Midair at DCA

[CpnCrunch]

Has it occurred to anyone that sometimes, accidents happen despite everyone involved being qualified, competent, proficient, recent and having acted professionally within the boundaries of their Rules and SOPs?

PAT 25 was flying using NVGs.

TBH it seems inconceivable to have a midair at night in VMC. You can see all traffic very easily for 10+ miles, and these days you can see all aircraft with callsigns on traffic display. This is flying equipment much less sophisticated than either of these two aircraft.

If NVGs makes it more difficult to see traffic at night, then maybe that kind of defeats the point.

[khedrei]

Has it occurred to anyone that sometimes, accidents happen despite everyone involved being qualified, competent, proficient, recent and having acted professionally within the boundaries of their Rules and SOPs?

PAT 25 was flying using NVGs.

TBH it seems inconceivable to have a midair at night in VMC. You can see all traffic very easily for 10+ miles, and these days you can see all aircraft with callsigns on traffic display. This is flying equipment much less sophisticated than either of these two aircraft.

If NVGs makes it more difficult to see traffic at night, then maybe that kind of defeats the point.

I could be alone in this, and I've flown a lot at night, but I find it harder to see traffic at night when the backdrop is a city of lights. I could only imagine how much worse that is at 200 ft.

[OneYonge]

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

Because saying “it’s on final, go behind them” isn’t good enough?

Your complaint is they were not given vectors? Are you telling us you’d crash too if you were given only those instructions?

If you listen to the radio, the blackhawk requested their own visual separation.

[OneYonge]

At the end of the day an IFR and VFR traffic collided in class B airspace. How is that not a violation of procedures? Would giving the blackhawk a heading/vector have been a violation of the current procedures? If not, why was that not given?

Listen to the audio. The blackhawk pilots themselves requested visual separation.

ATC stops giving you vectors when you say you can see the traffic. There is nothing odd about that at all.

They just tell you your sequence.

Would you yourself cut in front of an aircraft on short final after you were just told to go behind them….and then blame ATC for not giving you a vector, which you did not request?

[digits_]

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

Because saying “it’s on final, go behind them” isn’t good enough?

Your complaint is they were not given vectors? Are you telling us you’d crash too if you were given only those instructions?

If you listen to the radio, the blackhawk requested their own visual separation.

The moment they were given the "pass behind traffic" they were still approaching head on. That's already a bit unusual. And no, I wouldn't crash into traffic intentionally. But if I am told to pass behind traffic and am then flying in a direction that doesn't make sense, I would hope that ATC would step in and give me a heading in case I was looking at the wrong traffic.

Is that really such a controversial opinion?

[CpnCrunch]

I could be alone in this, and I've flown a lot at night, but I find it harder to see traffic at night when the backdrop is a city of lights. I could only imagine how much worse that is at 200 ft.

Yes, that is true...it can sometimes be tricky seeing aircraft on approach. However, even then, when you have a traffic display it's no problem maintaining separation even if you can't see the traffic yet.

[OneYonge]

The moment they were given the "pass behind traffic" they were still approaching head on. That's already a bit unusual. And no, I wouldn't crash into traffic intentionally. But if I am told to pass behind traffic and am then flying in a direction that doesn't make sense, I would hope that ATC would step in and give me a heading in case I was looking at the wrong traffic.

Is that really such a controversial opinion?

You really should listen to the audio.

The “pass behind traffic” was them stepping in and requesting you to change direction.

Do you really expect ATC on a class B airspace to plan for you to look at the wrong airplane?

You could just as well be looking at your heading indicator and a hundred different things the wrong way.

Visual separation is there to reduce their workload.

There’s an aircraft lined for departure, and another one landing right behind, so how much hand-holding do you expect them to do for training flights?

[khedrei]

The moment they were given the "pass behind traffic" they were still approaching head on. That's already a bit unusual. And no, I wouldn't crash into traffic intentionally. But if I am told to pass behind traffic and am then flying in a direction that doesn't make sense, I would hope that ATC would step in and give me a heading in case I was looking at the wrong traffic.

Is that really such a controversial opinion?

You really should listen to the audio.

The “pass behind traffic” was them stepping in and requesting you to change direction.

Do you really expect ATC on a class B airspace to plan for you to look at the wrong airplane?

You could just as well be looking at your heading indicator and a hundred different things the wrong way.

Visual separation is there to reduce their workload.

There’s an aircraft lined for departure, and another one landing right behind, so how much hand-holding do you expect them to do for training flights?

He expects them to do it all. Like he said, they are partly at fault and could have done more. It's not enough that they did their job. They should have been psychic too.

