Mid-Air Collision in DC

[uhhello]

6 hours ago, Vetter said:

Why are they withholding the Blackhawk pilot’s name?

She was not recovered according to the timeline I have read.  The other two were recovered and confirmed dead.  The last crew member was listed as DUSTWUN until the release a short while ago.  Not every event that happens in this shitty world is a globalist conspiracy.  Some are.  Most aren't.  

[disgruntledemployee]

Visual separation request issues I see.  Traffic called out to PAT and they asked for visual separation from ATC and was granted.  PAT must identify the traffic in order for visual separation to be granted.  The CRJ was never informed of PAT, nor were they asked to find/identify PAT.  If I remember, seems like all calls like this I've been in, both of us traffics were called out to each of us like SFO and DEN with converging approaches.  So I looked up the FAR, and it says, if the aircraft are on a converging path, both must be notified.  If ATC had done that, maybe the CRJ puts a set of eyes out to find PAT while the other tries to line up on 33.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_2.html  a.2. c, d, and e

2. Pilot-applied visual separation.

  a.  Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.

  b. The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows:

    1. Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.

    2. Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.

    3. Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.

PHRASEOLOGY-

(ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), (intentions and other relevant information).

If required,

(ACID), REPORT TRAFFIC IN SIGHT or DO YOU HAVE IT IN SIGHT?

If the pilot reports traffic in sight, or the answer is in the affirmative,

(ACID), MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION

NOTE-

Towers must use the procedures contained in paragraph 3-1-6, Traffic Information, subparagraph b or c, as appropriate.

c. If the pilot reports the traffic in sight and will maintain visual separation from it (the pilot must state both), the controller may “approve” the operation instead of restating the instructions.

PHRASEOLOGY-

(ACID), APPROVED.

NOTE-

Pilot-applied visual separation between aircraft is achieved when the controller has instructed the pilot to maintain visual separation and the pilot acknowledges with their call sign or when the controller has approved pilot-initiated visual separation.

d. If aircraft are on converging courses, inform the other aircraft of the traffic and that visual separation is being applied.

PHRASEOLOGY-

(ACID), TRAFFIC, (clock position and distance), (direction) BOUND, (type of aircraft), HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.

e. Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge.

[brabus]

More importantly they should immediately stop relying on visual as the primary decon method in busy airspace. I’m not saying kill it everywhere in the NAS, but I have no issue with killing it in class B and within an approach corridor in Class C if an aircraft is on a segment of the approach.
 

Story time: I almost midaired once in class C when the controller gave very shitty description of traffic, I called visual on the wrong traffic (but it correlated based on his description), then missed his “intended” factor traffic only because I continued a visual scan and maneuvered to avoid. Mind you I’m an experienced pilot and this was not a necessarily busy airspace. He tried to violate me, and the FAA ended up violating him and pulling his cert because he used incorrect phraseology and gave a poor traffic point out that correlated with the wrong aircraft. That’s a great example of how visual decon should not be fully relied on. Now take my story and put it in a very congested airspace at night with a ton of cultural lighting, water-based visual illusions, etc. 

[ViperMan]

Having little to no SA on the specifics here, I can say based on my experiences in the military and thus far in the civilian world, ATC is far too comfortable giving visual approaches to passenger aircraft. IMO, they should basically only be given upon request. I think it has become the easy button for them to place responsibility on pilots.

[SurelySerious]

Having little to no SA on the specifics here, I can say based on my experiences in the military and thus far in the civilian world, ATC is far too comfortable giving visual approaches to passenger aircraft. IMO, they should basically only be given upon request. I think it has become the easy button for them to place responsibility on pilots.

Agree. To the point that they get angry when you don’t accept the visual 36.9nm out because due to whatever conditions you can’t see the airport yet.

[Majestik Møøse]

In 2025 it’s unacceptable that we rely on a pilot moving at 100-200 kts to visually acquire another 100-200 kt airborne target based on a 3rd-party visobs talk-on at a third location with no common reference point - in Class B, at night - to ensure flight safety. These are multi-million dollar vehicles and buildings that can’t get a common datalink picture on a screen.

