Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
@WillowRun6-3 : Here from what we know so far, the controllers and their supervisors were trained to work on local procedures made long before they came to the facility . Those procedures were or became unsafe but if this is how they were trained to work , you can't blame the operators for faulty procedures .
Not that the NTSB are going to apportion blame in their report, that isn’t their function. But it’s quite clear there were (and are) unsafe practices going on among controllers
and operators in FAA/DOD land. Read the docket testimony here from page 463 onwards to about 468 or until you get bored.
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Documen...dacted-Rel.pdf
Clearly Army pilots are calling visual on very distant traffic which they haven’t actually identified and can’t see, and controllers are believing them and contracting responsibility for collision avoidance to them. The Standards pilot being interviewed here (the most experienced Army pilot NTSB spoke to) even says ‘..I know it’s bad…’ but condones the practice because otherwise the PAT helos would have to hold!
The logic displayed here is totally crazy.
If ATC have taken the trouble to issue a traffic advisory to a helo, why does the helo pilot think it’s reasonable to assume the traffic (which they haven’t seen!) will be no factor. The Controller has called out that particular traffic to the helo pilot for a reason he’s become aware of, like the traffic’s intended flight path will shortly become a collision risk to the helo.