AA5342 Down DCA
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Easy Street:
"However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved."
Aircraft accidents bring lawsuits - like it or not.
I'm not a member now, nor have I been a member, of the part of the profession which specializes in suing usually anybody plausible as a defendant. That doesn't mean, as an attorney first and SLF second, I don't see big problems looming ahead. (A prior post on legal factors was junked by the mods, but that was then, this is. . . .)
The FAA and the U.S. Army are privileged with sovereign immunity, as a general rule. A federal statute - the Federal Tort Claims Act - enacted a waiver of sovereign immunity BUT with an important exception. If the allegedly negligent act (or omission) was taken (or failed to be taken) as part of a "discretionary function", immunity still exists. The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
And will our fine feathered legal eagles sue American too, just to go after the deep pocket, and try to force the airline to take a position on the federal immunity questions?
It's too bad so much attention is focused on the dumb shows and noise currently meant to entertain the grandstands (if you get my meaning). There should be a way to compensate the families of the people who perished in this awful, tragic, and ultimately senseless midair collision. Is the United States civil justice system really going back to 1960 and pretending that what we are dealing with is the December 16 1960 DC-8 - L-1049 Super Constellation midair?
As another poster way, way upthread said, I feel rage.
"However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved."
Aircraft accidents bring lawsuits - like it or not.
I'm not a member now, nor have I been a member, of the part of the profession which specializes in suing usually anybody plausible as a defendant. That doesn't mean, as an attorney first and SLF second, I don't see big problems looming ahead. (A prior post on legal factors was junked by the mods, but that was then, this is. . . .)
The FAA and the U.S. Army are privileged with sovereign immunity, as a general rule. A federal statute - the Federal Tort Claims Act - enacted a waiver of sovereign immunity BUT with an important exception. If the allegedly negligent act (or omission) was taken (or failed to be taken) as part of a "discretionary function", immunity still exists. The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
And will our fine feathered legal eagles sue American too, just to go after the deep pocket, and try to force the airline to take a position on the federal immunity questions?
It's too bad so much attention is focused on the dumb shows and noise currently meant to entertain the grandstands (if you get my meaning). There should be a way to compensate the families of the people who perished in this awful, tragic, and ultimately senseless midair collision. Is the United States civil justice system really going back to 1960 and pretending that what we are dealing with is the December 16 1960 DC-8 - L-1049 Super Constellation midair?
As another poster way, way upthread said, I feel rage.
Pegase Driver
Joined: May 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 4,448
Likes: 1,158
From: Europe
No, it does not matter much as he was performing a visual separation ,and remember, he was instructed to pass behind so it may deviate from track. ( although they might have missed this instruction according the CVR )
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
If we took the FAA to be undertaking "plug and chug" regulatory and procedural activities, unburdened by political considerations and at risk of having EASA or UK CAA regulations and procedures held up as comparators in negligence cases against it, then I think it is highly unlikely that FAA regulations would be as permissive as they are in respect of visual separation and runway occupancy (the two most obvious and frequently cited points of difference, at least where airline operations are concerned), or that DCA’s helicopter routes would have existed. So why such a difference in approach? Economic factors are usually held up as the reason, and I fear this takes us away from "plug and chug" regulation into policy territory where immunity would seemingly apply.
I very much doubt that any politician, corporate lobbyist or general would explicitly advance the argument that occasional accidents are a tolerable price for the traffic capacity enhancements enabled by visual separation. It'll be interesting to see whether the NTSB forces that argument into the open, or enables it to be avoided by distracting itself with altimetry and other such matters.
Last edited by Easy Street; 16th February 2025 at 22:35.
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 102
Likes: 87
From: USA
So this just cracks me up. He's in the middle of the river where the route says it's up the East bank, and that's OK because the routes are not defined with no procedural separation from landing traffic. He's instructed to pass behind the CRJ, but that would involve him either holding short or deviating over the city at 200ft at night, but instead he chooses to plow right on. The helicopter is out of his standard altitude, and the jet is way above the glideslope, and ATC encourages them to sort it out themselves. And the helicopter crew are wearing NVGs. What could possibly go wrong.
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 74
Likes: 39
From: Nearby
Accepting that the altimetry may be a side issue in this accident, but one explanation for the apparent altimeter discrepancy of around 100ft could be if pilots adjusted baro-alt to read same as radalt while over the water. Is this SOP in helicopter ops? Or were they given an altimeter setting to apply when they checked in on freq? The Potomac is tidal in that area with a tidal range 3ft or so, so radalt is near equivalent to amsl.
