AA5342 Down DCA
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 611
Likes: 473
From: Maryland USA
SLF here, so please don't shout.
It doesn't seem "fair" for aircraft like the CRJ, that in busy, complex airspace, another aircraft can request and receive VFR, meaning in broad terms, they're outside of ATC's guardrails. CRJ now have an aircraft in the vicinity that isn't being controlled by ATC.
Doesn't seem like a good process to an outsider.
It doesn't seem "fair" for aircraft like the CRJ, that in busy, complex airspace, another aircraft can request and receive VFR, meaning in broad terms, they're outside of ATC's guardrails. CRJ now have an aircraft in the vicinity that isn't being controlled by ATC.
Doesn't seem like a good process to an outsider.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 290
From: self isolating
No to wasnt fair on the CRJ, especially considering they were concentrating on aligning with finals very close to the runway, and ensuring correct path and touchdown point for a relatively short runway, whilst at the same time a flight was cleared for takeoff on the intersecting R01 (AA1630) whilst 5342 was descending through 700. So probable the 5342 crew ahead the main focus of keeping their flight path and tracking correct for the close in turn to final, and secondary focus of ensuring there wasnt going to be a conflict with the departing R01 traffic crossing through the intersection.
I think the 5342 crew probably discounted the risk of the helicopter as a threat as they heard the helo was maintaining visual separation and they had to concentrate on flying and the risk of conflict with departing traffic.
You are quite right this is a very bad process and a very bad system that has now ended in tragedy.
I think the 5342 crew probably discounted the risk of the helicopter as a threat as they heard the helo was maintaining visual separation and they had to concentrate on flying and the risk of conflict with departing traffic.
You are quite right this is a very bad process and a very bad system that has now ended in tragedy.
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 786
Likes: 173
From: OnScreen
TWR gives AA5342 as traffic to the helicopter, stating they are over the Woodrow (Wilson) bridge, however the helicopter crew keeps flying into the final approach path of R33. 40 seconds later TWR again asks if they have the “CRJ” in sight, and they reply they have, but at this point the CRJ is less than 200’ above them and only 0.5nm away. At the same time the following aircraft on approach to R01, an AA A319 on flight 3130, is above the Woodrow Bridge on finals. Possibly the helicopter crew at some point confused the A319 for the CRJ.
The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
The helicopter crew again confirms they have “the aircraft” in sight and requests visual separation, but surely if they had the CRJ in sight at less than 200’ vertically and half a mile away they would be taking immediate evasive action and not requesting visual separation???
It seems pretty clear what happened. The helicopter crew had confirmed they had the CRJ in sight and were happy to remain clear and pass behind. The ATC cleared them to maintain visual separation, the helicopter turned right as presumably this put them on the shortest course to where they wanted to go. At this point the ATC has NO further responsibility for separation, that is now the SOLE responsibility of the helicopter crew who accepted it. Clearly they did not have the CRJ in sight, what they were looking at will only ever be conjecture. Visual separation at night in such a busy piece of airspace is clearly a ridiculous procedure..... but it is a procedure that can currently be used. The ATC did nothing wrong, the CRJ crew did nothing wrong and more than likely the helicopter crew PROBABLY didn't do anything g wrong on purpose, there was o ly one airaft though out of place, a situation ONLY possible through an outdated and potentially dangerous procedure. My airline doesn't allow visual separation either day or night and only allows visual approaches by day, why be GA in Jets with paying passengers?
With only one other airplane, it's clear, with more than 1, it becomes a gamble.
This has been “litigated†before on PPRUNE. In the US, there is NO Missed Approach Procedure.
AIM 5-4-23
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
AIM 5-4-23
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
One can discuss whether this is a procedure or not, though there is at least "something".
Joined: Apr 2014
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 121
Likes: 42
From: South Alabama
Of course, this BlackHawk might be different. I don't know if it had UHF or VHF communication or perhaps both; however, quite a few reports claim that the helo was communicating on UHF so that both the RJ and the helo could hear the same controller, but they couldn't hear each other. That is quite common in my experience, but that is not to say that it's a good thing since it has the potential to reduce situational awareness.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 479
Likes: 27
From: at the edge of the alps
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 12
Likes: 28
From: Switzerland
I dont know if this has already been mentioned. I just read that that same almost happened the night before too. Republic Airways Flight 4514 Had to go around to avoid colliding with a helicopter.
Last edited by Return_2_Stand; 31st January 2025 at 06:09.
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 344
Likes: 141
From: Puget Sound, WA
"It's difficult to see aircraft at night against a backdrop of a city with thousands of lights." - DC isn't actually that big of a city or that brightly lit, and it seems the UH-60 was heading south west, well away from DC toward a not very dense part of suburban N. Virginia. Mostly they would see a very wide part of the Potomac river ahead, and in the distance on the western shore is a Daingerfield island (US park service land and mostly unlit), the GW parkway going N/S for a couple hundred meters (all the parkways are dangerously unlit IMO) followed by some low level typical suburb condos of a couple stories towards Potomac Yard, which other than street lights or the sign from Target is not very bright. I kayak there all the time and there's nothing much to see looking westward. I've been out of KVKX at night and can see that area and it's not dazzling.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 707
Likes: 103
From: Mauritius,soon or latter
Once again simple rule played significant role.