[digits_]

The moment they were given the "pass behind traffic" they were still approaching head on. That's already a bit unusual. And no, I wouldn't crash into traffic intentionally. But if I am told to pass behind traffic and am then flying in a direction that doesn't make sense, I would hope that ATC would step in and give me a heading in case I was looking at the wrong traffic.

Is that really such a controversial opinion?

You really should listen to the audio.

The “pass behind traffic” was them stepping in and requesting you to change direction.

Do you really expect ATC on a class B airspace to plan for you to look at the wrong airplane?

You could just as well be looking at your heading indicator and a hundred different things the wrong way.

Visual separation is there to reduce their workload.

There’s an aircraft lined for departure, and another one landing right behind, so how much hand-holding do you expect them to do for training flights?

As much hand-holding as necessary. And yes, as an IFR traffic in class B bloody airspace I absolutely expect ATC to keep me clear of any traffic. If that can't be achieved for IFR traffic in class B airspace then what's the point of the whole thing???

[Sulako]

Most obvious DEI crash in quite some time. Liberals be like sometimes accidents just happen.

//takes mod hat off for a moment.

Not the smartest take I've seen on this. By "DEI" you mean the dogwhistle that because a woman was one of the crewmembers on board the helicopter, without some special policy she wouldn't have been there, and also that she was the cause of the accident. That's just sad cringe, and it needs to be called out for what it is. In addition, assigning blame before even the interim report has come out is unprofessional, lowbrow and speaks to the character of the person doing the blaming.

Also, that somehow 'liberals' were at fault. Trump literally disbanded the Aviation Security Advisory Committee on his second day in office, and there will be a price to be paid for that down the road.

You can do better. Enjoy your day, and safe flights. There but for the grace...

[pdw]

… I find it harder to see traffic at night when the backdrop is a city of lights. I could only imagine how much worse that is at 200 ft.

From the usual 200ft vantage, any 300ft traffic is obvious (upward angle of view/dark backdrop even over city lights) when a mile or two away. That’s why (not 200 and with a right crab) I thought they might have instead fixated the three mile final rwy 10 traffic’s landing light straight ahead (on the crab heading shining right at them) right over the middle of the river thereby not-seeing the immediate traffic then over city lights far off to the left-of-view … again because of that significant right crab angle of a strong right component in that hour. The high winds were associated with a rapid rise in pressure.

[rookiepilot]

The moment they were given the "pass behind traffic" they were still approaching head on. That's already a bit unusual. And no, I wouldn't crash into traffic intentionally. But if I am told to pass behind traffic and am then flying in a direction that doesn't make sense, I would hope that ATC would step in and give me a heading in case I was looking at the wrong traffic.

Is that really such a controversial opinion?

You really should listen to the audio.

The “pass behind traffic” was them stepping in and requesting you to change direction.

Do you really expect ATC on a class B airspace to plan for you to look at the wrong airplane?

You could just as well be looking at your heading indicator and a hundred different things the wrong way.

Visual separation is there to reduce their workload.

There’s an aircraft lined for departure, and another one landing right behind, so how much hand-holding do you expect them to do for training flights?

As much hand-holding as necessary. And yes, as an IFR traffic in class B bloody airspace I absolutely expect ATC to keep me clear of any traffic. If that can't be achieved for IFR traffic in class B airspace then what's the point of the whole thing???

As I have been saying. This isn’t my uncontrolled field. Its class B, short final. Enough said.

[pelmet]

One would think that they could have a procedure for a helicopter to hover briefly when an aircraft is on final and then pass behind it(although there are wake turbulence issues - not sure how that affects helicopters).

[sstaurus]

Most obvious DEI crash in quite some time. Liberals be like sometimes accidents just happen.

Disgusting comment. Go back to your hole and spare the rest of us.

[cdnavater]

One would think that they could have a procedure for a helicopter to hover briefly when an aircraft is on final and then pass behind it(although there are wake turbulence issues - not sure how that affects helicopters).

I think as far as the controller is concerned, the helicopter confirmed the traffic in sight and was given visual separation instructions, the controller assumed the helicopter would do what it needed to do to accomplish that task.
I don’t understand how this corridor, route 4 was even allowed to exist, on a 3 degree slope, you cross the shore of the river around the same altitude as the route itself, 100’ is not enough separation from IFR to anything.
In my opinion and it’s based on having done the 01, break it off to circle for 33 many many times, those should not exist together, if they are using route 4, then only a straight in to 01 allowed, if they are using the circling to 33, route 4 suspended. My hope is, after the investigation that is exactly what happens, otherwise in the future I will not accept the circling to 33 from tower.
For clarity, our Jepps for KDCA, literally point out to be prepared for the 33 request if planning approach on 01 as it is that common!

