30% of the post on this page are multiverse telling everyone how smart he is - color me surprised
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
30% of the post on this page are multiverse telling everyone how smart he is - color me surprised
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
From the article: In 2016, Congress passed Public Law 114-190, which among other things banned the use of biographical assessments as a first-line hiring tool for air traffic controllers. So the practice in question ended almost a decade ago. DOT OIG seems to think the FAA has been following a flawed staffing model, lacks good scheduling tools, has age out retirment requirements, poor schedules from a worker perspective, stagnate salaries, slow training, etc. And who has been aware of that and apprently not done anything substantive about it? Successive legislatures and executive branch leaders, but hey, look over there it's DEI!.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Everyone is overlooking the treadmill’s role in this disaster
was the treadmill made in america?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
This. How close is still considered a safe distance? Does not seem much margin for error.
@ civilcoconut & Bunion 2020, the article's author is a Pete Buttigieg supporter and notes that in 2016 congress "banned the use of biographical assessments as a first-line hiring tool for air traffic controllers," but fighting the class-action lawsuit still went forward. His point is these things happened, along with / followed by other institutional flaws coconut mentioned, which were created by one admin and then brushed under the rug by the next two subsequent admins
Yeah, and the Black Hawk at least a half mile off course. Image upload isn't working, but as you point out this occurred *shockingly* close to the runway apron.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
sounds like a bunch of swiss cheese to me,
the last car accident which really could have killed me and i can still see it was 3 completely FUBARed things happening ALL at the same time and I'm not even sure if i could have recovered from 1 of them
Air ambulance (Lear 55) crashed into houses in Philly at a very high speed and steep angle, 6 onboard, more on ground, 3 alarm response RIP :(
Height is procedural separation but you still gotta do more than that factor. There is ATC audio abundantly available on Youtube (channels dedicated to interesting, amusing, and tragic event ATC recordings).Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
ATC advised both aircraft of traffic (each other).
The UH-60 asked for visual separation.
ATC approved and instructed UH-60 to pass behind the CRJ.
UH-60 was too high and did not maintain visual separation. Collision.
By all reports UH-60 was on a training flight and the pilot in command was very experienced. UH-60s are 2 pilot. There was a crew chief in the back.
Ironically the aircraft in the pattern in front of CRJ had been asked to take the alternate runway but said unable. The CRJ was then asked to and said OK. CRJ was then doing what they were supposed to do.
I am not a pilot. I know a little about flying and air crash investigations as those are family professions.
Speculation: UH-60 task saturated on a night training flight in busy airspace in a tight cooridor and didn't catch their out of procedure altitude, and also thought they saw the CRJ but were looking at another aircraft or object in the busy airspace. ATC controller working double task is saturated, doesn't realize (or cannot tell) helo is too high, not sure if primary was giving alt and not sure if the UH-60 was ADS-B?
holy shit the video of the learjeat is insane. full nosedive. i would try to embed it but ya know. trg.
Insane...accelerated into the ground.
It went from a slow climbout at 1600ft to a SUDDEN ~60* >>10,000fpm dive. 2 pilots, 2 medical providers, 1pt 1 fam :( multiple ground casualties
tl,dr: Usually the goal in safety should be that one mistake or failure does not cause a major incident. It's easy to blame the helo pilot and go home. If we want to go 30 years to the next accident, we need to look at and change policies. NTSB needs to collect and verify all the facts, analyze them, and recommend policy changes. Could be everything is just fine - 100 people dying every 15 years seems a reasonable cost to keep the current system. Far, far safer than skiing and we think skiing is ok.
Level set. Numbers-wise, we're doing great at air safety. It's been 15 years since the last crash. Back in the 80s it seemed like we were crashing 'em every year or two. Thanks everyone for the improvement!
There's been a lot of near misses recently. In the air, near the airport, at the airport. Or maybe it's just efficient.
The FAA is chronically underfunded and ATC chronically understaffed.
The president recently created a lot of added stress for federal employees, i.e. those who work for the army and ATC.
Routing helicopters close under the glidepath is a bad idea. FAA has already issued changes.
ATC told the Blackhawk the plane's location and path. Blackhawk requested and took responsibility for it. ATC told them again a minute later (second contact from ATC means - hey buddy you're fucking up). The second contact was seconds before collision.
There's video around of ATC's radar screen indicating in red the risk of collision prior to that second call. No doubt a second controller or less taxed controller could have called a few seconds earlier. Maybe even had the free brainpower to direct the helo pilot instead of simply notifying.
ADSB tracking (is that the right name?) It's my impression that private pilots often fly with an iPad showing locations of nearby aircraft. Perhaps the military needs this. Perhaps also with the red collision warnings of the ATC screen.
Sighting a collision - if you're on a collision path, the other object will appear stationary against the background. Without apparent movement, it is harder to spot.
