AA5342 Down DCA
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 159
Likes: 21
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Question for the CRJ700 pilots: If you're already in a left turn, right wing high, and the helicopter is approaching you from below, at roughly 2 o'clock, is it even possible to see it?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 2,940
From: Ontario, Canada
My first of a number of startling events relating to "seeing" traffic announced to me by ATC taught me a valuable lesson: I was told to pass behind two F-4 Phantoms on long final, 2 Phantoms in sight, and I watched them, 'cause they were cool... Then two more blasted right across in front of me! Adequately safely distant, but scary! Lesson for pilots, once you see and report in sight, ask yourself if there could be another you have not seen yet - and leek looking, checking back on the one you've spotted, particularly if you have a second pilot with you! For ATC, sure announce to presence of traffic which may be in conflict, but also state other relevant (distracting/misunderstandable) traffic if time permits. That ATC was not busy, and could have told me that there were four Phantoms total. My tactic to see, acknowledge, then keep looking more aircraft elsewhere, has rewarded me many times since, even once as third jumpseat observer. This is a simple safety skill in any visual flying environment, particularly at night, and in a busy lights area...
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 11
Likes: 23
From: USA
As a US pilot that flies worldwide, I don't disagree (although I've never witnessed a culture of selecting TA only or disregarding an RA), but wholesale change will never happen. There'll be a bunch of 'thoughts and prayers' and pearl clutching by talking heads, and maybe the FAA will change the way ATC separates traffic visually at night, but it'll take a lot more than a crash every couple of decades to get anyone to actually spend money on staffing and infrastructure.
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 185
Likes: 39
From: on root
ATC's paramount role, it's predominant, principal reason for existing is separation. In the US, controllers are much too eager to pass that buck over to the pilots. Far too eager to hand off their traffic onto a visual approach, often intimidatingly so. It happens nowhere else.
Joined: Mar 2006
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 365
Likes: 144
From: Vance, Belgium
In my understanding, the minimum safe separation in altitude is 500 feet.
As the approach to R33 crosses IDTEK (over the East bank of the river) at about 490 feet MSL, there is no way another aircraft can safely pass underneath at 200 feet MSL.
Thus, I think, the helicopter route RT 4 must be closed whenever an approach (visual or RNAV) to R33 is underway.
If a southbound traffic request a clearance for RT 4 in such a circumstance, they should be ordered to hold at Hains Point or North of it, or be redirected via routes RT 2 and RT 3 to Wilson Bridge.
And the helicopter route chart precedes the route descriptions with the comment "ALL ROUTES MAY BE ALTERED AT PILOT'S REQUEST OR AS DIRECTED BY ATC".
As the approach to R33 crosses IDTEK (over the East bank of the river) at about 490 feet MSL, there is no way another aircraft can safely pass underneath at 200 feet MSL.
Thus, I think, the helicopter route RT 4 must be closed whenever an approach (visual or RNAV) to R33 is underway.
If a southbound traffic request a clearance for RT 4 in such a circumstance, they should be ordered to hold at Hains Point or North of it, or be redirected via routes RT 2 and RT 3 to Wilson Bridge.
And the helicopter route chart precedes the route descriptions with the comment "ALL ROUTES MAY BE ALTERED AT PILOT'S REQUEST OR AS DIRECTED BY ATC".
Last edited by Luc Lion; 30th January 2025 at 14:12. Reason: more info
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 185
Likes: 39
From: on root
"Do you have the CRJ in sight?"
Honestly, at night? A light is a light. Which CRJ, where?
ATC have had a large input into a lot of past accidents. Briefed as one of our biggest threats, especially in the US and the 3rd world. Curiously, never in the UK.
Honestly, at night? A light is a light. Which CRJ, where?
ATC have had a large input into a lot of past accidents. Briefed as one of our biggest threats, especially in the US and the 3rd world. Curiously, never in the UK.