Lots of root causes for lots of problems with equipment, certification, training, manning, etc. Every child playing iPad games has more computing and display power than a lot of aircraft that are allowed in Class B.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Having little to no SA on the specifics here, I can say based on my experiences in the military and thus far in the civilian world, ATC is far too comfortable giving visual approaches to passenger aircraft. IMO, they should basically only be given upon request. I think it has become the easy button for them to place responsibility on pilots.

visual approaches are useful in certain situations. and it does relieve controller workload.

[arg]

52 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

visual approaches are useful in certain situations. and it does relieve controller workload.

Airline dudes chime in but do a lot of them prefer the visual? Under certain circumstances of course. 

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, arg said:

Airline dudes chime in but do a lot of them prefer the visual? Under certain circumstances of course. 

Almost always a faster way to get on the ground.  Great points above still want to know if they were wearing NVGs (NTSB mentioned they are working to confirm).  While they are a great tool as we all know they also restrict peripheral vision making it easier to falsely ID the called out traffic. 

Did anyone see the NTSB update last night, the lead investigator was almost in tears.  He noted many recommendations from past accidents that are still in limbo (I know there are many reasons they have not been incorporated like money, staffing, and impact on operations).

He also talked about altitude discrepancies - From the FDR they know the CRJ was at 325' plus or minus 25'.  The tower radar showed the Blackhawk at 200'.  Obviously the helo was at the same altitude as the AA flight, what caused the discrepancy?  I don't know how the tower radar derives altitude?  Raw data, does ADSB feed into it? 

[busdriver]

100ft of discrepancy can get eaten up real quick with instrument error, location of static ports on airframes, and a sneeze.

Keep in mind, it isn't just an NVGs limit peripheral vision thing.  Airframe parts block lines of sight.  In this case the "A pillars" and windscreen framing on both aircraft.

The procedures around DC are stupid.  

[BFM this]

10 hours ago, arg said:

Airline dudes chime in but do a lot of them prefer the visual? Under certain circumstances of course. 

Depending on the carrier/culture, p121 ops range from heavily discouraged to outright phobic responses to an actual visual approach.

Dogleg vector to an instrument based final is the norm.  I would argue that we aren’t really flying a visual, just accepting a handoff of visual responsibility from RAPCON.

At my previous carrier, the suggestion of a visual was a good way to get everyone’s blood pressure to spike: the monkeys and the banana response.  Better luck at my current outfit (legacy) typically, but still some that couldn’t fathom actual unaided VFR flying.  
I’m a weird cat that still gets a satisfying dopamine hit from clicking off the FD and rolling out on a stable final just like Earnie Gann intended.

But it begins with reading the room.

[disgruntledemployee]

10 hours ago, arg said:

Airline dudes chime in but do a lot of them prefer the visual? Under certain circumstances of course. 

Most class B airports, the visual approach is STAR/vectors to intercept an ILS/RNAV final.  The visual clearance means the controller can space em a little tighter.  Smaller airports, like above, or the visual is more on the crew to get it lined up on final.  Also visuals are used for terrain airports where instrument approaches restrict ATC to way fewer aircraft.   Circling is rare, save for the sidestep which is usually offered well out, but DCA is the exception.

Edited 17 hours ago by disgruntledemployee
I was typing when BFM posted

[SocialD]

12 hours ago, arg said:

Airline dudes chime in but do a lot of them prefer the visual? Under certain circumstances of course. 

 

I never prefer the visual, give me vectors to ILS final every time.  The visual is a just ATC's way of being lazy or trying to shove 10 pounds into 5 pound sock.  Never understood the desire to "get on the ground quicker."  At best you get to the gate a minute or two prior.  This job should be boring.  

 

I once had an FO who was super geeked about wanting to do a side-step.  He's senior to me and has been on this plane for 12 years (9 years longer than me), so he knows what he's doing, so I said ok, lets do it.  Everything goes fine, we show up to the gate about 3 minutes earlier than if we hadn't sidestepped...then we waited 10 minutes for a park crew lol.  

[SurelySerious]

 
This job should be boring.   

Cannot quote for truth enough. The dudes I fly with that want to make it more exciting…should fly something else outside of 121 world.

Also have seen every variation of trying to make time like you mentioned, and the company’s inability to staff enough crews/assign gates and crews efficiently or some random taxi slowdown will thwart efforts to shave a few minutes 99.6% of the time.

