nojwod
February 01, 2025, 11:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818951

Quote:

Originally Posted by clearedtocross

According to CNN, the crash was waiting to happen.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/30/u...nvs/index.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesideoops

Captain Steeve has a good analyis and probably quite close to what actually happened. I agree with the comment on the video that at the point which PAT25 initially requests visual separation and confirms traffic in sight, it looks like the AA5324 CRJ had already commenced right turn for circling approach at which point the brightest landing lights would be the aircraft behind as AA5324s would no longer be pointing directly at the helicopter. The brightest landing light is now the No.2 traffic which PAT25 identifies as their traffic and will probably now be fixated on due to confirmation bias. Terribly tragic and could happen to any pilot at night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfgllf1L9_4

If they were using NVG as speculated, the failure to see the landing lights of the approaching aircraft might be explained by a scenario where :

Crew mistakenly identified the following aircraft, either with NVG on or temporarily off. Happy with the separation, the NGV gear goes back on and with the limited field of view from the goggles, focused ahead and down as visual flight demands, the landing lights, so bright in the videos, were just never seen, but without the goggles the peripheral vision of the crew might have had some warning.

Subjects CNN CRJ Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Night Vision Goggles (NVG) PAT25 Separation (ALL) Traffic in Sight 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.

MarkD
February 01, 2025, 14:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819042

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

Actually ATC asked the Helicopter twice if they had the CRJ visual about 40 seconds apart, both times the helicopter replied yes, and the helicopter crew, not ATC, asked to maintain visual separation.

It may be a military discipline of responding quickly and pushing your needs forward, but it gives an impression of \x93if we give ATC time to decide, they may tell us to orbit rather than be the ones who assume the risk\x94

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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Lascaille
February 01, 2025, 14:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819056

Quote:

Originally Posted by YRP

Many of the liveatc.net feeds do in fact monitor more than one frequency. So there are overlaps and missed traffic.

That’s why using their recordings leads to comments on pprune that the controller was cut off or didn’t say something or the aircraft didn’t acknowledge. It can be just the scanner not picking it up, because it focuses on one transmission at a time.

That’s not to comment on whether they had VHF or not.

I guess - as the culprit here - I should clarify that I was wrong; both the VASAviation youtube video and the LiveATC recordings were two different radio channels spliced together, the helo was transmitting on a separate frequency.

The tower was transmitting on both frequencies - I believe - simultaneously.

So the CRJ would have heard only the tower's transmissions to the helo ('visual separation approved' x 2) and not the helo's transmissions.

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.

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

YRP
February 01, 2025, 14:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819062

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan

Talk of it being difficult to pick out aircraft nav lights is a red herring. The heli was, initially, several hundred feet below the CRJ and should have been able to easily see the lights against the night sky.

Blaming the airspace design is also a non starter. Are we really going to say that just because the airspace is poorly designed then I'm just going to fly in to that regional jet over there?

First rule of airmanship anyone? Keep a good lookout. Seems like the helicopter crew failed to do so having been given their requested visual separation. Should have had eyes on stalks.

Absolutely on the lookout.

No the airspace does not take the blame. Apparently the hello pilots missed the lookout. And the controller could have been clearer, instead of \x93still in sight?\x94 perhaps \x93the RJ is now 1/2 mile 10 o\x92clock, confirm you have him?\x94.

(not criticizing him, guessing that he saw them closer than expected, was concerned, and made a very quick call)

But the airspace & procedure seems to not tolerate mistakes. There ought to be some safety margin. While not the primary fault, it could be improved.

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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

YRP
February 01, 2025, 14:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819074

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

Wasn\x92t intending to criticize, just offer the explanation.

It is not always understood on pprune (and again not you, mostly casual posters) that liveatc.net is just hobbyist / enthusiast stuff. It\x92s not reliable. The antenna placement is often poor, so some transmission sounds bad.

Same with using ads-b data from various sources and plotting tracks. Sometimes it is meaningful and sometimes the position is way too undersampled.

And don\x92t get me started on taking derivatives / differences on noisy undersampled signals to get things like wow look at that vertical speed here.

