Crash at Reagan National Airport, DC. Small aircraft down in the Potomac.

Rcmutz said:
I think one thing that may come out of this is to change these procedures to no night operation on the rotor routes, or holding DCA traffic in the event of an emergency PAT night flight.
Click to expand...
Whatever comes of this, it’ll more likely be a knee jerk reaction than a measured response.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’ve been saying this for years. Move all the jets to Dulles and make DCA the mega heliport for all the helicopters around the capitol. Every agency under the sun around there has helicopters. Just put them all at DCA and make it a dedicated rotard base.
Click to expand...

Or just have a bus service for all of them

If the average business owner isn’t traveling around DC by helicopter, public servants sure shouldn’t be
 
Roller said:
Or just have a bus service for all of them

If the average business owner isn’t traveling around DC by helicopter, public servants sure shouldn’t be
Click to expand...
Some of those servants have roles that are important enough to me I want them on the helicopter.

YMMV
 
Roller said:
Or just have a bus service for all of them

If the average business owner isn’t traveling around DC by helicopter, public servants sure shouldn’t be
Click to expand...
Just turn the asylum over to the inmates…they’ll kill each other off and eat their young, and we can start over.
 
Roller said:
PAT is practically the only users of that route, who else is cleared in the inner ring and gets to play on that river like that?
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. @Velocity173 spelled it out for you. FBI, Metro DC Police, CIA, SMU, DOE, HMX-1, USCG, all use those routes daily and nightly. You beat up the VIP narrative to death, but PAT is only part of the total volume.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I saw a better copy of the video just a bit ago. Helo squeaked under the plane and sheared off the *left* wing. Aircraft rolls left 450 degrees on its way into the water. Looked like the roll rate wasn't constant, as if the crew tried to stop the roll, realized they couldn't, and then tried to get it all the way around similar to Alaska 261. There just wasn't nearly enough room for them to do anything. What a sickening ride, for a handful of seconds...
Click to expand...
Alaska 261 had lost vertical control. They inverted and realized they could fly the airplane that way. I think the words said from the CVR were ‘at least when we’re upside down we can fly’
 
On visual separation at night. Some airlines do not allow their pilots to accept it. There was thread here not long ago about one going into SFO. Pilot wouldn’t accept it and the Controller vectored him all over the place to the point the pilot was getting to minimum fuel and was going to go to his alternate. It was a foreign carrier and we learned there were other carriers with the same rules.

In my 30 years as a Controller I never heard a pilot say ‘request’ visual separation. It seems to be SOP for this PAT squadron.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Some of those servants have roles that are important enough to me I want them on the helicopter.

YMMV
Click to expand...

If they need that much protection, they oughta just stay in the bunker they'd be flown to, can’t be too safe, right?

Ain’t many of ‘em all that important anyway. The folks who actually get things done usually ain’t the high and mighty politicians. Most of ‘em have skills more like a shoe salesman than a strategist.

They get a choice
1) bus service
2) bunker worker

Helicopters are for folks puttin’ money in the coffers, not for the ones takin’ a check outta ‘em.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I highly doubt ORD tower goes down to one controller at night but I could ask.
Click to expand...
Well, my point was about the high number of positions that can all be staffed at once. No idea how many, but it is a lot.

In those overnight hours, ORD is down to a single runway and I have had a single controller for Local and Ground on arrival and heard him talking to an outbound as Metering.

Dana said:
Well, we do know that the helicopter was at exactly the same altitude as the CRJ.
Click to expand...
We do, but altitude separation is not a part of the system that was (attempting) to provide separation. We have to address the procedures and see what needs to change to make the operation safer. That would be just as true if the helicopter had been at 200' and passed 100' below the CRJ.

dtuuri said:
Maybe someone at FAA read my posts, even if nobody here seemed to: "Keep the jets over water and the helos over land."
Click to expand...
You don't stay over the water on the transition from Rwy 1 to Rwy 33. You fly over a road (hiway?) off the east bank of the river until making your left turn to Final. There isn't enough room to make that turn at ~140kts if you stay over the water.