Some folks elsewhere have said the helo pilot lost the plane among the city lights... doubt it. I hike at night often. Planes below do get lost in the city lights. Planes above (as was the helo's perspective) are "easy" to spot. They are moving, bright stars against the sky, also blinking depending on viewing angle/heading. Those heading straight at me appear stationary and very bright against the sky. A slight turn, and the landing light is much dimmer, maybe down to a planet or bright star. Ofc, a helo pilot is more taxed than a hiker, and their eyes are likely less adjusted to low light.
Humans are slow thinkers, so while whatever happened in the final minutes may have contributed, the time to prevent this incident was hours or years earlier.
Seems to me the main problem is the helo tour route near the airport. Sounds like it's caused near misses before. It needs to go away. If helos flying over other neighborhoods is too loud, then ban the loud helos. There's plenty of quiet models now. Instead, maybe the main problem is too many aircraft or not enough ATC. Could be a military problem - I read our ship captains are a menace to civilian traffic. Or, as I opened, no problems here, working as expected.
Thanks for attending my Ted talk. I don't claim to know more than MV, though I do watch too much blancolirio.
As someone who follows aviation, I can confirm that there have certainly been plenty of articles for many years that basically state a collision between two aircraft was just a matter of time with current capabilities and policies, and looks like this was that time.
There were a series of planes along the flight path with JIA5342 & AAL3130 lined up in front of the helo's path. The question is did the helo pilots mistake AAL3130 for the plane ATC was discussing: JIA5342. So the tower is seeing what's happening and there's also collision warnings sounding. Meanwhile, the helo pilots are calm saying they have the aircraft in sight but given how close JIA5342 is it's unlikely they see what's about to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
So the question I have for you or any pilots or ATC, without passing judgment i.e. asking about procedure, was asking about visual separation the same as saying "hey buddy you're fucking up" or given what was unfolding should ATC issue "traffic" warning under that circumstance?
The issue of chronic serious ATC shortages aside, I've read several reports that the reason one ATC was covering 2 positions is that a supervisor sent another ATC home early for the night. The double tasking isn't supposed to start until later in the evening when traffic decreases. I guess that still relates to the chronic shortage since it's being reported that the ATCs are working 6 day 10 hour per day weeks. So understandable to let someone go home early. What is probably more lethal than the shortage of ATC's is the shortage of FAA inspectors--which is why Boeing was allowed to self inspect and self certify the 737Max (hope I got the technical terms right.)
What isn't being said a lot is that the mission of the helo's unit is apparently to ferry Washington VIPs around, and that the reason for the flight path along the Potomac is to serve that mission. Maybe the VIPs should take the Metro.
With the CRJ being that close to the runway - and the idea that maybe the helo had visual on a different aircraft further south (trailing the CRJ) and assumed erroneously that it was looking at the aircraft in question - then did the helo turn west in front of/north of the aircraft it thought was the CRJ (instead of traveling further south to then be able to turn behind it as instructed by ATC)? Hope that made sense
"quoting MV" forum is booked, it quoted summit
Me, not an expert and don't have a link to expert handy (YouTube only gives me MSM when I search). I agree with the idea the helo pilots likely mistook AAL3130 or another plane. Listening to the ATC video, the controller was saturated dealing with normal traffic. Had there been less traffic, or another controller, it's possible the controller could have intervened more effectively. Still, the controller's role is to help the pilot, and it seems like they usually nudge rather than command. There's been decades of study on the controller-pilot interactions, and I've seen no expert question these radio calls. The pilots and controller are all doing the normal procedures.
There are several ATC tapes floating around. One begins just before the collision, 10 seconds or so. There's a longer ATC audiotape that starts a minute or so before the collision. In it, JIA5341 arranges to land on runway 33, and PAT25(helo) is warned of JIA5341's position and destination. PAT25 (helo) also asks for "visual separation," that lingo means they are requesting responsibility to avoid JIA5341. The controller grants the request. From here on, the assumption is the helo will avoid the collision. I'm no controller, but PAT25 has their instructions, JIA5341 was instructed to land on runway 33 earlier, so the controller is done with these two aircraft, and moves on to other traffic. Note that the military uses separate frequencies, so PAT25 only hears the controller, where the commercial pilots all hear each other and do not hear PAT25. (something to change in the future?)
A minute later (maybe ten seconds before the collision), the controller apparently notices something (the red potential collision on his displays?), and calls PAT25 again. Asks that he has JIA5341 in sight, and PAT25 confirms and again requests "visual separation." I'm not sure why he repeats the request, and he's dead before any further radio calls. Presumably, the helo pilot should realize that it's abnormal for the controller to contact him a second time. Sometimes it's clear in a radio sequence that the pilot (or controller) is overwhelmed or distracted - I don't hear that. Maybe the second "visual separation" request is just repeating, "I still got this." I read it as the controller saw something wrong, but the pilot didn't recognize it in time.