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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

jumpseater
February 01, 2025, 19:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

With what we know from the liveatc and Vas recordings if those are \x93complete\x94 if both aircraft had been on the same frequency I doubt it would have made a material difference. LC asks Pat25 if they\x92re visual with the CRJ, PAt confirms and is approved visual separation crossing of the approach. CRJ would have heard and thought ok he\x92s seen us we\x92re clear. That would likely have been reinforced with the second confirmation that Pat was visual with them.

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.

1 recorded likes for this post.

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

Denflnt
February 02, 2025, 00:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819398

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

The CRJ were asked by ATC if they were able to accept an approach onto R33, they replied they could. They were well within their rights to refuse it, apparently one of the previous aircraft ahead of them had refused a request to to switch to R33.

If they had held the Helo short of the runway approach until enough radar separation to cross the approach path was available the Helo would have been orbiting for hours. When the helicopter crew confirmed they had the aircraft in sight they accepted responsibility they had identified the correct aircraft and could remain visual with it as they they crossed the approach path. If they had any doubt to this they should have stated so.

ATC intended for the helicopter to pass behind that CRJ not below it.

Actually ATC asked the Helicopter twice if they had the CRJ visual about 40 seconds apart, both times the helicopter replied yes, and the helicopter crew, not ATC, asked to maintain visual separation.

Yes, the CRJ could have not accepted ATC's request to divert to 33. They would have then been set to go around to set up again for Runway 1, the usual runway.

ATC put the CRJ on an intersecting runway, which added complexity to the pattern picture. The helo would have only had to hold for a short time to wait for the CRJ that was diverted to a runway not normally used for commercial air carriers.

Knowing that, they asked the helo to maintain visual separation, placing everything on that crew to see and avoid the CRJ. I have read that they didn't even tell them where to actually look to see the traffic, no bearing, no altitude. The helo likely saw traffic, just not where they were supposed to look. There were plenty incoming and departing Runway 1, which is why the CRJ was asked to divert. Add to that, both aircraft were low and operating over an urban area at night where it is difficult to see other aircraft. Worse even if the helo crew was using NVG.

ATC should have held the helo short, waiting for an unusual approach to a runway not used normally, so to let the CRJ pass. The CRJ crew was already saturated in tasks at the time I have not hear ATC asking them to look out for the helo.

IMO, ATC created a "single point of failure" relying on the helo to see and avoid the CRJ. Had they held the helo, and helos can hover, for even a minute, this doesn't happen. ATC's main purpose is to keep aircraft from occupying the same place at the same time. In this case, they didn't.

I am sure that the helo pilots made]mistakes. But, this appears to be a massive failure of ATC.

Last edited by Denflnt; 2nd February 2025 at 00:46 .

Subjects ATC CRJ Hover Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Radar See and Avoid 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.

Denflnt
February 02, 2025, 00:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819402

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRviator

You mean, like an aircraft (who themselves requested visual separation) assigned responsibility for separating itself from another, to actually seperate itself from the other and not fly into it?!?

Everything else is moot, really...

There is a reason for redundancy.

Have we learned nothing since PSA Flight 182? And that was in daylight.

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.

photonclock
February 02, 2025, 00:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819407

Just finished watching the NTSB briefing, which stated that the CRJ was at 325 feet AGL, and helicopter max allowed altitude is 200 feet.

Assuming the CRJ was at an expected/typical altitude at that point in it's approach, if the helicopter was at 200 feet, or lets say for their benefit 175 feet, then they would have avoided collision by a mere 150 feet of vertical separation if everything else about the position of the two aircraft remained the same.

Is 125 feet of vertical separation (with no horizontal separation) considered acceptable?

If the CRJ movement is controlled by ATC, and the helicopter is responsible for avoiding all other aircraft, then there is no question the helicopter was at fault here as the primary cause, and ATC as the secondary.