Warmi said:
I guess no more helo flights …
Click to expand...
No, still allow Police helicopters and medivac helicopters (the ones that would carry by dead mother, apparently).

3393RP said:
Considering the lineup of landing traffic approaching DCA from the south, it seems critical that ATC would provide specific information on the target aircraft to the helo
Click to expand...
He did. The initial traffic call said the CRJ was over the [name] bridge and was proceeding to 33. That was a very specific position. The helicopter immediately replied 'in sight, request visual separation'.

Tom-Flying said:
I expect we'll find that ATC was woefully understaffed
Click to expand...
All of our FAA ATC facilities are woefully understaffed. We have a little over 10,000 controllers and would need over 14,000 to be fully staffed.
 
Larry in TN said:
He did. The initial traffic call said the CRJ was over the [name] bridge and was proceeding to 33. That was a very specific position. The helicopter immediately replied 'in sight, request visual separation'.
Click to expand...
However, I did not hear the controller give any traffic call to the CRJ, to advise them of the helicopter heading southbound. (And in sampling DCA Tower on Thursday afternoon, it was definitely giving calls for helicopter traffic to incoming fixed wing aircraft).
 
I think part 121 pilots have a different safety reporting system available so you may not get all of them in a search of ASRS only. I know I’ve seen part 121 reports in the ASRS Callback newsletter though.
 
"This is the way it is done, there is nothing unusual about it, we have always done it this way, nothing should change, nothing can change."

This is the attitude that gets people killed. The excuse of many of these VIP flights are for the Continuity of Government. "We need these helicopters for evacuation of officials in case of nuclear war!". When in reality, they are taxi and Uber rides for Congress critters and Pentagon types. You know, so they don't have to sit in traffic like the rest of us.
 
Roller said:
Helicopters are for folks puttin’ money in the coffers, not for the ones takin’ a check outta ‘em.
Click to expand...
How far up the food chain does that apply, in your mind?

And how much have you driven in DC? I was stationed there and getting around for meetings is not fun. Partly because of motorcades for people who didn’t/couldn’t take helos….

Yeah, I took the Metro a lot to get around, when practical, but like it or not that’s not a secure and/or practical way for people “of significance” to do so.
 
luvflyin said:
On visual separation at night. Some airlines do not allow their pilots to accept it. There was thread here not long [...]
In my 30 years as a Controller I never heard a pilot say ‘request’ visual separation. It seems to be SOP for this PAT squadron.
Click to expand...

Even if one pilot declines it, the other pilot can accept it and it can still affect the first pilot.
 
masloki said:
I think part 121 pilots have a different safety reporting system available so you may not get all of them in a search of ASRS only. I know I’ve seen part 121 reports in the ASRS Callback newsletter though.
Click to expand...

ASAPs, but on many of their systems it will also file a NASA

TCABM said:
And neither ATP can fly a helicopter. What’s the point?
Click to expand...
?
 
Llewtrah381 said:
How far up the food chain does that apply, in your mind?

And how much have you driven in DC? I was stationed there and getting around for meetings is not fun. Partly because of motorcades for people who didn’t/couldn’t take helos….

Yeah, I took the Metro a lot to get around, when practical, but like it or not that’s not a secure and/or practical way for people “of significance” to do so.
Click to expand...

All the way

They are not royalty, it’s gone on far too long
 
luvflyin said:
On visual separation at night. Some airlines do not allow their pilots to accept it. There was thread here not long ago about one going into SFO. Pilot wouldn’t accept it and the Controller vectored him all over the place to the point the pilot was getting to minimum fuel and was going to go to his alternate. It was a foreign carrier and we learned there were other carriers with the same rules.

In my 30 years as a Controller I never heard a pilot say ‘request’ visual separation. It seems to be SOP for this PAT squadron.
Click to expand...
I would ask, why did they ask for visual separation? Did they want to deviate from the charted routes? Take a short cut? Hhmmm??
 