How common is it for ATC to tell pilots where to look ("11 o'clock," relative elevation, etc) when verifying visual contact with other traffic? Is that just smaller airports?
Hoping we can give the investigators time to find out who all the involved federal employees are so we'll actually know their disability and race before we solve this.
Can't edit my post here's a link to VASAviation with the ATC radio traffic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90Xw3tQC0I
There's other video out there that shows the ATC radar screen where it highlights the helo and CRJ in red prior to the accident.
There's also a video where a pilot translates the VASAviation audio to "civilian." by Georgiee or something similar.
Blancolirio's videos are always good.
To answer bennymac, looking at that video, you could argue PAT25 planned to pass in front of AAL3130 before the jet reached runway 33. Noting that 3130 was headed to runway 1 not 33, and PAT25 was directed to pass behind, not in front.
I should add that many sources say "training" indicates a normal military flight. That means we assume an experienced pilot flying a normal flight until confirmed otherwise.
Quote:jono: How common is it for ATC to tell pilots where to look
Very common.
"Crazy Clown 666, blimp traffic, 2 o'clock, 5000, eastbound"
"Airship November three alpha, cartoon jet, 11 o'clock, westbound at 6000, caution turbulence"
Thanks, that's more like what my (very limited) experience is used to hearing. Is it just me or does it seem like there's less of it going on in this case?
Not exactly. Delegated authority has been in place at the FAA for decades. In the early 2000s the FAA replaced an earlier system where the FAA approved the designees at the manufacturers, such as Boeing, with a system called ODA (Organization Designation Authorization). In the new system the manufacturers themselves are responsible for the delegation. Otherwise it's effectively the same. In both cases the system has had actual Boeing engineers responsible since (I think) the '50s. Honestly it's a system that works. The Boeing engineers have the expertise. I think it would be very difficult to have FAA employees in this role.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Another thing I was wondering: doesn't it seem like a sophisticated Army helicopter like this would have collision avoidance systems? It seems like there would at least be some auditory or visual cue that they were going to intersect another aircraft.
It's a system that used to work.
@ jono
Part of it is that the helicopter is on a UHF frequency and the audio floating around the internet is VHF, so you aren't hearing both sides (unless someone added it for youtube). But you're right it is quiet. As someone who's been in/out of there more times than I could count, that wasn't an unusually busy evening, and there wasn't an unusual amount of back and forth on the traffic.
The salient calls were:
Helicopter "PAT25" calls Tower to get clearance to fly down Route 4 through the control zone and ultimately cross the path of aircraft landing at DCA.
Tower answers "Traffic just south of Wilson Bridge, CRJ at one thousand two hundred feet, setting up for rwy 33"
PAT25: "Traffic in sight, request visual separation" (not heard on internet audio)
and 34 seconds later
Tower: "PAT 25 You got that CRJ in sight?" (you can hear an alert going off in the background)
PAT25 again, indicates they have the aircraft in sight and are maintaining visual separation
Tower answers: "PAT 25 Pass behind the RJ"
Impact was 18 seconds later.
When military aircraft say they've got the traffic (twice) people tend to believe them. And a slow moving helicopter that's supposed to remain at 200 feet, and has stated they see and will avoid a much bigger, faster aircraft approaching a well lit runway, you're inclined to think that's what's going to happen. They can stop in midair FFS.
So as I said in the first (poli-ass) thread, the only plausible explanations are that they lost sight of the RJ, or they never had it and were looking at the wrong aircraft.
This has nothing to do with this incident, but…
My brother (retired ATC) says controllers call the regional jets “Ken and Barbie Fun Jets” amongst themselves.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Pilots called it the Barbie Jet too back when there was only one size (extra small). The largest CRJs basically have the same dimensions as the old DC-9, so the nickname kinda fell out of use.
Did he get his start on a military base? Because those guys have nicknames for everything.
Before CRJs and Embraers became ubiquitous, there was the Fokker F28. Everyone called it the Fisher-Price Jet.
Question for the pilots: in light of what happened how crazy (or not crazy) is "visual separation" in a busy environment at night? I get that this is normal operation, the question is this an unforeseen unfortunate accident or is this an inevitable event given what safety experts have been warning about for years?
FWIW, TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) has a number of built in inhibitions like no TCAS intervention advisories below 1000 ft, limited audio warning below 500 ft. Proximity to DCA might also play a role in ignoring warningsQuote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Helicopters don't typically have TCAS for a variety of reasons: they're slow, most of them are flying VFR only, they can't perform the type of maneuvers that a Resolution Advisory requires from a jet, and as I keep saying, they can stop & hover (when low enough). Notable exceptions would be the faster passenger helos like the S-76. And as you mentioned, too low anyway.
