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

[Ed Haywood]

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.

Common sense says that is a likely outcome. There is just not enough vertical space for that route and that arrival to coexist without some additional control measure in place to provide lateral separation.

 

[tlglenn]

I would ask, why did they ask for visual separation? Did they want to deviate from the charted routes? Take a short cut? Hhmmm??

Probably to proactively avoid delay vectors (or hovers?) that would've otherwise been required to maintain separation standards.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Depth perception being the primary.

Yup. Walking with them in the jungle or rough terrain at night is no fun. You find a lot of rocks and ditches with your face. That's the main reason infantry are an orthopedic mess after a career.

Do you have to refocus aviator goggles when going from near to far vision, and vice versa? I would assume yes. If so, repeatedly switching scan between outside and inside would be a PITA, no?

 

[bonefishpete]

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?

IDK They were IFR in VFR conditions. Thought the controller said circle 33 cleared to land? So yes it’s a circling approach and all altitudes need to be followed. PIC can request a full approach if requested I still believe.

 

[dtuuri]

IDK They were IFR in VFR conditions. Thought the controller said circle 33 cleared to land? So yes it’s a circling approach and all altitudes need to be followed. PIC can request a full approach if requested I still believe.

Where is the word "circle"?

 

[Velocity173]

(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.

Well I don’t know if proficiency was an issue here. I don’t agree with the media labeling them an “experienced crew” though. 1,000 hr IP and 500 hr PI isn’t very experienced for an Army crew. I’d say just average. Two CW3s up front with over 2,000 hrs a piece would be experienced. Two CW5s up front with over 4,000 a piece, highly experienced. Just my opinion.

Right now the media is hitting the Army accident record hard. Yeah, the last two years they’ve had a bad go of it with a record number of class As. However, their previous 5 year class A record (.85) is less than both the Navy/Marines and Air Force. Marines having the worst 5 record for class As at well over 1.0. Service safety records are pretty much an apples to oranges comparison though. Two many different variables to compare again one another.

 

[geezer]

At least some civilian VIP's take a limo to College Park airport, and a twin turbine helicopter to Dulles for his fast, efficient travel. I have seen this take place many times.

Inbound from Dulles, the limo is there an hour early, outbound, the heli s there half an hour early.

If they are going to the White House, they do not arrive on Marine1 on the White House lawn, or any other helicopter.

I have never seen a civilian Helicopter on the Pentagon pad.

The number of flights a day by PAT is amazing great, more than 6 per hour. Do we have that many major emergencies requiring positive action in the next few hours?

Military "Need to know, right now" is interesting. For the Kuwait war, a fleet of 3 to 5 helicopters from Ft Meade flew down to the War College each lunch time for an up to date briefing on the progress of the action, and back to their normal desks 3 hours later.

Apparently about 4 hours a day at their desks was adequate to accomplish their work with that briefing data.

 

[Velocity173]

Yup. Walking with them in the jungle or rough terrain at night is no fun. You find a lot of rocks and ditches with your face. That's the main reason infantry are an orthopedic mess after a career.

Do you have to refocus aviator goggles when going from near to far vision, and vice versa? I would assume yes. If so, repeatedly switching scan between outside and inside would be a PITA, no?

They’re focused from about 100-200 ft to infinity. So yeah, in close in going to be slightly blurry. The older NVGs used to be best case 20/40 acuity. Today we’re right at 20/20.

The other thing about them is, they make brightly lit objects such as aircraft seem closer. Same thing with lightning. I’ll get a new paramedic or nurse ask me “how far away is that lightning to our left?” I’ll zoom out the NEXRAD and be like, “ah over 200 miles…it’s in Kentucky.” Blows their mind.

 

[Piperonca]

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.

The active Army pilots I know of say the same thing, in essence. Their flying hour program is being desiccated. Hard to be experienced when experience is hard to get.

 

[hindsight2020]

The active Army pilots I know of say the same thing, in essence. Their flying hour program is being desiccated. Hard to be experienced when experience is hard to get.

I can tell you, watch-shooter types in the AF no longer casually throw the joke about North Korean and Chinese pilots flying hour programmes....

