Posts about: "Visual Separation" [Posts: 250 Page: 2 of 13]

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last  Index Page

BFSGrad
January 30, 2025, 15:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817345
Observations after listening to the KDCA 134.35 audio file:

After LC provides CRJ at Wilson Bridge/1200ft/runway 33 traffic advisory, PAT25 requests visual separation, which LC immediately approves. This is several minutes prior to the collision.

LC is working at least 2 other helos in addition to PAT25.

PAT25 is responding to LC on VHF 134.35. LC is simultaneously transmitting on 119.1 and 134.35 so both PAT25 and the CRJ were hearing all LC transmissions but each was not hearing the others replies.

Immediately prior to the collision when the LC queries if PAT25 has the CRJ in sight and to pass behind the CRJ, the immediate response is “[unclear] has the aircraft in sight, request visual separation” to which the LC immediately responds “approved.” The voice sounded the same as earlier PAT25 transmissions. If so, the non-urgent tone of the reply would indicate that PAT25 had no indication that a collision was imminent and was likely looking at the wrong aircraft.






Subjects CRJ  Frequency 119.1  Frequency 134.35  KDCA  PAT25  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

5 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
hans brinker
January 30, 2025, 20:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817606
Originally Posted by Cloud Cutter
This could well be an example of why visual separation at night is not a good idea.
Couple of companies ago, we were allowed to do visuals in day VMC, but not night VMC, unless we could stay above MSA until established on the approach used to back up the visual. It is just too easy to not see things at night. Completely agree

Subjects 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.
henra
January 30, 2025, 20:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817621
Originally Posted by Luc Lion
Adding an additional slice of cheese in the sandwich is very easy: just state that when 2 tracking routes provide less than 500 ft of separation, then they are mutually exclusive.
This is the really puzzling part. Looking at the expected altitude of an approaching Airliner with a 3\xb0 G/S at the expected crossing point it would be at 250 ft +/-50 That leaves a mere 0-100ft to the helicopter route (and that is assuming the Helo path along the East side of the Potomac, if it deviates somewhat to the West the default altitude of the Airliner will drop below 200ft at the crossing). This is simply insane. You could count the number of bolts in the rotor head if everything goes according to plan. If not -well we saw that last night. How can this be allowed? What was the plan? Did ATC assume the Helo would duck under? At night over water? And visual separation in case of a circle to land -not a straight in- at night? Courageous. Note to self: Never take a flight into DCA.

Subjects ATC  Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)  DCA  Separation (ALL)  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.
MissChief
January 30, 2025, 20:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817632
Stop night visual separation in Class B airspace, and accidents such as this will not happen. Sure, other accidents might, but this one was and should be avoidable. Radar control is required.

Ideally in daytime ops too. Visual separation is hazardous in congested airspace at all times.

Subjects Radar  Separation (ALL)  Visual 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.
C0ir3all
January 30, 2025, 21:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817657
Originally Posted by Fonsini
Visual separation at night and LAHSO need to go. It\x92s that simple.
Originally Posted by dervish
Having listened to the 8 minute audio clip linked earlier, it never ceases to amaze me how aircrew and ATCOs manage to understand each other. I got maybe 5% of what was said. Too quick, no diction.
RIP
so so right. As well as rubbish procedures, the speed of conversation and lack of pauses for responding is disastrous, US ATC needs a whole review from top to bottom.

Subjects ATC  Land and Hold Short  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

8 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
digits_
January 30, 2025, 23:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817762
Assuming the youtube clips are accurate, why did ATC tell the helicopter to pass behind a CRJ when both aircraft were approaching each other head on? How would that even work?

And as stated by other people earlier, but it bears repeating, at night you're *never* sure what traffic you are seeing. Even during the day it's extremely hard to differentiate between different aircraft types. At night *everyone* is guessing that the light blob they see is a CRJ or a 737 or even a PC12 or a C172. Visual separation only works when it's not necessary: in low traffic areas.

