Mid-Air Collision in DC

[kaputt]

I don’t fly anything with fancy glass in the GA world. But a Stratus providing ADSB in to ForeFlight on an iPad is tremendous SA. Not only do I get the targets like above, but it has their exact altitude readout and callsign and/or tail number. 
 

The last part is the real life saver, as I can hear what ATC is calling them and it’s so much easier to make sure you’re looking at the right target. 
 

Does Garmin not have the ability to show the extra data like callsign?

[SurelySerious]

These articles about the Blackhawk not transmitting ADS-B (as if it didn’t have a transponder at all) are just click-bait for people who don’t understand that Mode C still exists as it did for years, and provides all the relevant squawk information for this scenario. Also there’s a 99.6% chance that anyone writing these articles (or having the conversation at the congressional level) could not tell you the difference between Mode S, ES, 1090, and 978 UAT.

What GA sees on an ADSB In display would have been a glove save, potentially, but should be a separate discussion from the doom scrolling “Blackhawk wasn’t transmitting omg fr fr” bullshit.

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

These articles about the Blackhawk not transmitting ADS-B (as if it didn’t have a transponder at all) are just click-bait for people who don’t understand that Mode C still exists as it did for years, and provides all the relevant squawk information for this scenario. Also there’s a 99.6% chance that anyone writing these articles (or having the conversation at the congressional level) could not tell you the difference between Mode S, ES, 1090, and 978 UAT.

What GA sees on an ADSB In display would have been a glove save, potentially, but should be a separate discussion from the doom scrolling “Blackhawk wasn’t transmitting omg fr fr” bullshit.

I do not concur with your assessment.  While the Mode C provides info to ATC, it would not have provided position information to the airliner.  Most don;t have the fancy integrated displays I do but most airlines do fly with IPads and ADS-B would have provided some SA of an altitude AND position conflict.

NO transponder = radar on metal no altitude

Mode A = transponder increases range of radar and sends an identifier

Mode C = Altitude encoded in reply.

Mode S = ICAO identifier encoded in reply

Mode ES / ADS-B = location information encoded so radar no longer required to locate target.

[brabus]

I don’t think CRJ has ADS-B IN, so its a moot point. ADS-B is a great tool, but it’s likely nothing beyond a minor CF in this accident. Honestly this one is not hard to figure out that the major fix is don’t do stupid procedures. None of the discussion about NVGs, chick pilots, ADS-B, etc. even matters if you simply stop putting aircraft at the same lat/long with only 100’ of vert separation and your “backup” decon is pilots promising they’re visual on the correct traffic/some controller being directive end game to avert disaster.

[SurelySerious]

I do not concur with your assessment.  While the Mode C provides info to ATC, it would not have provided position information to the airliner.  Most don;t have the fancy integrated displays I do but most airlines do fly with IPads and ADS-B would have provided some SA of an altitude AND position conflict.

Airliners are not to my knowledge flying with ipads that have ADSB In, at least not at one large legacy airline, so I fail to see how having ES on the Blackhawk would have helped in this instance.

Edit: they’re also likely to be viewing the plate for the charted visual they were cleared and not an ipad moving map anyway (since TCAS is on their sit display), and then nuggets outside for the visual circle. But I digress.

[nsplayr]

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-plane-crash-air-traffic-control-ab195790634af66534a45cdec2d80aa8
 

Look, if the silver lining from this terrible crash is an expedited upgrade to the ATC systems nationwide to something better, that’s good. I hope the administration achieves that end.

Anyone wanna take a swing at WTF Trump is talking about in his private jet lol? 😅 Pretty sure they’re doing the same procedures using the same navigation systems as the rest of us out there flying the friendly skies…

“He said in his private jet, he uses a system from another country when he lands because his pilot says the existing system in the U.S. is obsolete.”

Edited February 7 by nsplayr

[Zman]

9 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I do not concur with your assessment.  While the Mode C provides info to ATC, it would not have provided position information to the airliner.  Most don;t have the fancy integrated displays I do but most airlines do fly with IPads and ADS-B would have provided some SA of an altitude AND position conflict.

NO transponder = radar on metal no altitude

Mode A = transponder increases range of radar and sends an identifier

Mode C = Altitude encoded in reply.