 

[Velocity173]

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.

Well the “request” isn’t really necessary but still meets the intent of pilot initiated visual separation. The whole point is so tower can just say “PAT11 approved.” I know I’ve come back with “Crusader33, traffic in sight, can maintain visual.” Doesn’t really save all that much on frequency congestion but it allows for the controller not to repeat the instructions.

 

[luvflyin]

Well the “request” isn’t really necessary but still meets the intent of pilot initiated visual separation. The whole point is so tower can just say “PAT11 approved.” I know I’ve come back with “Crusader33, traffic in sight, can maintain visual.” Doesn’t really save all that much on frequency congestion but it allows for the controller not to repeat the instructions.

Makes sense.

 

[Larry in TN]

However, I did not hear the controller give any traffic call to the CRJ, to advise them of the helicopter heading southbound.

He did not. I do not know if it is a required call or one that is a lower priority.

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.

ARSA reports also generate a ASRS report but not all ASRS reports are put into the database.

This is the attitude that gets people killed.

The attitude that prevents people from being killed starts with finding out why something went wrong before you try to fix 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?

It is a visual approach. They were cleared from the published visual approach to Rwy 1 then changed to a visual to Rwy 33. This is very procedural zed and is trained for in the sim at PSA. You fly up I-295, which is east of the river, until making the left turn to final.

The problem with staying over the river is that the east bank is slightly less than 4,000' off the end of Rwy 33. That would put you about 200' when you begin your turn to final. We aren't going to do that in a transport jet. Even starting at I-295, that puts us about 400' when we make the turn.

There is an RNAV Rwy 33 which follows a similar ground track. The visual descent point 0.6NM south of the final approach course. Minimums for Cat C/D are 680/2-1/4. We'd fly that as a DDA at 730'. Crews flying the visual will frequently load that approach to provide electronic vertical guidance.

IDK They were IFR in VFR conditions. Thought the controller said circle 33 cleared to land? So yes it’s a circling approach and all altitudes need to be followed. PIC can request a full approach if requested I still believe.

The CRJ was IFR in VMC. The helicopter was VFR. Both were in Class B airspace and operating on a clearance.

The CRJ was flying a visual approach, not a circle-to-land.

Circling minimums are published for the ILS Rwy 1 with Cat C/D minimums of 900' and 2-1/4 for Cat C and 3 for Cat D. Most US airlines do not do circling approaches so the weather would have to be VMC. The CRJ was never cleared for the ILS so they couldn't be recleared to the circle-to-land.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Did we discuss Logo Lights?
(Would they help? was the angle of impact such that they'd have been noticed in this event? Are they available for such aircraft? Cost? Annoying to pilot?)

Didn't read the whole thread...search box shows no recent hits for "Logo", "Logo lights"

Random internet image:

View attachment 137675

I have them on my 182 from when I bought it. I thought they were silly at first, but I think they add an element of safety making things “3D” vs a dot of light. Devore Aviation if I remember right.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I can say without hesitation that something should be changed.

I just don't know what yet. Give it a year and I bet they'll tell us...

Oh I agree. We just don’t know what yet.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

So with night vision goggles, what would it look like when both aircraft were essentially coming toward one another, albeit at different altitudes, before the CRJ started its left turn to Rwy33? The CRJ would have had landing light on. Would that not affect the night vision goggles to some extent where maybe the sensitivity would have to be turned down to not blot out everything else? Then when the CRJ turned, they couldn’t discern the distance to the CRJs nav and other lights? I am not familiar so this might be a stupid theory.

 

[Velocity173]

So with night vision goggles, what would it look like when both aircraft were essentially coming toward one another, albeit at different altitudes, before the CRJ started its left turn to Rwy33? The CRJ would have had landing light on. Would that not affect the night vision goggles to some extent where maybe the sensitivity would have to be turned down to not blot out everything else? Then when the CRJ turned, they couldn’t discern the distance to the CRJs nav and other lights? I am not familiar so this might be a stupid theory.

The NVGs automatically turn down the intensity in high lit areas and when looking directly into a bright light (landing light) but it’s not a perfect system. They can even protect the eyes from a laser strike by reducing its intensity.

