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

TCABM said:
The OB episode discusses this, too. It’s likely a very visual function during these types of operations.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wish there was a cliff notes on that. I saw the length of the broadcast and didn’t have time to listen.
 
Stafford (KRMN) was built as a reliever for KIAD I think. Maybe the number of commercial flights into KDCA should be reduced and commercial flights should start using Stafford. They would need to build a lot of infrastructure, but it is right on I95.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I wish there was a cliff notes on that. I saw the length of the broadcast and didn’t have time to listen.
Click to expand...

The tower discussion section starts at 54:05.
They talk about
1. Arriving/departing 01/33
2. Tower manning
3. Visual 01 option to 33*
4. Split frequency operations
5. Skipped after second thoughts
6. Local controller flight info coordination (scratchpad)
5. ATC task prioritization when pilot applies Vis Separation
7. Looking out from DCA tower / Ops Complexities*
8. 7110 Visual Separation Request*

* places relevant for how tower crew was operating
 
JackL-3J said:
IFR or VFR?
Click to expand...
IFR. You needed a reservation even to go there, IIRC. Then, if the weather allowed (usually does), you'd get the River or Mt. Vernon visual to runways 21 and 33 respectively unless traffic was light, then 18 or 36 (back then — magnetic pole has moved around since). I even went in as a B-727 second officer at least one time but don't remember the approach(es). All I remember is the captain bought me a beer before dinner. :)
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Have you ever seen more than one runway number in the title where they refer to two separate runways?
Click to expand...
Seattle has three with three runways.
MALL VISUAL RWY 34R/C/L
HUSKY VISUAL RWY 16R/C/L
BAY VISUAL RWY 16R/C/L

Portland has two for two:
COLUMBIA VISUAL RWY 10L/R
MILL VISUAL RWY 28L/R

So does SFO: QUIET BRIDGE 28L/R, TIPP TOE 28L/R
And SJC: FAIRGROUNDS 30L/R
LSV: SIN CITY RWY 03L/R
PHL: RIVER RWY 9L/R
JFK: PARKWAY 13L/R

Note all of them are for parallel runways.
 
Last edited:
David7700 said:
Stafford (KRMN) was built as a reliever for KIAD I think. Maybe the number of commercial flights into KDCA should be reduced and commercial flights should start using Stafford. They would need to build a lot of infrastructure, but it is right on I95.
Click to expand...
The "relievers" were built to get non-airline traffic out of the primaries not airlines. Stafford is 50 miles south on a hellhole of an interstate. BWI is closer.

Hardly any non-airline traffic into DCA post-911 so it's not getting any relief. The problem is when they relaxed the limits on who could fly in there. What were ostensibly noise rules were obsoleted by quieter aircraft. When they got rid of the mileage limit, it really opened things up. American Airlines uses it as a hub having nearly entirely pulled out of IAD.
 
A Leer 100 would be an interesting ride up the river, and into 33. Not.

A friend had a Leer 100, first year of production, bought new, and based at DCA.

More than 60 years, the memory has errors, especially since it was not my plane. Edit :

A Leer 23 would be an interesting ride up the river, and into 33. Not.

A friend had a Leer 23, first year of production, bought new, and based at DCA.
 
Last edited:
Just saw on the news that ADSB out was not working or not turned on in the Blackhawk…just a short statement on the news and no source quoted so who knows…
 
TCABM said:
The tower discussion section starts at 54:05.
They talk about
1. Arriving/departing 01/33
2. Tower manning
3. Visual 01 option to 33*
4. Split frequency operations
5. Skipped after second thoughts
6. Local controller flight info coordination (scratchpad)
5. ATC task prioritization when pilot applies Vis Separation
7. Looking out from DCA tower / Ops Complexities*
8. 7110 Visual Separation Request*

* places relevant for how tower crew was operating
Click to expand...
I just listened to # 8. Pretty much what I was getting at. Yes, it’s not often a pilot initiates visual but per the .65, it’s completely authorized. I’ve done it as a pilot albeit in rare situations.

Here’s why I think pilot initiated visual isn’t a big deal. First, traffic for the most part is issued because separation may decrease below mins. In airspace where no min sep exists, you issue it if you believe it’ll be a factor. However, as one of those guys alluded to, plenty of times the traffic is issued simply because the controller plans on using pilot applied visual. Why do that? Like he said, makes for a far more efficient system. If you always had to use standard separation then aircraft would be getting excessive vectors, held at altitude for extended times, aircraft wouldn’t make crossing altitudes, etc, etc. I’d bet you a $100, if PAT25 replied with “traffic in sight” without the request, the next words out of that controller’s mouth would be “PAT25, maintain visual separation.” That’s the whole point in issuing the traffic. The 1.5 mile lateral is now out of the controller’s responsibility.