[CpnCrunch]

I think as far as the controller is concerned, the helicopter confirmed the traffic in sight and was given visual separation instructions, the controller assumed the helicopter would do what it needed to do to accomplish that task.
I don’t understand how this corridor, route 4 was even allowed to exist, on a 3 degree slope, you cross the shore of the river around the same altitude as the route itself, 100’ is not enough separation from IFR to anything.
In my opinion and it’s based on having done the 01, break it off to circle for 33 many many times, those should not exist together, if they are using route 4, then only a straight in to 01 allowed, if they are using the circling to 33, route 4 suspended. My hope is, after the investigation that is exactly what happens, otherwise in the future I will not accept the circling to 33 from tower.
For clarity, our Jepps for KDCA, literally point out to be prepared for the 33 request if planning approach on 01 as it is that common!

From the ATC video it looks like they were on Route 1, but continued flying south beyond they point where they should have turned right towards the airport. Presumably that was because they were trying to turn in behind the jet (but spotted the wrong one).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhCzYEHm-ns

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _and_4.jpg

[OneYonge]

As much hand-holding as necessary. And yes, as an IFR traffic in class B bloody airspace I absolutely expect ATC to keep me clear of any traffic. If that can't be achieved for IFR traffic in class B airspace then what's the point of the whole thing???

.

Then why would you fly VFR and ask for visual separation if you really need that much hand holding?

Yes, what's the point of the whole VFR thing if you can't reliably use your eyes and need someone else to remote control your aircraft?

You should review PIC responsibilities.

[OneYonge]

He expects them to do it all. Like he said, they are partly at fault and could have done more. It's not enough that they did their job. They should have been psychic too.

I'm sure access to heli pilot's eyeballs, so you can see which plane they are looking at would help!

[digits_]

As much hand-holding as necessary. And yes, as an IFR traffic in class B bloody airspace I absolutely expect ATC to keep me clear of any traffic. If that can't be achieved for IFR traffic in class B airspace then what's the point of the whole thing???

.

Then why would you fly VFR and ask for visual separation if you really need that much hand holding?

Yes, what's the point of the whole VFR thing if you can't reliably use your eyes and need someone else to remote control your aircraft?

You should review PIC responsibilities.

I am mainly talking about the IFR CRJ. He didn't ask or accept visual separation. He was counting on ATC to not hit anything. Which is a service that should have been provided in class B airspace. I don't think a minor deviation of a VFR traffic is a good enough excuse to hit something.

[digits_]

He expects them to do it all. Like he said, they are partly at fault and could have done more. It's not enough that they did their job. They should have been psychic too.

I'm sure access to heli pilot's eyeballs, so you can see which plane they are looking at would help!

The heli had to either maintain its course or turn left to follow the instruction. Instead it turned right. Which was visible on the radar screens (if the pictures here are of the actual radar screen). No need to be psychic.


They did not provide separation in class B airspace to the CRJ and thus didn't do their job IMO.

[Outlaw58]

He expects them to do it all. Like he said, they are partly at fault and could have done more. It's not enough that they did their job. They should have been psychic too.

I'm sure access to heli pilot's eyeballs, so you can see which plane they are looking at would help!

The heli had to either maintain its course or turn left to follow the instruction. Instead it turned right. Which was visible on the radar screens (if the pictures here are of the actual radar screen). No need to be psychic.


They did not provide separation in class B airspace to the CRJ and thus didn't do their job IMO.

Excerpt from:
FAA AIM Section 2. Controlled airspace
3-2-3 Class B Airspace
Para e. This program is not to be interpreted as relieving pilots of their responsibilities to see and avoid other traffic operating in basic VFR weather conditions, to adjust their operations and flight path as necessary to preclude serious wake encounters, to maintain appropriate terrain and obstruction clearance or to remain in weather conditions equal to or better than the minimums required by 14 CFR Section 91.155. Approach control should be advised and a revised clearance or instruction obtained when compliance with an assigned route, heading and/or altitude is likely to compromise pilot responsibility with respect to terrain and obstruction clearance, vortex exposure, and weather minimums.

Not saying this completely absolves ATC, but I am hesitant to point the finger at them as hard as you are.

58

[karmutzen]

“ The heli had to either maintain its course or turn left to follow the instruction. Instead it turned right.”

Helicopter flying over the river not above 200’ at night. He doesn’t really have the option to turn left, come over the shoreline with buildings and uncharted obstacles below 300’. All he can do is slow down, doesn’t even have to circle, until the traffic passes in front of him, then proceed along the route at 200’. There is nothing in the ATC intention or airspace design to sanction flying under the landing aircraft with a 100’ clearance.