The problem is, the older style green phosphor NVGs would produce a pretty big halo effect especially in high humidity. The newer white phosphor NVGs, the halo effect is reduced so in this case, I don’t thing the landing light would wash out the viewing area. The major problem is not being able to distinguish different colors of lights. In the accident aircraft, it’s just different level of white lights. Decent depth perception compared to green phosphor but still not something I’d use in a brightly lit area.

If you ever see a formation of Black Hawks at night, it’s typical to see lead and subsequent chalks with only position lights and formation lights on. SOP is trail being the only one with anti-collision light on. Reason being is, due to the brightness and the “interest of safety” they’ll turn the anti-collision lights off. This is really about the inherent limitations of the NVGs to appropriately reduce the effects of bright lights.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Is that really needed in that high density traffic area?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Yes, 121 and 135 have ASAP. It functions very similarly to ASRS except the carriers have periodic meetings with the FAA to look at the reports and ensure they're addressed.

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.

The "joke" was that they're inexperienced. But a 500-1000 hour military pilot is MUCH better than a 500-1000 hour civilian pilot. Their ground training is far more extensive and higher quality, and they also get the very most out of their flight hours. That said, their flight hours are too few and far between, a victim of the "do more with less" mentality which is good up to a point but has gone too far.

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.

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.

That's just the thing - They may not have the option to do it later. Like I said, not enough flight hours available, and they'd have to justify repeating the flight to a bunch of higher-ups in the chain of command.

 

[Hugh Despenser]

As a non-121 guy, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Night CTL in an airliner bothers me. It bothers the FAA, too.

Since many ATPs have a CTL restriction on their type rating or in their company ops specs, I wonder why DCA gets this special carve out.

This procedure they were flying is not a circle-to-land.

It’s a side-step.

 

[TCABM]

Does there actually need to be a point. But it was more like a dash.

Why post it if there’s no point?

Hours flown, certificates held, technology incorporated in the aircraft, airport environment, approach selected…none of it matters in VMC when everybody has a responsibility to see and avoid.

Take the helicopter out of the equation and insert a flock of birds and you could easily have to same or worse outcome.

 

[RyanShort1]

Take the helicopter out of the equation and insert a flock of birds and you could easily have to same or worse outcome.

Uh, really? No, a flock of birds doesn't cause the same outcome at that point from what I can tell.

 

[TCABM]

Uh, really? No, a flock of birds doesn't cause the same outcome at that point from what I can tell.

Did in Korea. Put an airbus in the Hudson.

Once things go sideways, no telling what happens.

 

[RyanShort1]

Did in Korea. Put an airbus in the Hudson.

Once things go sideways, no telling what happens.

I see your point, but the pilots would have had time to make some kind of decisions - with a reasonably high possibility of it being survivable. This kind of accident, there was nothing to decide.

 

[dtuuri]

It is a visual approach. They were cleared from the published visual approach to Rwy 1 then changed to a visual to Rwy 33. This is very procedural zed and is trained for in the sim at PSA. You fly up I-295, which is east of the river, until making the left turn to final.

The problem with staying over the river is that the east bank is slightly less than 4,000' off the end of Rwy 33. That would put you about 200' when you begin your turn to final. We aren't going to do that in a transport jet. Even starting at I-295, that puts us about 400' when we make the turn.

There is an RNAV Rwy 33 which follows a similar ground track. The visual descent point 0.6NM south of the final approach course. Minimums for Cat C/D are 680/2-1/4. We'd fly that as a DDA at 730'. Crews flying the visual will frequently load that approach to provide electronic vertical guidance.

Ok, the Mt Vernon approach says "Follow the river to the airport." I've done the circle to land to runway 33 in a Learjet and Citation II, which are transport aircraft flying at speeds of 120+ kts or so, IIRC (been a long time) and remained over the water. It isn't much of a turn to final, compared to, say, the River Approach coming in from the north to runway 18 and breaking off for 20 (if it is still 20). On that approach one similar dark night, as SIC, I urged the captain to go around, which he did, because he was about to make about a 90° turn below 200 AGL. We had to get vectored into the daisy chain with about 20 planes in front after that. It's more of a dogleg to 33 coming from the south.

