AA5342 Down DCA

[DonLeslie]

Originally Posted by nicolai

Neither Lufty nor Iberia will accept a visual night approach (as far as I recall).

But that wouldn't have saved them here, since they'd still have been hit by someone else trying visual separation at night in this case.

The Lufty A380 that went to Oakland looked a lot like they were being sent there by ATC to punish them, since it can't have been news to the SFO controllers that Lufty won't do that approach - when they come there every night at about the same time. The ATC kept him waiting and the Lufty Captain was pretty arsey to the ATC and then they sent him to Purgatory (OAK).

In the San Francisco case (it was an A350, BTW), there was a misunderstanding. Lufthansa are and have always been allowed to do visual approaches at night. At the time, however, they were not allowed to "follow visually behind" at night, that restriction has since been lifted.
Personally however, an LH A350 Captain myself, I would never do it at any airport that I'm not 100% familiar with. Take the Bay Area for example: there are millions of lights, from buildings, street lights, cars and other aircraft. One of the latter may or may not be your traffic, but can you be sure which one is the one? Or judge the distance from your own aircraft correctly? If ATC ask me whether I have traffic in sight, my answer is always "negative".
That American practice is inherently dangerous and, as many of my European colleagues have commented here, it is beyond me how that can be legal.



​​​​​​​

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by skippybangkok

have flown small planes at 900ft under the approach path at VTBS ( Bangkok ) with A380's going over the top of me. ATC was constantly on the mic making sure i understood clearly to stay below 1000 ft .

This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.

@upsidedown L I would expect the helicopter traffic to ultimately be responsible for avoidance, and they’d I guess be flying ‘Special VFR’*

Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

[Timmy Tomkins]

For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"

[island_airphoto]

Originally Posted by Toruk Macto

Read somewhere the helicopter was a training flight ? If true is a high density , high workload and high threat environment really the place to do training ? I don’t know military training environment but this flight needed good crew crm, one operating , one looking out and working as a team . Full concentration on co ordinating ATC with traffic avoidance . If it was anything than a route famil with good crm and level command gradient it could have added to the outcome ?

When I was working as a CFI out of VKK, literally right outside the DCA Class B, we did training flights at DCA. It was not unusual, how were the students supposed to learn to deal with it if we never went there? One lesson was the "Big 3", going to DCA, IAD, BWI, and back home. ATC was happy enough, they surely didn't want n00bs blundering around there on their own with a fresh license and no clue.

[PerPurumTonantes]

Waiting to happen

Heli route 4 is at or below 200ft if I read the chart correctly.

Approach traffic seems to be approx 400-500ft at this point.

Which turnip decided it would be OK to allow vertical separation of 300ft on a busy approach path? And allow it VFR at night?

This accident was baked in. Bound to happen at some point.

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

For ATC people a question. Would it be standard to preface the "can you see it?" with an indication of where the CRJ was? IE "Your traffic is one o'clock 2 miles...report visual etc"

sequence is not important . What is is the difference between passing traffic information and delegating separation . . in the US limits are being "pushed" to use a politically correct term in order to allow more traffic than the rules would allow . That is the issue here . Not the phraseology .
Same as using "side step " , a procedure made for parallel runways , here they do with with runways 30 degrees apart . etc..etc..

[Toruk Macto]

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

When I was working as a CFI out of VKK, literally right outside the DCA Class B, we did training flights at DCA. It was not unusual, how were the students supposed to learn to deal with it if we never went there? One lesson was the "Big 3", going to DCA, IAD, BWI, and back home. ATC was happy enough, they surely didn't want n00bs blundering around there on their own with a fresh license and no clue.

Simulators , industry has moved away from training high risk simulated failures in an aircraft and introduced loft sessions to avoid training in high work load environments. Then a route check . No one saying send up an inexperienced crew to avoid intense training but just do it in a simulator .

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Normally I get a call like "Your traffic is at X altitude at your 3 o'clock, they have you in sight" or similar. I have flown into DCA at night and would have been more than highly surprised to have a helicopter directed to fly basically 100 feet under me, in sight or no.

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

[10 DME ARC]

Might have missed it but the CRJ wasn't given any traffic on the Blackhawk?? Plus the Blackhawk was only asked if he had the CRJ insight very late on and no updated traffic information given! The ATCO was obviously concerned but that concern should have included traffic information as directly ahead of the Blackhawk was two CRJ one much further out which was no factor!!
Plus does the Blackhawk have a TCAS screen?? That would have been invaluable to pick out the traffic!

[dragon6172]

Originally Posted by visibility3miles

The helicopter’s right turn was directly over a golf course, not a residential neighborhood. It was probably done for noise abatement reasons, because it then turned left and proceeded down more directly over the river.

The golf course is on a peninsula in the river, so the helicopter was flying over water before and after it made the two turns.

The track in your image is not an accurate representation of PAT25s actual flight path. The leaked ATC radar track here and the VASAviation recreation here are more representative. There was no sharp RH turn to cross over the Potomac Park golf courses, it was a gentle RH turn to follow the published Route 1 to Route 4 helicopter transition around DCA.