Mode S = ICAO identifier encoded in reply

Mode ES / ADS-B = location information encoded so radar no longer required to locate target.

This is not correct.

 

TCAS II aircraft like the CRJ get full TA/RA indications as long as another aircraft has Mode A/C. It doesn’t matter what the other aircraft has, just as long at they have Mode A/C.

 

ADSB has no bearing on TCAS. ADSB only helps other GA aircraft and provides a more accurate picture for ATC.

Media will latch onto this topic, but for this accident… it’s a red herring.

Edited February 8 by Zman
Edit for system clarification

[17D_guy]

17 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Anyone wanna take a swing at WTF Trump is talking about in his private jet lol? 😅 Pretty sure they’re doing the same procedures using the same navigation systems as the rest of us out there flying the friendly skies…

“He said in his private jet, he uses a system from another country when he lands because his pilot says the existing system in the U.S. is obsolete.”

Come on man, we all know what he's doing with that statement.

[ClearedHot]

16 minutes ago, Zman said:

This is not correct.

 

TCAS II aircraft like the CRJ get full TA/RA indications as long as another aircraft has Mode A/C. It doesn’t matter what the other aircraft has, just as long at they have Mode A/C. If the other aircraft only has Mode A, there will be no indications of altitude, and a TCAS II aircraft will only give a TA.

 

ADSB has no bearing on TCAS. ADSB only helps other GA aircraft and provides a more accurate picture for ATC.

Media will latch onto this topic, but for this accident… it’s a red herring.

HUH?  Where did I say ADS-B impacted TCAS? 

Also I believe it was reported TCAS RAs were disabled below a certain altitude on approach?

I said ADS-B would give additional position data had it been in use.

[nsplayr]

20 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Come on man, we all know what he's doing with that statement.

In Soviet Russia, GLONASS track you! 😂

I seriously have no idea what he’s talking about, seems like nonsense. Which is not breaking news.

Like I said, if actual experts use the political will and momentum from this tragedy to get some needed beneficial upgrades to control towers, actually doing next-gen or whatever the new buzzword is gonna be, let’s do it.

Edited February 7 by nsplayr

[Zman]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

HUH?  Where did I say ADS-B impacted TCAS? 

Also I believe it was reported TCAS RAs were disabled below a certain altitude on approach?

I said ADS-B would give additional position data had it been in use.

You didn’t.

But SurelySerious said that Mode C provided all the data needed for collision avoidance in this scenario. That’s accurate. A Mode A/C transmitting transponder provides enough data to give a TA/RA indication for the CRJ.

You stated Mode C does not provide positional information to the airliner, but Mode C transmission is all a TCAS II equipped aircraft needs to determine positional information.

Yes, RAs are likely inhibited below 1000 AGL, but that’s a separate topic. ADSB will be at most a CF as barbus stated. It would not have changed the outcome of this event.

Had the aircraft been a GA aircraft without TCAS, we’d be having a much different conversation regarding ADSB.

Edited February 8 by Zman

[ClearedHot]

45 minutes ago, Zman said:

You didn’t.

But SurelySerious said that Mode C provided all the data needed for collision avoidance in this scenario. That’s accurate. The helicopter also had Mode A, which would provide a TA/RA indication for the CRJ.

You stated Mode C does not provide positional information to the airliner, but Mode C transmission is all a TCAS II equipped aircraft needs to determine positional information (minus altitude).

Yes, RAs are likely inhibited below 1000 AGL, but that’s a separate topic. ADSB will be at most a CF as barbus stated. It would not have changed the outcome of this event.

Had the aircraft been a GA aircraft without TCAS, we’d be having a much different conversation regarding ADSB.

I don't think mode C provided everything that was needed, especially since it showed the helo at 200' when it was actually at 325'. 

If RA's are inhibited below 1000', then again Mode C does not provide what is needed.

Regardless we all agree 100' of altitude separation is ludicrous.

[Zman]

6 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Regardless we all agree 100' of altitude separation is ludicrous.

This is the key aspect.

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

In Soviet Russia, GLONASS track you! 😂

I seriously have no idea what he’s talking about, seems like nonsense. Which is not breaking news.

Like I said, if actual experts use the political will and momentum from this tragedy to get some needed beneficial upgrades to control towers, actually doing next-gen or whatever the new buzzword is gonna be, let’s do it.