I'm woefully uninformed on all the cool toys the military has at their disposal, so I can't really opine on whether or not they could "paint" the jet.
One of the things people have speculated about is their use of night vision goggles, which possibly hindered their ability to see the traffic (again, not my area of expertise).
As for night visual maneuvers, there isn't really a consensus among airline pilots. Some bid their monthly schedules to avoid the dark all together; others are night owls. (and the seniority challenged don't have a choice). I've never heard anyone say DCA is an accident waiting to happen. It's more like, "ugh, I try to avoid that shitshow" or something to the effect of "only reason for DCA is f'n politicians. Everything should be at IAD"
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds,-and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of-wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark nor ever eagle flew-
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
Well, maybe not around DCA. Except for the last line.
I’m pretty sure that the default for night landings at SFO is visible separation on parallel runways.
Love the aesthetics (and efficiency) of planes landing or taking off in parallel. Visible separation at night in a head on game of vector chicken OTOH seems sketchy from a layperson point of view
I've seen it proposed that this was regular NVG training, and in that enivoronment it wouldn't be hard to screw up. Designing good NVG stuff isn't trivialQuote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker
Seen several "experts" on Military readiness opine that these types of training flights are crucial for maintaining a razor sharp edge for the Rotary pilots. Thing is, members of the flying public did not sign up to be a part of the training.
Aviation Cascade
Contributing factors I've seen in the analysis
Critique of the Helo Flight Route (don't know what that is actually called?) on the sectional being directly below the the final approach for runway 33
ATC usually has 2 controllers with 1 dedicated to helo traffic for that airspace
Blackhawks have limited visibility for the pilot and copilot astern (don't know how you say that in aviation) of 9 and 3. With a crew of 3 the Flight Engineer is supposed to monitor the rest. A crew of 4 is preferred.
Seems like all of the above erroded margin and contributed to an inability to See and Avoid.
Controller here, I can probably add some context. A couple of points: A tower controller doesn't use radar as a primary tool for separating aircraft. The tower display is mainly for situational awareness, and traffic is controlled visually by looking out the windows. The separation standard between IFR (instrument flight rules) and VFR(visual flight rules) aircraft less than 19000 pounds in class B airspace is, 500 feet vertical or visual separation or target resolution. The last one is what we always refer to as "green between"...in other words, don't let the targets touch. Keep in mind you only need one of these forms of separation. In this case the controller called the traffic early, the helo saw them and requested visual separation. For a busy controller this is great, as the pilot, not you, is now responsible for the separation. It takes that task off of your mental to do list. That said, I've always run on a trust but verify principle when it comes to visual separation. If I approve visual, I scan back periodically to make sure everyone is doing what they are supposed to. And that's exactly what the controller did in this case. I'm sure he noticed the helo getting uncomfortably close to the CRJ and went back to make sure he still saw him...which the pilot confirmed. I've done this exact thing literally thousands of times without issue. It seems pretty obvious now the helo was looking at a different aircraft.
Staffing is a gigantic mess and has been for a really long time. As much as I detest DJT, this isn't his fault. The staffing issues are the results of decades of underfunding and mismanagement by both political parties. There have been multiple rounds of hiring freezes, government shutdowns, sequestration and just dumb hiring practices. Pinning the staffing problems on any one issue (like DEI) is just ignorant. Outside of underfunding, at its core staffing solutions always ignore a key problem. By necessity, the training is extremely rigorous and takes a long time. Most of the busier facilities I've worked, the washout rate is around 50%. That's after we've already lost about a quarter of new hires at the academy. Depending on the complexity of the facility, it can take anywhere from 1-3 years to be fully certified. The FAA plans have never factored in training attrition into its hiring. If we are short 1000 controllers, they will hire 1000 and think the problem is fixed. But what they've done is hire 1000 trainees that will net maybe 500 controllers in 2 or 3 years. It would be like counting medical students as doctors. If you need a 1000 controllers, you would need to hire at least double that amount and understand you aren't going to have them certified for a couple of years.
Be happy to answer any other ATC questions if people have them.
Thanks for joining in.
Do ATCs handle individual runways or targets?
Really depends on the facility and traffic volume. All of the functions in a control tower are divided into areas of responsibility. In its simplest iteration, there is a ground controller that gets aircraft back and forth to the runway, a local controller that works the runways and the airspace immediately around the airport and a clearance delivery/flight data controller that issues IFR and VFR clearances. In busy complex environments, there maybe two or more local and ground controllers assigned to particular runways. There are often also hand off or assist controllers that operate as a second set of eyes for the controller actually working the aircraft. There is a great deal of coordination that happens between controllers to move aircraft from one point to another. What you hear on the radio is only a portion of what the controller is actually doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020