procede Page: 1 of 1

procede
January 30, 2025, 15:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817322

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Duck

Looking at the leaked radar plot a CA was flashing for both aircraft for approximately 20 seconds, then stopped for around 10 seconds, then started again up to the point of impact.

I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation.

What surprised me more is that another aircraft to the south was also showing RA for no apparent reason. It seems this system is giving so many 'false' warnings so that it is essentially ignored...

Subjects 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.

procede
January 31, 2025, 16:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818317

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

It'll be the NTSB that does the report.

Still it is going to be very difficult to not have this become political as the causes will have to be distributed between the Army and the FAA.

How open is the Army going to be about their procedures? Are they going to try to pull the 'We cannot share that information due to national security' card?

How willing is the NTSB going to be to say out loud that the FAA's procedures have left no margin for error and need to be changed?

How willing is the FAA (among others) to increase costs and/or reduce capacity to increase safety? And not just at DCA, but also a lot of other US airports.

Subjects DCA FAA 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.

procede
January 31, 2025, 19:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818495

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdr

You are allowed to do formation, that's in the rules, it just requres all participants to be have agreed to be part of the formation and a few other pesky things, like...

I think these are the regulations for general aviation (part 91).

Formation flying entails one aircraft following another. Definately not the case here. Also the CRJ was not informed...

On a sidenote: It is very convenient that they found an alternative description for the operations at SFO...

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.

procede
February 02, 2025, 07:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819573

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

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.

Either proper safety evaluations have been done and an accident like this every few years is considered acceptable and/or everyone just closed their eyes and hoped it would not happen to them (but to someone else first).

Alternatively, you impose (IATA) slot constraints to your congested airports, just like the rest of the world does.

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.

procede
February 05, 2025, 09:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822038

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

They do not have to cancel the helicopters routes altogether, just not design one that crosses below the short final to a runway or cancel delegation of separation between VFR and IFR in class B airspace. Relatively simple.

Proper aviation safety is based on having multiple layers, in this case it was reduced to one (the helicopter pilot maintaining visual separation), which clearly failed. At least there should be active vectoring by ATC AND (visual acknowledgment of BOTH cockpits OR at least 500 ft vertical OR 1.5nm of horizontal separation). And even this is pushing it.

Additionally, any helicopters flying in such congested airspace should have a display showing other traffic so they know where to look outside.

Subjects ATC 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

procede
February 05, 2025, 11:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822109

Quote:

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

I disagree. Visual separation had little if anything to do with this.

Disagree, as relying on only visual separation from the helicopter had everything to do with this. As for the rest, I think we mostly agree.

I think I indicated either having 500 ft vertical OR 1.5 nm horizontal, not both (which would indeed be excessive). Visual acknowledgment is only required within that hockey puck like area and I doubt whether it is acceptable to allow that option at night.

I do think the landing aircraft should be made aware of other traffic if it gets within the safe area, either by having that traffic on the same frequency, or by actively informing them. Situational awareness is everything and in any case this prepares them for a probable 'traffic' warning.

Subjects 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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

procede
October 19, 2025, 08:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11972330

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWings

The elephant in the room is mixing IFR and VFR at night on routes that have no (or totally inadequate) separation;

I am pretty sure enabling ADS-B will make that near impossible, even though it is in a slightly asinine way.

Subjects ADSB (All) 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.

procede January 30, 2025, 15:21:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817322	Quote: Originally Posted by Iron Duck Looking at the leaked radar plot a CA was flashing for both aircraft for approximately 20 seconds, then stopped for around 10 seconds, then started again up to the point of impact. I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation. What surprised me more is that another aircraft to the south was also showing RA for no apparent reason. It seems this system is giving so many 'false' warnings so that it is essentially ignored... Subjects 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.
procede January 31, 2025, 16:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818317	Quote: Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs It'll be the NTSB that does the report. Still it is going to be very difficult to not have this become political as the causes will have to be distributed between the Army and the FAA. How open is the Army going to be about their procedures? Are they going to try to pull the 'We cannot share that information due to national security' card? How willing is the NTSB going to be to say out loud that the FAA's procedures have left no margin for error and need to be changed? How willing is the FAA (among others) to increase costs and/or reduce capacity to increase safety? And not just at DCA, but also a lot of other US airports. Subjects DCA FAA 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.
procede January 31, 2025, 19:50:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818495	Quote: Originally Posted by fdr You are allowed to do formation, that's in the rules, it just requres all participants to be have agreed to be part of the formation and a few other pesky things, like... I think these are the regulations for general aviation (part 91). Formation flying entails one aircraft following another. Definately not the case here. Also the CRJ was not informed... On a sidenote: It is very convenient that they found an alternative description for the operations at SFO... 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.
procede February 02, 2025, 07:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819573	Quote: Originally Posted by galaxy flyer 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. Either proper safety evaluations have been done and an accident like this every few years is considered acceptable and/or everyone just closed their eyes and hoped it would not happen to them (but to someone else first). Alternatively, you impose (IATA) slot constraints to your congested airports, just like the rest of the world does. 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.
procede February 05, 2025, 09:41:00 GMT permalink Post: 11822038	Quote: Originally Posted by ATC Watcher They do not have to cancel the helicopters routes altogether, just not design one that crosses below the short final to a runway or cancel delegation of separation between VFR and IFR in class B airspace. Relatively simple. Proper aviation safety is based on having multiple layers, in this case it was reduced to one (the helicopter pilot maintaining visual separation), which clearly failed. At least there should be active vectoring by ATC AND (visual acknowledgment of BOTH cockpits OR at least 500 ft vertical OR 1.5nm of horizontal separation). And even this is pushing it. Additionally, any helicopters flying in such congested airspace should have a display showing other traffic so they know where to look outside. Subjects ATC 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. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
procede February 05, 2025, 11:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11822109	Quote: Originally Posted by meleagertoo I disagree. Visual separation had little if anything to do with this. Disagree, as relying on only visual separation from the helicopter had everything to do with this. As for the rest, I think we mostly agree. I think I indicated either having 500 ft vertical OR 1.5 nm horizontal, not both (which would indeed be excessive). Visual acknowledgment is only required within that hockey puck like area and I doubt whether it is acceptable to allow that option at night. I do think the landing aircraft should be made aware of other traffic if it gets within the safe area, either by having that traffic on the same frequency, or by actively informing them. Situational awareness is everything and in any case this prepares them for a probable 'traffic' warning. Subjects 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. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
procede October 19, 2025, 08:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11972330	Quote: Originally Posted by FullWings The elephant in the room is mixing IFR and VFR at night on routes that have no (or totally inadequate) separation; I am pretty sure enabling ADS-B will make that near impossible, even though it is in a slightly asinine way. Subjects ADSB (All) 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.

Posts by user "procede" [Posts: 7 Total up-votes: 2 Page: 1 of 1]¶