US Airliner collides with Military Helicopter in Washington
Discussion
Siko said:
Tragic accident. I wonder what TCAS indications the CRJ got (if any)….i don’t know if the UH60 has TCAS or not but their Mode C or ADS-B should have alerted the CRJ at least that they were descending towards a target.
There's no TCAS RA when an aircraft is less than 1000ft AGL, which is done specifically to avoid having planes, at a critical phase of their landing, getting constant incorrect/distracting RAs from planes in/around the airport.You do get a TA still though which doesn't give you much info at an airport with things actively crossing your path at a different altitude.
tr7v8 said:
Listening to the ATC recording earlier, several times the Heli said he had visuals on the landing jet. It appears that the aircraft he had visuals on was the one behind the CJR. The Heli verbally took responsibility for what he was doing, not once but several times.
The captain always has ultimate responsibility for their aircraft.IanH755 said:
There's no TCAS RA when an aircraft is less than 1000ft AGL, which is done specifically to avoid having planes, at a critical phase of their landing, getting constant incorrect/distracting RAs from planes in/around the airport.
You do get a TA still though which doesn't give you much info at an airport with things actively crossing your path at a different altitude.
Hi Ian - yes I’m a pilot myself, I should probably have phrased that better but I think both should have got a TA at least. I just can’t imagine the CRJ would have continued the approach with a TA blaring traffic traffic - I got one myself a few days ago landing at a major international airport when a helimed on a shout decided to descend early as we crossed tracks…even though we were visual and deconflicted we still jumped and it doesn’t half focus your lookout.You do get a TA still though which doesn't give you much info at an airport with things actively crossing your path at a different altitude.
Eric Mc said:
Dbag101 said:
I see the ‘experts’ have already jumped on in, all over the place ( social media etc etc etc) and ( despite the NTSB specifically stating they aren’t going to ) are speculating wildly about all sorts. I’ll just wait for the actual experts to do their investigation properly I think.
What, you don't think people should discuss this incident - or any other aircraft accident for that matter?The full NTSB report will not emerge for probably two years - which is the normal length of time for an NTSB report.
By your argument, we might as well close the discussion now.
"ooh, ooh, maybe one of the crew was drinking a can of Red Bull because night time, and they dropped it and it rolled under the collective, which had the friction set too low, so it nudged it up and that's why the heli suddenly climbed to 300ft"
That's the sort of crap which often dribbles out, and clouds the sensible discussion. I've commented on it before re previous incidents, and the response was along the lines of "why can't we speculate?".
Siko said:
IanH755 said:
There's no TCAS RA when an aircraft is less than 1000ft AGL, which is done specifically to avoid having planes, at a critical phase of their landing, getting constant incorrect/distracting RAs from planes in/around the airport.
You do get a TA still though which doesn't give you much info at an airport with things actively crossing your path at a different altitude.
Hi Ian - yes I’m a pilot myself, I should probably have phrased that better but I think both should have got a TA at least. I just can’t imagine the CRJ would have continued the approach with a TA blaring traffic traffic - I got one myself a few days ago landing at a major international airport when a helimed on a shout decided to descend early as we crossed tracks…even though we were visual and deconflicted we still jumped and it doesn’t half focus your lookout.You do get a TA still though which doesn't give you much info at an airport with things actively crossing your path at a different altitude.
I wonder if, with an active heli-lane only just below the aircraft's approach glideslope, a potential TA may have been expected which, when added to US ATC preference for passing responsibility to the aircraft for maintaining Visual Separation (and hearing the Blackhawk confirm they were maintaining it), may have led to any TA in the CRJ (if they got one) being a "yeap, we expected that" type call?
The CVR will be very interesting to listen to from both aircraft just to hear what sort of CRM for maintaining a visual lookout was being done, rather than just the released radio calls. In particular the audio from the Blackhawk to see if both pilots were head-down at the time as part of the evaluation etc.
Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 1st February 10:41
This was a tragic event. People lost their lives and that is very regrettable. It’s a shame that nowadays people appear to want to blame somebody. Until the final investigation is completed the truth is unlikely to be known and we can only hope that this is what is released or published. The MSM and Social media can be places of exaggeration or untruth and often speculate.
Chuck328 said:
Hey Muddle, look at this.
I'm guessing, (I stress guessing) that some douchebag has hit the cry baby button and the mods have come steaming in with the pruning shears.
Lets face it, can't have two individuals who actually know their stuff express an opinion
WTAF! I'm guessing, (I stress guessing) that some douchebag has hit the cry baby button and the mods have come steaming in with the pruning shears.
Lets face it, can't have two individuals who actually know their stuff express an opinion
One of the last areas of PH that the idiots hadn't invaded.
So very annoying, It was nice having grown up conversations with the experts.
I for one appreciate the input of the likes of you and Muddle from the sharp end.
Was Muddle posting on this thread? I read a lot of his (really interesting) stuff but can't recall whether it was here or on the NPE thread.
I gather we're now not allowed to ask whether someone has been banned or not. Muddle doesn't appear to have posted anything, anywhere, for over a week now.
I gather we're now not allowed to ask whether someone has been banned or not. Muddle doesn't appear to have posted anything, anywhere, for over a week now.
Preliminary report presentation from the NTSB. NTSB concludes that the separation distances between helicopter traffic on Route 4 and aircraft on approach to Runway 33 represent an "intolerable safety risk to aviation safety". The NTSB is recommending the FAA put in place a permanent suspension of helicopter flights on Route 4 when runway 33/15 is in operation. An alternative route is being recommended.
This looked scary. The theoretical separation between Route 4 and the glide slope in to runway 33 is 75 feet if it was on the river bank and reduces as the helicopter is further over the river (there is no lateral distance tolerance on how far over the river a helicopter can be).
