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

Roller said:
So all of us “civilians” can turn ours off and fly around low level and ATC/FAA/et al is cool with it?

3b72c8a2-e402-4c27-bad4-f6781aaa4c1d_text.gif


I reckon even the slow kids in class are getting a little tired of the governments double standards
Click to expand...
Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, but it demonstrates a point; one of which is there’s plenty of operations that don’t require ADSB to begin with. Next, for those that do (and don’t have a waiver) out is all that’s required.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
. . . . it’s become a penciled whipped, cookie cuter form that doesn’t accurately reflect the level of risk.
Click to expand...
Sometimes left to the (old) 71-series, SP4 in Ops to fill out and file days after the mission.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, but it demonstrates a point; one of which is there’s plenty of operations that don’t require ADSB to begin with. Next, for those that do (and don’t have a waiver) out is all that’s required.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, I don’t think ADS-B out would have made a difference in the accident. TCAS works fine with mode S. Also, the radar tapes don’t show a completely “fused target.” Meaning DCA operating the STARs in Fusion Mode. That could be around 1 sec refresh vs 4.5 sec refresh. Now perhaps DCA was operating in a limited mode of Fusion, or wasn’t selected for whatever reason. Perhaps in pulling the tapes it only records a single site so I don’t know. I wouldn’t automatically assume that DCA was operating in the highest refresh though. And if they weren’t, who cares? They still had two valid tracks with “CA CA” going off.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Par (b)(1) keeps 'em from using another available runway for permissible landing weight if a different runway is considered more favorable when there are no other factors, such as wind, etc. to consider. Let's say the longer option is too rough to be favorable. Got to use the more favorable one.

Par (b)(2) keeps 'em from using another available runway for permissible landing weight when there is a more suitable one, given expected wind and other conditions. Let's say the longest runway offers the highest landing weight, but due to a crosswind a shorter runway is more suitable. Got to use the shorter one. "Other conditions", I think, covers the common switch to runway 33 at DCA.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd explain it like that. The most favorable runway is the longest that can be landed on legally. Never heard of the longest runway being "too rough".

The goal is to dispatch with the 60% safety margin on a runway that can be used. Not sure how this is relevant to this accident. A CRJ-700 can land in 60% of runway 33 except maybe over maximum landing weight or in a tailwind.
 
Last edited:
I can't understand why ATC would allow an aircraft (helicopter) to pass under the final approach course when an aircraft is inbound, even at 200 feet. Where else do they do this? So much for maintaining separation.
 
TCABM said:
Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, but it demonstrates a point; one of which is there’s plenty of operations that don’t require ADSB to begin with. Next, for those that do (and don’t have a waiver) out is all that’s required.
Click to expand...

Guessing nearly all of those “operations” are part of government?
 
Oldav8tor said:
I can't understand why ATC would allow an aircraft (helicopter) to pass under the final approach course when an aircraft is inbound, even at 200 feet. Where else do they do this? So much for maintaining separation.
Click to expand...
Not just ATC, but whoever decided the route at 200’ maximum would still somehow be altitude deconflicted with traffic landing runway 33 as an ultimate failsafe in case the other holes in the Swiss cheese model up to that point lined up (i.e., ~100 feet separation is no margin at all).
 
dmspilot said:
I'm not sure I'd explain it like that. The most favorable runway is the longest that can be landed on legally. Never heard of the longest runway being "too rough".
Click to expand...
Maybe this way is better? Say the single runway has a displaced threshold in one direction resulting in less available landing distance, but nevertheless it's the favorable direction to land. The operator wouldn't be allowed to use the longer length of the reciprocal runway to arrive with more payload. That's how I read it, but then I'm not looking for loopholes to sneak through.
 
dtuuri said:
Maybe this way is better? Say the single runway has a displaced threshold in one direction resulting in less available landing distance, but nevertheless it's the favorable direction to land. The operator wouldn't be allowed to use the longer length of the reciprocal runway to arrive with more payload. That's how I read it, but then I'm not looking for loopholes to sneak through.
Click to expand...
If a runway has a displaced threshold resulting in less landing distance in one direction, then the most favorable runway would be the reciprocal runway.
 
dmspilot said:
If a runway has a displaced threshold resulting in less landing distance in one direction, then the most favorable runway would be the reciprocal runway.
Click to expand...
I said it wasn't, so it isn't. :) There could be an airspace issue for instance.
 
dtuuri said:
I said it wasn't, so it isn't. :) There could be an airspace issue for instance.
Click to expand...
I don't think airspace issues count, just the physical properties of the approach path and runway and whether it is open or closed -- but I'm not a dispatcher. I'm not even sure the dispatchers go that deep into it or if they just let the 3rd party flight planning software figure it out.
 
dmspilot said:
I don't think airspace issues count, just the physical properties of the approach path and runway and whether it is open or closed -- but I'm not a dispatcher. I'm not even sure the dispatchers go that deep into it or if they just let the 3rd party flight planning software figure it out.
Click to expand...
A company-oriented dispatcher could rationalize landing on 60% of DCA runway 1 and then the crew could accept landing on 33 with barely any buffer factor at all unless the 60% is also incorporated into the landing distance the crew uses for reference. If that were the case, though, then I don't see why (b)(1) & (b)(2) would need to exist.
 
dtuuri said:
unless the 60% is also incorporated into the landing distance the crew uses for reference
Click to expand...
It is incorporated. I don't think it's a part 121 regulation but rather part of the SOPs in company manuals which the FAA does regulate. Emergencies and abnormal procedures do not have to follow the 60% rule but rather have their own calculations.
 
Warlock said:
Interesting article about systemic issues at the FAA…my experience has been the same…but thought I might be an outsider with a beef, although most likely legitimate.

justthenews.com

Air traffic controllers say FAA hiring practices, ‘immunity program,’ led to DC plane crash

Air traffic controllers say an FAA “immunity program” fails to hold people accountable for their mistakes, even with deadly consequences.
justthenews.com justthenews.com
Click to expand...
This should be pretty easy to figure out for someone with access to ATC related incident history - do we have an increase in the number or severity of incidents or not?
Without hard data, it is hard to say if this is just another mostly reporting driven “panic attack” or a real trend.
 
Warmi said:
This should be pretty easy to figure out for someone with access to ATC related incident history - do we have an increase in the number or severity of incidents or not?
Without hard data, it is hard to say if this is just another mostly reporting driven “panic attack” or a real trend.
Click to expand...
The FAA published a press release in Dec 2024 that said they met their goal of hiring 1800 new controllers in 2024. The actual number was 1811.
The FAA now has more than 14,000 controllers, with the ones added in 2024 there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training.

How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
 
Oldav8tor said:
I can't understand why ATC would allow an aircraft (helicopter) to pass under the final approach course when an aircraft is inbound, even at 200 feet. Where else do they do this? So much for maintaining separation.
Click to expand...
I think the instruction was to "pass behind" not under. That would mean maneuver as necessary so as to pass behind.
 
martym said:
The FAA published a press release in Dec 2024 that said they met their goal of hiring 1800 new controllers in 2024. The actual number was 1811.
The FAA now has more than 14,000 controllers, with the ones added in 2024 there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training.

How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
Click to expand...
How long between hiring and actually acting as a controller? I honestly don’t know.
 
Matthew said:
How long between hiring and actually acting as a controller? I honestly don’t know.
Click to expand...
I think that's where the DEI factor comes in. In the long past, if one didn't qualify on position after a fixed period of time, they were let go. Now it's train until the trainee can meet minimum standards, no time limit. Need an active ATC'er to weigh in on that.
 
martym said:
How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
Click to expand...

A couple of ways, actually. This was a yearly goal. A decade or two of not meeting goals followed by one year of meeting it won’t solve the staff shortage. It’s also possible, maybe likely, that the goal was based upon what was considered achievable, not what was necessary.
 
martym said:
How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals?
Click to expand...
The 14,000 reflects the total number of ATCSs in the system and not only certified ATCSs. And that number has been pretty consistent for many years. What's been leading to the shortage is the higher failure rate of trainees during the OJT portion of the process and the higher number of early retirements over the past years. So even though they hired 1800 applicants, historically only about 800-900 will make it to the certified level, and if 300 people retire in that same time frame you have a net of only 500 people to fill 1000+ openings. There was a FAA SRT report released in 2023 that got into more details.

Matthew said:
How long between hiring and actually acting as a controller?
Click to expand...
The last I was told its 3-6 years before they become a certified controller.
 