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 987
Likes: 197
From: Mexico City
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 49
Likes: 4
From: UK
The whole USA aviation sector needs root and branch reform, there have been so many near misses in recent years that this accident was inevitable, it was just a question of when.
The majority of people inside the system don’t realise how bad it is because it’s all they’ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it’s ok to switch to TA only to avoid “nuisance” RA’s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it’s acceptable to “slam dunk” a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.
I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.
On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.
Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.
Stay safe out there
LD
The majority of people inside the system don’t realise how bad it is because it’s all they’ve ever known. We have American contributors here who routinely tell us it’s ok to switch to TA only to avoid “nuisance” RA’s, who will not follow an RA as they have the traffic in sight, who will accept visual separation at night (day is bad enough) or very late visual switches, who think LAHSO is a good idea. USA ATC think it’s acceptable to “slam dunk” a heavy jet, get shirty when foreign operators refuse a questionable clearance, literally forget about an aircraft once it has accepted visual separation. The system allows uncontrolled VFR traffic within 500ft of commercial operations which is madness.
I operated the 747-400 around the planet for over a decade, the USA was one of the most threat laden environments we went to. Lovely people, just insane procedures. In that time I experienced a TCAS RA on vectors to JFK, was sent around and put in the hold as punishment on short final in Miami for refusing LAHSO, had multiple super high workload approaches to SFO combined with the crazy policy of pairing aircraft on approach. I witnessed a Singapore aircraft being refused a diversion to Boston from JFK fifteen minutes after they stated what time they would be leaving the hold and where they would be going resulting in a fuel mayday and an unplanned diversion to a regional airport. I lost count of the times I was chastised for refusing a visual approach and visual separation in congested airspace or a very late visual switch.
On most of the planet the human is the last line of defence in a multi layered safety environment. In the USA the human is often the only line of defence, while the environment they are in is super high workload significantly reducing their capacity to trap safety issues.
Unless there is a marked attitude shift in all parties involved in aviation in the USA this will happen again, potentially quite soon.
Stay safe out there
LD
Couldn’t agree more with everything you say. I’m sure we have probably shared a flightdeck in years gone by judging by your experiences. It’s this kind of chaos that I have to say I miss very little!!
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 165
Likes: 83
From: UK
Looking at the leaked radar plot a CA was flashing for both aircraft for approximately 20 seconds, then stopped for around 10 seconds, then started again up to the point of impact.
I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation.
I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 629
Likes: 187
From: Netherlands
Looking at the leaked radar plot a CA was flashing for both aircraft for approximately 20 seconds, then stopped for around 10 seconds, then started again up to the point of impact.
I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation.
I suppose this is what you'll get if you routinely direct aircraft onto a collision course with each other, and therefore ignoring the CA will also become routine because you expect the pilots to sort it out. At 300' while lining up on short final, or looking into an environment full of lights. Normalisation of Deviation.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 4,426
From: 3rd Rock, #29B
Actually, it's not third world, the rest of the world would not accept this procedure. Wheres 2nd world in all of this?
Joined: Apr 2014
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 121
Likes: 42
From: South Alabama
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.
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.
In this case, the aircraft was flying an approach to one runway with a circle-to-land on RW-33. Ask any pilot; a circle to land in itself ups the work load. The margin for error of any kind at DCA is small and the 5200 foot runway isn't all that long. Even on a simple landing where none of these considerations are an issue, at some point the pilots reduce their "see and avoid" efforts and concentrate their efforts on achieving the proper line up and glide slope, rate of descent, aircraft configuration, flap setting, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the complicated routine required to safely land an airliner these days is already close to task overload even when things are going well. Add in the fact that it's night time at a very busy airport and looking out the window gets shoved pretty far down the "to do" list. But generally speaking, the system works because big busy airports pretty much operate using IFR rules and nearly all the aircraft are under close control. I other words, even on a crystal clear day under VFR flight conditions, someone is keeping a very close eye on the airliners coming and going from major airports. If a pilot makes a mistake and levels off at the wrong altitude, for example, there is a very good chance a controller will catch that error immediately even on a sunny VFR day. And that's a good thing because truth-be-told, when an airliner is seconds from touch down these days, there isn't much "see and avoid" going on. That's just the way it is.
