sunnySA Page: 1 of 1

sunnySA
February 22, 2025, 10:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11833564

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

Which, put another way, means no visual separation, and I think that's the right answer. I would commend the DCA authorities also to a scheme we had in London where regular users of the routes such as PAT are given a number to call before planned movements to see if it was likely to come off. Another trick that I've seen is to add a suffix to the callsign for aircraft on a priority shout (eg. helimed).

Doesn't PAT callsign in itself have priority?

Subjects DCA Separation (ALL) 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.

sunnySA
March 29, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11856643

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReluctantObserver

Unfortunately, and I hate to say this, I have reached a conclusion beyond those reached by other posters to this forum, to wit:
The US Army, in order to meet its mission requirements, really does not want civilian pilots (commercial or otherwise) to know where its helicopters are. My evidence for this is: The eagerness of the US Army pilots to assume responsibility for seeing and avoiding commercial aircraft; The DCA tower procedures that do not allow civilian fixed wing pilots to hear the conversations between the tower and the helicopters; The Army practice of turning off ADS-B out while on missions and training flights that follow mission profiles (as explained by the USA general in the hearing); The Army's refusal to produce the memo regarding its use of ADS-B to Senator Cruz.
Should the policies adopted by the US Army be regarded as the fundamental cause of this accident?

No, I think the US Army policies with regard to ADS-B will be found to be irrelevant to this accident. Brigadier General Matthew Braman is correct in that the US Army, and other government agencies with policing, security and counter intelligence responsibilities do not want their aircraft tracked on FR24 and the like. The MOU is key and may not see the light of day in the public domain. National Security will trump (sorry) other considerations, even safety, especially with so many high profile score buildings adjacent to DCA.

Subjects ADSB (All) ADSB Out DCA President Donald Trump

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.

sunnySA
March 30, 2025, 05:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11857059

Quote:

Originally Posted by MechEngr

Instead of the unavoidable chance of getting shot down there is the continuous risk of mid-air collision .

Not sure that I'm following this focus on ADSB. Unless the PSA CRJ had ADSB-IN, then the absence of ADSB-OUT in the Army helicopter is irrelevant to the accident.

In recent investigations ATSB (Australia) has been pushing the merits of ADSB-IN. NTSB's (and ATSB's) remit is rather broad and can be used to push a particular agenda.

FAA (and CASA) can mandate ADSB-IN in all powered aircraft, and the US (and AU) Governments could easily fund the fitment from the Government coffers. Every billionaire in the Forbes Top 200 Richest People in America could easily afford to fund ADSB fitment. Would certainly improve their Philanthropy scores.

Be interesting to see whether PSA Airlines tick the ADSB-IN option with their next fleet order, or retrofit their fleet with ADSB-IN.

Last edited by sunnySA; 30th March 2025 at 05:08 . Reason: typo

Subjects ADSB (All) CRJ FAA

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.

sunnySA
March 31, 2025, 04:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11857712

Quote:

Originally Posted by layman54

According to post 1346 the accident helicopter was higher and to the west of the position of the typical helicopter flying that route. Was this a slight error that in this case was fatal?

Although the data in post 1346 does distinguish between day time and night time, it doesn't (nor probably can't) highlight which flights were adjusted by ATC, e.g. track this, sight that, pass behind, track direct, etc. If the use of Route 4 was simply pilots doing their own thing ie a single direction route without any ATC inputs then the tracking difference might be interesting. In this case, it could highlight an issue, perhaps not.

Subjects ATC Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Route 4

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.

sunnySA
January 31, 2026, 06:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12030070

Quote:

Originally Posted by missy

I don't understand why the helicopter routes do not have a lateral dimension i.e. track via XXX, remain EAST of a line XXX to XXX. Defined lateral dimensions then allows lateral separation applied to be based on a thinner line, rather than a broad line as per the current charting.

FWIW, I don't understand why NTSB didn't recommend re-transmit.
Relevant recommendations are

Quote:

9. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation, in conjunction with local operators, to determine the overall safety benefits and risks to requiring all aircraft to use the same frequency when the helicopter and local positions are combined in the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport air traffic control tower.
10. Implement anti-blocking technology that will alert controllers and/or flight crews to potentially blocked transmission when simultaneous broadcasting occurs.

From experience, switching aircraft between frequencies will be time consuming, and make the splitting of positions more difficult and make the handover / takeover process much slower and take a longer period of time.

Current Voice Switching Systems allow multiple frequencies and provide re-transmit options, and as such provide instantaneous splitting of frequencies to seperate control positions.

