VFR Page: 1 of 8

TBSC
January 30, 2025, 08:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11816984

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawk76

Do UH-60s have CVRs? As a training flight, there may have been too much attention inside and not enough outside.

Would you focus too much inside when passing right next to a major commercial airport in night VFR?

Subjects VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

Upside Down
January 30, 2025, 10:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817092

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkflyer

Obviously way too soon for a definitive answer, however the Helo calling the traffic in sight may have been the first or second hole in the cheese.

wrong traffic ?
Or could the circling approach from 01 to 33 also be a factor with the helo misinterpreting the CRJ flight path and somehow losing sight ? The track of both aircraft is interesting\x85 helo seems to initially be parallel to the river bank and turns 40 right. Why ? Was their destination the same airport or was that manoeuvre related to traffic avoidance or loss of visual ?

All guesswork I know\x85 putting Special VFR traffic so close to final approach traffic at night clearly a problem. Tragic.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Traffic in Sight 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.

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 11:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817135

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicolai

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.
).

That is part of the safety lectures' I gave ; in VFR ,using the see and avoid concept, the danger is not the one you see but the one you do not see and : : You can fly as safe as you want , the danger will come from someone else which does not ". .
Airliners cockpits are not designed for see and avoid.. not on daylight , so much worse at night where distance of lights is almost impossible to determine

Quote:

@ 172 Driver : I used to enjoy the free use of airspace in the US

yes me too but above Nevada , not under the Glideslope close to a runway of a major airport at night ..

Subjects See and Avoid Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

12 recorded likes for this post.

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

Flch250
January 30, 2025, 11:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817136

Visibility: Was perfect. It is remarkable that this same situation is permitted with (1) mile visibility.
Special VFR (and I bet it is done frequently at DCA).

This is the equivalent of Class G airspace I believe. My goodness.

Subjects DCA VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

Locked door
January 30, 2025, 11:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817145

The whole USA aviation sector needs root and branch reform, there have been so many near misses in recent years that this accident was inevitable, it was just a question of when.

The majority of people inside the system don\x92t realise how bad it is because it\x92s all they\x92ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it\x92s ok to switch to TA only to avoid \x93nuisance\x94 RA\x92s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it\x92s acceptable to \x93slam dunk\x94 a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.

I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.

On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.

Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.

Stay safe out there

LD

Subjects ATC Close Calls Land and Hold Short Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) TCAS RA Traffic in Sight VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

98 recorded likes for this post.

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

Jojobray
January 30, 2025, 13:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817227

Poignant truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked door

Sadly this is probably the most honest and accurate description of flying into the USA I\x92ve read in many years.

38 recorded likes for this post.

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

visibility3miles
January 30, 2025, 13:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817228

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upside Down

wrong traffic ?
Or could the circling approach from 01 to 33 also be a factor with the helo misinterpreting the CRJ flight path and somehow losing sight ? The track of both aircraft is interesting… helo seems to initially be parallel to the river bank and turns 40 right. Why ? Was their destination the same airport or was that manoeuvre related to traffic avoidance or loss of visual ?

All guesswork I know… putting Special VFR traffic so close to final approach traffic at night clearly a problem. Tragic.

The helicopter’s right turn was directly over a golf course, not a residential neighborhood. It was probably done for noise abatement reasons, because it then turned left and proceeded down more directly over the river.

The golf course is on a peninsula in the river, so the helicopter was flying over water before and after it made the two turns.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) VFR

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.

island_airphoto
January 30, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817231

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upside Down

Im not \x93familiar with DCA\x94 but from the Terminal Chart & discussion here it\x92s clear that the heli was following the transit route 4, which would be a normal activity. Though it\x92s also possible their plan was to leave route 4 & cross the river towards the airfield\x85.

I would expect the airliner not to have to take any avoiding action, as it\x92d be IFR on a standard arrival for RW33. I would expect ATC to inform them of the helicopter traffic below them on the east side of the river.
I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*. But as they\x92re in controlled airspace then they should have been warned (which apparently they were) about the arriving civil traffic.

