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

Maybe we’d be better off to lose “Maintain Visual Separation” at night.
We can’t do it imc.
Much harder to miss a target in day vmc.
Seems like the big impediment to visibility in this case was simple darkness.
 
I have a general question about the heli's flight path. It's been stated that it was flying route 1 transitioning to route 4 (I think), and post 79 shows a relevant heli chart.

Are those routes available to all helicopters, or are they restricted to only certain users?
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I have a general question about the heli's flight path. It's been stated that it was flying route 1 transitioning to route 4 (I think), and post 79 shows a relevant heli chart.

Are those routes available to all helicopters, or are they restricted to only certain users?
Click to expand...
1) I don't know
2) read the (entire) legend around the DC Heli sectional, there's a lot of information that would lead me to believe it either is or isn't open to all. how's that for an answer?
 
MauleSkinner said:
That MIGHT be true when they do what they’re supposed to, but polishing backup camera lenses every time you get in the car takes way more time than putting your head on a swivel.
Click to expand...
Good for stopping in time before backing into the garage door, but otherwise nearly worthless.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I have a general question about the heli's flight path. It's been stated that it was flying route 1 transitioning to route 4 (I think), and post 79 shows a relevant heli chart.

Are those routes available to all helicopters, or are they restricted to only certain users?
Click to expand...
They're available to any helicopter that has access to that airspace. Inside the DC FRZ, civilian operations are generally limited to airline traffic in and out of DCA, private aircraft that meet the security requirements to operate at DCA, vetted MD-2 airport users, and Medivac, police, government and military.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That MIGHT be true when they do what they’re supposed to, but polishing backup camera lenses every time you get in the car takes way more time than putting your head on a swivel.
Click to expand...
I've had to do that exactly one time in 16 years of owning a car with a backup camera. also now when I get in a car without a backup camera I'm completely lost. it's like losing the magenta line, I have no idea what to do. backup cameras are the best thing evarrrrrr.
 
CaptainDoug said:
The route hugs the eastern edge of the Potomac. For some reason, that helicopter was a little west and gained about 150' of altitude right before impact.
Click to expand...
You seem to be assuming that the width of the route is indicated by the width of the line drawn on the chart. I'm asking what is the allowable width of the route. I don't know, but I doubt it is the width of the line on the chart.

As I've said multiple times, you are attributing a level of precision to the altitude display that doesn't exist. It will take some time to verify at exactly what altitude the helicopter was flying. Mode-C has a tolerance, for ATC, of 300' from the altitude indicated to the pilot. Surely it wasn't that far off but how close was it? How close what the helicopter's altimeter display to his true altitude? We need to let the NTSB figure that out.

In any case, separation was not being based on either adherence to the route's ground track nor the altitude. Visual separation was being applied and visual separation is what failed. The NTSB will figure out why it failed.

Racerx said:
Which was my point earlier. Maintaining visual separation is a fallacy. Especially at night.
Click to expand...
Is it? We use it extensively in the national airspace system and it works pretty well. I fly into all the nation's busy airline airports and frequently have helicopters maintaining visual separation from me as I land. It is a very common procedure.

The last time a US airliner was involved in a midair was 1978 and, in that case, visual separation also failed. That accident (PSA SAN) played a big part in why TCAS was developed. If we ban all procedures that are less than perfect, we will not fly.

Airports like SFO would take a huge hit on capacity if visual separation could not be used. It does, whenever the weather drops to the point that visual separation can not be used. Flights are cancelled and many are delayed.

What's likely to happen, in my opinion, is that the procedures will be changed for how visual separation can be applied at DCA.
 
Velocity173 said:
And when are they supposed to do that? They’ve got quiet hour / noise abatement rules, fuel restriction times in effect at Davison AAF. They’ve got to get off at a decent time to get back before those restrictions are in place.
Click to expand...


never

That route should not exist


Also a good pointer that when you say traffic in sight you buy a lot of responsibility
 
AKiss20 said:
This has not been confirmed beyond people like you saying it to be true. Do you have any actual authoritative source showing this to be true?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. TBH, everything I mentioned is from “the usual sources” and ought to be vetted.
 
Warmi said:
Yes, these routes do exist and yes indeed ,airline pilots do need to pay attention when landing parallel but my point is that we should be in the business of minimizing risks and having a route like that being accessible to anyone for any reason is the very opposite of minimizing risks.
A flight carrying “Larry’s dying mom” ( as somebody mentioned in one of the posts ) would have represent a risk worth taking but a military training flight taking the same route should classify as unnecessary and reckless.
Click to expand...