Subjects NTSB Separation (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.

sunnySA February 22, 2025, 10:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 11833564	Quote: Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog Which, put another way, means no visual separation, and I think that's the right answer. I would commend the DCA authorities also to a scheme we had in London where regular users of the routes such as PAT are given a number to call before planned movements to see if it was likely to come off. Another trick that I've seen is to add a suffix to the callsign for aircraft on a priority shout (eg. helimed). Doesn't PAT callsign in itself have priority? Subjects DCA Separation (ALL) 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.
sunnySA March 29, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT permalink Post: 11856643	Quote: Originally Posted by ReluctantObserver Unfortunately, and I hate to say this, I have reached a conclusion beyond those reached by other posters to this forum, to wit: The US Army, in order to meet its mission requirements, really does not want civilian pilots (commercial or otherwise) to know where its helicopters are. My evidence for this is: The eagerness of the US Army pilots to assume responsibility for seeing and avoiding commercial aircraft; The DCA tower procedures that do not allow civilian fixed wing pilots to hear the conversations between the tower and the helicopters; The Army practice of turning off ADS-B out while on missions and training flights that follow mission profiles (as explained by the USA general in the hearing); The Army's refusal to produce the memo regarding its use of ADS-B to Senator Cruz. Should the policies adopted by the US Army be regarded as the fundamental cause of this accident? No, I think the US Army policies with regard to ADS-B will be found to be irrelevant to this accident. Brigadier General Matthew Braman is correct in that the US Army, and other government agencies with policing, security and counter intelligence responsibilities do not want their aircraft tracked on FR24 and the like. The MOU is key and may not see the light of day in the public domain. National Security will trump (sorry) other considerations, even safety, especially with so many high profile score buildings adjacent to DCA. Subjects ADSB (All) ADSB Out DCA President Donald Trump 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.
sunnySA March 30, 2025, 05:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11857059	Quote: Originally Posted by MechEngr Instead of the unavoidable chance of getting shot down there is the continuous risk of mid-air collision . Not sure that I'm following this focus on ADSB. Unless the PSA CRJ had ADSB-IN, then the absence of ADSB-OUT in the Army helicopter is irrelevant to the accident. In recent investigations ATSB (Australia) has been pushing the merits of ADSB-IN. NTSB's (and ATSB's) remit is rather broad and can be used to push a particular agenda. FAA (and CASA) can mandate ADSB-IN in all powered aircraft, and the US (and AU) Governments could easily fund the fitment from the Government coffers. Every billionaire in the Forbes Top 200 Richest People in America could easily afford to fund ADSB fitment. Would certainly improve their Philanthropy scores. Be interesting to see whether PSA Airlines tick the ADSB-IN option with their next fleet order, or retrofit their fleet with ADSB-IN. Last edited by sunnySA; 30th March 2025 at 05:08 . Reason: typo Subjects ADSB (All) CRJ FAA 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.
sunnySA March 31, 2025, 04:17:00 GMT permalink Post: 11857712	Quote: Originally Posted by layman54 According to post 1346 the accident helicopter was higher and to the west of the position of the typical helicopter flying that route. Was this a slight error that in this case was fatal? Although the data in post 1346 does distinguish between day time and night time, it doesn't (nor probably can't) highlight which flights were adjusted by ATC, e.g. track this, sight that, pass behind, track direct, etc. If the use of Route 4 was simply pilots doing their own thing ie a single direction route without any ATC inputs then the tracking difference might be interesting. In this case, it could highlight an issue, perhaps not. Subjects ATC Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Route 4 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.
sunnySA January 31, 2026, 06:24:00 GMT permalink Post: 12030070	Quote: Originally Posted by missy I don't understand why the helicopter routes do not have a lateral dimension i.e. track via XXX, remain EAST of a line XXX to XXX. Defined lateral dimensions then allows lateral separation applied to be based on a thinner line, rather than a broad line as per the current charting. FWIW, I don't understand why NTSB didn't recommend re-transmit. Relevant recommendations are Quote: 9. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation, in conjunction with local operators, to determine the overall safety benefits and risks to requiring all aircraft to use the same frequency when the helicopter and local positions are combined in the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport air traffic control tower. 10. Implement anti-blocking technology that will alert controllers and/or flight crews to potentially blocked transmission when simultaneous broadcasting occurs. From experience, switching aircraft between frequencies will be time consuming, and make the splitting of positions more difficult and make the handover / takeover process much slower and take a longer period of time. Current Voice Switching Systems allow multiple frequencies and provide re-transmit options, and as such provide instantaneous splitting of frequencies to seperate control positions. Subjects NTSB Separation (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.

Posts by user "sunnySA" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 0 Page: 1 of 1]¶