Posts by user "notwithstanding" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 12 Page: 1 of 1]¶

I have not read many of the earlier posts, so do not know what has been said about ATC’s involvement & whether the helicopter was operating under IFR but, it would appear that the helicopter was operating under VFR & simply being given traffic information, rather than being IFR & being properly separated from other IFR traffic (the AAL a/c in particular). If so, this accident revives the controversy about whether or not you can safely mix dense IFR traffic & VFR traffic in the same airspace. Without knowing the actual cause of this accident - there may be some other cause - it would seem to suggest that the answer to this question is, “NO, you cannot”. I remember giving traffic information to a departing HS125 , from Aberdeen, about a Cessna 150 operating within its projected flight path at up to 5,000 ft. 6 nm west of the airfield ; & being met with the reply from the 125’s pilot, “what do you expect me to do with that info ?” Thinking about it, he had a point. Simply being informed about prospective traffic does not guarantee, in any way , that you are going to be able to see & avoid it. Countless collisions between (mainly light) a/c since; plus this latest tragedy; would seem to prove the point !

From what I have read, & presuming that I have interpreted this correctly; it would seem that helicopters can operate through the final approach area at approximately one & a half miles from touchdown provided they are 200’ or below - giving them 100’ approx. vertical separation from landing aircraft which would be at 300’, or so, in that area. If this is true, it represents, to my mind , a gross dereliction of duty on the part of whichever body approved this procedure. 100’ separation is absolutely nothing in practical terms - whether or not you are visual with the traffic. Aircraft which are intentionally flying in formation often have more separation than this ! Whoever sanctioned this procedure, if I have got this perception correct, effectively caused this collision; & should be prosecuted. This represents absolutely NO separation at all; whether or not the aircraft were separating themselves visually (or if at least one of them was doing this). If this is the case, I am amazed that this was allowed at a very busy IFR aerodrome.

I have not read, in any detail, exactly what has been said about altimeters , mode C, VFR routes, visual separation at night, mistakes by ATC or pilots - any , or all of these may have been contributory causes to this accident but; there was one overriding cause of this tragedy, & that was the existence of a dangerous route & procedure in a very low level & high pressure & demanding traffic situation. In short, these sort of routes should never be allowed anywhere near short finals at a busy commercial airport. If the helicopter route had not existed, this accident could, & would, never have happened. End of story - almost.

I would say the very simple, & totally effective, following: NO helicopter route, NO helicopter, BUT commercial aircraft with NOTHING to conflict with it = NO collision. Can anyone argue with those simple facts . Leaving aside whether equipment was working properly , pilots were making errors, or anything else contributed to the collision. Simple solution.

But, who exactly are the \x93knuckleheads\x94 ? To my mind, they are the officials who approved these routes & procedures. Would you agree ? Others (ATC & pilots) might have made contributory errors, but the situation was orchestrated by those who designed & allowed the procedures. Correct ?