Tech upgrades are good and necessary, but they need more trained people that have to be compensated at a rate that is above "do it for America." That is not in the blueprint put forward by this administration.

Lets do a crazy prediction: before June Elon says they're going to replace ATC w/ AI by 2027.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I don't think mode C provided everything that was needed, especially since it showed the helo at 200' when it was actually at 325'. 

If RA's are inhibited below 1000', then again Mode C does not provide what is needed.

Regardless we all agree 100' of altitude separation is ludicrous.

If mode C altitude was incorrect then ads-b would have been incorrect as well in all likelihood. 

 

Just because an RA is inhibited below 1,000 ft doesn't mean that you can't look at the screen and see where the aircraft is. Everything that has mode C shows up on the screen. The helicopter showed up on the screen in the regional cockpit.

 

But because the helicopter did not have a tcas system (or even just TAS), they had no display to look at, or they would have seen how close they were to the regional jet. 

 

Would it have stopped this crash? Who knows. What would have stopped this crash is if we didn't keep making exceptions to rules just because a certain airspace is "important." 

 

You would never see them flying helicopters this close to aircraft on final in places like Atlanta or Dallas or San Francisco. But because the congressmen want a short drive from the airport to their office, we just pretended for years like it would all be okay.

[brabus]

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

they need more trained people that have to be compensated at a rate that is above "do it for America."

Well the FAA has bypassed thousand(s) of qualified applicants for quite a while based on immutable characteristics. And after a handful of years controllers are making well into the 100s. Not sayings it’s airline Capt pay, but it’s not dogshit either. And the systems/NAS structure is pretty antiquated - there absolutely needs to be some significant tech overhaul in addition to restructuring the NAS (both of which they’ve talked about for a long time but not actually done shit…until 67 people die).

[herkbier]

It doesn’t really matter if the RJ had TCAS or ADS-B In or Foreflight.. the helo should have had that stuff. 
 

I have no first hand knowledge of their equipment.. but it sounds like the standard Army 60s don’t have it. These 12th AB/VIP  60s should, especially if they are flying in that airspace. And if they don’t have it, they shouldn’t fly in that airspace til they do have it. 
 

And.. even worse, maybe they do have the equipment, but fly with it disabled because of IMHO blown out of proportion OPSEC concerns.. which is what AMC is doing. Drives me nuts that I fly my Herk around busy Class B and C airspace with ADS-B off because.. China. It’s a crock of shit and we will have a mishap one of these days because we aren’t using equipment that could keep us safer in the non-tactical environment. 

[Lawman]

It doesn’t really matter if the RJ had TCAS or ADS-B In or Foreflight.. the helo should have had that stuff. 
 
I have no first hand knowledge of their equipment.. but it sounds like the standard Army 60s don’t have it. These 12th AB/VIP  60s should, especially if they are flying in that airspace. And if they don’t have it, they shouldn’t fly in that airspace til they do have it. 
 
And.. even worse, maybe they do have the equipment, but fly with it disabled because of IMHO blown out of proportion OPSEC concerns.. which is what AMC is doing. Drives me nuts that I fly my Herk around busy Class B and C airspace with ADS-B off because.. China. It’s a crock of shit and we will have a mishap one of these days because we aren’t using equipment that could keep us safer in the non-tactical environment. 

Cool, tell DAMO-AV. It’s 20-30 million to put it behind the glass, per MDS. That’s what it costs to open the proprietary codes in these old legacy platforms.

Foreflight is not a program of record in the Army, and due to the requirement by the wider Army that we use ITN and the TAK architecture that exists we’ve spent a decade with units having to spend millions out of other budgets to get or keep foreflight in action.

I love foreflight, but they (Boeing) have for the last several years repeatedly told both the conventional and special ops aviation community “we aren’t doing Apple, you’re a niche customer.” That is only just now starting to come around as a few people transition out, but we’re years away from fielding anything and the priority with all the budget tightening is a warfighter tablet, not something for a VIP unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

Cool, tell DAMO-AV. It’s 20-30 million to put it behind the glass, per MDS. That’s what it costs to open the proprietary codes in these old legacy platforms.