But apparently DCA routinely has all sorts of helo traffic buzzing around under modified VFR flight rules. The pilots are talking to a controller but without being under the same sort of close control which is usually associated with how airliners operate. And they do that night and day, trusting the helo pilots to not make a mistake. But it looks like someone DID make a mistake last night and nobody caught it in time.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 183
Likes: 9
From: Solihull
Probably an answer why not here but, given a helicopter can, you know, stop; why not introduce a formal requirement that helicopters in that area have to specifically receive clearance to cross the runway centreline?
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 636
Likes: 327
From: LHR
Just listened to the audio. The tower controller seems to have issued some sort of a 'semi-conditional' clearance to the helicopter for which there was no response from the pilot..... So what clearance were they following? The controller did not even establish that the helo pilot had the traffic visual before allowing him to cross the 33 approach. R/T discipline in the USA is normally poor but this was pitiful and I suspect will prove to be a primary factor.
BTW.... I have used NVGs. How the hell can you operate in downtown Washington, with so much that is either lit... or floodlit? The NVG image will be flared out every time you turn your head towards a light.
BTW.... I have used NVGs. How the hell can you operate in downtown Washington, with so much that is either lit... or floodlit? The NVG image will be flared out every time you turn your head towards a light.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 153
Likes: 57
From: Switzerland
When and where I learned to fly (and on each new rating, refresher and check ride) we had to prove that we knew airspace classification. DCA is listed as class B airspace (and special rules on top).
That should apply worldwide, not just in EASA land.
It seems to be a US speciality that ATC can delegate the separation to aircrews (visually) and this at night! And how the hell can ATC separate vertically near the ground when mode S transponders report pressure altitude in steps of 100 feet only?
I dont know the rules of vertical separation by heart but its certainly not less than 500 feet for crossing paths. Is one last digit more or less a separation? This heli crew should have been told by ATC to hold until the aircraft(s) on final have safely passed. It's one of the benefits of a helicopter that it can hover.
Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
It seems to be a US speciality that ATC can delegate the separation to aircrews (visually) and this at night! And how the hell can ATC separate vertically near the ground when mode S transponders report pressure altitude in steps of 100 feet only?
I dont know the rules of vertical separation by heart but its certainly not less than 500 feet for crossing paths. Is one last digit more or less a separation? This heli crew should have been told by ATC to hold until the aircraft(s) on final have safely passed. It's one of the benefits of a helicopter that it can hover.
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 453
Likes: 467
From: Jupiter
Because presumably military helicopters are sometimes going to do what they need to do and may not be able to check in with ATC.
Providing a conflict-free path for them to do that is the most consistent solution.
However the ultimate issue is traffic density, and the control workarounds (that have been discussed at great length upthread) that the US has normalised to shoehorn huge movement numbers into tiny spaces.
This is probably one of those situations where there should be a military/very limited commercial use airport in the current location and the 'real' airport should be hanging off the end of a high-speed rail line about 50 miles away q.v. Hong Kong.
Providing a conflict-free path for them to do that is the most consistent solution.
However the ultimate issue is traffic density, and the control workarounds (that have been discussed at great length upthread) that the US has normalised to shoehorn huge movement numbers into tiny spaces.
This is probably one of those situations where there should be a military/very limited commercial use airport in the current location and the 'real' airport should be hanging off the end of a high-speed rail line about 50 miles away q.v. Hong Kong.
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 567
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
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.
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 40
Likes: 88
From: London, UK
We have actual technology to remove the need for a pilot’s eyes to be the only line of defence. For some reason it wasn’t being used properly here.