So maybe the handling pilot misread 300ft radio and set an indicated 210ft on her baro-altimeter, while the pilot monitoring correctly set 300ft on his baro-altimeter, but without a crosscheck being performed. Subsequently if they adjusted flightpath to fly 200ft on the handling pilots baro alt then that would explain quite a lot….
eg The helicopter flying at 290ft radio (actually 278ft at impact); the pilot monitoring’s nudge to the pilot handling to descend a bit; the transponder mode C reporting 300ft from the pressure altitude capsule in the handling pilots baro altimeter (which we’ve seen on the various ATC traffic videos).
So maybe the handling pilot misread 300ft radio and set an indicated 210ft on her baro-altimeter, while the pilot monitoring correctly set 300ft on his baro-altimeter, but without a crosscheck being performed. Subsequently if they adjusted flightpath to fly 200ft on the handling pilots baro alt then that would explain quite a lot….
eg The helicopter flying at 290ft radio (actually 278ft at impact); the pilot monitoring’s nudge to the pilot handling to descend a bit; the transponder mode C reporting 300ft from the pressure altitude capsule in the handling pilots baro altimeter (which we’ve seen on the various ATC traffic videos).
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
Understandable, given that he mistakenly thinks he can see the CRJ ahead of him. It hasn't yet started moving to his left to line up with runway 33, so he thinks it is still south of the Wilson bridge (it being difficult to judge distance from points of light at night, and impossible through NVG). He therefore thinks he is OK to plow right on and is not too worried about being 78 feet high given the distance between the aircraft.
He doesn't know his mental model is dead wrong because he latched onto the wrong aircraft in the cluster of 4 visible when the traffic was called to him a couple of minutes ago.
He doesn't know his mental model is dead wrong because he latched onto the wrong aircraft in the cluster of 4 visible when the traffic was called to him a couple of minutes ago.
Last edited by Easy Street; 16th February 2025 at 22:38.
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 75
Likes: 3
From: Nantes
Accepting that the altimetry may be a side issue in this accident, but one explanation for the apparent altimeter discrepancy of around 100ft could be if pilots adjusted baro-alt to read same as radalt while over the water. Is this SOP in helicopter ops? Or were they given an altimeter setting to apply when they checked in on freq? The Potomac is tidal in that area with a tidal range 3ft or so, so radalt is near equivalent to amsl.
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 74
Likes: 39
From: Nearby
df44, you miss the point or just being facetious — just trying to understand why the helicopter might be flying along at 300ft, and not at 200ft, and with the two altimeters reading 100ft apart.
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 102
Likes: 87
From: USA
Easy Street:
"However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved."
Aircraft accidents bring lawsuits - like it or not.
I'm not a member now, nor have I been a member, of the part of the profession which specializes in suing usually anybody plausible as a defendant. That doesn't mean, as an attorney first and SLF second, I don't see big problems looming ahead. (A prior post on legal factors was junked by the mods, but that was then, this is. . . .)
The FAA and the U.S. Army are privileged with sovereign immunity, as a general rule. A federal statute - the Federal Tort Claims Act - enacted a waiver of sovereign immunity BUT with an important exception. If the allegedly negligent act (or omission) was taken (or failed to be taken) as part of a "discretionary function", immunity still exists. The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
And will our fine feathered legal eagles sue American too, just to go after the deep pocket, and try to force the airline to take a position on the federal immunity questions?
It's too bad so much attention is focused on the dumb shows and noise currently meant to entertain the grandstands (if you get my meaning). There should be a way to compensate the families of the people who perished in this awful, tragic, and ultimately senseless midair collision. Is the United States civil justice system really going back to 1960 and pretending that what we are dealing with is the December 16 1960 DC-8 - L-1049 Super Constellation midair?
As another poster way, way upthread said, I feel rage.
"However, as there was no vertical separation built into this procedure, all of this is at best a distraction. The more important questions are why procedural barriers were not in place to stop the route being used during landings on runway 33, and whether visual separation at night is an adequate barrier to collision when airliners and their human cargo are involved."
Aircraft accidents bring lawsuits - like it or not.
I'm not a member now, nor have I been a member, of the part of the profession which specializes in suing usually anybody plausible as a defendant. That doesn't mean, as an attorney first and SLF second, I don't see big problems looming ahead. (A prior post on legal factors was junked by the mods, but that was then, this is. . . .)