And to deviate a little bit, I'm afraid the next incident will involve landing clearances to runways that are not clear at all.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  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.
Pearly White
January 30, 2025, 23:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817772
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Unlikely that one I would say because he was cleared to go behind, ,, it would then have to make a sharp left urn then , not a slight right one ..as it looks like he did on he FR24 track.
If the UH60 pilot was, in fact, maintaining visual separation from the CRJ as claimed, none of us would be here discussing this.

The real problem here is expecting one pilot to be responsible for visual separation (at any time, but especially at night). At what point do we agree to release ATC from the responsibility of keeping us separated by sufficient margins? I know a miss is as good as a mile but if I've got a bunch of people sitting behind me, I'd prefer 500/1000 feet just to be on the safe side thanks.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  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.
Easy Street
January 31, 2025, 00:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817798
Originally Posted by jumpseater
I am wondering the same thing, in the UK/EU unless the IFR crew specifically cancels their IFR plan with ATC, (it can be done immediately on frequency), IFR separation requirements still apply.

In the US does an agreement to make a visual approach regardless of airspace classification, cancel IFR separation requirements for the ATCO?

No, a visual approach started under IFR remains under IFR unless IFR is explicitly cancelled.

However, note that the airspace class at major US airports is B (rarely used elsewhere). Cancelling IFR in Class B does not relieve ATC of separation responsibility because VFR flights must still be separated from all other flights ( VFR separation standards here ). Separation responsibility only transfers to a pilot when they accept ' visual separation ' and the controller must continue giving separation instructions until that point. Aircraft can be given 'visual separation' against other aircraft, including IFR aircraft as happened here, without the other aircraft needing to have the traffic in sight. The controller must advise the other aircraft that visual separation is being applied if the flight paths are converging .

None of that is necessarily a problem.

The problem is reliance on visual separation at night. The ease with which the eye is drawn to bright lights (which may not be the lights of interest) and inability to perceive depth and distance from a point source of light (made worse by NVG) make it a high risk activity even between combat aircraft. To permit it to be relied upon for protection of airline traffic is madness.





Last edited by Easy Street; 31st January 2025 at 01:14 .

Subjects ATC  ATCO  IFR  Night Vision Goggles (NVG)  Separation (ALL)  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.

7 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
paperHanger
January 31, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817845
Originally Posted by LessThanSte
Seems baffling that this could happen in such a tight controlled environment...
​​
It is not a tightly controlled environment. It should be, but it clearly isn't. The helicopter was allowed to cross through the approach path, while accepting a visual separation, to route at his/her discretion to pass clear of the CRJ. This would never happen in most other countries in the day, let alone at night where identifying other aircraft agaisnt a backdrop of a brightly lit city skyline is close to impossible. The helicopter should have been vectored by ATC to be exactly where they wanted him, when they wanted him. Asking him to visually identify traffic and choose a route around it is just asking for trouble. Whoever designed a helicopter low level corridor that passed through the approach path of a major international airport also needs a psych exam.

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Separation (ALL)  Visual 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.
Ollie Onion
January 31, 2025, 02:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817852
It seems pretty clear what happened. The helicopter crew had confirmed they had the CRJ in sight and were happy to remain clear and pass behind. The ATC cleared them to maintain visual separation, the helicopter turned right as presumably this put them on the shortest course to where they wanted to go. At this point the ATC has NO further responsibility for separation, that is now the SOLE responsibility of the helicopter crew who accepted it. Clearly they did not have the CRJ in sight, what they were looking at will only ever be conjecture. Visual separation at night in such a busy piece of airspace is clearly a ridiculous procedure..... but it is a procedure that can currently be used. The ATC did nothing wrong, the CRJ crew did nothing wrong and more than likely the helicopter crew PROBABLY didn't do anything g wrong on purpose, there was o ly one airaft though out of place, a situation ONLY possible through an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure. My airline doesn't allow visual separation either day or night and only allows visual approaches by day, why be GA in Jets with paying passengers?