Foreflight is not a program of record in the Army, and due to the requirement by the wider Army that we use ITN and the TAK architecture that exists we’ve spent a decade with units having to spend millions out of other budgets to get or keep foreflight in action.

I love foreflight, but they (Boeing) have for the last several years repeatedly told both the conventional and special ops aviation community “we aren’t doing Apple, you’re a niche customer.” That is only just now starting to come around as a few people transition out, but we’re years away from fielding anything and the priority with all the budget tightening is a warfighter tablet, not something for a VIP unit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boeing is HORRIBLE! 

There is a constant battle over proprietary versus government owned software.  At one point after 9/11 there was an effort to put Hellfire on the AC-130U.  Rockwell owned the mission system on the U boat and wanted $100M to open the code and incorporate the munition.  I was later told a similar effort on the Predator cost $2M.

Lockheed did the same with the OEM software on the C-130J when AFSOC wanted to add additional SOF functions to the aircraft, they wanted $100M for access to the EOM software.  AFSOC in their infinite wisdom decided to install a new stand alone computer box called the SOF Mission Processor, the idea being to have a gonkulator that could perform certain functions (numerous mission SOF functions and to integrate things like JTTRS), when on mission you could flip a switch to push those functions to the green machine glass and get around the OEM displayed data....at last count AFSOC has spent $300M and it still wasn't right.

The worst was BOEING, when I was in the HQ there was a big push to keep everything government owned.  Our engineers at Warner Robins had worked on Gunship code for many years and they contracted with Boeing for additional engineering support.  One of the engineers came to me with a print out of the code where Boeing had gone in and put "BOEING PROPRIETARY" labels on code the government had written.  I called the senior Boeing dude in for a meeting and he denied it.  He was a retired AFSOC O-6 and actually friend.  A few days later went around me to the AFSOC/CV to complain that I was spreading falsehoods about Boeing.  I had the Warner Robins Engineers drive over to HRT with the code and show both the CV and the CC, the labels came off the next week.

[DirkDiggler]

10 hours ago, herkbier said:

And.. even worse, maybe they do have the equipment, but fly with it disabled because of IMHO blown out of proportion OPSEC concerns.. which is what AMC is doing. Drives me nuts that I fly my Herk around busy Class B and C airspace with ADS-B off because.. China. It’s a crock of shit and we will have a mishap one of these days because we aren’t using equipment that could keep us safer in the non-tactical environment. 

Unfortunately this problem isn't limited to just AMC, it's infected other MAJCOMs as well.

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Boeing is HORRIBLE! 

There is a constant battle over proprietary versus government owned software.  At one point after 9/11 there was an effort to put Hellfire on the AC-130U.  Rockwell owned the mission system on the U boat and wanted $100M to open the code and incorporate the munition.  I was later told a similar effort on the Predator cost $2M.

Lockheed did the same with the OEM software on the C-130J when AFSOC wanted to add additional SOF functions to the aircraft, they wanted $100M for access to the EOM software.  AFSOC in their infinite wisdom decided to install a new stand alone computer box called the SOF Mission Processor, the idea being to have a gonkulator that could perform certain functions (numerous mission SOF functions and to integrate things like JTTRS), when on mission you could flip a switch to push those functions to the green machine glass and get around the OEM displayed data....at last count AFSOC has spent $300M and it still wasn't right.

The worst was BOEING, when I was in the HQ there was a big push to keep everything government owned.  Our engineers at Warner Robins had worked on Gunship code for many years and they contracted with Boeing for additional engineering support.  One of the engineers came to me with a print out of the code where Boeing had gone in and put "BOEING PROPRIETARY" labels on code the government had written.  I called the senior Boeing dude in for a meeting and he denied it.  He was a retired AFSOC O-6 and actually friend.  A few days later went around me to the AFSOC/CV to complain that I was spreading falsehoods about Boeing.  I had the Warner Robins Engineers drive over to HRT with the code and show both the CV and the CC, the labels came off the next week.

The SMPs are worthless pieces of shit.  It's actually kinda shocking how badly that program has come along/matured but we're still stuck with it.

  About ~6 months before I retired the company that builds them sent a roadshow to all the MC Sqs to address all the concerns/issues everyone was having.  Their basic pitch (I wasn't personally there, was deployed) amounted to "turn them on in this order, we know they don't work correctly right now, there's nothing we can do about it, but trust us when we say they'll work great in CR2".  Embarrassing.