The security requirements for the inner circle of that airspace make it basically the domain of government helicopters, you are not going to do a scenic tour in a R44 on that route
 
Roller said:
The security requirements for the inner circle of that airspace make it basically the domain of government helicopters, you are not going to do a scenic tour in a R44 on that route
Click to expand...
Why not?.....get the FRZ codes....and you too could be a hero. ;)
 
Half Fast said:
If the controller weren’t overloaded, he might not release a helo to handle its own separation. Chances are this has become common at Reagan (normalization of deviation), and it finally resulted in a disaster.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is what you meant, but I only read it this morning for the first time. The second station at this tower is a dedicated helicopter controller. Which adds extra strength to your comment.
 
eman1200 said:
I've had to do that exactly one time in 16 years of owning a car with a backup camera. also now when I get in a car without a backup camera I'm completely lost. it's like losing the magenta line, I have no idea what to do. backup cameras are the best thing evarrrrrr.
Click to expand...
I’ve been doing that every day for the last couple of weeks.
 
I just came in and cleaned up a bunch of posts. This is a good thread with a bunch of good information - let's not get sidetracked with politics and get it locked. And those of you that know better - don't take the bait! :D
 
kayoh190 said:
I just came in and cleaned up a bunch of posts. This is a good thread with a bunch of good information - let's not get sidetracked with politics and get it locked. And those of you that know better - don't take the bait! :D
Click to expand...
ok no more talk about backup cameras, sorry, my bad! ;)
 
Roller said:
never

That route should not exist


Also a good pointer that when you say traffic in sight you buy a lot of responsibility
Click to expand...
Yes - definitely. The PAT 25 pilots didn't take that responsibility seriously enough.
They should know that lives are on the line. The RJ was called out (by the tower)
to be just south of the Woodrow Wilson bridge at 1,200'. The PAT 25 pilots should
have used that as a definitive marker as to what plane to look for. Just seeing some
lights in the distance of another plane doesn't cut it. The burden was definitely on
PAT 25. Their cavalier attitude about definitively having traffic in sight caused this
tragedy.

Heck, I remember about a year ago when I told Palm Beach Approach that I had
traffic in sight - and then I blurted out "I think." Things are happening fast up there -
flying a jet single pilot - at least I fessed up to it. Palm Beach did what they were
supposed to do - they said - that's not good enough. I instinctively said I think because
I was very busy with other things flying a complex plane by myself in busy airspace. I just
blurted it out - because my mind was working fast and it basically told me that you have
to be damn sure about these things - 100% sure. In hindsight, I wouldn't have said traffic
in sight at all initially - but that's Monday morning quarterbacking when we're literally
flying on the fly.

This wasn't a big deal - Palm Beach specifically called out the traffic again - and then I was sure
that I had the right plane - and I said clearly - traffic in sight. So, Palm Beach instructed
me to maintain visual separation and proceeded behind the traffic for the approach.
 
CaptainDoug said:
Yes - definitely. The PAT 25 pilots didn't take that responsibility seriously enough.
They should know that lives are on the line. The RJ was called out (by the tower)
to be just south of the Woodrow Wilson bridge at 1,200'. The PAT 25 pilots should
have used that as a definitive marker as to what plane to look for. Just seeing some
lights in the distance of another plane doesn't cut it. The burden was definitely on
PAT 25. Their cavalier attitude about definitively having traffic in sight caused this
tragedy.

Heck, I remember about a year ago when I told Palm Beach Approach that I had
traffic in sight - and then I blurted out "I think." Things are happening fast up there -
flying a jet single pilot - at least I fessed up to it. Palm Beach did what they were
supposed to do - they said - that's not good enough. I instinctively said I think because
I was very busy with other things flying a complex plane by myself in busy airspace. I just
blurted it out - because my mind was working fast and it basically told me that you have
to be damn sure about these things - 100% sure. In hindsight, I wouldn't have said traffic
in sight at all initially - but that's Monday morning quarterbacking when we're literally
flying on the fly.