[notwithstanding]

I have not read many of the earlier posts, so do not know what has been said about ATC’s involvement & whether the helicopter was operating under IFR but, it would appear that the helicopter was operating under VFR & simply being given traffic information, rather than being IFR & being properly separated from other IFR traffic (the AAL a/c in particular). If so, this accident revives the controversy about whether or not you can safely mix dense IFR traffic & VFR traffic in the same airspace. Without knowing the actual cause of this accident - there may be some other cause - it would seem to suggest that the answer to this question is, “NO, you cannot”. I remember giving traffic information to a departing HS125 , from Aberdeen, about a Cessna 150 operating within its projected flight path at up to 5,000 ft. 6 nm west of the airfield ; & being met with the reply from the 125’s pilot, “what do you expect me to do with that info ?” Thinking about it, he had a point. Simply being informed about prospective traffic does not guarantee, in any way , that you are going to be able to see & avoid it. Countless collisions between (mainly light) a/c since; plus this latest tragedy; would seem to prove the point !

[Hedge36]

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that."

Well, that's some good news.

[visibility3miles]

Originally Posted by dragon6172

The track in your image is not an accurate representation of PAT25s actual flight path. The leaked ATC radar track here and the VASAviation recreation here are more representative. There was no sharp RH turn to cross over the Potomac Park golf courses, it was a gentle RH turn to follow the published Route 1 to Route 4 helicopter transition around DCA.

My bad. The image was published online by the Washington Post, which is obviously covering the story, and elsewhere.

You could contact them if you want and tell them it’s wrong. No offense intended.

Even if it wasn’t a sharp turn, it was done over a golf course and their flight path was probably dictated by noise abatement reasons, as are those flown by jets flying into DCA.

[MLHeliwrench]

Blackhawk comms

Some of the ATC recordings and YouTube videos don’t show the Blackhawk responding to ATC instructions. The Blackhawk does acknowledge more than once they have the traffic in sight - just on a different frequency, likly UHF which commercial planes do not use generally.

It’s easy to look now and be like - who would allow a helicopter highway 300 feet below a final approach path????

but this has been completely routine in that area for years and years. Helicopter Pilots who have flown the route have felt wake turbulence when scooting under/behind.

also - the use of 33, especially by CRJ size jets is completely normal and should of been expected by any helicopter crew as a possible traffic issue. In the VAS channel ATC video linked above. There are other jets using 33.

[Upside Down]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

This is done everywhere around the world, not the same as crossing 1 Nm before the threshold at 300 feet .with a guy above on the glideslope as our case here.

Special VFR is about weather minima's, nothing to do with our accident here .

yes apologies… I’m mixing up “Special VFR” with “VFR in Controlled Airspace”…. (it’s been a long time !).
my earlier point related to responsibility for separation…. and that the helo would be VFR (if following the low-level transit Route 4) and the airliner IFR. I was unsure if there was a special category for VFR at night…
apologies for sowing any confusion……

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

It wasn't on the ILS, it was doing a circling approach having come down the 01 ILS, then swinging round. They seem to have only been getting aligned with their runway at around 400', at the point of the collision.

[rigpiggy]

Originally Posted by mobov98423

yeah,atc had nothing to do with this ;( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHBKptJWXtU

based on this he was already on the sidestep and leaving mda. Concentrating on his runway picture. Who is at fault here, unsure but the helo definitely flew into the approach path

[canyonblue737]

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Shouldnt it be:
Pat 25 traffic at 11 o clock 3 miles, crj following ils for rwy 33, report in sight
??

yes. if you look at the longer transcripts his initial call of the traffic was exactly that format and the helicopter acknowledges the traffic in sight and is approved visual separation. they some time later 30-60 seconds at least (maybe more) there are the more common published transcripts where the controller uses non standard phraseology in quick succession to attempt to point out and ask he helicopter to pass behind the traffic. the non-standard phraseology and voice is clearly stressed because its the moment in time the ATC controller becomes first concerned by the proximity of the helicopter and airplane and clearly he is making a quick call to try to see if the helicopter still "has him in sight" or if he needs to take action (like sending the CRJ around). unfortunately after the second quick non standard call the helicopter again responds they have the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation. perhaps 10-15 seconds later the midair occurs. detailed audio long before and after the incident is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiOybe-NJHk

[SASless]

TCAS for the helicopter....hmmmmmm.....I am at 200 feet per the Routing Requirement.....would I suppose Airplanes might be above me even if on a conflicting flight path?

How much higher at a minimum should they be over the required flightpath for the Helicopter Low Level route (at that point I see it as being 200 feet AGL or below)

But indications seem to show the Helicopter not at the required height above ground....although that number has some doubts due to various reasons.

Do standard IAP Procedures by Airlines require use of Glide Slope information even when VFR.....which would make me ask the question what height the RJ should have been at at the point it collided with t he helicopter.

Was the RJ Crew using Glide Slope information as part of their VFR Approach procedure for the designated runway? The CVR will let us know that in time probably.

The other question is at what point would the RJ Crew have benefit of visual glide slope lighting for the RWY 33?

Any of you Airline Pilots care to address that issue and assess that for us.

Here is the Airport data for Reagan International that shows the Instrument Approaches that are available. Can one derive a reasonable height above ground for the collision point....and/or a distance from the Touchdown Point of RWY33 for comparison to what seems to be the height and distance from the TD point?

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA

[copperjob]

The best safety systems try to remove humans from critical procedures.
Visual separation at night is a third world solution to a busy traffic zone.

.