitude separation was always totally flawed. I cannot personally attribute any blame to ATC or either pilot when the scenario was so badly devised ... and that means not only the infamous Route 4 but the concept of visual separation in the dark.
It was doomed to fail, eventually, but sadly someone [other than those directly impacted] never saw it coming. THEY are the culprits.
MPN11, former Mil ATCO
It was doomed to fail, eventually, but sadly someone [other than those directly impacted] never saw it coming. THEY are the culprits.
MPN11, former Mil ATCO
Subjects
ATC
ATCO
Route 4
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 16, 2025, 01:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828951
As someone with an insight into the complexities of retrofitting certified avionics hardware and the associated wiring, controllers and antennae to fighter jets and other military aircraft, I would be completely unsurprised if, as seems to be evident from the video imbedded at #1112, the USA\x92s elite, pre-eminent military aerobatics team uses a portable ADS-B unit velcro\x92ed to the aircraft\x92s glare shield. And if it\x92s OK for them, I can\x92t see why it wouldn\x92t be OK for the PAT helicopters and I wouldn\x92t be surprised if that\x92s the ADS-B to which various references having been made.
I suppose the operational question is whether the aircraft on which these portable units are used are permitted to fly without them on board and working. My guess is that there will be no prohibition. They are just \x91nice to haves\x92 but not essential for the ops in which they engage.
And there\x92s a causal question anyway: Would a functioning ADS-B system \x96 portable or otherwise - on the PAT helo have made any difference? The answer depends on the variables around the alert suppression parameters in each aircraft\x92s systems and the effectiveness of the format of alerts \x96 if any \x96 given in each cockpit.
I suppose the operational question is whether the aircraft on which these portable units are used are permitted to fly without them on board and working. My guess is that there will be no prohibition. They are just \x91nice to haves\x92 but not essential for the ops in which they engage.
And there\x92s a causal question anyway: Would a functioning ADS-B system \x96 portable or otherwise - on the PAT helo have made any difference? The answer depends on the variables around the alert suppression parameters in each aircraft\x92s systems and the effectiveness of the format of alerts \x96 if any \x96 given in each cockpit.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
KDCA
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 16, 2025, 04:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828970
Who said \x93receiver\x94 alone? I think you\x92ll find that those units transmit as well. I have a similar unit clipped to a suction cup on the windscreen of my aircraft.
What they could have seen and heard in the PAT helo depends on a lot on the matters to which I referred, among others, in my earlier post.
What they could have seen and heard in the PAT helo depends on a lot on the matters to which I referred, among others, in my earlier post.
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 16, 2025, 18:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829389
The point is that PAT25 could have been tightly hugging the eastern bank at precisely 200 feet, and yet everyone would still have died if the CRJ had been slightly below its proper approach path (as it might easily have been). Yes, you can say that *this* accident wouldn't have happened if the helo had been at 200 feet, but that gets us precisely nowhere in preventing recurrence. Systems that rely on human perfection are 100% guaranteed to fail. The only question is how often.
Altimetry and height keeping would be important matters for investigators if the collision had occurred due to a breakdown in vertical separation, which as a minimum would involve 500 feet (and more often 1000 feet) of planned spacing to account for instrument and height keeping errors. FAA instrument rating standards require pilots to be able to maintain altitude plus or minus 100 feet. This helicopter was being flown VFR at very low height, which means that looking outside takes primacy over monitoring instruments. I'm sure helo pilots could fly along at 175ft plus or minus 25ft if they really tried, but you can be certain they wouldn't be looking out for traffic (as required when taking visual separation).
However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved.
Altimetry and height keeping would be important matters for investigators if the collision had occurred due to a breakdown in vertical separation, which as a minimum would involve 500 feet (and more often 1000 feet) of planned spacing to account for instrument and height keeping errors. FAA instrument rating standards require pilots to be able to maintain altitude plus or minus 100 feet. This helicopter was being flown VFR at very low height, which means that looking outside takes primacy over monitoring instruments. I'm sure helo pilots could fly along at 175ft plus or minus 25ft if they really tried, but you can be certain they wouldn't be looking out for traffic (as required when taking visual separation).
However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved.
N123, do you see the closest plane lined up, pass right below and behind him and never mind all the other planes right behind. Ah......NO.
There is night visual and there is night nutty visual. The first example leaves a lot of room for error and time for ATC to see if it is going wrong.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
FAA
PAT25
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Vertical Separation
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 24, 2025, 14:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11834921
It’s anecdata, but I have noticed a trend over the years for US pilots to sometimes call visual with the airfield or other traffic when they may not be as a kind of reflex when asked. This is likely perceived as being on the ball, helping ATC, keeping the flow up but it falls smack under normalisation of deviance.
Last time I operated into LAX there was a cloud layer from 7,000’ down to ~2,500’, really thick and solid, bit of drizzle, no breaks until you suddenly came out of the bottom of it into a different airmass. A few people were calling visual from 10-15 miles out which raised eyebrows as it was highly unlikely to be the case. Yes, they were going to be visual at some point but not right then.
Would be interested in opinions from FAA-land as to whether this is isolated and/or very abnormal or they’ve noticed it as well...
Last time I operated into LAX there was a cloud layer from 7,000’ down to ~2,500’, really thick and solid, bit of drizzle, no breaks until you suddenly came out of the bottom of it into a different airmass. A few people were calling visual from 10-15 miles out which raised eyebrows as it was highly unlikely to be the case. Yes, they were going to be visual at some point but not right then.
Would be interested in opinions from FAA-land as to whether this is isolated and/or very abnormal or they’ve noticed it as well...
Subjects
ATC
DCA
IFR
VFR
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.