FAA response to the NTSB including the actions being implemented.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-tr...
The NTSB also reports other incident data including 1 TCAS indication per month from 2011 to 2024 involving a collision threat with a helicopter requiring immediate collision avoidance action of which 2/3 were at night and 1/2 involved helicopters above the height limit for the relevant rout (200ft in the cast of Route 4). There are also 15214 other TCAS warning advisories from October 2021 and December 2024
All of that data was available to the FAA through the reporting system but was note looked [personal view] The FAA headcount reduction will not be making that more likely. [/Personal view]
There were also some concerns about the pressure related data on the helicopter which would include altitude.
This looked scary. The theoretical separation between Route 4 and the glide slope in to runway 33 is 75 feet if it was on the river bank and reduces as the helicopter is further over the river (there is no lateral distance tolerance on how far over the river a helicopter can be).
FAA response to the NTSB including the actions being implemented.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-tr...
The NTSB also reports other incident data including 1 TCAS indication per month from 2011 to 2024 involving a collision threat with a helicopter requiring immediate collision avoidance action of which 2/3 were at night and 1/2 involved helicopters above the height limit for the relevant rout (200ft in the cast of Route 4). There are also 15214 other TCAS warning advisories from October 2021 and December 2024
All of that data was available to the FAA through the reporting system but was note looked [personal view] The FAA headcount reduction will not be making that more likely. [/Personal view]
There were also some concerns about the pressure related data on the helicopter which would include altitude.
Starfighter said:
Preliminary report presentation from the NTSB. NTSB concludes that the separation distances between helicopter traffic on Route 4 and aircraft on approach to Runway 33 represent an "intolerable safety risk to aviation safety". The NTSB is recommending the FAA put in place a permanent suspension of helicopter flights on Route 4 when runway 33/15 is in operation. An alternative route is being recommended.
This looked scary. The theoretical separation between Route 4 and the glide slope in to runway 33 is 75 feet if it was on the river bank and reduces as the helicopter is further over the river (there is no lateral distance tolerance on how far over the river a helicopter can be).
FAA response to the NTSB including the actions being implemented.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-tr...
The NTSB also reports other incident data including 1 TCAS indication per month from 2011 to 2024 involving a collision threat with a helicopter requiring immediate collision avoidance action of which 2/3 were at night and 1/2 involved helicopters above the height limit for the relevant rout (200ft in the cast of Route 4). There are also 15214 other TCAS warning advisories from October 2021 and December 2024
All of that data was available to the FAA through the reporting system but was note looked [personal view] The FAA headcount reduction will not be making that more likely. [/Personal view]
There were also some concerns about the pressure related data on the helicopter which would include altitude.
It feels to me like they've completely missed the point: if my understanding is correct, neither the helicopter crew, nor the ATCO, intended for the helicopter to fly under the CRJ. The vertical distance is irrelevant, if the helicopter was not meant to be there. The action to close that route, in light of the accident, makes absolute sense though, since the ATCO didn't have capacity to spot or address the helicopters mistake, if that's what it was.This looked scary. The theoretical separation between Route 4 and the glide slope in to runway 33 is 75 feet if it was on the river bank and reduces as the helicopter is further over the river (there is no lateral distance tolerance on how far over the river a helicopter can be).
FAA response to the NTSB including the actions being implemented.
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-tr...
The NTSB also reports other incident data including 1 TCAS indication per month from 2011 to 2024 involving a collision threat with a helicopter requiring immediate collision avoidance action of which 2/3 were at night and 1/2 involved helicopters above the height limit for the relevant rout (200ft in the cast of Route 4). There are also 15214 other TCAS warning advisories from October 2021 and December 2024
All of that data was available to the FAA through the reporting system but was note looked [personal view] The FAA headcount reduction will not be making that more likely. [/Personal view]
There were also some concerns about the pressure related data on the helicopter which would include altitude.
Starfighter said:
The first statement on the video is that the preliminary report is what happened. The full report will have the likely reasons why that happened. The initial action to close the route is that the separation is not enough
That is why I believe they've missed the point: "separation" has a specific aviation meaning, it's not just a word - It means applying a procedure to ensure the distance between two aircraft is sufficient. The procedure applied here was that the helicopter was required to visually identify the CRJ, & pass behind it. The normal radar separation is likely to be 3 miles, I expect: but once the helicopter has accepted responsibility for separating themselves from the CRJ, the minimum is what they believe to be safe, provided they follow the instructions given - which was to pass behind the CRJ, which, I think, they still believed was landing on 01. The vertical extent of the corridor feels like a red herring, I doubt it was designed for maintaining a vertical distance from aircraft landing on 33: there's no way anyone with any ATC understanding would allow a minima of 75ft.The equivalent UK rules are:
In the vicinity of aerodromes, the standard separation minima may be reduced if:
(1) adequate separation can be provided by the aerodrome controller when each
aircraft is continuously visible to this controller; or
(2) each aircraft is continuously visible to the pilots of other aircraft concerned and
the pilots report that they can maintain their own separation; or
(3) when one aircraft is following another, the pilot of the succeeding aircraft
reports the other aircraft is in sight and can maintain their own separation.
I expect they were applying (3). The airspace around Washington Reagan is Class B, which the UK doesn't use, however, I don't think that makes a significant difference. There's no specified distance, it's based on the helicopter applying what he/she considers sensible; that's not really a procedure I'd be happy to apply at night, in such crowded airspace, but it is what it is.
They've closed that corridor, which makes sense: I'm just not convinced by their rationale for doing so. I'm interested to see how they have reached their conclusion, hopefully the final report will explain.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff