PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

NovemberEcho said:
This is a Falcon replay. Kind of amazed it got out this quick. Also zoomed in and cropped a lot. The tower controller most likely wouldn’t have been looking at this as they’d be looking out the window.
Click to expand...

do the towers have their own radar, or are towers inside Class B/C looking at a TRACON feed?
 
MikeD said:
do the towers have their own radar, or are towers inside Class B/C looking at a TRACON feed?
Click to expand...
The data is coming from the same antenna, depends on the tower and set up if the tower has their own system or not. I've worked at towers that have had it both ways
 
Kingairer said:
Looks like under 200. Still cant put those two aircraft in that same realestate.
Click to expand...

I’m having a hard time understanding that route can be approved with circling approaches to a runway that obviously presents a conflict. Only landed 19 the few times I’ve gone into DCA, but would be curious to know what the altitude is lining up for 33 over the river. I don’t want to armchair QB it, but if the helo was below 200 and still clipped the plane, that route should be a no go with ops into 33 from here on out imho. Even seems like a potential wake turbulence issue if you’re threading in between airplanes that are landing.

I feel for all those involved, my gut is wrenched tonight.
 
Last edited:
derg said:
I hate hate hate being asked to call traffic in sight when there are a number of airplanes at night. I don’t know a Cessna from Boeing in the dark.
Click to expand...
Doing VFR in slow movers its a lot easier to keep stuff in sight as I don't have to look down much at all, and as I'm usually not looking against lights at the other traffic as its above me, so I'm happy take over the visual separation for ATC...but I'll also pester them right away if I somehow lose sight of that airplane after maneuvering so I'm quick to pass it back to them if needed. Especially if that traffic probably isn't looking out for me at all.

I am not speaking on this accident in particular here, for all we know the traffic landing on 01 was what the guy saw and visual contact was never "lost" as far as the crew thought. Hell, we may never know. But there have been plenty of accidents where I think the airplane responsible for visual separation could have spoken up in time for some preventative action. Regardless, especially for VFR guys at busy airports, I think it is good practice in a terminal environment to pipe up on the radio if you lose SA after taking responsibility for visual separation. It annoys me when I fly with people and ask if they still have X in sight and get "I'm sure its fine\they're probably no factor" dismissively.

Kingairer said:
If 9-11 didnt shut down DCA forever I cant see how this could/should.
Click to expand...
Exactly. DCA isn't going anywhere. The DCA traffic has to start/end at the runways, the other stuff in the airspace will need revision I'd imagine.
 
Last edited:
JDean3204 said:
I’m having a hard time understanding that route can be approved with circling approaches to a runway that obviously presents a conflict. Only landed 19 the few times I’ve gone into DCA, but would be curious to know what the altitude is lining up for 33 over the river. I don’t want to armchair QB it, but if the helo was below 200 and still clipped the plane, that route should be a no go with ops into 33 from here on out imho. Even seems like a potential wake turbulence issue if you’re threading in between airplanes that are landing.

I feel for all those involved, my gut is wrenched tonight.
Click to expand...
The path you see depicted from the RJ is exactly SOP. There is not way the helicopter should have been cleared along that route with someone landing 33. Helicopter was at 300 give or take when they hit I believe. Having low level helicopters fly below you as you climb well above is SOP there. But in no scenario would you be put where you are passing within 100' of one.
 
IMG_7497.jpeg
 
Kingairer said:
The path you see depicted from the RJ is exactly SOP. There is not way the helicopter should have been cleared along that route with someone landing 33. Helicopter was at 300 give or take when they hit I believe. Having low level helicopters fly below you as you climb well above is SOP there. But in no scenario would you be put where you are passing within 100' of one.
Click to expand...

But if the route is below 200, why would the helo be at 300(ish)??

Edit**. I’m going to shut up now and just go with I don’t like the idea of it, the appropriate people will conduct the investigations needed and I’m sure I’ll find those details out later. It just doesn’t sit right and is bothering me a bit
 
While I'm hopeful for survivors, I got to say, I'm very doubtful after watching the videos. I hope I'm wrong. What a terrible, tragic, event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top