Piperonca said:
Maybe that the IP had ~1000 hours and the P had ~500. So together they could qualify for ATP with 1500 hours. Kind of like the conjoined twins with two heads and one body. Or maybe I didn't get the joke, who knows.
Click to expand...
cept....it didn't work out too well. ;)
 
Piperonca said:
Maybe that the IP had ~1000 hours and the P had ~500. So together they could qualify for ATP with 1500 hours. Kind of like the conjoined twins with two heads and one body. Or maybe I didn't get the joke, who knows.
Click to expand...
I assume this discussion considers an R-ATP to not be an ATP.
 
Larry in TN said:
You don't stay over the water on the transition from Rwy 1 to Rwy 33. You fly over a road (hiway?) off the east bank of the river until making your left turn to Final. There isn't enough room to make that turn at ~140kts if you stay over the water.
Click to expand...
Well, you "can" remain over water as I seem to remember having done it. You may be right about the 140 kts, though. If that's true, there could be a speed limit to the procedure. It's a visual approach, not technically a circle to land, right?
 
MauleSkinner said:
I know a lot of pilots who would take a 20-knot gusty headwind over a 20-knot gusty crosswind.
Click to expand...
Yes, and those guys should be called real pilots.

And just FYI, that new closeup video disturbs me. It disturbs me enough
to write this lengthy post.

I'll just come out and say it - I don't think that those helicopter pilots were
"real pilots."That's because, in my view, a "real pilot" in that situation should
prioritize safety over the training mission all of the time. Maybe it's just me (and
hopefully it isn't) but I've been under the hood several times simulating
an instrument approach when traffic is called out - either by ATC or on
the TCAS. The first thing I do (if it continues to get closer) is take the
hood off and scrap the practice approach - my priority is to look for that
traffic along with the check pilot in the right seat.

In my view, that's what those helicopter pilots should have done. They
were given a specific landmark and altitude to identify the RJ - which was
the Wilson Bridge and 1,200'. At least one of the three pilots on PAT 25 should
have known exactly where that bridge was. At least one of those pilots should
have known that runway 33 was a big conflict for the route they were flying on.
At least one of those pilots should have known to hug the eastern Potomac and fly
at least 200 feet or below - preferably 150' over shore. That's what I would have
done. Am I saying this in hindsight? No, because every time I've flown the Hudson
River Corridor over the years, that's the way that I operated - never bust altitude
and give the max altitude a margin of safety by 100' or so - that's because
the Laguardia traffic above used to get pretty close back in the day - the airliners
above looked big! I think the max altitude was 1,000' feet back in the day,
so I'd often fly at 900'. Since the helicopter was already close to the ground in
the accident case, I thought giving a 50' margin might suffice. But why not go for
100' margin of safety? You're a helicopter pilot and that's what "you do" (or should
do) as long as there's no high-tension wires and I don't see any on the chart.

I haven't flown the Hudson corridor in years because I'm down in FL now and every time
I go up the KHPN, I'm IFR. I'm not sure if it's the same now or not.

But to have the three pilots on PAT 25 act so nonchalantly about the traffic is
disturbing. I've thought about it for a couple of days now and I decided that I'd just
come out and say it on this board. They could have done, much, much better.
They could have identified the Wilson Bridge and started looking for traffic
from that starting point. We have three bridges where I fly (Palm City,
Roosevelt and Veteran's Memorial) and traffic is often called out over those bridges.
There's lots of ground light at night and sometimes it's very hard to find the runway
lights on any type of circling approach - that includes downwind, base to
final. But those bridges help a lot for orientation at night - to spot traffic
as well as give an understand of when to turn base, etc.

I almost can't believe how three pilots could be so focused on a mission
(that can be practiced later) that at least one couldn't have taken off
those goggles and made spotting the CRJ (that they should have known
the RJ was going into 33 because that's what DCA tower told them) and
given that RJ the utmost of priority relative to finding it near the Wison
Bridge - and inside that bridge after it was called out.

Just looking at that close up video where the RJ was gently turning
final (it wasn't even close to 90 degrees) where it was lit up like a damn
Christmas tree indicated to me that those PAT 25 pilots were more than
half asleep - and that's tragic.

