PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Ban these dangerous helicopters and their missions!


“It’s continuity of government training!”


tHiS iSnT a GoVeRnMeNt wOrTh cOnTiNuInG

 

[bp]

very much doubt climbing to 1500’ would solve anything on 33 as that would just put them beak to beak on route 4 with next final traffic on 1 or to people beginning the 33 circle

 

[GolfChuck]

Any situation that sets up something the controller has to watch is going to cause more workload. So even going high, it doesn't change the controllers workload and only marginally increases the safety of the situation. That is why we use visual separation because generally once the pilot accepts the visual separation and the other requirements are met, we can put that situation on the back burner. Not to say we stop watching it completely but it goes to the bottom of duty priorities.

LI don't know the airspace at all, but I imagine there is some sort of institutional reason for not going above with the helicopters, whether it be other traffic, or just operator preference, we don't have the whole picture here.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

very much doubt climbing to 1500’ would solve anything on 33 as that would just put them beak to beak on route 4 with next final traffic on 1 or to people beginning the 33 circle

Agreed. That’s not a solution.

 

[Kingairer]

Push the helicopter route inland and east over I-295, require the circle to remain on western shore. Keep altitude for Helos over 295 low which would further deconflict.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

While the visual separation and instruction to cross behind the RJ would’ve worked out also.

Hold to the north, maintain 1500 on the route, or fly the route. All can be done without visual separation. In the DCA environment, asking anybody to maintain visual separation at night should raise an eyebrow.

I haven’t done a deep dive into the report. I’m curious if there was a meaningful collection of data that looked at how often helicopter traffic flew the route with or without visual separation instruction. I don’t have a sense how much deconfliction was happening with relatively sparse helicopter traffic.

 

[MikeD]

very much doubt climbing to 1500’ would solve anything on 33 as that would just put them beak to beak on route 4 with next final traffic on 1 or to people beginning the 33 circle

Agreed. That’s not a solution.

It worked out fine, as the climb to 1500’ was issued to me after launch from 09Y, and was only intended for crossing over 33 final and over any traffic circling from 1 to 33. The circling altitude for the airliners was about 700 or so MSL, well below us for that segment, then DCA sent us back down to at or below 200 MSL once clear of the traffic and to remain there for the rest of the route. I figured that was normal ops for them, as it seemed routine. If no 33 ops were occurring, the 200 MSL would be for the entire route as published.

 

[MikeD]

Any situation that sets up something the controller has to watch is going to cause more workload. So even going high, it doesn't change the controllers workload and only marginally increases the safety of the situation. That is why we use visual separation because generally once the pilot accepts the visual separation and the other requirements are met, we can put that situation on the back burner. Not to say we stop watching it completely but it goes to the bottom of duty priorities.

LI don't know the airspace at all, but I imagine there is some sort of institutional reason for not going above with the helicopters, whether it be other traffic, or just operator preference, we don't have the whole picture here.

Procedural separation seems to me to be a bit more safe, as it’s guaranteed separation (different altitudes, assuming the pilots are where they are supposed to procedurally be). Even if the traffic don’t see one another, they won’t come together. Whereas visual separation…..I get it, it’s shifts the w responsibility to the pilot…..but that assumes the pilot has the right traffic, which in a congested area can be iffy. And if the pilot doesn’t have the correct traffic, the potential for coming together is much higher. I like visual separation just fine, but it seems to have less margin for error than procedural separation.

My experience in that airspace flying that specific Route is, granted, one time. But what DCA had me doing seemed to make sense, and the impression I got from the radio comms was it was routine ops by how smooth they had me and the airliners coexisting in the same area, as they worked their traffic. There was never an opportunity given for visual separation, as while I was advised of the two separate airliners maneuvering to land below me, I was never asked to call one in sight. When the second one passed below with no more behind them, the controller gave the instruction to “descend back down to route altitude and remain there” for the duration. Then it was leaving the surface area and a freq change.

My curiosity is, is there any major time saved or any major gain by circling to 33, versus just allowing approach traffic for runway 1, land on 1?

