Originally Posted by
layman54
This raises the question of what fraction of helicopter crews in that situation asked for visual separation. And how often did ATC grant it? According to posts above sometimes helicopters were held at Hains Point so apparently visual separation wasn't universal.
Yep, that question .......... and loads more.
Originally Posted by
layman54
........ The only such theory I can come up with is that the jet pilot should have refused the rerouting to runway 33 because he should have known that would increase the jet's exposure to reckless helicopters. Which is sort of blaming the pilots squared. Is that what you want to go with or do you have an alternative way of dragging American Airlines into this? Of course American Airlines is already involved in that they have a FTCA claim against the government for at least the value of their plane.
One thing I mentioned earlier is that airlines
also have a responsibility for conducting safe operations; safe for their crews, their pax and by-standers. For eg, airlines often have additional rules for certain airfields (eg some require specialist training before crews can operate in there due to say, terrain issues on the approach). As has anecdotally been reported on here, if there have been an above "average" (and someone will need to figure out exactly what that means) number of issues with this particular approach in terms of TA's, irrespective of the outcomes, then the airline has a Duty of Care to have a system which identifies such issues, assesses them and then, if necessary, to put additional mitigation in place - such as, say, banning the use of 33. AA may have looked at this and, if so, their Safety Case should explain why they concluded it was safe. Sadly, even that doesn't guarantee the right decision was reached ...... but at least they'll have formally assessed it. Trouble is, landing on 33 seems to have cut taxi time = fuel = $'s.......
Anyway, just some thoughts! You know, I can be a right cynic at times but, having a background in Safety Engineering in a previous life, that's par for the course!!!
Cheers,
H 'n' H