PS:

This is a whole other story, but I don't think that the DC tower
controller had back up. If he did, he might have had more time
(or the check controller could have done it) to give PAT 25 a heading
to avoid the RJ. But the controller 'believed' what PAT 25 had the
traffic in sight. Too bad that Airbus was the wrong traffic going into
runway 01 and it wasn't even close to the Wilson bridge at the time of
impact.
 
Last edited:
Rcmutz said:
And it also appears that when PAT11 crossed under the first Southwest aircraft on approach, there was no issue with 6-500 ft separation. Looked like going under Brickyard he has even a bit more separation.

I think one thing that may come out of this is to change these procedures to no night operation on the rotor routes, or holding DCA traffic in the event of an emergency PAT night flight.
Click to expand...
Yeah and I have no problems tweaking procedures. The rumor of no 33 arrivals with route 4 or vice versa is a logical idea to me. Also increased vertical separation between VFRs vs IFRs in B airspace could be looked at. Not sure how practical with the later considering the traffic density around class B airspace. Taking a chunk of airspace and restricting it from certain helicopter activity? I kinda think that’s gonna increase controller workload at DCA even worse but we shall see.
 
Last edited:
(1) As someone who tried to retain a grip in the recreational game before it really jumped the shark on costs and regulatory stupidity, I'm not friendly to this airline passenger supremacist view. It reminds me of the majoritarian tyranny of car drivers and home owners; I do recognize the Venn Diagram is tight on that unholy trifecta. I think some of the criticism of the helo ops in DC stems from that consumer-supremacist view.

In fairness, the .mil are not boy scouts. Though this crash deals with 121, I've dealt with plenty of anti-recreational piston utterances from the military, and have had to push back at work and remind them the NAS is the taxpayer's airspace (though I no longer care to white knight for the hobby in mixed company, as the hobby didn't love me back). In short, we're not all friends at the end of the day, we're more of an emulsion of private/personal interests, asked to play nice. I find the whole thing insincere to a fault, but I guess it beats overt authoritarianism.

All that said, (2) I do welcome criticism of the military proficiency here. Pilot training continues to be a hot potato on the DoD side, with further intentions to dilute and handwave away training as the ultimate "scutwork", underserving of funding and capitalization priorities. To the big wigs, it's an affair best suited to daycare workers, kind of how we view elementary education in this Country. And of course the punchline being, with the paycuts to match. To wit, I only do this in the military cuz I couldn't/can't get paid squat in the civil side.

So I sit here, point at the fact the USAF/USN doesn't even recognize Army wings for straight equivalency, in part because of disagreements over the manner and depth to which Army conducts primary flight training in the first place, and can't help but utter in light of this crash: "and you want to futher civilianize [usaf] primary training?". The math ain't mathing, and we're heading in the exact wrong direction.
 
Roller said:
If the average business owner isn’t traveling around DC by helicopter, public servants sure shouldn’t be
Click to expand...

Do you think the CEO of Citibank, Microsoft, or Lockheed takes the bus to the airport? Do you think their board and shareholders WANT them taking the bus?

This is not about perks or comfort. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are responsible for the safety of every man, woman, and child in the US. They are on call to the President 24/7. When the White House calls an emergency meeting or there is a hostile incident down range, "stuck in traffic on the Wilson Bridge" is not an acceptable excuse.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Whatever comes of this, it’ll more likely be a knee jerk reaction than a measured response.
Click to expand...
Yep. The quickest way to bad laws (read ineffective and onerous) is to tell the government "you have to do something!" and then you end up with stupid crap like the SFRA and FRZ and I can't say how many others.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Do you think the CEO of Citibank, Microsoft, or Lockheed takes the bus to the airport? Do you think their board and shareholders WANT them taking the bus?

This is not about perks or comfort. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are responsible for the safety of every man, woman, and child in the US. They are on call to the President 24/7. When the White House calls an emergency meeting or there is a hostile incident down range, "stuck in traffic on the Wilson Bridge" is not an acceptable excuse.
Click to expand...

No issue with the CEOs flying their own helicopters that the companies pays for.

Sounds like the Sec of Defense et al should be in a bunker in the middle of no where, not downtown in a big city with tons of traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top