The FAA and the U.S. Army are privileged with sovereign immunity, as a general rule. A federal statute - the Federal Tort Claims Act - enacted a waiver of sovereign immunity BUT with an important exception. If the allegedly negligent act (or omission) was taken (or failed to be taken) as part of a "discretionary function", immunity still exists. The basic explanation is that discretionary functions involve policy judgments which, in the view of Congress, cannot be "second-guessed" in lawsuits over alleged federal agency negligence. The other half of the equation is that immunity is waived for "ministerial" actions, sort of (to over-simplify) plug-and-chug activities.
Is the construction and operation of the airspace around DCA a matter of policy judgment? I can almost hear the lawyers planning to file suit arguing that airspace rules which make simple, obvious sense are not derived from policy judgments. I can almost hear them issuing subpoenas (through the necessary international process) of Network Manager or MUAC senior managers to gain testimony that in European airspace, as others have observed about Heathrow, the airspace rules are more like "plug-and-chug" than the sometimes esoteric, and usually vague and/or ambiguous, factors which inform the choices made in - offensive phrase coming - "the policy world."
And will our fine feathered legal eagles sue American too, just to go after the deep pocket, and try to force the airline to take a position on the federal immunity questions?
It's too bad so much attention is focused on the dumb shows and noise currently meant to entertain the grandstands (if you get my meaning). There should be a way to compensate the families of the people who perished in this awful, tragic, and ultimately senseless midair collision. Is the United States civil justice system really going back to 1960 and pretending that what we are dealing with is the December 16 1960 DC-8 - L-1049 Super Constellation midair?
As another poster way, way upthread said, I feel rage.
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 102
Likes: 87
From: USA
How did the top many measures that are in place to prevent this not prevent this?
TCAS
ATC
ADS-B
See and Avoid
Filing a flight plan
Not operating in controlled airspace without a transponder
Not operating at a landing altitude for aircraft on final for a well used runway
Announcing an intention to cross a well used approach
Position lights/strobes
Landing lights
Just spitballing, but there's a non-zero chance NVGs were in use in the helicopter.
It sucks that the best part of this is the airplane was a CRJ, not a larger airliner. Most all those passengers would have survived the initial collision and been aware during the fall to the river.
I feel rage.
TCAS
ATC
ADS-B
See and Avoid
Filing a flight plan
Not operating in controlled airspace without a transponder
Not operating at a landing altitude for aircraft on final for a well used runway
Announcing an intention to cross a well used approach
Position lights/strobes
Landing lights
Just spitballing, but there's a non-zero chance NVGs were in use in the helicopter.
It sucks that the best part of this is the airplane was a CRJ, not a larger airliner. Most all those passengers would have survived the initial collision and been aware during the fall to the river.
I feel rage.
So the message for everyone is to politely and firmly refuse to do things that are not in your own interest, to make copious reports through safety management systems of events that you see that breach the normal, and to stop trying to work around a broken system where you ultimately will be the scapegoat.
Last edited by Wide Mouth Frog; 17th February 2025 at 00:37.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,337
Likes: 2,185
From: Texas
So this just cracks me up. He's in the middle of the river where the route says it's up the East bank, and that's OK because the routes are not defined with no procedural separation from landing traffic. He's instructed to pass behind the CRJ, but that would involve him either holding short or deviating over the city at 200ft at night, but instead he chooses to plow right on. The helicopter is out of his standard altitude, and the jet is way above the glideslope, and ATC encourages them to sort it out themselves. And the helicopter crew are wearing NVGs. What could possibly go wrong.
Your litany of how the holes in the cheese lined up might be missing a detail or two, but any of those holes not lining up might have avoided this tragedy.
The rad alt is right there.
At night over water at low level, the pilots I flew with did not ignore their rad alt.
It was a part of one's scan.
If I know that field elevation is 14', and my rad alt isn't at 200' or less on a route where max altitude is 200', a correction is needed now, before the error gets larger. (The separate issue of going behind, and that tower guidance apparently being stepped on, is another pair of holes in the cheese).
I am at a loss to understand the apparent magnitude of the altitude error (they were still too close laterally, yes), but as I've been out of the cockpit for a few years I am not aware of what's being taught these days.
On most airlines, they do have a barf bag, still, in the seat pocket in front of you. Suggest you vomit into that and avoid the choke hazard.
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 102
Likes: 87
From: USA
Do I sound like I'm laughing ?