But I'm willing to defer to those with more recent memories if mine have faded. I think it's worth a conversation though.

 

[Jim K]

I see your point, but the pilots would have had time to make some kind of decisions - with a reasonably high possibility of it being survivable. This kind of accident, there was nothing to decide.

Id much rather lose both engines than a wing...

 

[Larry in TN]

But I'm willing to defer to those with more recent memories if mine have faded. I think it's worth a conversation though.

I flew that approach in 2014 in a PSA CRJ. The procedure was to fly down I-295 until starting the turn to final for Rwy33. If you look at the track data, that is exactly what the accident airplane did.

The MT VERNON VISUAL Rwy 1 does say to follow the Potomac to the airport but it is the approach for Rwy 1. When they were switched to Rwy 33 they were no longer on the MT VERNON VISUAL.

The approach to Rwy 19 has 1.15 miles from where the extended centerline touches the eastern shore and the turn to final is fewer degrees.

 

[JackL-3J]

Wow, impressive they did the right thing for once



Right, us tax paying peasants should take the bus so the politicians can ride in their helicopters, that’s going to be a hard no from me

Bus? Most of those critters are more like "let the peasants walk and call it cardio".

 

[AV8R_87]

Do you have to refocus aviator goggles when going from near to far vision, and vice versa? I would assume yes. If so, repeatedly switching scan between outside and inside would be a PITA, no?

You normally focus the NVGs at infinity to look outside, and look under them to scan the panel.

Devore Aviation if I remember right.

Sadly, they're out of business. Make sure you find spares on the used market before they become unobtanium.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I haven't kept up. Too lazy to search 13 pages or voluminous other sites.

I read that the expected altitude of the helo over their preplanned route in this area is 200'agl. (T OR F?)
What is the on-profile agl altitude of an aircraft landing at Reagan, for this runway, at the exact same position?
(ie what is the preplanned vertical separation at that point?)

 

[Albany Tom]

No, only pointing out that @Albany Tom probanly can’t read minds as well as he says.

I don't think I've commented on this thread before...not because I'm shy, but because I really don't have anything to add. Terrible at reading minds, even my own. I was loudly thinking that the helicopter route seems pretty close to the approach path to that runway, but I don't think I wrote it down. Maybe google is reading MY thoughts...

 

[Flying Keys]

I haven't kept up. Too lazy to search 13 pages or voluminous other sites.

I read that the expected altitude of the helo over their preplanned route in this area is 200'agl. (T OR F?)
What is the on-profile agl altitude of an aircraft landing at Reagan, for this runway, at the exact same position?
(ie what is the preplanned vertical separation at that point?)

Along the centerline and extended centerline of runway 33 it is almost exactly 5000’ from the PAPI to the eastern bank of the Potomac. At that distance, the center of the 3° visual glidepath would have been 262’ above the PAPI, which is sited at around 10’ MSL, give or take for the box standards.

So if you’re in the center of the glidepath, your eyes are around 272’ MSL at the east bank, which obviously decrease as you go toward the runway. Plus all the airplane parts around you, so there is plenty below that.

 

[dtuuri]

The approach to Rwy 19 has 1.15 miles from where the extended centerline touches the eastern shore and the turn to final is fewer degrees.

Maybe to the current RWY 19, but I referred to "20", meaning the southwest runway. I thought it was 20 when I posted, but it was quite a while ago, runways change identities sometimes. Maybe it used to be 21? Looking through the lighting for 19 (which might have been 18 then?) it was hard to pick out the lights for that southwest runway and the captain got us too low before we could spot it. He tried to turn to line up after we got it in sight but was too low for my comfort. Didn't take much convincing for him though.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Along the centerline and extended centerline of runway 33 it is almost exactly 5000’ from the PAPI to the eastern bank of the Potomac. At that distance, the center of the 3° visual glidepath would have been 262’ above the PAPI, which is sited at around 10’ MSL, give or take for the box standards.