The problem that I have in the DCA is two fold. Sometimes it sounds like these PATs are just blabbing “request visual separation” without actually reporting the traffic in sight. Could be poor audio but that’s a no no if true. Second, in this case, I honestly think traffic would be required (converging) to be issued on PAT to the RJ. Could’ve been blocked but I didn’t hear it. We used to always say when applying visual separation “traffic for one, traffic for the other.” Would it have made a difference? Don’t know. Might actually make things worse because if I knew another aircraft had visual on me, I might let my guard down.

I think this really is about not major changes in procedure but cleaning up existing procedures. The problem is, the shear amount of traffic volume at these places. I can sit back and say I would do this or that but ATC in the Marines, I was that busy maybe once a month. They’re that busy every day. I was talking with my bro recently who retired out of the FAA a few years ago. He was saying there’s so much leeway given to places like JFK or DCA. Their phraseology isn’t always by the letter in the .65 and it’s simply because they’re so saturated. I can understand.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
The problem is, the shear amount of traffic volume at these places.
Click to expand...
Which is by itself is a factor in this accident IMO. DCA is just too busy to be able to do many of the things necessary to ensure safe operations. And the FAA recently increased the allowable number of operations at DCA, presumably by Congressional edict.
 
flyingron said:
The "relievers" were built to get non-airline traffic out of the primaries not airlines. Stafford is 50 miles south on a hellhole of an interstate. BWI is closer.

Hardly any non-airline traffic into DCA post-911 so it's not getting any relief. The problem is when they relaxed the limits on who could fly in there. What were ostensibly noise rules were obsoleted by quieter aircraft. When they got rid of the mileage limit, it really opened things up. American Airlines uses it as a hub having nearly entirely pulled out of IAD.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Where could they build another airport though, and not add to BWI traffic? Somewhere to the south lile DCA is but farther south away from the sensitive capitol area
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree that the application of visual separation seems a little too routine between controllers and PAT. PAT is allowed to initiate visual separation after being issued traffic. The problem that I have, based on the audio I’ve heard, it seems tower is using an incomplete form of pilot applied visual separation.

It was brought up earlier about how the RJ wasn’t given traffic on the H-60. Weren’t told that the H-60 was maintaining visual sep on them either. It could be buried in the audio but I didn’t hear it. Now, if their courses aren’t converging, it’s not necessary. In this case, it sure looks like that their courses are converging when the traffic was issued to PAT25. Just like in the PAT11 vid from the day prior, traffic was issued to the airliners on PAT11. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the PAT25 accident. Also, it sure sounds like PAT11 is just mumbling “request visual separation” without even saying “traffic in sight.” Could be just poor audio but I wonder if that was common omission in their phraseology.
Click to expand...
That’s the feeling I get, that they just always say request Visual Separation whether they have the traffic in sight or not and rely on that they will see it in time.
TCABM said:
Where are the minimums for a charted visual IAP?
Click to expand...
Many are a Note in the Planview. DCA’s is in the lower left corner
 
Starts out with the wing and tail thing and ends with Sean Duffey, Secretary of Transportation telling Generals to quit getting around town in helos and get a damn Suburban and drive.

www.nbcnews.com

Planes collide at airport in Seattle as FAA takes new steps to prevent helicopter-plane crashes

The wing of a Japan Airlines plane struck the tail of a Delta Air Lines jet at the airport in Seattle. The FAA took additional steps to prevent helicopter-plane collisions such as the one that killed 67 people last week. NBC News' Tom Costello reports.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
dtuuri said:
Right. As I noted in Post #740, parallel runway titles are treated differently.
Click to expand...
If I understand your position, you say that the text, "then follow the Potomac River to the airport" applies to aircraft that are changed to runway 33 as there are no restrictions to which runways to which the procedure applies.

What if they switched a flight on the MT VERNON VISUAL Rwy 33 to one of the other runways? Say runway 15 or runway 19? How would you do that while remaining over the Potomac?
 
Larry in TN said:
If I understand your position, you say that the text, "then follow the Potomac River to the airport" applies to aircraft that are changed to runway 33 as there are no restrictions to which runways to which the procedure applies.

What if they switched a flight on the MT VERNON VISUAL Rwy 33 to one of the other runways? Say runway 15 or runway 19? How would you do that while remaining over the Potomac?
Click to expand...
As I said before, you can't stay over the river and make a landing on 33 if you're flying an airliner. You'd be making your base-to-final turn right at the piano keys.
 
Larry in TN said:
If I understand your position, you say that the text, "then follow the Potomac River to the airport" applies to aircraft that are changed to runway 33 as there are no restrictions to which runways to which the procedure applies.

What if they switched a flight on the MT VERNON VISUAL Rwy 33 to one of the other runways? Say runway 15 or runway 19? How would you do that while remaining over the Potomac?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and runway 4 too. "What if" you said, "Unable"? Or if they said, "Cleared for the visual runway 15"? As opposed to the "Mt. Vernon visual to runway 33"?
 
Warlock said:
Just saw on the news that ADSB out was not working or not turned on in the Blackhawk…just a short statement on the news and no source quoted so who knows…
Click to expand...
If so…

-In ADS-B out required airspace…
-What would DCA Tower’s responsibility have been to stop the Blackhawk from operating without ADS-B out?
 
Both the helicopter and the CRJ had VHF radios, the helicopter was on the standard helicopter frequency. This makes plenty of sense with two controllers, as in this case, the helicopter controller has time to visually monitor the actual location and motion of "his" plane.

When the two controller positions are combined, the helicopter should be changed to the more active fixed wing frequency, so that all planes controlled by the controller know what the controller has in his part of the sky and ground.
That would have alerted the CTJ that they had a Blackhawk coming from the north, visual separation with them, and looked for him even before the turns started. Once they started their turn, view down and to the right became difficult.

When they rolled out, the right seat pilot may have seen the Blackhawk sooner, and the pull up might have been in time.

Lack of awareness on board the CRJ may have been the last chance lost.
 
Oh, PIC in the right seat is not a regulatory thing in ALL helicopters. There’s the traditional rule of right seat and some manufacturers require it solo, but that varies with helicopter. In the H-60 the PIC can sit in any seat they want. I preferred left.
 
Last edited:
jayhawk74 said:
IMO being at the same altitude isn't the issue. PAT25 was instructed to fly behind the CRJ and for some reason didn't do that. I've been in traffic patterns and on visual approaches where I've been instructed to pass behind traffic at my altitude so I adjusted my course to follow instructions. PAT25 didn't hit the CRJ because they were at the same altitude they hit because PAT25 didn't adjust their course.
Click to expand...
I think that's a crucial point. I've concluded that PAT25 misidentified the CRJ, and that led to the collision. But, if that is the case, the accident could only have happened if PAT25 confused the second (or third) jet on final for the CRJ. If that were the case, PAT25 should have stayed even more to the left (west) of the final approach course. But instead, they deviated right (east) into the path the CRJ.
 
Yup, and that's pretty much what my buddy occam told me. The helo simply called tally and padlocked on the wrong light in the conga line. Expectation bias does the rest. They were never going to avoid the collision at that point, absent some 3rd party (ATC, whoever) deus ex machina. It happens. It's not that deep of an accident really.

If I were king, I'd snooze the heli routes during conflicting-direction ops with the airport. Done. Yeah, that upsets the heli ops largesse status quo, but I think that's where this one is gonna go. I suppose they could wait out the american public's attention span and go back to status quo ops where helos and 121 keep playing Frogger with each other, but that's a political gamble to be sure.
 
flyingron said:
As I said before, you can't stay over the river and make a landing on 33 if you're flying an airliner. You'd be making your base-to-final turn right at the piano keys.
Click to expand...

Larry in TN said:
Yeah, that's what's I've been saying this whole thread. I was making one last try at convincing dtuuri.
Click to expand...
Time out, fellas. I suggested jets get the water and helos get the land as an easy peasy fast way to stop another midair while an investigation is underway. That's why we are having this talk. The suggestion was based on my personal experience. I don't dispute that current airlines actually do things differently than I learned them. Your CRJ should be arriving with the ability to land full stop within 60% of the 5200 ft. runway 33 length, if I'm not mistaken. That's 3120 feet which is comparable, IIRC, to the Lear 24Ds I used to fly. So, it can be done. BTDT. The CVFP approach instructions are the same, AFAIK, but you interpret them more loosely. I think your interpretation was an accident factor, no matter who wants to argue. If the CRJ was over the river and all lit up, chances are good the helo crew would have seen both planes not just the wrong one.

