AA5342 Down DCA

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Precisely my point. You don't peer at your TCAS screen trying to decide what to do. You shouldn't have to peer at your Nav Display looking at the ADS-B In returns to work out whether you're on a collision course. But that is exactly what ADS-B In will do/mean imply, unless/until it is fully integrated into the aircraft systems. Maybe the pollies (or whoever is feeding them this nonsense) think it can be bolted onto the TCAS, overnight job, done... problem solved.

Indeed , and they should leave TCAS alone , it is a totally independent last minute safety tool, based on SSR radar detection and should not be integrated with anything else that can modify its (still not perfect) logic.
ADS-B is very vulnerable to jamming and spoofing and cannot be used for anything else than information to visually acquire traffic in VMC in my opinion.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

I don't think that here is question what is better from safety or logic point of view.

Here is the question who is the owner of ADSB and TCAS ( both royalties and manufacturer/ dealer of equipment).

[Musician]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Maybe the pollies (or whoever is feeding them this nonsense) think it can be bolted onto the TCAS, overnight job, done... problem solved.

No, they don't think that.

Sections 101-103 of ALERT drive the TCAS update that's been in the works since 2008, and require helicopters operating in class B airspace to have it.

Section 104 sets a timeline for ADS-B in in part 91 operations, with some kind of collision alerting. This type of "TCAS light" is for aircraft that didn't have anything before. It's not "bolted onto TCAS", and because it has audio alerts, pilots won't need to look at it constantly to reap some benefit from it.

I really don't see a downside in requiring the flying dentists to bring a tablet that'll tell them when they're about to fly into someone else.
It's an extra slice of cheese, sure it has holes, but it's still added protection.

[WillowRun 6-3]

1) on the general and somewhat contentious issue(s) with regard to actual, positive effect on safety of various configurations, consider that the Act provides for flexibility in form but not with regard to effects:

Section 104(e):
"EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY.—In issuing the final rule required under this section, the Administrator shall allow for the use of any collision prevention technology (including technology that uses portable ADS–B In receivers or other equipment that displays on an existing or future portable device, electronic flight bag, or panel mounted display) available for use at the time of the effective date established in subsection (d)(4), if the Administrator determines it provides an equivalent level of safety as the requirements of the final rule issued pursuant to subsection (a)."

2) As Musician has noted, Section 104 overall applies to "covered aircraft" as specifically defined in Sec. 104(g) by reference to 14 C.F.R. Sec. 91.225.

3) Further to the perhaps controversial actions by the FAA set in motion by this legislation, and while recognizing my lack of knowledge as a non-pilot;
(a) the list of organizations and stakeholders to be convened for the rulemaking process appears quite nearly if not completely comprehensive in my reading of it, but if there's some constituency or important cadres of SMEs missing, who or what are they? (See Sec. 104(b));
(b) similarly, the list (Sec. 104(c)) of substantive considerations to be taken into account appears quite comprehensive (missing - what, if anything?);
(c) having done a large academic project last year on European ATM modernization and how it could contribute to the efforts to address the manifest issues in the NAS and U.S. ATC system, I'm particularity happy to see subsection (8) which sets forth the following consideration:
"the effort of the [FAA] Administrator to modernize the air traffic control system, including timelines, technologies being incorporated, changes to operational rules, and training requirements."

4) I have not done a legislative search in order to examine the text of various FAA authorization and reauthorization measures, or any other possibly relevant legislation passed by Congress. That said, the introductory passages of this legislation might be unique in U.S. aviation law, including the tributes to the families of the individuals killed in the DCA midair collision, tributes to a long roster of first responders, and recitations which - at the very least - represent an effort to speak with sincerity to the drastic issues revealed (or revealed again) by this accident. Let the cynics trash the effort if they choose, and as their often reactionary minds or awareness frequently compel them to do. I think this is an excellent legislative effort. When the Senate acts, and if and when the President signs it into law, then the real work .....will continue . . . . "continue", because much thoughtful work is what one reads in the ALERT Act. .

[WillowRun 6-3]

Public Session, May 21, National Academies

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and its TRB - Transportation Research Board - are convening three days of meetings for study of the January 29 2025 accident. The May 20 and 22 meetings are closed; May 21 open (agenda on the National Academies website).

Following is the content of the meeting announcement.

"Airspace Design, Civil-Military Coordination, and Operational Safety of National Capital Region with a focus on DCA.