Given the collision course these aircraft were clearly on, why wouldn't ATC have diverted one of them prior to impact? Does ATC have any reason to believe that the helicopter sees everything with the same degree of detail and accuracy as ATC? This is not a sarcastic question. I'm genuinely curious. Would ATC, hearing the helicopter twice affirming visual separation, have had any plausible reason to doubt that the helicopter was unaware of the impending collision?

What's the point of having Air Traffic "Control"...if they're not actually in control?

Subjects ATC CRJ NTSB Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation 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.

Denflnt
February 02, 2025, 00:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819416

Quote:

Originally Posted by photonclock

125'? God no.

The helo should have been told to hold some half mile away and wait for crossing traffic to clear.

The NTSB is going to have a field day with the FAA on this.

Subjects ATC CRJ FAA NTSB Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation Visual Separation

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.

YRP
February 02, 2025, 01:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819443

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc698

A red collision alert was flashing at this point on the controllers screen, the instruction should\x92ve been for the CRJ to go around, not wasting time on the helicopter pilots.

Secondly, why shouldn\x92t we criticise the controller? Imho his actions need to be criticised. Not the individual but the environment, procedures and training he operated in. The mission of ATC is to prevent exactly this from happening and they failed in their mission.

It is Conflict Alert not Collision Alert. It notifies the controller that two targets might get close, in case they weren\x92t aware.

It would happen all the time with visual separation. It\x92s nothing like the RA must-follow-without-question alert. Issuing a go around would often be the exact wrong thing to do.

In this case the controller was aware they were close.

The accepted procedures look like quite likely the culprit here. They seem to allow a single mistake (misidentifying visual traffic) to become catastrophic.

The controller\x85 he\x92s required to use the accepted procedures. If the procedure after safety analysis is to allow helicopters to visually separate from jets, he can\x92t just say not on his shift. He can double check of course, and imho that\x92s what his \x93still got \x91em in sight\x94 call was about, since it clearly concerned him.

Anyway my point about not criticizing him was just that my post was not intended that way. I don\x92t have access to listen to the full conversation. If you do, then go ahead.

And certainly the environment/procedures/etc are all in question here.

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.

gretzky99
February 02, 2025, 03:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819475

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it.

I agree completely.

It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.

Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worst of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".

Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 03:24 .

Subjects ATC 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.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 03:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819484

Quote:

Originally Posted by gretzky99

I agree completely.

It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.

Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worse of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".

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.

All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200\x92 in 2023 due to noise complaints.

Subjects ATC DCA FAA 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.

fdr
February 02, 2025, 03:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819485

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake1952

Dozens of posts back, I asked the question that many recent posts have been keying on... if everyone was where they were supposed to be, they would have passed one over the other with 150 feet of separation! In what world is that OK?

FAA Order JO 7110.65AA - Air Traffic Control

7.9.4 SEPARATION
a. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
b. VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft/ helicopter/rotorcraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
1. 1 \xbd miles separation, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
3. Visual separation, as specified in paragraph 7-2-1 , Visual Separation, paragraph 7-4-2 , Vectors for Visual Approach, and paragraph 7-6-7 , Sequencing.

7.2.1 VISUAL SEPARATION
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.

Subjects FAA IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Vertical Separation 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.

aox
February 02, 2025, 03:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819492

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

I was reading the reaction of some posters, almost certainly Americans, to the Lufthansa SFO incident where they refused a visual approach, on the thread for that incident on this forum and some other aviation forums:

You really cannot expect to operate into a busy US airport with that sort of restriction.

Lufthansa and all their daughter airlines still uses SOPs born in the 60s, it's godawful.

This whole thing is just ignorant on the part of LH. The SFO ATC is busy and can\x92t baby these unnecessary special requests

I get the no visual approaches at night policy but the no visual separation from other aircraft at night is asinine. Keeping visual from other a/c is easier at night cause of all the blinky stuff.

The answer is if Lufthansa are unable to comply with local procedures then SFO should initiate an approach ban on operators who cannot comply or withdraw their operating permit.

There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it.