If the helicopter was, indeed, following Route 4 then what led to the discrepancy in position & height is conjecture. Also why they confirmed traffic in sight yet still collided is conjecture (& It\x92s possible they had their own emergency)

*) does \x91Special VFR\x92 exist/ apply for \x91night VMC\x92 ops in US controlled airspace ? it\x92s a long time since my FAA/US flying days\x85\x85

I have flown into DCA many times at night and there was no special VFR, it was either IFR or VFR. The weather was clear, no one would have been calling for special VFR anyway.

Subjects ATC DCA IFR Route 4 Traffic in Sight 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.

ATC Watcher
January 30, 2025, 13:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817256

Quote:

Originally Posted by skippybangkok

have flown small planes at 900ft under the approach path at VTBS ( Bangkok ) with A380's going over the top of me. ATC was constantly on the mic making sure i understood clearly to stay below 1000 ft .

This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.

Quote:

@upsidedown L I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they\x92d I guess be flying \x91Special VFR\x92*

Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

Subjects ATC VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

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

PerPurumTonantes
January 30, 2025, 13:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817263

Waiting to happen

Heli route 4 is at or below 200ft if I read the chart correctly.

Approach traffic seems to be approx 400-500ft at this point.

Which turnip decided it would be OK to allow vertical separation of 300ft on a busy approach path? And allow it VFR at night?

This accident was baked in. Bound to happen at some point.

Subjects Route 4 Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

9 recorded likes for this post.

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

notwithstanding
January 30, 2025, 14:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817273

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 !

Subjects IFR See and Avoid VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

Upside Down
January 30, 2025, 14:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817285

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.

Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

yes apologies\x85 I\x92m mixing up \x93Special VFR\x94 with \x93VFR in Controlled Airspace\x94\x85. (it\x92s been a long time !).
my earlier point related to responsibility for separation\x85. and that the helo would be VFR (if following the low-level transit Route 4) and the airliner IFR. I was unsure if there was a special category for VFR at night\x85
apologies for sowing any confusion\x85\x85

Subjects ATC IFR Route 4 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.

SASless
January 30, 2025, 14:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817298

TCAS for the helicopter....hmmmmmm.....I am at 200 feet per the Routing Requirement.....would I suppose Airplanes might be above me even if on a conflicting flight path?

How much higher at a minimum should they be over the required flightpath for the Helicopter Low Level route (at that point I see it as being 200 feet AGL or below)

But indications seem to show the Helicopter not at the required height above ground....although that number has some doubts due to various reasons.

Do standard IAP Procedures by Airlines require use of Glide Slope information even when VFR.....which would make me ask the question what height the RJ should have been at at the point it collided with t he helicopter.

Was the RJ Crew using Glide Slope information as part of their VFR Approach procedure for the designated runway? The CVR will let us know that in time probably.

The other question is at what point would the RJ Crew have benefit of visual glide slope lighting for the RWY 33?

Any of you Airline Pilots care to address that issue and assess that for us.

Here is the Airport data for Reagan International that shows the Instrument Approaches that are available. Can one derive a reasonable height above ground for the collision point....and/or a distance from the Touchdown Point of RWY33 for comparison to what seems to be the height and distance from the TD point?

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA

Subjects TCAS (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.

ALTSELGREEN
January 30, 2025, 15:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817313

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked door

What a terrible, avoidable accident brought about by woefully inadequate procedures.
Couldn\x92t agree more with everything you say. I\x92m sure we have probably shared a flightdeck in years gone by judging by your experiences. It\x92s this kind of chaos that I have to say I miss very little!!

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.

Mozella
January 30, 2025, 15:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817324