This wasn't a big deal - Palm Beach specifically called out the traffic again - and then I was sure
that I had the right plane - and I said clearly - traffic in sight. So, Palm Beach instructed
me to maintain visual separation and proceeded behind the traffic for the approach.
Click to expand...
I know some guys who will flat out not say “traffic in sight”
 
dtuuri said:
Good for stopping in time before backing into the garage door, but otherwise nearly worthless.
Click to expand...
Depends on the camera. The one in our camper is marginal, the one in my wife's Mazda is better but not great, the one in my new Jeep is very good.
 
bonefishpete said:
RJ from what I heard was asked to circle to 33. I suppose they were planning rwy1. Could the RJ refuse the circle 33 and insist on a rwy 1 approach? If yes then we wouldn't be talking about this.
Click to expand...
The CRJ directly in front of them was requested to take 33 to extend spacing, and they replied "unable". The tower requested the crash CRJ to take 33 as a second option.
 
What if th
StraightnLevel said:
The CRJ directly in front of them was requested to take 33 to extend spacing, and they replied "unable". The tower requested the crash CRJ to take 33 as a second option.
Click to expand...
The RJ seemed to hesitate to take 33 but I’m sure they wanted to help ATC. Gusting wind and short runway I’m sure was on their minds. They should have declined.
 
bonefishpete said:
What if th

The RJ seemed to hesitate to take 33 but I’m sure they wanted to help ATC. Gusting wind and short runway I’m sure was on their minds. They should have declined.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of pilots who would take a 20-knot gusty headwind over a 20-knot gusty crosswind.
 

Hindsight and Outcome Bias | SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Description Hindsight bias and outcome bias sound similar but they are different concepts. Hindsight bias is a cognitive bias involving a tendency to overestimate one’s ability to have predicted an outcome or result that could not have been predicted before the event took place. Hindsight bias...
skybrary.aero skybrary.aero
 
bonefishpete said:
The RJ seemed to hesitate to take 33 but I’m sure they wanted to help ATC. Gusting wind and short runway I’m sure was on their minds.
Click to expand...
They didn't hesitate. In a multi-pilot crew, you need a moment to ensure that both pilots agree before responding to an ATC request.

The winds were quite favorable for landing on Rwy 33. Strong, and nearly right down the runway, would decrease the required landing distance.

They should have declined.
Click to expand...
Why? What possible information did that crew have, at the time the request was made, to indicate that a landing on 33 was unsafe? It is a routine procedure at DCA.

20/20 hindsight is not helpful at the time that the decision has to be made.
 
Roller said:
never

That route should not exist


Also a good pointer that when you say traffic in sight you buy a lot of responsibility
Click to expand...
How many decades have these routes existed without an issue? How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours flown by helicopters in the DC area without a midair?

You remove this route and you’d have to remove all the helicopter routes around the country. That would be a disaster. It would be like removing STARS / DPs in and out of major airports. The controller’s workload would skyrocket. I fly in and out of Atlanta on a regular basis with no routes and that place is a mad house. A free for all.

You’re hung up on a route when this type of situation could easily happen without a route. Visual separation is being applied everyday all over the country. You’ve got aircraft with very different flight characteristics trying to integrate in airspace with very little tolerance for error. Say PAT25 was actually going into DCA and given traffic to follow or pass behind traffic. No different than the route, the tower has to have standard B separation (1.5 / 500 ft) for VFR vs IFR (19,000 lbs). That goes out the window once visual sep is applied. It’s incumbent on them to see that traffic. There’s no way of knowing if the aircraft involved are seeing the correct traffic. What are we to do? Remove visual separation all together because we can’t trust pilots?
 
Velocity173 said:
Friend said they have 3 companies at the 12th. A pure VIP with 4 VH-60Ms “Gold Tops.” Two general support companies for VIP support, QRF, disaster response, etc. One with Limas and one with Mikes.

Not sure about NVGs. There was talk about white phosphor when I was retiring but I thought it would be allocated to you all and not big Army. Apparently they’re not much more expensive than ANVIS though. Day HUD was coming out as well. Not sure if the Army bought into that or not.
Click to expand...

Ahh, gotcha. The Mikes most likely have APX-123's with Mode S, whereas the Lima's do not.
Not sure where Big Army is with fielding WP goggles. Haven't seen anything about a HUD, but sometimes things never escape Redstone.
 
Velocity173 said:
How many decades have these routes existed without an issue? How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours flown by helicopters in the DC area without a midair?

You remove this route and you’d have to remove all the helicopter routes around the country. That would be a disaster. It would be like removing STARS / DPs in and out of major airports. The controller’s workload would skyrocket. I fly in and out of Atlanta on a regular basis with no routes and that place is a mad house. A free for all.