Bell206 said:
The 14,000 reflects the total number of ATCSs in the system and not only certified ATCSs. And that number has been pretty consistent for many years. What's been leading to the shortage is the higher failure rate of trainees during the OJT portion of the process and the higher number of early retirements over the past years. So even though they hired 1800 applicants, historically only about 800-900 will make it to the certified level, and if 300 people retire in that same time frame you have a net of only 500 people to fill 1000+ openings. There was a FAA SRT report released in 2023 that got into more details.


The last I was told its 3-6 years before they become a certified controller.
Click to expand...
Really ? I hope that includes working under supervision ( similar to medical residency ) ….
 
Warmi said:
Really ? I hope that includes working under supervision ( similar to medical residency ) ….
Click to expand...
Yeah, but of course that means that the have to have a trainer overseeing them, so the net gain is zero until they're certified. Academy is like 6 months, i think there's a few months between hiring and going there. I've heard like a year to get certified, so that would be 18-24 months at minimum to be at a position on their own, more for the slow learners in the back...

Thing is they have to get certified for every position, every sector. In a tower/ tracon facility like here at cmi, that's tower, ground, clearance, and two approach sectors. Obviously some will go faster than others, but that's several years worth of work. Then if you move to a different facility, you start over. Goes faster because you know how to do it, but the opposing bases guys said it still takes a minimum 6 months to figure things out and get certified at a new facility.

@Radar Contact mentioned that during covid, they shut down all training, so they had some controllers that could only work one sector, and some sectors that only had a couple certified controllers. As you can imagine this made scheduling a nightmare, meant experienced controllers like he & his wife had to work 6 days a week, and bottlenecked the pipeline of experienced controllers.

We should be starting to work our way out of that hole at this point. A lot of the people who started careers after the PATCO strike are retirement age now, so that is really hurting the system too. Losing a pretty big group of the most experienced people.
 
martym said:
The FAA published a press release in Dec 2024 that said they met their goal of hiring 1800 new controllers in 2024. The actual number was 1811.
The FAA now has more than 14,000 controllers, with the ones added in 2024 there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training.

How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
Click to expand...
Really? This is your question?

You even wrote "there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training".
 
Jim K said:
Yeah, but of course that means that the have to have a trainer overseeing them, so the net gain is zero until they're certified. Academy is like 6 months, i think there's a few months between hiring and going there. I've heard like a year to get certified, so that would be 18-24 months at minimum to be at a position on their own, more for the slow learners in the back...

Thing is they have to get certified for every position, every sector. In a tower/ tracon facility like here at cmi, that's tower, ground, clearance, and two approach sectors. Obviously some will go faster than others, but that's several years worth of work. Then if you move to a different facility, you start over. Goes faster because you know how to do it, but the opposing bases guys said it still takes a minimum 6 months to figure things out and get certified at a new facility.

@Radar Contact mentioned that during covid, they shut down all training, so they had some controllers that could only work one sector, and some sectors that only had a couple certified controllers. As you can imagine this made scheduling a nightmare, meant experienced controllers like he & his wife had to work 6 days a week, and bottlenecked the pipeline of experienced controllers.

We should be starting to work our way out of that hole at this point. A lot of the people who started careers after the PATCO strike are retirement age now, so that is really hurting the system too. Losing a pretty big group of the most experienced people.
Click to expand...

I have no direct experience with this subject but it does sound like there are some deep inefficiencies built into the system.
I would think this is the kind of job that does not require an extensive body of knowledge ( how many relevant rules and regulations are there after all ) and is more the type of job that relies on natural ability to think and act calmly and quickly - in other words you will either make a good ATC or you wont and which is which should be apparent rather than quickly.
Of course, as I mentioned I have no direct experience with the subject so I may be completely off here …
 
Jim K said:
Yeah, but of course that means that the have to have a trainer overseeing them, so the net gain is zero until they're certified. Academy is like 6 months, i think there's a few months between hiring and going there. I've heard like a year to get certified, so that would be 18-24 months at minimum to be at a position on their own, more for the slow learners in the back...

Thing is they have to get certified for every position, every sector. In a tower/ tracon facility like here at cmi, that's tower, ground, clearance, and two approach sectors. Obviously some will go faster than others, but that's several years worth of work. Then if you move to a different facility, you start over. Goes faster because you know how to do it, but the opposing bases guys said it still takes a minimum 6 months to figure things out and get certified at a new facility.

