Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
As to your point on the cause of the accident, yes, they were not aware of the traffic coming into 33 (for reasons beaten to death already).
What do you mean by "
they were not aware of the traffic coming into 33"? They were specifically informed about the incoming traffic circling into 33.
And they acknowledged it, although in a very short reply (understandable to keep R/T's as short as possible).
But replying with "
traffic circling 33 in sight" just might have improved their own SA, helping to build the mental picture that mentioned traffic was going to move slightly to their left and was at some point going to cross their route from left to right. And if they didn't have that mental picture of what "circling 33" meant for their routing, then a lot was wrong long before the impact.
Edit: UH60 CVR transcript of the same (notice the difference in transcript 'circling' <-> 'for')
and yes of course, we all know, beaten to death, etc. that they 'locked' onto the wrong traffic for their visual separation in this very challenging and complex visual situation (not to mention at night with NVG's !!!).
And what strikes me over and over again, is this mutual 'pavlovian'
"request visual separation"-"approved" thing, as if proclaiming these words, absolves all involved from any rules/restriction that might hinder the smooth flow of things (which it does - kind of).
Even at the last chance of averting disaster by the controller (by clearly indicating the target), the pavlovian reaction was there again (totally meaningless as it was already requested and approved 96 second earlier)...
... even while not catching the drift of the controller's last R/T (but hey, we said the magic words, so lets keep on moving)