 

[MikeD]

Push the helicopter route inland and east over I-295, require the circle to remain on western shore. Keep altitude for Helos over 295 low which would further deconflict.

That’s workable, would give lateral separation. The big issues would be altitude for helos would have to be raised due to ground obstacles, and there would likely be noise complaints also without an altitude raise.

Is 33 ever the duty runway there? As in, traffic doing straight in’s to 33, versus going from 1 and circling to 33?

 

[guywhoflies]

Procedural separation seems to me to be a bit more safe, as it’s guaranteed separation (different altitudes, assuming the pilots are where they are supposed to procedurally be). Even if the traffic don’t see one another, they won’t come together. Whereas visual separation…..I get it, it’s shifts the w responsibility to the pilot…..but that assumes the pilot has the right traffic, which in a congested area can be iffy. And if the pilot doesn’t have the correct traffic, the potential for coming together is much higher. I like visual separation just fine, but it seems to have less margin for error than procedural separation.

My experience in that airspace flying that specific Route is, granted, one time. But what DCA had me doing seemed to make sense, and the impression I got from the radio comms was it was routine ops by how smooth they had me and the airliners coexisting in the same area, as they worked their traffic. There was never an opportunity given for visual separation, as while I was advised of the two separate airliners maneuvering to land below me, I was never asked to call one in sight. When the second one passed below with no more behind them, the controller gave the instruction to “descend back down to route altitude and remain there” for the duration. Then it was leaving the surface area and a freq change.

My curiosity is, is there any major time saved or any major gain by circling to 33, versus just allowing approach traffic for runway 1, land on 1?

It does save a little bit of time because traffic departing runway 1 is already lined up and waiting versus getting a clearance to line up and wait as the plane passes by landing on runway 1. And more often than not, that’s followed by “Cleared for immediate takeoff, traffic is on a mile-and-a-half final.” Single runway ops at DCA can be a bit of a cluster.

 

[GolfChuck]

@MikeD Generally, when there is a will the FAA is pretty decent about local plans and procedures. This problem was definitely already identified and I would imagine if it were as simple as just going over, than that is what they would do. I would bet there is some airspace or security reason for not going over with the helicopters as you describe. To chart it, the route would have to be 500 feet above the crossing altitude of the FAF. It is possible that in your experience, based on the traffic at the time going over worked, but could not be counted on to work. Legal separation in class B airspace between VFR and IFR traffic over 14k lbs MTOW (I think that is the cutoff) is 500ft or 1.5 NM OR Visual Separation. The visual can be tower applied, but it would require reasonable assurance that the tower could maintain visual contact with both aircraft before standard separation is lost and until standard separation exists after the maneuver.

And yes, like @guywhoflies says, if they are circling some of the arrivals to 33 it allows tower to get departures out while approach can still run arrivals 2.5-3NM in trail (depending on their local procedures). If they are up and down on the same runway approach would have to leave gaps large enough for departures in between arrivals because 3 miles is not enough time or space. The delaying effect of doing that snowballs very fast and is one of the reasons EWR was experiencing worse than usual delays during their construction project. @NovemberEcho can tell you all about that.

 

[Kingairer]

That’s workable, would give lateral separation. The big issues would be altitude for helos would have to be raised due to ground obstacles, and there would likely be noise complaints also without an altitude raise.

Is 33 ever the duty runway there? As in, traffic doing straight in’s to 33, versus going from 1 and circling to 33?

Recently when 1/19 was being refurbished after midnight, 15/33 was primary runway.
Outside of those type situations, or extreme winds, it’s always supplemental and mostly used by RJs. Its usage is mainly in the circle from 1 and takeoffs.

I feel like they could do a charted visual with RNAV assist with a tighter pattern and be similar to the River vis 19.

 

[Richman]

While there may be a technical way, usually politics gets involved.

They had redone all the arrivals into NYC to actually make sense, but when the high rollers figured out the routings flew over their palatial estates, politics ended that right quick.