[Clark Griswold]

16 minutes ago, SocialD said:

I never prefer the visual, give me vectors to ILS final every time.  The visual is a just ATC's way of being lazy or trying to shove 10 pounds into 5 pound sock.  Never understood the desire to "get on the ground quicker."  At best you get to the gate a minute or two prior.  This job should be boring.  

I once had an FO who was super geeked about wanting to do a side-step.  He's senior to me and has been on this plane for 12 years (9 years longer than me), so he knows what he's doing, so I said ok, lets do it.  Everything goes fine, we show up to the gate about 3 minutes earlier than if we hadn't sidestepped...then we waited 10 minutes for a park crew lol.  

This

I’ll bet 99% of the time my visual will be mysteriously exactly a dog leg vector to a fix about 2-3 miles prior to the FAF

CDTI clearances are also annoying, me to ATC when they issue one:

[jrizzell]

Capt. Rebecca Lobach
450hr PIC?

Is that considered a good amount of hours for a Helo pilot?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Biff_T]

4 minutes ago, jrizzell said:

Is that considered a good amount of hours for a Helo pilot?

No.  

That's in the range of new aircraft commander.  

[BashiChuni]

we all know these types. shinny pennies. pushed to exec or staff work. typically weaker flying skills (or don't like flying) but excel as paper pushers. a story as old as time.

was this the case here? i don't know. but the low hours is something illuminating. and the high profile WH gig. is it causal to the accident? no idea and won't cast judgement.

my point is maybe we should bring back the primary focus of pilots to being a pilot. and reward them as such. instead you're rewarded for being the best exec and no one gives a shit about your flying skills.

[Biff_T]

I knew a few pilots who did WH things.  They were solid pilots.   

14 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

my point is maybe we should bring back the primary focus of pilots to being a pilot. and reward them as such. instead you're rewarded for being the best exec and no one gives a shit about your flying skills

I agree with this.  

[herkbum]

we all know these types. shinny pennies. pushed to exec or staff work. typically weaker flying skills (or don't like flying) but excel as paper pushers. a story as old as time.
was this the case here? i don't know. but the low hours is something illuminating. and the high profile WH gig. is it causal to the accident? no idea and won't cast judgement.
my point is maybe we should bring back the primary focus of pilots to being a pilot. and reward them as such. instead you're rewarded for being the best exec and no one gives a shit about your flying skills.

This,in conjunction with the scrubbing of her social media accounts, makes me say hmmm? Whether they are or not, it feels like something is being hidden.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Majestik Møøse]

Since the speculation ice has been broken, seems like there’s a serious problem having a published heli route that crosses the 3D visual glide path for 33. Normal 3.0° PAPIs will put you at 200’/.66NM which crosses Route 4 at exactly the max alt.

Edited 7 hours ago by Majestik Møøse

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, herkbum said:

 

This,in conjunction with the scrubbing of her social media accounts, makes me say hmmm? Whether they are or not, it feels like something is being hidden.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

If it was my daughter I'd do the exact same thing.  Imagine losing your daughter/son and stepping into the social media world to see every possible evil conspiratorial thing being said about your child.  Whatever can be done to lessen the pain and stress would be done if I were them.  

Regardless of how many hours she could have had, it's not going to stop the fucktards from dragging him/her down.  I rarely flew on a sortie that had a crew full of 1,000+ hour folks.  There is always going to be a low hour guy on board getting training.  Why is there no talk about the instructor/evaluator on board?  

Edited 12 hours ago by uhhello

[Lawman]

Is that considered a good amount of hours for a Helo pilot?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

It’s not high, it just isn’t abnormal in a place where we no longer have 500-1000 hour producing deployments. That is her total time, not her time at her check for PIC. We have had a very artificially seasoned force from 2004-2018 or so. That just isn’t possible anymore.

That count is absolutely in line with the aggregate average across the Army. Particularly for somebody assigned where she was prior.



Right now it isn’t your counts that are the issue, it’s regularity of hours. Her total time means nothing if she was doing what has become all too common across the force and going 59 days between flights or not meeting minimums. That is now the new normal and it has eroded proficiency and slowed progressions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[busdriver]

16 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Why is there no talk about the instructor/evaluator on board?  

Because people have their heads up their asses.  There is no need for a conspiracy, this accident isn't hard to figure out.

 

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Biff_T said:

I knew a few pilots who did WH things.  They were solid pilots.   

I agree with this.  

as young captains with below average flight time?