There's no effing cheese. It's a badly designed route and procedures designed to minimise the responsibility of the authorities that has been reported multiple times over the past years, and NOTHING has been done.
There's no effing cheese. It's a badly designed route and procedures designed to minimise the responsibility of the authorities that has been reported multiple times over the past years, and NOTHING has been done.
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 567
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
You should feel rage. Managing control of airspace is not a matter of political interest any more than the rules of the road for driving cars is. And in my previous tirade I forgot the earliest parts of this ****show which was an aircraft on a stabilised approach asked to circle to a lesser equipped runway in order to expedite traffic. The next time I hear someone in authority say that safety is our number one concern, I think I'll probably choke on my own vomit.
I’m very much opposed to the helicopter routes, both in planning and execution. The routes shouldn’t exist, if DCA is to remain open. But, to say safety trumps (excuse me) everything is unrealistic. As soon as the wheels leave the runway, there’s risks. This case someone is government accepted too much risk; crews accepted too much risk and normalized that risk. Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,337
Likes: 2,185
From: Texas
No, at this point foaming at the mouth might be a better descriptive.
While the intent was for them to "pass behind" (and thus not be on/under final when the RWY 33 traffic is on final) there was a missed opportunity to get the spacing (in time) needed.
When the NTSB has more to share it will be interesting (to me) to see what a balanced mitigation strategy is.
Originally Posted by GF
Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.
When the NTSB has more to share it will be interesting (to me) to see what a balanced mitigation strategy is.
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 102
Likes: 87
From: USA
KDCA 01 visual to 33 (note: not circle, 121 carriers are not circling authorized in the US) has been a standard procedure for, at least 45, that I flew there. Expediting, moving more planes is always one of the goals. Sure, we can make it safer, only one plane flies on each side of the Mississippi. After that, it’s a negotiation.
I’m very much opposed to the helicopter routes, both in planning and execution. The routes shouldn’t exist, if DCA is to remain open. But, to say safety trumps (excuse me) everything is unrealistic. As soon as the wheels leave the runway, there’s risks. This case someone is government accepted too much risk; crews accepted too much risk and normalized that risk. Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.
I’m very much opposed to the helicopter routes, both in planning and execution. The routes shouldn’t exist, if DCA is to remain open. But, to say safety trumps (excuse me) everything is unrealistic. As soon as the wheels leave the runway, there’s risks. This case someone is government accepted too much risk; crews accepted too much risk and normalized that risk. Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 650
Likes: 43
From: Canada
On rare occasion (for my civilian flying) I have been given a VFR clearance at an unusually low altitude (flying along Miami Beach being one example), and occasionally a routing I consider more risky (over water or a built up area with no where to go if the engine quits). Usually, I have accepted and flown the cleared routing, though there have been times I have requested a variation to reduce risk. These have been occasional for me, therefore I treated them as such, and my awareness went up considerably. To me, a situation which deviates from my "normal" requires heightened vigilance I'm a little nervous doing something I would not normally do.
So if the Blackhawk pilots either flew this low altitude route regularly, or it was an operational norm for that pilot group/operation, pilots would begin to relax with it - it's "normal" I opine that it is never normal to fly at 200 feet AGL in a built up area, nor close to the approach path for a busy airport. So if the training and operational norms of this routing lead pilots to think it is normal, they treat it that way, and vigilance goes down. This was an accident waiting to happen, because of normalization of deviance form established norms of flying.
I've learned the hard way that when ATC asks if you have X aircraft in sight, once you think you do, mentally map the path of that aircraft, then start looking for the one you have not seen yet - particularly with two pilots! You get a clearance to pass at 200 AGL under the approach path of a busy airport at night - that's unusual, and spidy senses should be tingling lots! This hyper awareness should be being trained into the operation - a preflight briefing from the lead "On this flight, we could expect this routing and clearance. This will be unusual, and we're going to be extra aware by doing the following....".
So it's easy to blame the Blackhawk pilots, and yes, they wear some of this, but the military let the pilots down by not categorizing this flight as "high risk", and ATC let the pilots down by clearing a routing which had the potential to provide only a hundreds of feet vertical separation, rather than insisting on both vertical, lateral, and projected path separation, and thereafter, telling the Blackhawk pilots all of the airplanes they should be seeing, not just the one, which seems to have been misunderstood.
I have been instructed to orbit to allow for a passing aircraft to clear in front of me, why not this time? Maybe that low altitude air route is too small for a normal orbit? Another red lag about that route not being a good idea!