One runway, one ATCO, one frequency, one language ( not issue here- but there are again number of phraseology deviations)
Yes I know, system is more sensitive to money than to safety.
N.B. what I find interesting, systems that are richer are more prone to safety savings.
You will never find in " small and poor " country one ATCO working on 3 rwys withIin busy CTR .
One runway, one ATCO, one frequency, one language ( not issue here- but there are again number of phraseology deviations)
Yes I know, system is more sensitive to money than to safety.
N.B. what I find interesting, systems that are richer are more prone to safety savings.
You will never find in " small and poor " country one ATCO working on 3 rwys withIin busy CTR .
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 55
Likes: 69
From: FL95
Class B
VFR flights not being separated form each other is a class C thing. VFR not being separated from IFR is a class D thing. In class B all flights are separated from each others regardless of flight rules. So all the discussions on flight rule changes are irrelevant for ghis incident anyhow.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,426
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
That won't play well in the next stage of this process. 2 x in 2 days, there will be a litany of events in the cupboard.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 153
Likes: 57
From: Switzerland
Helicopters avoid stopping unless landing or undertaking a task that requires a fixed position such as rappelling (sometimes...) winching (almost always). Power requirement goes way up, control is more interesting, and the H-V curve come into play, particularly if a SE helicopter. To do a quick stop at night, over water, low level, is an interesting maneuver, the chance of ending up with a splash is above zero. rapid deceleration and sharp turns add to the pleasures of low flying at night with an indistinct horizon, varied lighting, NVG or not. If that is the plan to avoid a disaster, then they really need to rethink the plan.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 374
From: PLanet Earth
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 282
Likes: 72
From: In the Pusta
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,426
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
Sorry fdr, I humbly disagree. While it is near impossible to stop a light heli manually like a Robinson R22 without proper ground reference, those big junks used for all-weather rescue operations all have hover-capable autopilots. Press the button and the thing holds position even in strong winds. I am sure a Blackhawk has this feature too. And hover og at sea level is not an issue here. And I am sure you should not be allowed to fly a heli at night if you cannot perform a reasonable 360 flown shy above transition speed. Another question is if you should be allowed to fly at 200 feet at night over a built up area. But that's another story. There are so many risks staring at you with these procedures it's a wonder an accident did not happen before.
As an aside, the RHC is quite maneuverable, our low level / ag ratings using it require competency in torque turns, pedal turns which are entertaining but hardly beneficial to a UH-60 crew doing 115KGS towards a jet doing 130 KTS GS.
Joined: Apr 2024
Posts: 26
Likes: 15
From: Germany
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 303
Likes: 56
From: Europe
Joined: Apr 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 611
Likes: 249
From: on the ground
It encourages confirmation bias; "I see something so it must be what I'm being told to see".
When teaching young people to drive or ride a motorcycle, I make a point of asking them not to check whether they can see anything coming before pulling out.
I tell them they must be able to see *nothing*.
They must look for and be confident that there is NO THREAT approaching before entering the intersection.
Can they clearly see empty road containing no threats?
"Do you see the CRJ" invites the helicopter pilot to find something out there in the dark, which might or might not even be *a* CRJ in the dark, never mind the right CRJ, then feel he's now identified the threat. It invites him to concentrate on one threat and fail so see others.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 153
Likes: 57
From: Switzerland
Did you ever read the UTTAS LOADS report? A quick stop with a tail wind, at low level at night over water, the issues are not dependent on whether you have franks rotor head or not, nor if you have a SAS system capable of entry into a hover. A level 180 with a confined radius at low level at night is also hardly a great option, one that puts the helo belly up to the traffic to remain over water, or doing a break into the traffic which is towards obstacles. I do not see that this flight path has been safe at any time, irrespective of how lucky the operators have been. If this is the de-confliction plan they need a new plan.
As an aside, the RHC is quite maneuverable, our low level / ag ratings using it require competency in torque turns, pedal turns which are entertaining but hardly beneficial to a UH-60 crew doing 115KGS towards a jet doing 130 KTS GS.
As an aside, the RHC is quite maneuverable, our low level / ag ratings using it require competency in torque turns, pedal turns which are entertaining but hardly beneficial to a UH-60 crew doing 115KGS towards a jet doing 130 KTS GS.
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 17
Likes: 29
From: Reading
I dont like saying this, but reading your posts, my gut feeling is you may be part of the problem.
Its well-known that modern airliners are specifically designed to be flown safely by the average pilot, not the cream. If ATC procedures arent designed and operated in a similar vein, does it need, a) a professional pilot to infer increased risk, or b) plain common sense?
I would much rather be on the flight that refuses to accept a night visual separation than hope my pilot is above average. Why?
Because hope is a poor hedge (if you like gambling analogies).