So if you’re in the center of the glidepath, your eyes are around 272’ MSL at the east bank, which obviously decrease as you go toward the runway. Plus all the airplane parts around you, so there is plenty below that

What? Airplane 272’agl, helo route 200’agl?
So, someone was planning a crash?
That is the vertical separation I’d select if I hoped for one.
Trusting horizontal separation would always be there….well that’s exactly what Murphy thrives upon.
Must be more to it than I understand.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

So according to the substance of tonight's NTSB brief, the RJ was at 325' +- 25' confirmed by 3 sources of data. The helo was displayed on the controllers screen at time of impact as being at 200', exact altitude unconfirmed as yet by other sources. The briefer ducked the question as to what the ATC screen display read of the RJ's altitude, and how or why that may have differed from the aircrafts confirmed altitude. The briefer also confirmed there're was a TCAS "traffic, traffic" alert heard on the CVR a very short time prior to the crash, apparently just seconds, though I don't recall the actual time interval between the alert and impact.

Obviously, the helo wasn't at 200', begging the question as to why the ATC radar was reading at least 100' low. The FDR from the helo is currently being examined.

The briefer got very emotional, and abruptly left the podium leaving that and many other questions unaddressed.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

He did not. I do not know if it is a required call or one that is a lower priority.

Per the 7110.65AA 7-2-1a2d, it sounds like it is required. a2c is interesting too, while I don't think I've heard it done the way it was in this situation before, that part at least was by the book. a2e appears to have been missed as well.

I am not ATC nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I would be happy for controllers to jump in here!


7-2-1 VISUAL SEPARATION
Visual separation may be applied when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation. To ensure that other separation will exist, consider aircraft performance, wake turbulence, closure rate, routes of flight, known weather conditions, and aircraft position. Weather conditions must allow the aircraft to remain within sight until other separation exists. Visual separation is not authorized when the lead aircraft is a super.

a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft up to but not including FL180 under the following conditions:​

1. Tower-applied visual separation.​

(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved or ensure there is an ability to communicate immediately with applicable military aircraft as prescribed in paragraph 3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subparagraph a2.​

(b) The tower visually observes the aircraft, issues timely traffic advisories, and provides visual separation between the aircraft.​

(c) Issue control instructions as necessary to ensure continued separation between the applicable aircraft.​

(d) Do not apply visual separation between successive departures when departure routes and/or aircraft performance preclude maintaining separation.​

(e) The use of tower-applied visual separation is not authorized when wake turbulence separation is required.​

(f) ATCTs at adjacent airports may be authorized to apply visual separation between their traffic and the other facility's traffic. All provisions of FAA Order JO 7110.65, paragraph 7-2-1a1, still apply.​

NOTE- Additional requirements are listed in FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 10-3-9, Visual Separation.​

​

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.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).
If required, (ACID), REPORT TRAFFIC IN SIGHT or DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?
If the pilot reports traffic in sight, or the answer is in the affirmative, (ACID), MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION​

NOTE-Towers must use the procedures contained in paragraph 3-1-6, Traffic Information, subparagraph b or c, as appropriate.​

(c) If the pilot reports the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation from it (the pilot must state both), the controller may “approve” the operation instead of restating the instructions.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), APPROVED.​

NOTE - Pilot-applied visual separation between aircraft is achieved when the controller has instructed the pilot to maintain visual separation and the pilot acknowledges with their call sign or when the controller has approved pilot-initiated visual separation.​

(d) If aircraft are on converging courses, inform the other aircraft of the traffic and that visual separation is being applied.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.​

(e) Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge.​

NOTE - Issue this advisory in conjunction with the instruction to maintain visual separation, the advisory to the other aircraft of the converging course, or thereafter if the controller subsequently becomes aware that the targets are merging.​

EXAMPLE-“Targets appear likely to merge.”​

(f) Control of aircraft maintaining visual separation may be transferred to an adjacent position/sector/facility. Coordination procedures must be specified in an LOA or facility directive.​

I have them on my 182 from when I bought it. I thought they were silly at first, but I think they add an element of safety making things “3D” vs a dot of light. Devore Aviation if I remember right.