So, let's just end it right here and let the other folks argue.
 
jayhawk74 said:
IMO being at the same altitude isn't the issue. PAT25 was instructed to fly behind the CRJ and for some reason didn't do that. I've been in traffic patterns and on visual approaches where I've been instructed to pass behind traffic at my altitude so I adjusted my course to follow instructions. PAT25 didn't hit the CRJ because they were at the same altitude they hit because PAT25 didn't adjust their course.
Click to expand...
It's kinda both, isn't it? They'd have missed if they flew under, or they'd have missed if they flew behind. They did neither and collided.
Velocity173 said:
Definitely better than FB I can tell you that. A few of my friends are posting their analysis of the accident on FB. I’m just not gonna do it because there’s far too many non aviation friends who 1) will never understand and 2) try and interject politics into the discussion. This is the only place I’ve posted an opinion on it. No way we’re all gonna agree on what happened but I think we’re on the same page that the DCA area could use some closer inspection on how they operate with helo routes and fixed wing.
Click to expand...
I made a couple of posts on FB because I got tired of people blaming Trump or DEI or whatever the flavor of the day is. I do my best to increase the signal-to-noise ratio when I can. They've been shared a few times. However, without the rage bait people don't talk as much and the algorithm starts to filter it out, and the rage bait starts to win.
flyingron said:
Where are the straight-in minimums?
Click to expand...
I was trying to make the point that when flying to 33, you're no longer on the MOUNT VERNON VISUAL RUNWAY 1 because you're no longer flying to the runway named in the procedure. @dtuuri said that the same is true when you're flying a circling approach, my counterpoint is that this isn't a circling approach.
geezer said:
A Leer 100 would be an interesting ride up the river, and into 33. Not.

A friend had a Leer 100, first year of production, bought new, and based at DCA.
Click to expand...
What kind of truck did he have it on? ;)

(A Leer 100 is a truck cap. Presumably you meant a Lear of some variety, maybe a 23?)
Florida Man said:
If so…

-In ADS-B out required airspace…
-What would DCA Tower’s responsibility have been to stop the Blackhawk from operating without ADS-B out?
Click to expand...
flyingron said:
91.225(f)(1) baby.
Click to expand...
91.225​
(f) Except as prohibited in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless—​
​
(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or​

I have heard that the chopper may not have even been equipped, as our military is quite behind in doing so.

If they were equipped... Well, I'm sorry, but squawking ADS-B on a training flight is not going to "compromise the operations security of the mission". FFS. Air Force One squawks ADS-B with the President aboard in domestic airspace at least part of the time.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I made a couple of posts on FB because I got tired of people blaming Trump or DEI or whatever the flavor of the day is. I do my best to increase the signal-to-noise ratio when I can. They've been shared a few times. However, without the rage bait people don't talk as much and the algorithm starts to filter it out, and the rage bait starts to win.
Click to expand...

Hah, this whole thing has been wild in this sense. My wife even, under hushed breath, asked me "there's more to this isn't there?". Uhhhh wtf are you talking about? I finally realized they think this is some republican conspiracy, the details of which I don't comprehend or care to. It was a really tragic sequence of errors, not entirely shouldered by any particular individual, in my estimation. Sometimes mistakes happen and a bunch of people tragically die and we learn something from it (hopefully). Blaming a political party or politician does very little to encourage that learning aspect. I blame neither Biden nor Trump (nor DEI) for this.
 
dtuuri said:
Time out, fellas. I suggested jets get the water and helos get the land as an easy peasy fast way to stop another midair while an investigation is underway. That's why we are having this talk. The suggestion was based on my personal experience. I don't dispute that current airlines actually do things differently than I learned them. Your CRJ should be arriving with the ability to land full stop within 60% of the 5200 ft. runway 33 length, if I'm not mistaken. That's 3120 feet which is comparable, IIRC, to the Lear 24Ds I used to fly. So, it can be done. BTDT. The CVFP approach instructions are the same, AFAIK, but you interpret them more loosely. I think your interpretation was an accident factor, no matter who wants to argue. If the CRJ was over the river and all lit up, chances are good the helo crew would have seen both planes not just the wrong one.

So, let's just end it right here and let the other folks argue.
Click to expand...
The 60% landing requirement is a Dispatch requirement not a performance requirement. The Dispatch requirement is done for the longest runway, in DCA this is Runway 1. The CRJ would need to land in 4302 ft in order to be dispatched. While this is still shorter than Runway 33 it is only 902 feet shorter. Anything to remember is that most 121 and 135 Companies require that on a Visual Approach that the aircraft be stabilized and aligned with the runway at 500 ft AGL. This can't be done if over the Potomac going to Runway 33.
 
Why wasn't this an option? It's a military helicopter after all so it must be capable.

"PAT hover where you are for landing traffic"
CRJ passes
"PAT, continue"
 
David7700 said:
Gotcha. Where could they build another airport though, and not add to BWI traffic? Somewhere to the south lile DCA is but farther south away from the sensitive capitol area
Click to expand...
They already built an airport to replace DCA, it's called IAD. However our privileged politicians didn't want to be driven an extra 30 minutes from their office at the Capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top