On the night of January 29, 2025, a PSA Airlines regional jet airplane descending to Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA) collided in midair with a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60L helicopter transiting the Potomac River. Both aircraft were destroyed, killing all 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the airplane and the 3 crew members on the military helicopter. After a year-long investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a report analyzing the events leading up to the collision, identifying causal and contributing factors, and recommending a series of actions intended to prevent future accidents.
Informed by the NTSB investigation, consultations with other experts, and information made available by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Defense (DOD), and others involved in or affected by the coordination of airspace activities at DCA and the National Capital Region, an ad hoc study committee will review the:
• Historical and ongoing risks associated with DCA airspace design and usage, including historical incidents relevant to current protocols;
• Adequacy of coordination protocols between the FAA, DOD, and other entities involved in or affected by airspace coordination;
• Patterns of near-miss incidents involving military aircraft; and,
• Structural, cultural, or procedural barriers to risk identification and accountability.
Based on an initial review and assessment, the committee will issue a main report with feasible and appropriate key findings and recommendations in response to the tasks in the study charge. Following delivery of this report, the committee will continue to gather and analyze information to develop a supplemental report that addresses tasks in the study charge that could not be addressed in the interim report because of the time required to obtain, analyze, and assess critical data. Assuming the timely provision of needed data by FAA, DOT, DOD, and others, the committee will strive to issue its report addressing priority issues within approximately 6 months. Where more time is needed to address certain issues in the study charge, the committee will issue a supplemental report 3 to 6 months later."

[Capn Bloggs]

Is the TRB a taxpayer-funded, government policy-making body? If yes, this smacks of gravy-training.

​​​​​​​will issue a main report with feasible and appropriate key findings and recommendations

They may be appropriate but they won't be feasible if nobody pays for them.

[MightyOneFiveTwo]

The NAS is a private, non-governmental body (that nevertheless gets 80+% of its funding from the federal government) which elects its own members and makes no policy, only advice, regarding only matters on which it decides to study.
Is that better or worse?

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Musician

No, they don't think that.

You don 't understand who things work. TCAS has nothing to do with ADS-B. To merge TCAS and ADSB-In in an airliner with cost a fortune. As I pointed out before, simple-straight TCAS has taken decades to get to the point where it is very reliable with low nuisance alerts. If you think the system will magically produce properly integrated ASDB-In to airliners within 5 years, you'd better have deep pockets.

As for:

Originally Posted by Musician

​​​​​​​I really don't see a downside in requiring the flying dentists to bring a tablet that'll tell them when they're about to fly into someone else.

Why are we now talking about flying dentists? Are you going to pay the multi-millions of cost you are foisting on GA because some pollie thinks it's a great idea after an airliner ran into an army chopper 2nm from a control tower in the middle of the big end of town?

Originally Posted by Mighty152

​​​​​​​Is that better or worse?

I'm calling it unnecessary. The NTSB has issued it's report. The FAA, the airlines and pilots bodies and every pollie under the sun, by the looks of it, are all over it. If all that lot can't get to the nub of the problem and fix it, I very much doubt if the TRB can.

[MightyOneFiveTwo]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

If all that lot can't get to the nub of the problem and fix it, I very much doubt if the TRB can.

My point exactly. Expensive, taxpayer-funded, self-important busy-bodies.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Is the TRB a taxpayer-funded, government policy-making body? If yes, this smacks of gravy-training.

They may be appropriate but they won't be feasible if nobody pays for them.

"The National Academies [of which the TRB is a part] provide independent, trustworthy advice and facilitate solutions to complex challenges by mobilizing expertise, practice, and knowledge in science, engineering, and medicine. We envision a nation and world that rely on scientific evidence to make decisions that benefit humanity. At the core of our work is an unwavering commitment to objectivity, scientific rigor, and truth."

Enough of that sort of talk ...

[ignorantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

If you think the system will magically produce properly integrated ASDB-In to airliners within 5 years, you'd better have deep pockets.

You might find this interesting:

In November 2015, Boeing began installing new production ADS-B-In capability on the B787 as a priced option. The specific capabilities offered are AIRB/VSA and ITP. A B787 Service Bulletin is also available to retrofit this capability into any B787. Boeing has stated this same capability will also be provided as a priced option on the B777X at Entry-Into-Service.

As of January 2018, Airbus offers new production ADS-B-In capability on all models except for the A380 (available for Single Aisle, A330/340, and A350), as a priced option. The specific capabilities offered are AIRB/VSA and ITP. A Service Bulletin is available to retrofit this capability into all A350 aircraft. A Service Bulletin is available to retrofit this capability into Single Aisle or A330/A340 aircraft produced since 2011.

Source: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi...n_Strategy.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

@IA, thanks for that, interesting. I noted with interest this, from the AI search results: "These technologies enable pilots to use precise, GPS-based, real-time data from surrounding aircraft to make informed decisions.".

Originally Posted by DaveReid

Enough of that sort of talk ...

A noble aim, but my point was... what is this going to prove/show us what could be better that we don't already know and have started to implement? I'll wager not much. Now if it was entirely privately funded, go for it. But if it's funded by the taxpayer, then IMO the investigatory work and analysis has already been done and the remedial actions are already on the go. There seems little point in holding another enquiry consuming valuable public resources.

[Musician]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

You don 't understand who things work. TCAS has nothing to do with ADS-B. To merge TCAS and ADSB-In in an airliner with cost a fortune. As I pointed out before, simple-straight TCAS has taken decades to get to the point where it is very reliable with low nuisance alerts. If you think the system will magically produce properly integrated ASDB-In to airliners within 5 years, you'd better have deep pockets.

You were responding to my post #2003, but didn't quote it in full and mangled the link. I wrote there, "Sections 101-103 of ALERT drive the TCAS update that's been in the works since 2008", so your "within 5 years" is more like "within 20 years".

Here's what EASA thinks:

The FAA conducted safety studies during the ACAS Xa standardisation process that indicate ACAS Xa provides overall safety and operational improvements. These studies indicate that ACAS Xa improves safety by 20% on the United States encounter model and reduces the overall alerting rate by 65% on recorded radar tracks in US airspace. The improvement is most visible in case of preventive (Monitor Vertical Speed) RAs where 97% of TCAS II RAs were removed by ACAS Xa resulting in only an ACAS Xa TA. This is attributed to higher quality ADS-B data (used by ACAS Xa rather than active surveillance used by TCAS II) proving a better estimate of present and future state of intruder aircraft.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/acas-x

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Why are we now talking about flying dentists? Are you going to pay the multi-millions of cost you are foisting on GA because some pollie thinks it's a great idea after an airliner ran into an army chopper 2nm from a control tower in the middle of the big end of town?

There's a bunch of GA mid-airs as well that have been happening.

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

I'm calling it unnecessary. The NTSB has issued it's report. The FAA, the airlines and pilots bodies and every pollie under the sun, by the looks of it, are all over it. If all that lot can't get to the nub of the problem and fix it, I very much doubt if the TRB can.

It's always nice to have a second opinion.

[Capn Bloggs]

@Musician, that's all fine, but it's all about money. When you're paying for it, you tend to have a different slant on putting in the latest and greatest. Ever wonder why every man and his dog in GA has a wizzbang instrument panel and the old 737 hasn't changed in decades? When was the last midair between two airliners in the US? To illustrate my cost point, a seriously major airline in the US has twice convinced Boeing to (re) produce dinosaur jets so it can cut training costs.

Originally Posted by Musician

There's a bunch of GA mid-airs as well that have been happening.

A "bunch". What sort of statistical analysis is that? Enough to justify forcing thousands of owners to put in ADS-B In?

Originally Posted by Musician

​​​​​​​It's always nice to have a second opinion

That was the first opinion. I'm curious about your (second) opinion, as you appear to be right on top of this prang. What would you expect to come out of a TRB enquiry that hasn't already been fleshed out?

[WillowRun 6-3]

Maybe not so pointless

Some points to consider before dismissing or deriding the National Academies TRB project at issue (since my earlier post provoked some of this).

1. WIth regard to the FAA presumably already having invested much time and effort into this subject matter, consider that the NTSB hearing revealed some, to state it mildly, difficulties in FAA's approach to the relevant questions in the past. Three examples: the failure to note "hot spots" on charts; the TRACON's unheeded concerns about spacing; and the failure to take action after a working group of DCA ATCOs brought issues about helicopter operations to the FAA's attention. Of course there are big numbers of people at FAA who serve honorably and well - but that does not save the agency as a whole from being called out for its failures. And past performance is among the best indicators of future performance.