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

But it's worse than that. The approaches to DCA are only moderately complicated; however, unlike most airports, DCA is surrounded with frustrated people just waiting to call the FAA if you deviate from the published procedure by the slightest amount. Nobody want's to do a rug-dance in the Chief Pilot's office because some Senator's aide gets his/her panties in a wad, or worse, get a violation from the FAA because you flew over someone working for the Secretary of Transportation. I always enjoyed flying in and out of DCA because it was challanging, but I was always on my toes, constantly checking my altitude, position (both visually and via instruments), airspeed, etc. because it is so easy to get your teat in the wringer at DCA.
In this case, the aircraft was flying an approach to one runway with a circle-to-land on RW-33. Ask any pilot; a circle to land in itself ups the work load. The margin for error of any kind at DCA is small and the 5200 foot runway isn't all that long. Even on a simple landing where none of these considerations are an issue, at some point the pilots reduce their "see and avoid" efforts and concentrate their efforts on achieving the proper line up and glide slope, rate of descent, aircraft configuration, flap setting, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the complicated routine required to safely land an airliner these days is already close to task overload even when things are going well. Add in the fact that it's night time at a very busy airport and looking out the window gets shoved pretty far down the "to do" list. But generally speaking, the system works because big busy airports pretty much operate using IFR rules and nearly all the aircraft are under close control. I other words, even on a crystal clear day under VFR flight conditions, someone is keeping a very close eye on the airliners coming and going from major airports. If a pilot makes a mistake and levels off at the wrong altitude, for example, there is a very good chance a controller will catch that error immediately even on a sunny VFR day. And that's a good thing because truth-be-told, when an airliner is seconds from touch down these days, there isn't much "see and avoid" going on. That's just the way it is.

But apparently DCA routinely has all sorts of helo traffic buzzing around under modified VFR flight rules. The pilots are talking to a controller but without being under the same sort of close control which is usually associated with how airliners operate. And they do that night and day, trusting the helo pilots to not make a mistake. But it looks like someone DID make a mistake last night and nobody caught it in time.

Subjects ATC Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) DCA FAA IFR Route 4 See and Avoid Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

clearedtocross
January 30, 2025, 15:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817334

When and where I learned to fly (and on each new rating, refresher and check ride) we had to prove that we knew airspace classification. DCA is listed as class B airspace (and special rules on top).

Quote:

Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.

That should apply worldwide, not just in EASA land.
It seems to be a US speciality that ATC can delegate the separation to aircrews (visually) and this at night! And how the hell can ATC separate vertically near the ground when mode S transponders report pressure altitude in steps of 100 feet only?
I dont know the rules of vertical separation by heart but its certainly not less than 500 feet for crossing paths. Is one last digit more or less a separation? This heli crew should have been told by ATC to hold until the aircraft(s) on final have safely passed. It's one of the benefits of a helicopter that it can hover.

Subjects ATC DCA Hover IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

Luc Lion
January 30, 2025, 17:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817417

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

which would make me ask the question what height the CRJ should have been at at the point it collided with t he helicopter.

Between 229 and 263 feet above runway TDZ whose altitude is 14 feet MSL, if the plane was spot on the visual glide slope indicated by the PAPI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

Was the CRJ Crew using Glide Slope information as part of their VFR Approach procedure for the designated runway?

Yes, there is a PAPI or VGSI (a set of lights on the ground near the TDZ whose colours indicate if the plane is on the glide slope).
I couldn't find any NOTAM that would have signaled a non-functioning PAPI and, in a clear night, any trained pilot would follow the PAPI indication out of force of habit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

The other question is at what point would the CRJ Crew have benefit of visual glide slope lighting for the RWY 33?

The circling approach for RW33 after an ILS RW01 follows more or less the same path as the RNAV approach for RW33 and the final segment of this RNAV approach is an Extended Visual Segment
starting at the Visual Guidance Fix (VGF) IDTEK which is overhead of the motorway I-295 (if I am not mistaken).
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the pilot would have aimed at passing overhead IDTEK at 490 feet MSL as specified in the RNAV procedure.
IDTEK is about at 1.4 nm or 8500 ft from the threshold or about 9600 ft from the TDZ.
With a published PAPI glideslope of 3.00\xb0, the glideslope path is at about 500 ft MSL at IDTEK

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

Can one derive a reasonable height above ground for the collision point....and/or a distance from the Touchdown Point of RWY33 for comparison to what seems to be the height and distance from the TD point?

Yes. The radar tracks show the collision above the eastern side of the river on the runway extended centerline. That makes the collision point between 1000 m and 1200 m from the threshold.
And the distance TDZ - threshold is about 330 m for this runway.
With some trigonometric calculation, you end up with a height between 229 and 263 feet above runway TDZ, under the assumption that the plane was spot on the glide.