@Radar Contact mentioned that during covid, they shut down all training, so they had some controllers that could only work one sector, and some sectors that only had a couple certified controllers. As you can imagine this made scheduling a nightmare, meant experienced controllers like he & his wife had to work 6 days a week, and bottlenecked the pipeline of experienced controllers.

We should be starting to work our way out of that hole at this point. A lot of the people who started careers after the PATCO strike are retirement age now, so that is really hurting the system too. Losing a pretty big group of the most experienced people.
Click to expand...
The Class of 81 is gone. The hires that replaced them are the ones we’re talking about now.
 
What’s the latest with the NTSB on this? Have they done a press conference since the one they did a couple days after where they said they couldn’t comment on altitude until they learned more about altitude readouts on the Tower’s Radar?
 
donjohnston said:
Really? This is your question?

You even wrote "there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training".
Click to expand...
The staffing model assumes everyone is trained? Not very realistic . . . someone needs to answer questions if that's the case.
 
Warmi said:
how many relevant rules and regulations are there after all
Click to expand...
Start with the JO7110.65AA and associated notices. The pdf is 794 pages.

Then you have to memorize the airspace over which you will have control. All navaids, airway radials, procedures, etc.

Then you have the applicable letters of agreement, coordination protocols specific to your airspace, etc.

Then you need experience in evaluating the traffic situation, formulating a plan, and implementing it. That takes a lot of practice.

It takes several years from hire to reaching full qualification at your facility. Washout rates are high.
 
Regarding ATC training/competency I look at it this way...I'm a pilot...I'm also a radio guy. I think well and execute well under pressure as a result of my Coast Guard experience. I can multi-task pretty well and I listen to multiple radios simultaneously at regular intervals. On paper, I'm the prime candidate for ATC. But honestly, I seriously doubt I could handle anything more than maybe Class C Tower airspace. Just seeing what the guys on the flight simulator/VATSIM side of things do for fun - with a fraction of the real world work load - I'm in awe of the mental aptitude of ATC. The barrier to entry is steep for a reason.
 
martym said:
The staffing model assumes everyone is trained? Not very realistic . . . someone needs to answer questions if that's the case.
Click to expand...
Please cite the "staffing model" are you referring to?

You keep saying "someone needs to answer questions" but you never specify what those questions are. Or who you want to answer them.

But the reality is it's just rhetoric. You don't want any questions answered and even if they were, you would deny the answers anyway.
 
I had an up close encounter Friday at about 1445 ~E/NE of Outlaw Field with a flight of two Blackhawks. They weren't squawking ADSB as far as I can tell and I didn't see them with ADSB/IN or on ADS-B Exchange when reviewing my flight

I'm confident they would have been talking with Ft Campbell Approach and I have ADSB out. Why they were allowed to come so close to me is a mystery. I made what I call an evasive maneuver to avoid a very close encounter or worse.

Of course I thought of this incident in DC where the chopper apparently wasn't squawking ADSB either.
 
martym said:
The FAA published a press release in Dec 2024 that said they met their goal of hiring 1800 new controllers in 2024. The actual number was 1811.
The FAA now has more than 14,000 controllers, with the ones added in 2024 there are 3400 controllers in various stages of training.

How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
Click to expand...

Net change was +3. Nationwide. Hiring = attrition.
 
Larry in TN said:
Start with the JO7110.65AA and associated notices. The pdf is 794 pages.

Then you have to memorize the airspace over which you will have control. All navaids, airway radials, procedures, etc.

Then you have the applicable letters of agreement, coordination protocols specific to your airspace, etc.

Then you need experience in evaluating the traffic situation, formulating a plan, and implementing it. That takes a lot of practice.

It takes several years from hire to reaching full qualification at your facility. Washout rates are high.
Click to expand...
This profession will be a prime candidate for AI taking over … practically tailor made for this sort of repetitive but “ never have a bad day and never make a mistake” workflow.
 
martym said:
How can there be a shortage if they have exceeded hiring goals? Someone needs to answer questions . . .
Click to expand...
The FAA slightly exceeded their hiring goal IN 2024... Did you look up what the overall hiring needs are? You need to know that before asking the question and implying they exceeded their overall hiring goals by just the 2024 numbers.

Also, how many Controllers, retired or quit for whatever reason in 2024? How does that figure into the FAA's overall hiring needs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top