PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

[averettpilot]

I still find myself at odds with colleagues who think it’s no big deal to keep circling to 33. I always brief unable if offered 33 and the only time I’ll accept is if the crosswind for 1 is exceptionally high. Even then it will take a big number to scare me off of 1. And never at night.

I used to love landing 33 just for the variety and opportunity for more hand flying. I promised my family though that I’d never do 33 again because the only way I can think to mitigate the risk of a midair with a helo is to simply not go over there.

Too many pilots at my company disagree or are trying to appear nonchalant about it. We lost an aircraft from this and 67 lives. It’s not a small deal. It’s a big deal.

 

[MikeD]

I still find myself at odds with colleagues who think it’s no big deal to keep circling to 33. I always brief unable if offered 33 and the only time I’ll accept is if the crosswind for 1 is exceptionally high. Even then it will take a big number to scare me off of 1. And never at night.

I used to love landing 33 just for the variety and opportunity for more hand flying. I promised my family though that I’d never do 33 again because the only way I can think to mitigate the risk of a midair with a helo is to simply not go over there.

Too many pilots at my company disagree or are trying to appear nonchalant about it. We lost an aircraft from this and 67 lives. It’s not a small deal. It’s a big deal.

Aside from the above, if the circle to 33 is being done for mere convenience purposes for either ATC or the air carriers, and no other necessary reason, then why bother doing it when already aligned for a simple straight-in landing to 1? Seems extra maneuvering for no truly necessary reason, part and parcel even from the helo route deconfliction angle.

And only because I don’t fly into there regularly and have only flown by there once on the route, is there any reason ATC doesn’t just vector aircraft to a straight in for 33, instead of having them make an approach to 1, circle to 33? Especially in clear Wx?

 

[BobDDuck]

Aside from the above, if the circle to 33 is being done for mere convenience purposes for either ATC or the air carriers, and no other necessary reason, then why bother doing it when already aligned for a simple straight-in landing to 1? Seems extra maneuvering for no truly necessary reason, part and parcel even from the helo route deconfliction angle.

And only because I don’t fly into there regularly and have only flown by there once on the route, is there any reason ATC doesn’t just vector aircraft to a straight in for 33, instead of having them make an approach to 1, circle to 33? Especially in clear Wx?

I don't think they ever did it for convenience, other than to get a higher departure/arrival rate for Runway 1. The straight in isn't really doable because of the ADW traffic pattern just to the east, as well as some no officially restricted, but actually restricted airspace.

Aside from the conflicts with the low level rotor routes, it's not a hard/dangerous approach in a small jet. And if we are truly going to be concerned about the conflicts there (which we should) there are a whole bunch of other issues with landing 19 and helo routes that nobody wants to deal with either.

 

[MikeD]

I don't think they ever did it for convenience, other than to get a higher departure/arrival rate for Runway 1. The straight in isn't really doable because of the ADW traffic pattern just to the east, as well as some no officially restricted, but actually restricted airspace.

Aside from the conflicts with the low level rotor routes, it's not a hard/dangerous approach in a small jet. And if we are truly going to be concerned about the conflicts there (which we should) there are a whole bunch of other issues with landing 19 and helo routes that nobody wants to deal with either.

That’s what I was kind of referring to, an ATC convenience for takeoff/landing rates, but not for any truly necessary reason like crosswinds. But if a true straight-in to 33 isn’t doable for the reasons you mentioned, then that answers my question. Yes, the low level route structure needs to be reviewed as it’s currently depicted, since if there was this one intersecting area that slipped through the cracks when all the stars aligned in normal ops, there’s likely others too, also as mentioned.

 

[Tommay85]

That’s what I was kind of referring to, an ATC convenience for takeoff/landing rates, but not for any truly necessary reason like crosswinds. But if a true straight-in to 33 isn’t doable for the reasons you mentioned, then that answers my question. Yes, the low level route structure needs to be reviewed as it’s currently depicted, since if there was this one intersecting area that slipped through the cracks when all the stars aligned in normal ops, there’s likely others too, also as mentioned.

Yeah, also the military is incompetent too actually…

THEY did this, THEY keep being incompetent imbeciles!

The collective we are trying to share the airspace, but the military always •s it up.

 

[inigo88]

I don't think they ever did it for convenience, other than to get a higher departure/arrival rate for Runway 1. The straight in isn't really doable because of the ADW traffic pattern just to the east, as well as some no officially restricted, but actually restricted airspace.

Aside from the conflicts with the low level rotor routes, it's not a hard/dangerous approach in a small jet. And if we are truly going to be concerned about the conflicts there (which we should) there are a whole bunch of other issues with landing 19 and helo routes that nobody wants to deal with either.

That’s what I was kind of referring to, an ATC convenience for takeoff/landing rates, but not for any truly necessary reason like crosswinds. But if a true straight-in to 33 isn’t doable for the reasons you mentioned, then that answers my question. Yes, the low level route structure needs to be reviewed as it’s currently depicted, since if there was this one intersecting area that slipped through the cracks when all the stars aligned in normal ops, there’s likely others too, also as mentioned.

Like others have said previously, it seems like route 4 was designed to stay out of the way of runway 1/19 ops and completely didn’t take into account any runway 33 landings. Route 4 should have been closed any time runway 33 was in use - full stop! Probably one of the many cases of the people deciding how to draw the maps not being the same people who employ the procedures day in and day out.

I like Mike’s idea for an east-west route over mid field. That would be very similar to the special flight rules area over LAX, airspace cutout over SAN, etc. They could cross midfield westbound (at or above some altitude, 1000-1500 ft?), join route 5 southwestbound to Springfield, and then follow Hwy 95 south instead of staying over the middle of the river. But that probably flies over some rich people’s neighborhoods and will therefore die on the vine.