Subjects CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Radar VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

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

fdr
January 30, 2025, 17:54:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817466

Quote:

Originally Posted by thparkth

Imagine being that ATC right now. As if yesterday wasn't horrific enough, the President of the USA is now on TV implying that the accident was directly your fault, and that you are a mentally-handicapped diversity hire.

For a minute there, I misread your post, and thought that Trump was the mentally handicapped diversity hire!

Hanging the ATCO on duty will not bring back the dead, and was not the cause of the problem. Having a civil aircraft flight path immediately overhead a LL RW VFR transit lane that guarantees that there is a loss of separation standards is what set this off, and that has been the case for decades. The crews, pax, ATC officers and families just happened to be the ones that got caught out by the insanity that permitted this track and procedure to exist.

Will Mr T go after the ATC guy? probably, the ATC officer doesn't own a kingdom, a corporation, in fact he is highly unlikely to have a DUI, and certainly won't be a convicted felon. So, I would rate the ATC guy as the convenient fall guy for the US Govt, the FAA who should not have permitted the operation of civil aircraft proximate to military LL traffic, and the US DOD, who will have signed off on the practice of disregarding minimum separation per \xa791.111. As far as right of way, the CRJ was landing, \xa791.113(g) applies, notwithstanding 91.113(d). The CRJ had every reasonable expectation of not sharing a cockpit on short finals to a short runway with crossing helo traffic.

IDTEK is 1.4nm from touchdown, 490' PA
the east bank of the river is half way to the runway, ~0.7nm, -> 245'+40' = 285'PA
the collision occurred around mid river, ~0.3-0.4nm from T/D, or 125+40=165'

How does a 200' transit height down the east side of the river overwater provide any reasonable separation for the guys who were unfortunate last night to be the graphic example of normalisation of deviation, by the US GOVT, FAA, and US DOD.

What is particularly annoying is that the generals and other command staff, and Secretaries of Transport, Defence etc are quite happy to cashier the F-18 pilots who do a slow flypast of an arena, or the T-38 instructors who do the same over some other game, and yet, what is the chance that any general takes responsibility for their part in this sorry state of affairs. responsibility like other stuff, only goes downwards,

Its pretty easy for the guy in charge to defame the ATCO.

Glass houses.

Subjects ATC ATCO CRJ FAA President Donald Trump Separation (ALL) VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

33 recorded likes for this post.

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

mahogany bob
January 30, 2025, 18:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817487

.Night VFR / visual avoidance is difficult - above a lighted city even more difficult
it is easy to become disorientated at night particularly when making turns.

.the circling approach to r/w 33 seems demanding and pitot lookout would be focused on the runway not peripheral traffic - turns prevent all round lookout protection .

. The helo pilots could have sighted other traffic or moving lights on the ground - things happen very fast.

as stated earlier this was an accident waiting to happen - allowing VFR traffic to pass that close to traffic on short finals is crazy

with reliable engines,modern glass cockpits and brilliant nav aids flying has become a whole lot safer - mid air collisions in VFR / VMC remain high risk especially at low level if TCAS is unreliable and when weather is marginal.

the human eyeball has it\x92s limitations

PS are ATC urgent instructions ever misunderstood or not received because of comm faffs or language / regional accent misunderstandings ?

Subjects ATC Accident Waiting to Happen Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) TCAS (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.

pax britanica
January 30, 2025, 20:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817610

I have flown in and out of DCA often and listening to the ATC recording , I am only a humble PAX but I think most people would find it alarming the amount of instructions that have to be issued to keep traffic flowing at DCA, Flying an approach to Rwy 1 and then skipping across to 33 so they can run a kind of pseudo parallel operation all mixed with VFR traffic in darkness , You can hear the strain/stress in the controllers voice as he tries to issue instructions to traffic that doesnt automatically deconflict . And thats without several seconds of the two incident aircraft head on to each other with 200 ft separation at less than 400 ft agl !!! Just tragic

Subjects ATC DCA 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 about: "VFR" [Posts: 141 Page: 1 of 8]¶