And yes, ATC could have been looking at the convergence on their screen and had a WTF! moment and called the helicopter. But short staffed controller got busy moving tin. Not an ATC’s fault, but more a layer of safety now missing. It wasn’t a misty dark, low cloud night, good VFR, CRJ at 1200’, looking up from 200’ to see it is as easy as it gets. Heli knows it is going to turn final left for 33, and to pass behind. All acknowledged on the radio transcript.

As a helicopter pilot that has flown high-density night and low-level (<200’) over water, and instructed junior crews, I would look more closely at the mission organization and crew pairing. Something not quite right there. Flying pilot was “Captain” as a military rank but not as aircraft commander, that would be the instructor pilot. Was the instructor pilot too overloaded to keep a proper lookout? Had he been constantly correcting a weak candidate? Do Blackhawk pilots fly VFR head down and depend on their crew chief as an extra set of eyes? Why didn’t they adjust their speed (the only option) to pass behind?

IMG_1803.jpeg (1.41 MiB) Viewed 3980 times

[rookiepilot]

As much hand-holding as necessary. And yes, as an IFR traffic in class B bloody airspace I absolutely expect ATC to keep me clear of any traffic. If that can't be achieved for IFR traffic in class B airspace then what's the point of the whole thing???

.

Then why would you fly VFR and ask for visual separation if you really need that much hand holding?

Yes, what's the point of the whole VFR thing if you can't reliably use your eyes and need someone else to remote control your aircraft?

You should review PIC responsibilities.

I am mainly talking about the IFR CRJ. He didn't ask or accept visual separation. He was counting on ATC to not hit anything. Which is a service that should have been provided in class B airspace. I don't think a minor deviation of a VFR traffic is a good enough excuse to hit something.

This is everything. It’s illegal one could argue. Screams for a lawsuit from the families.

Its ATC’s fault more than the Heli pilot one could argue. Being short staffed is irrelevant to the CRJ’s right to a safe approach. Its obvious to me the heli was looking at the next aircraft in trail to 01 and thought they were fine.

Remember the Heli pilot never heard the controller switch the CRJ to 33! Different frequencies! And the controllers callout to the Heli….vague. Brutal. “Do you see the RJ?” WTF? No distance or altitude?

If I am IFR on a approach I am provided positive separation from traffic at all times. Its not best efforts or any of that BS. It’s class B. Thats what the rules say.
Unless there is an agreed upon exception for DCA.

[khedrei]

.

Then why would you fly VFR and ask for visual separation if you really need that much hand holding?

Yes, what's the point of the whole VFR thing if you can't reliably use your eyes and need someone else to remote control your aircraft?

You should review PIC responsibilities.

I am mainly talking about the IFR CRJ. He didn't ask or accept visual separation. He was counting on ATC to not hit anything. Which is a service that should have been provided in class B airspace. I don't think a minor deviation of a VFR traffic is a good enough excuse to hit something.

This is everything. It’s illegal one could argue. Screams for a lawsuit from the families.

Its ATC’s fault more than the Heli pilot one could argue. Being short staffed is irrelevant to the CRJ’s right to a safe approach. Its obvious to me the heli was looking at the next aircraft in trail to 01 and thought they were fine.

Remember the Heli pilot never heard the controller switch the CRJ to 33! Different frequencies! And the controllers callout to the Heli….vague. Brutal. “Do you see the RJ?” WTF? No distance or altitude?

If I am IFR on a approach I am provided positive separation from traffic at all times. Its not best efforts or any of that BS. It’s class B. Thats what the rules say.
Unless there is an agreed upon exception for DCA.

Pretty sure there is an exception rookie. In this case it (and many others) it's the allowance of visual separation. I cannot see how anyone can argue that this controller is at fault. I absolutely can see how one could argue that this procedure is unsafe when using 33. Or unsafe as a whole. Or even that visual separation shouldnt be a thing in class B. Im on board with that. Or that there should be a radio repeater so everyone can hear everyone. Those are all arguments that have merit. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that this controller could have, should have, or aught to have done anything different given the circumstances or that he neglected to follow any specific procedures.

I am on board with the argument that the procedures need to change. But everything I've seen about the current procedures says he followed them.

[rookiepilot]

*Walter Bloomberg
@DeItaone
·
1m
TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY DUFFY SAYS IT IS "UNACCEPTABLE" IF GENERALS ARE FLYING ON MILITARY HELICOPTERS THROUGH WASHINGTON AIRSPACE FOR CONVENIENCE