You have logo lights on a 182?!?

I hope you have a logo. If not, maybe we can all kick in to put a PoA logo on your tail.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Sadly, they're out of business. Make sure you find spares on the used market before they become unobtanium.

Bummer. I called and talked with the owner a few years back to get a copy of the STC. Nice guy. Expensive bulb…

You have logo lights on a 182?!?

I hope you have a logo. If not, maybe we can all kick in to put a PoA logo on your tail.

Lol! Yep. It’s mostly a blank canvas…

Circled the lamp housing.

 

[AV8R_87]

begging the question as to why the ATC radar was reading at least 100' low.

Wrong altimeter setting?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lol! Yep. It’s mostly a blank canvas…

Circled the lamp housing.

View attachment 137717

OK, if you don't do this, you should be banned from POA and your airplane confiscated.

https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Team-Chemtrail-Sticker-by-RealPilotDesign/29491464.Z7RJ3

 

[luvflyin]

Per the 7110.65AA 7-2-1a2d, it sounds like it is required. a2c is interesting too, while I don't think I've heard it done the way it was in this situation before, that part at least was by the book. a2e appears to have been missed as well.

I am not ATC nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I would be happy for controllers to jump in here!


7-2-1 VISUAL SEPARATION
Visual separation may be applied when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation. To ensure that other separation will exist, consider aircraft performance, wake turbulence, closure rate, routes of flight, known weather conditions, and aircraft position. Weather conditions must allow the aircraft to remain within sight until other separation exists. Visual separation is not authorized when the lead aircraft is a super.

a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft up to but not including FL180 under the following conditions:​

1. Tower-applied visual separation.​

(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved or ensure there is an ability to communicate immediately with applicable military aircraft as prescribed in paragraph 3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subparagraph a2.​

(b) The tower visually observes the aircraft, issues timely traffic advisories, and provides visual separation between the aircraft.​

(c) Issue control instructions as necessary to ensure continued separation between the applicable aircraft.​

(d) Do not apply visual separation between successive departures when departure routes and/or aircraft performance preclude maintaining separation.​

(e) The use of tower-applied visual separation is not authorized when wake turbulence separation is required.​

(f) ATCTs at adjacent airports may be authorized to apply visual separation between their traffic and the other facility's traffic. All provisions of FAA Order JO 7110.65, paragraph 7-2-1a1, still apply.​

NOTE- Additional requirements are listed in FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 10-3-9, Visual Separation.​

​

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.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).​

If required, (ACID), REPORT TRAFFIC IN SIGHT or DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?​

If the pilot reports traffic in sight, or the answer is in the affirmative, (ACID), MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION​

NOTE-Towers must use the procedures contained in paragraph 3-1-6, Traffic Information, subparagraph b or c, as appropriate.​

(c) If the pilot reports the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation from it (the pilot must state both), the controller may “approve” the operation instead of restating the instructions.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), APPROVED.​

NOTE - Pilot-applied visual separation between aircraft is achieved when the controller has instructed the pilot to maintain visual separation and the pilot acknowledges with their call sign or when the controller has approved pilot-initiated visual separation.​

(d) If aircraft are on converging courses, inform the other aircraft of the traffic and that visual separation is being applied.​

PHRASEOLOGY - (ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.​

(e) Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge.​

NOTE - Issue this advisory in conjunction with the instruction to maintain visual separation, the advisory to the other aircraft of the converging course, or thereafter if the controller subsequently becomes aware that the targets are merging.​

EXAMPLE-“Targets appear likely to merge.”​

(f) Control of aircraft maintaining visual separation may be transferred to an adjacent position/sector/facility. Coordination procedures must be specified in an LOA or facility directive.​

You have logo lights on a 182?!?

I hope you have a logo. If not, maybe we can all kick in to put a PoA logo on your tail.

Yeah. The ‘if on a converging course, informing the other aircraft of the the traffic and that visual separation is being applied’ may have made a difference but I don’t think we’ll ever know. FWIW when Centers were first authorized to use Visual Separation, mid to late 90’s, telling the other aircraft that Visual Separation was being applied was a requirement, converging or not.