2. As for the NTSB, needless to say it deserves massive respect. But again, how often does a Board Chair - in this instance, Chairwoman Homendy - need to point to the many recommendations the Board has made which have gone unheeded? It also is relevant (imo) that the National Academies TRB project is not limited in context to an investigation of the DCA midair accident.

3. With regard to the legislation passed by Congress - the Alert Act . . . . back up a bit. If my legislative research is correct, the measure, passed by the House of Representatives on April 14, 2026, was sent to the Senate and referred to Committee. Not enacted into law yet; not sent to the President for signature and signed. So, the TRB project could assist in the continuing legislative action. The TRB project could yield impetus for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to move the measure to the floor and for it to be enacted. Or perhaps there are yet refinements to be worked out. Either way, given the status of the Alert Act, as a "solution" even if only in part to the glaring problems which existed on the night of 29 January of 2025, more expert study and output could very well be both important and helpful (and see no. 6 following re: "expert").

4. Have the Pentagon and the Army bought into the findings and recommendations of the NTSB fully? - and set about the work to implement the required actions? Citing the work of NTSB and FAA obviously does not resolve this question.

5. The Trump Administration, with Congress apparently going along - although the Iran conflict does impose significant uncertainty about fiscal matters - plans to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on what it calls the Brand New Air Traffic Control System. Certainly the modest amount (in comparison) of additional taxpayer dollars devoted to getting an independent and expert review are good "insurance" expenditures to increase the chances the Congress and the Dep't of Transportation (FAA) gets this massive project off to the right start. (In this context, personally I think it is a good sign that technology vendors from Europe have not been ruled out, given their experience and existing projects, notwithstanding slogans on baseball caps.)

6. Not least, here is the link from the National Academies website. Anyone interested can click on the professional bio's of the nine panel members. After reading those, I would welcome the opportunity to learn what further actual expertise would qualify for such a study.
Airspace Design, Civil-Military Coordination, and Operational Safety in the National Capital Region - Committee Meeting 3 https://share.google/H1ckU8zEQKhVseTi4

(I have zero connection whatsoever to the TRB or National Academies (duh) and honestly I don't recall how I ended up on its e-mailing list, but it is what it is.)

[Capn Bloggs]

Always good to have a second opinion, WR63, thanks.

That is a pretty well-qualified committee. I wish them well.

[Musician]

When I search NTSB's CAROL for "mid-air" in the US since 2020, I get 12 events involving 2 aircraft, and that doesn't even include the DCA collision.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Musician

When I search NTSB's CAROL for "mid-air" in the US since 2020, I get 12 events involving 2 aircraft, and that doesn't even include the DCA collision.

I'll say it again. Go and ask the thousands (probably hundreds of) GA pilots if they want to fork out thousands of $$ for ADS-B In for collision avoidance. And not only that, there is the ongoing compliance...

And I'll say it again, what are the movement statistics? Of course a midair is bad, but relative to the total movements...

I suggest you remember what this whole shemozzle was caused by: somebody thought it was a good idea to allow an army chopper, at night, using visual separation, through a very busy airline landing corridor. That's no reason to extrapolate that into every corner of aviation. There were 20,000 car deaths in Europe last year, but I don't see draconian measures being placed on drivers or cars.

​​​​​​​as you appear to be right on top of this prang. What would you expect to come out of a TRB enquiry that hasn't already been fleshed out?

​​​​​​​??

[Musician]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

I'll say it again. Go and ask the thousands (probably hundreds of) GA pilots if they want to fork out thousands of $$ for ADS-B In for collision avoidance. And not only that, there is the ongoing compliance...
​

Foreflight's top-of-the-line model costs under $800. It has voice alerts.

[MechEngr]

"I don't see draconian measures being placed on drivers or cars."

There is about $1000 in airbags, crash sensors, and automatic seatbelt tensioners and considerable expense to using high-strength steel to allow lowering the weight of crumple zone structures and increased A-pillar (the front roof supports) to protect from roll-over crushing of the passenger compartment. This is in otherwise inexpensive vehicles traveling at generally low speeds on paths that are made with significant mitigations to protect errant drivers.

When seatbelts were first a required in passenger vehicles, not to wear them, just to have them, a considerable number of Americans demanded they would rather be thrown clear of a crash than risk being trapped by the seatbelt in a flaming wreck. Now cars nag and nag and nag for not latching the seatbelt, so much that\ the car will complain if one puts a bag of groceries on the passenger seat because there is a weight sensor that can't tell the difference between Sunday dinner and a 5 year old.