Spotting the blinky stuff ahead is one thing, especially all going in the same direction on approach

However this incident is crossing or converging traffic

People outside aviation, such as Donald Trump as quoted, don't understand that the helicopter is not looking straight ahead at the airliner in the centre of its view for several seconds. Other people think that the other moving across the field of view should make it easier to notice.

But neither is true. One possibility that represents a collision risk is the one a bit out to one side that keeps the same relative direction in the view of the other, just getting bigger

From pictures I found, this helicopter type seems to have four vertical bars in the frame of the front screen, two at the edges, two nearer the middle. So it might be possible for a collision risk aircraft to be hidden behind one of these for some time

Subjects ATC President Donald Trump Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

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.

island_airphoto
February 02, 2025, 03:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819493

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

I’m 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’ve gone 16 years without a fatal US carrier major accident, which isn’t 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.

All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won’t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.

The area is extraordinarily sensitive to noise complaints. I muffed a landing at KVKX just a few miles away after the takeoff curfew and someone called the cops on me for going around and I got a bit annoyed with them and told them they weren't the air police.
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams.
* IMHO they need the dedicated helicopter controller on at ALL times the helicopters are flying and they need to be held for crossing traffic. They also all need ADS-B, no private pilot that wasn't totally skint would be running around with the lack of situational awareness the helos seem to have in an area like that.

Subjects ADSB (All) ATC DCA FAA IFR 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.

photonclock
February 02, 2025, 05:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819528

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

ATC didn't "allow it".
The procedures allowed the controller to hand responsibility for separation to the helo pilot,

Well, that's interesting. You seem to be saying that "the system" worked as designed? FDR notes immediately before your reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdr

7.2.1 VISUAL SEPARATION
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.

Did ATC do all of that? Having listened to the ATC comms (including the UHF) a few times, I believe they did, for the most part? They mentioned CRJ (of what use is mentioning the type at night, I have no idea, but they did), they mentioned where it was and where it was headed, and they received two acknowledgments...

So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?

These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.

So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?

That's not good.

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.

2 recorded likes for this post.

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

BuzzBox
February 02, 2025, 06:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819535

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

The procedures effectively abdicate separation responsibility to a single point of failure, where failure is not unlikely and, as a consequence of the airspace design, failure results in high probabilities of collision.

The difficulties of identifying a specific aircraft, at night, in a background of stationary and moving lights, when moving objects on a collision course will always appear stationary to each other, are well known, as are the probabilities of mis-identification. The airspace design 'squeezes' inbound aircraft and transiting helicopters to practicality the same altitude, when instrument and other tolerances are taken into consideration.

Absolutely, and it will be very interesting to see what the NTSB has to say about the "rules" and if the FAA does anything to change those rules. Pilot-applied visual separation is common at airports all over the US, day and night. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before a tragedy occurred, for the reasons you mentioned.

Subjects FAA NTSB 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.

ATC Watcher
February 02, 2025, 09:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819621

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service......... Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.
.

and from island air photo :

Quote:

And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams

Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .

Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.

I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .

Subjects FAA IFR Land and Hold Short NTSB Separation (ALL) Visual 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.

Easy Street
February 02, 2025, 10:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819666

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service ... Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.

... The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently.

I think your predictions are good ones. Underlying them is the idea that while the extra airspace capacity afforded by visual separation at night may come at the price of occasional accidents such as this, that price is worth paying for passenger, government and economic benefit. Those kind of ideas don't tend to be well received or understoood by the public, or by extension by elected representatives, so a prediction of my own: every single agency and authority involved will go out of its way to avoid acknowledging that idea, and instead will pretend that visual separation at night is a fundamentally sound practice let down by poor procedure design and/or ATC at DCA.

[I think of the Austin investigation, which did not even mention, let alone question the practice of issuing runway clearances to multiple aircraft at the same time, which IMHO is the root cause of most of the recent near misses.]

Last edited by Easy Street; 2nd February 2025 at 10:50 .

Subjects ATC Close Calls DCA FAA 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.

Posts about: "Visual Separation" [Posts: 250 Page: 4 of 13]¶

FAA Order JO 7110.65AA - Air Traffic Control