So if the Blackhawk pilots either flew this low altitude route regularly, or it was an operational norm for that pilot group/operation, pilots would begin to relax with it - it's "normal" I opine that it is never normal to fly at 200 feet AGL in a built up area, nor close to the approach path for a busy airport. So if the training and operational norms of this routing lead pilots to think it is normal, they treat it that way, and vigilance goes down. This was an accident waiting to happen, because of normalization of deviance form established norms of flying.
I've learned the hard way that when ATC asks if you have X aircraft in sight, once you think you do, mentally map the path of that aircraft, then start looking for the one you have not seen yet - particularly with two pilots! You get a clearance to pass at 200 AGL under the approach path of a busy airport at night - that's unusual, and spidy senses should be tingling lots! This hyper awareness should be being trained into the operation - a preflight briefing from the lead "On this flight, we could expect this routing and clearance. This will be unusual, and we're going to be extra aware by doing the following....".
So it's easy to blame the Blackhawk pilots, and yes, they wear some of this, but the military let the pilots down by not categorizing this flight as "high risk", and ATC let the pilots down by clearing a routing which had the potential to provide only a hundreds of feet vertical separation, rather than insisting on both vertical, lateral, and projected path separation, and thereafter, telling the Blackhawk pilots all of the airplanes they should be seeing, not just the one, which seems to have been misunderstood.
I have been instructed to orbit to allow for a passing aircraft to clear in front of me, why not this time? Maybe that low altitude air route is too small for a normal orbit? Another red lag about that route not being a good idea!
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
From: Thailand
I agree the altimeters are not as an important an issue as the flawed policies and procedures were. Were the helicopter routes originally approved for day VMC only while, years ago, the airport was much less busy and over time due to pressures layers of added operations were added such as night and NVG operations?
While the PAT 25 pilots, prior to take off, would set the barometric pressure each gauge must have no more than a +/- 75 foot error (FAA). One gauge may have read + 50 feet high while the other one read - 50 feet low which would account for the 100 foot difference in flight between the two barometric altimeters. Many mechanical and pilot input errors would be potential factors. Not common but sometimes a pilot will read back the correct setting while at the same time setting a different value by mistake. IF the 100 foot discrepancy was discussed initially on the ground it may account for the lack of discussion , later in the flight, while at 400 feet PM and 300 feet PF. It begs the question was radar altimeter planned to be used and if so when?
Even though there are some transmissions stepped on for various reasons, the words runway thirty three were mentioned a number of times. As crossing the threshold to runway 33 posed a significant risk to PAT 25 I would have thought the PAT 25 crew, to know from experience, that in 3 to 4 minutes from the time ATC reported the CRJ crossing the bridge the CRJ would pass directly in front of them at or near the same altitude. It's not clear to me why PAT 25 would not have reduced airspeed and or held at HAINS point.
I belive the simultaneous helicopter and runway 33 operations should never have been permitted. Clearance limits and expected further clearance times mirroring the ETA for rwy 33 given to helicopters to arrive at or hold at HAINS point would have be helpful in preventing conflicts.
While the PAT 25 pilots, prior to take off, would set the barometric pressure each gauge must have no more than a +/- 75 foot error (FAA). One gauge may have read + 50 feet high while the other one read - 50 feet low which would account for the 100 foot difference in flight between the two barometric altimeters. Many mechanical and pilot input errors would be potential factors. Not common but sometimes a pilot will read back the correct setting while at the same time setting a different value by mistake. IF the 100 foot discrepancy was discussed initially on the ground it may account for the lack of discussion , later in the flight, while at 400 feet PM and 300 feet PF. It begs the question was radar altimeter planned to be used and if so when?
Even though there are some transmissions stepped on for various reasons, the words runway thirty three were mentioned a number of times. As crossing the threshold to runway 33 posed a significant risk to PAT 25 I would have thought the PAT 25 crew, to know from experience, that in 3 to 4 minutes from the time ATC reported the CRJ crossing the bridge the CRJ would pass directly in front of them at or near the same altitude. It's not clear to me why PAT 25 would not have reduced airspeed and or held at HAINS point.
I belive the simultaneous helicopter and runway 33 operations should never have been permitted. Clearance limits and expected further clearance times mirroring the ETA for rwy 33 given to helicopters to arrive at or hold at HAINS point would have be helpful in preventing conflicts.
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 567
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA