Originally Posted by
ignorantAndroid
Visual Flight Rules aren't a local procedure.
I agree. The prudent thing to do would be to not call traffic in sight and let the controller give you a hold.
" )
Indeed but Visual Flight rules (VFR) and visual separations are two very different things . Visual separation can be ( and are) locally restricted , and even Airlines restricted ( think Lufthansa and the SFO incident) . My point is , with hindsight of course, that here, in this route in DCA it should have been restricted , even more so at night..
But first you'd have to know the plane is there.
That is why you have a controller and procedures in place If the procedure says no simultaneous use, no traffic needs to be passed and no request for visual made , unless you allow the normalization of deviance
I But I don't understand how the FAA would be responsible. Visual separation is initiated by the pilot, when they say "traffic in sight.
When you say FAA you mean the regulator right ? because here we have the service provider ( making the local procedures) and the Regulator certifying them being the same entity The "regulator " part should make a safety assessment of the procedures and approve them . In this case they were not safe , and, as I said earlier , especially after the numerous incidents a local restriction should have been in place : no visual separation allowed on those portions of the airspace , or no simultaneous use of that portion of the route when 15/33 is in use.
I strongly suspect this is what will come up anyway in the NTSB report .