You’re hung up on a route when this type of situation could easily happen without a route. Visual separation is being applied everyday all over the country. You’ve got aircraft with very different flight characteristics trying to integrate in airspace with very little tolerance for error. Say PAT25 was actually going into DCA and given traffic to follow or pass behind traffic. No different than the route, the tower has to have standard B separation (1.5 / 500 ft) for VFR vs IFR (19,000 lbs). That goes out the window once visual sep is applied. It’s incumbent on them to see that traffic. There’s no way of knowing if the aircraft involved are seeing the correct traffic. What are we to do? Remove visual separation all together because we can’t trust pilots?
Click to expand...

I’m hung up on 60 pax and 4 crew dead for no good reason

Sometimes stuff happens, always will, however this helicopter path was stupid when it was first flown, and by luck it only now became deadly stupid.

Works till it doesn’t

It’s really not complicated, any route going through a busy approach corridor gets moved or removed, if it can’t give me over 1,000’ of separation on final it needs to be rethought or removed.

So the government helicopter can’t practice at that part of the airport when traffic is using that runway anymore, oh well
 
bonefishpete said:
Gusting wind and short runway I’m sure was on their minds. They should have declined.
Click to expand...
Well, under 121.191 you only need average skill and the ability to land to a full stop within 60% of the runway length. I think you're being a bit too harsh.
 
Roller said:
I’m hung up on 60 pax and 4 crew dead for no good reason

Sometimes stuff happens, always will, however this helicopter path was stupid when it was first flown, and by luck it only now became deadly stupid.

Works till it doesn’t

It’s really not complicated, any route going through a busy approach corridor gets moved or removed, if it can’t give me over 1,000’ of separation on final it needs to be rethought or removed.

So the government helicopter can’t practice at that part of the airport when traffic is using that runway anymore, oh well
Click to expand...
Well there’s no good reason for any midair but unless we all stop flying, they’re gonna continue to happen.

You’d never be able to integrate helicopters with fixed wing aircraft in major cities based on 1,000 ft separation. 500 ft separation in the min in C & B anyway.

Removing routes won’t solve the problem either. These helicopters have to get to places that are in close proximity to major airports. No different than the airline having to get to the airport. Remove the route and then it’ll be nothing more than a transition request.”Pat25 request transition southbound along the Potomac to Davison.” As long as tower has required separation or visual separation, they’ll approve the request.
 
dtuuri said:
Well, under 121.191 you only need average skill and the ability to land to a full stop within 60% of the runway length. I think you're being a bit too harsh.
Click to expand...
I assume you’re actually referring to 121.195? If so, note that the regulation doesn’t require the 60% factor upon arrival, only the planned arrival weight and conditions.

Operators may require it, but the reg itself doesn’t.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well there’s no good reason for any midair but unless we all stop flying, they’re gonna continue to happen.

You’d never be able to integrate helicopters with fixed wing aircraft in major cities based on 1,000 ft separation. 500 ft separation in the min in C & B anyway.

Removing routes won’t solve the problem either. These helicopters have to get to places that are in close proximity to major airports. No different than the airline having to get to the airport. Remove the route and then it’ll be nothing more than a transition request.”Pat25 request transition southbound along the Potomac to Davison.” As long as tower has required separation or visual separation, they’ll approve the request.
Click to expand...


If they need to operate that close to the approach path of transport category jets, guess we will have less helicopters flying in big cities.


I have flown into that area and the government helicopter traffic is silly

If a flight can’t be made without cutting into the approach or departure path, guess they won’t pull collective
 
Last edited:
Roller said:
If they need to operate that close to the approach path of transport category jets, guess we will have less helicopters flying in big cities.


I have flown into that area and the government helicopter traffic is silly
Click to expand...
Maybe a better answer would be eliminating fixed-wing traffic in that area.
 
We should put a 5 mile TFR around all major airports, restricting helicopter traffic.:rolleyes:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe a better answer would be eliminating fixed-wing traffic in that area.
Click to expand...

Try it and let the tax payers who fund all of this decide

I would put money on John Q Public doesn’t care about “VIP training flights” as much as being able to go to work, visit family, go on vacation and so on.

The NAS was built to serve the public, not the government, if that means a politician has drive like everyone else, I do not believe one will find a single ounce of sympathy from the tax paying public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top