Subjects ATC  CRJ  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
artee
January 31, 2025, 03:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817877
Originally Posted by dr dre
TWR gives AA5342 as traffic to the helicopter, stating they are over the Woodrow (Wilson) bridge, however the helicopter crew keeps flying into the final approach path of R33. 40 seconds later TWR again asks if they have the “CRJ” in sight, and they reply they have, but at this point the CRJ is less than 200’ above them and only 0.5nm away. At the same time the following aircraft on approach to R01, an AA A319 on flight 3130, is above the Woodrow Bridge on finals. Possibly the helicopter crew at some point confused the A319 for the CRJ.

The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
SLF here, so please don't shout.

It doesn't seem "fair" for aircraft like the CRJ, that in busy, complex airspace, another aircraft can request and receive VFR, meaning in broad terms, they're outside of ATC's guardrails. CRJ now have an aircraft in the vicinity that isn't being controlled by ATC.

Doesn't seem like a good process to an outsider.

Subjects AA5342  ATC  CRJ  Separation (ALL)  VFR  Visual Separation

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.
EpsilonVaz
January 31, 2025, 04:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817911
Originally Posted by dr dre
No to wasn\x92t fair on the CRJ, especially considering they were concentrating on aligning with finals very close to the runway, and ensuring correct path and touchdown point for a relatively short runway, whilst at the same time a flight was cleared for takeoff on the intersecting R01 (AA1630) whilst 5342 was descending through 700\x92. So probable the 5342 crew ahead the main focus of keeping their flight path and tracking correct for the close in turn to final, and secondary focus of ensuring there wasn\x92t going to be a conflict with the departing R01 traffic crossing through the intersection.

I think the 5342 crew probably discounted the risk of the helicopter as a threat as they heard the helo was maintaining visual separation and they had to concentrate on flying and the risk of conflict with departing traffic.

You are quite right this is a very bad process and a very bad system that has now ended in tragedy.

And the US is the only place where this happens as a matter of routine. Take a look at Europe and see how separation is much more strictly applied.

Subjects CRJ  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.
WideScreen
January 31, 2025, 04:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817916
Originally Posted by dr dre
TWR gives AA5342 as traffic to the helicopter, stating they are over the Woodrow (Wilson) bridge, however the helicopter crew keeps flying into the final approach path of R33. 40 seconds later TWR again asks if they have the “CRJ” in sight, and they reply they have, but at this point the CRJ is less than 200’ above them and only 0.5nm away. At the same time the following aircraft on approach to R01, an AA A319 on flight 3130, is above the Woodrow Bridge on finals. Possibly the helicopter crew at some point confused the A319 for the CRJ.

The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
The whole mechanism of "aircraft in sight" no longer works, when the airspace is crowded: "Which aircraft are you supposed to have in sight" ???????

Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
It seems pretty clear what happened. The helicopter crew had confirmed they had the CRJ in sight and were happy to remain clear and pass behind. The ATC cleared them to maintain visual separation, the helicopter turned right as presumably this put them on the shortest course to where they wanted to go. At this point the ATC has NO further responsibility for separation, that is now the SOLE responsibility of the helicopter crew who accepted it. Clearly they did not have the CRJ in sight, what they were looking at will only ever be conjecture. Visual separation at night in such a busy piece of airspace is clearly a ridiculous procedure..... but it is a procedure that can currently be used. The ATC did nothing wrong, the CRJ crew did nothing wrong and more than likely the helicopter crew PROBABLY didn't do anything g wrong on purpose, there was o ly one airaft though out of place, a situation ONLY possible through an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure. My airline doesn't allow visual separation either day or night and only allows visual approaches by day, why be GA in Jets with paying passengers?
Yep, the system in place just does not work once the airspace becomes crowded, "IE which airplane are you supposed to have in sight" ?

With only one other airplane, it's clear, with more than 1, it becomes a gamble.


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
This has been “litigated” before on PPRUNE. In the US, there is NO Missed Approach Procedure.

