PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

At our shop, we have an approach for 33 which is the RNAV. And assuming you can get numbers for the runway, we are legal to land.


Now, the latest change just came out for our 10-7 DCA pages. We can only do Rwy 1/19, “unless Rwy 33 is designated as the primary landing runway.”


And they pretty much never happens. It’s always 1/19 as primary, and 15/33 as a secondary for smaller aircraft to allow departures of 1/19 sooner.

 

[Wardogg]

Without reading the actual CVR I get the feeling they never had the airplane in sight. And the request to maintain visual separation seemed perfunctory at best. An automated response. The constant altitude error callouts are chilling. When good enough for government work just isn’t good enough.

 

[///AMG]

The constant altitude error callouts are chilling. When good enough for government work just isn’t good enough.

Yeah I'm surprised the IP didn't assume controls after the pilot/co-pilot failed to respond to his callouts of altitude deviations. Obviously they didn't know what the end result would be, so I'm Monday am QB'ing here a bit (normally, what is 100' between friends?), but to me it would seem that repeated violations of procedures and standards would warrant a "I've got the controls" and a check ride failure.

I'm also surprised that this helo route and circling to 33 were ever allowed to co-exist. Much less for how many years they did.

 

[Roger Roger]

Yeah I'm surprised the IP didn't assume controls after the pilot/co-pilot failed to respond to his callouts of altitude deviations. Obviously they didn't know what the end result would be, so I'm Monday am QB'ing here a bit (normally, what is 100' between friends?), but to me it would seem that repeated violations of procedures and standards would warrant a "I've got the controls" and a check ride failure.

I'm also surprised that this helo route and circling to 33 were ever allowed to co-exist. Much less for how many years they did.

At least one RA every month for 13 years, if I read the report correctly?!

 

[NovemberEcho]

At least one RA every month for 13 years, if I read the report correctly?!

If we’re using RA’s as the basis then we need to end the 500’ vertical between VFR/IFR cause I get multiple RA’s a day with that

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

If we’re using RA’s as the basis then we need to end the 500’ vertical between VFR/IFR cause I get multiple RA’s a day with that

Tell me you’ve held airliners west of EWR at 6,000 and 7,000 ft without telling me you’ve held airliners west of EWR at 6,000 and 7,000 ft.

 

[MikeD]

I'm also surprised that this helo route and circling to 33 were ever allowed to co-exist. Much less for how many years they did.

I have no issue with both the route and the circling maneuver co-existing, what I don’t get is why the route was down at 200 AGL at that point? Why wasn’t it 1000 AGL at that segment for when 33 is in use, so descending circling traffic to 33 can cross that confluence point at around 300 AGL on their landing, while helo traffic passes above them at 1000? Why the need to have the helo traffic at nearly the same exact altitude as the the 33 landing traffic?

 

[///AMG]

I have no issue with both the route and the circling maneuver co-existing, what I don’t get is why the route was down at 200 AGL at that point? Why wasn’t it 1000 AGL at that segment for when 33 is in use, so descending circling traffic to 33 can cross that confluence point at around 300 AGL on their landing, while helo traffic passes above them at 1000? Why the need to have the helo traffic at nearly the same exact altitude as the the 33 landing traffic?

Yeah good point, it's that specific part of the route in conjunction with 33 ops that makes me scratch my head. At best, it gives maybe 150' (if the FW aircraft is slightly high) of separation provided there isn't a time/lateral deconfliction component? Higher for RW in this case could certainly be better. Is Andrews the reason this route wasn't shifted just a little further east to completely be out of the way of FW over the river?

 

[arkflyr]

If we’re using RA’s as the basis then we need to end the 500’ vertical between VFR/IFR cause I get multiple RA’s a day with that

I used to fly MMU-HPN and back to start and finish trips, we constantly would RA’s from VFR traffic skirting the edge of the Bravo not talking at all to you guys.

The best was one afternoon I got a climbing RA that seconds later changed to descending during a frequency change.

 

[Roger Roger]

I used to fly MMU-HPN and back to start and finish trips, we constantly would RA’s from VFR traffic skirting the edge of the Bravo not talking at all to you guys.

The best was one afternoon I got a climbing RA that seconds later changed to descending during a frequency change.

I’m gonna channel Todd here and say that if your airspace setup constantly generates this kind of situation, it’s not serving the purposes of controlled airspace.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I have no issue with both the route and the circling maneuver co-existing, what I don’t get is why the route was down at 200 AGL at that point? Why wasn’t it 1000 AGL at that segment for when 33 is in use, so descending circling traffic to 33 can cross that confluence point at around 300 AGL on their landing, while helo traffic passes above them at 1000? Why the need to have the helo traffic at nearly the same exact altitude as the the 33 landing traffic?

Because go-around.

 

[HeyEng]

The secondary and tertiary impacts within the body. Where the primary impact area looks generally fine at first glance.

One of the most enlightening classes I took while at ERAU was the crash dynamics class. A little tweak of a number here or there and a 10 MPH crash into a wall goes from survivable to non-survival.

 

[BobDDuck]

I have no issue with both the route and the circling maneuver co-existing, what I don’t get is why the route was down at 200 AGL at that point? Why wasn’t it 1000 AGL at that segment for when 33 is in use, so descending circling traffic to 33 can cross that confluence point at around 300 AGL on their landing, while helo traffic passes above them at 1000? Why the need to have the helo traffic at nearly the same exact altitude as the the 33 landing traffic?

Like tall(er) Doug said, because of guys breaking off the approach and climbing (although becomes a mess in a hurry because of P56) and also because the USCG and Park Police use that route to patrol the river and that doesn't (generally) work at 1000 AGL.

 

[MikeD]

Because go-around.

From the circling maneuver, or from short final?

Years ago when I flew this exact route, tower directed us to 1000 AGL on this segment, for what I supposed was the 33 landing traffic. Which made sense at the time. The altitudes on these routes are as published, or as ATC directed.

Like tall(er) Doug said, because of guys breaking off the approach and climbing (although becomes a mess in a hurry because of P56) and also because the USCG and Park Police use that route to patrol the river and that doesn't (generally) work at 1000 AGL.

I’m talking a known transiting aircraft, not an aircraft physically working on this segment of the route in something like patrol or specific tasking, those would be exceptions that I would think would be held north or south, as appropriate, for 33 landing traffic to pass by.

 

[///AMG]

Better yet, eliminate rotor trash......problem solved

 

[MikeD]

Better yet, eliminate rotor trash......problem solved

100%. But execute the V-22 first before the rest.

 

[jtrain609]

If we’re using RA’s as the basis then we need to end the 500’ vertical between VFR/IFR cause I get multiple RA’s a day with that

I have no idea why you guys are allowed to do that, because it's nearly a guaranteed RA for us.

 

[///AMG]

100%. But execute the V-22 first before the rest.

@Lawman reaches peak fury out there somewhere......

 

[Autothrust Blue]

100%. But execute the V-22 first before the rest.

Bring back a proper COD airplane.

 

[///AMG]

Bring back a proper COD airplane.

Well, they did for a little bit last year. Fun fact, the old VRC-30 ready room was featured in Top Gun 2, as was the hangar. It's just sort of abandoned now.