[KWings06j]

11 hours ago, herkbier said:

It doesn’t really matter if the RJ had TCAS or ADS-B In or Foreflight.. the helo should have had that stuff. 
 

I have no first hand knowledge of their equipment.. but it sounds like the standard Army 60s don’t have it. These 12th AB/VIP  60s should, especially if they are flying in that airspace. And if they don’t have it, they shouldn’t fly in that airspace til they do have it. 
 

And.. even worse, maybe they do have the equipment, but fly with it disabled because of IMHO blown out of proportion OPSEC concerns.. which is what AMC is doing. Drives me nuts that I fly my Herk around busy Class B and C airspace with ADS-B off because.. China. It’s a crock of shit and we will have a mishap one of these days because we aren’t using equipment that could keep us safer in the non-tactical environment. 

Depending on the version of Blackhawk some have ADS-B in under glass, as well as ADS-R and TIS-B. However the latter two may or may not have been receiving data since they weren't transmitting on ADS-B out. So they would have had to be in the bubble of someone else that had ADS-B out on. Even with ADS-B out turned off, the ADS-B in feed remains on, though they have declutter options to reduce how much traffic they see.

The OPSEC discussion is valid on whether or not they actually needed ADS-B out turned off. Depending on what they were doing it may have been valid to turn it off for portions of their sortie. Whether or not they needed it off for the entire sortie, or if switching it on and off is an indicator itself, is another discussion.

The system they should have used is the radar altimeter. Blackhawks have a low bug AND a high bug. If you have a critical altitude not to exceed you set the high bug at or below that altitude. Depending on the version the pilot and copilot have independent bugs that both trigger the alert. So the PNF could have been adjusting the bugs and let the PF focus on flying. Then you get an altitude warning, similar to the low bug, before you're 100+ feet outside your block.

[Majestik Møøse]

Are you guys saying that not every mil pilot has access to ForeFlight on an iPad connected to a Stratus with global FLIP and ADS-B traffic and weather?

Not being sarcastic, this has been the standard for 10 years in some places, can’t believe it’s not ubiquitous.

[Swizzle]

17 hours ago, Zman said:

This is not correct.

 

TCAS II aircraft like the CRJ get full TA/RA indications as long as another aircraft has Mode A/C. It doesn’t matter what the other aircraft has, just as long at they have Mode A/C.

 

ADSB has no bearing on TCAS. ADSB only helps other GA aircraft and provides a more accurate picture for ATC.

Media will latch onto this topic, but for this accident… it’s a red herring.

Uuummm...it absolutely does, and maybe in this situation, have an influence on TCAS.

Big question: what was the altimeter source+setting and broadcast altitude method used by each leading up to the collision? They could have been different.

From FAA:

"Can you please explain the altitude and velocity reports that ADS-B provides?

ADS-B reports two kinds of altitudes: barometric and geometric. The barometric altitude transmitted by the ADS-B is actually pressure altitude which is the altitude seen on your altimeter when the altimeter setting is set to 29.92. Geometric altitude is calculated by GPS as the height of the aircraft above the earth ellipsoid. These two altitudes are not the same, but having both allows for applications that require one or the other as an altitude source and provides a means of verifying correct pressure altitude reporting from aircraft.

ADS-B reports horizontal and vertical velocity relative to the Earth. This velocity is useful for air traffic control functions and ADS-B applications. ADS-B does not report vertical or horizontal airspeed. Airspeed is provided by other aircraft sensors."

So theoretically ADS-B provides better, more accurate GPS based altimetery than without, so TCAS can make a better TA/RAs and decrease aircarft seperations becuase of better 4D info. And if both were utilizing ADS-B through TCAS, then the decinfliction is that much more harmonized, and better as standardized/equal starting point. 

Riddle me this on low altitude/WAAS environments!?  Why does "ADS-B will require at least one Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)-capable GPS receiver connected directly to the transponders."

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/capabilities/benefits

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/resources/faq

 

[Swizzle]

A major takeaway from this mishap IMHO is altimetery in low-level and/or deconfliction environments is a major, FAFO risk and hazard for aircrew to understand, as well as respect.