AIM 5-4-23

e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
For VFR there is a missed approach procedure: Back into the circuit. Which will be a bit hairy, when the "miss" happens (long) before reaching the runway. Depending on the aircraft type, 2 circuit types may be defined: A small one for slow stuff and a large one for the bigger ones. And as usual with VFR traffic, ATC or self-communication is needed to pick the moment of the next landing attempt.

One can discuss whether this is a procedure or not, though there is at least "something".

Subjects AA5342  ATC  CRJ  IFR  Pass Behind  Pass Behind (All)  Separation (ALL)  VFR  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.
Chesty Morgan
January 31, 2025, 08:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818003
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.

Subjects PAT25  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.
xetroV
January 31, 2025, 09:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818020
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
But blame is not what we\x92re searching for in accident investigations.

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

11 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
BearForce One
January 31, 2025, 09:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818039
Originally Posted by canigida
I'm hearing a lot of uninformed people saying 'this was an accident waiting to happen' - well, no it wasn't. Not unless you think all the other helo corridors like Hudson River are. It's a hectic place but no deathtrap. a lot of non-PP nonsense here.
Funny, I\x92m hearing a lot of professional pilots here say exactly that, one way or another.

I don\x92t like saying this, but reading your posts, my gut feeling is you may be part of the problem.

It\x92s well-known that modern airliners are specifically designed to be flown safely by the average pilot, not the cream. If ATC procedures aren\x92t designed and operated in a similar vein, does it need, a) a professional pilot to infer increased risk, or b) plain common sense?

I would much rather be on the flight that refuses to accept a night visual separation than hope my pilot is above average. Why?

Because hope is a poor hedge (if you like gambling analogies).

Subjects ATC  Accident Waiting to Happen  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ATC Watcher
January 31, 2025, 10:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818059
Originally Posted by nonsense
"Do you see the traffic?" invites the pilot to confirm "yes" if they see something plausible.
It encourages confirmation bias; "I see something so it must be what I'm being told to see".
"Do you see the CRJ" invites the helicopter pilot to find something out there in the dark, which might or might not even be *a* CRJ in the dark, never mind the right CRJ, then feel he's now identified the threat. It invites him to concentrate on one threat and fail so see others.
Excellent remark . Unfortunately this how TWR controllers are being instructed in academies to do visual separation. In my (old) days visual separation was an exception, today in the US it is a standard method of working to enable more traffic in the system that the standard rules would allow.

Subjects CRJ  Separation (ALL)  Visual 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.
Stringy
January 31, 2025, 10:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818060
I'm worried about the potential politicisation of any subsequent inquiry into this terrible incident, especially in the current US political climate. So many things lined up for this to go wrong, and the investigation needs to go hammer and tongs at all of them and not scapegoat one individual thing or oversimplify. Things like:
- A nationwide over-reliance on visual separation with commercial passenger traffic
- US exceptionalism regarding how brilliant they are (how many times in the last 24 hours have you heard someone rabbit on about how the USA has the safest aviation in the world...) the inquiry needs to tear this to shreds.
- An ATM system running beyond capacity
- Deference to government and military (both in general life and aviation)

I have little to no hope that in the current political climate a review will be held with enough freedom to do all of the work it needs to.

SIr Charles Haddon-Cave QC said it best in the Nimrod Review, the independent review into the loss of RAF Nimrod XV230. The damning review into UK military aviation safety was simply titled:

"A failure of leadership, culture and priorities"

Subjects Separation (ALL)  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.
Final 3 Greens
January 31, 2025, 10:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818061
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.

Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
For direct cause, I would agree. However, IMO, one needs to look into the system of root causes that enabled the direct cause to occur, to learn lessons and take meaningful action.

Others, far more qualified than me, have already described these root causes.


Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

8 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
henra
January 31, 2025, 10:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818073
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
PAT25 twice asks for, and is given, visual separation.
Seems pretty obvious where the blame lies.
Are you sure that makes for a good strategy to prevent future re- occurrence?

Subjects PAT25  Separation (ALL)  Visual Separation

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

5 recorded likes for this post.

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

Page Links: First  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last  Index Page