Mid-Air Collision in DC

[M2]

Ted Cruz looks to force changes to military flights near airports, after deadly airline crash

Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he will introduce a bill that would force changes to the way the military uses helicopters around congested airports, including prohibiting the Army from turning off location-transmitting technologies such as the one under investigation as part of an inquiry into the January midair collision near Washington that killed 67 people.

The technology Cruz’s bill seeks to mandate, known as ADS-B Out, was not transmitting on the helicopter involved in the disaster. The NTSB is still investigating whether the crew had switched off the technology — which allows air traffic controllers to see an aircraft’s speed, altitude and location — or if it was simply not operational. Its final report on the disaster’s causes isn’t expected until next year.

“We should not tolerate special exceptions for military training flights operating in congested airspace, no matter the circumstances. Any aircraft flying near commercial traffic must fully adhere to safety standards,” Cruz said during a press conference debuting the bill. Cruz was accompanied by some of the family of those who died in the crash as well as officials investigating the catastrophe, including NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy.

The Army’s propensity to operate without the technology enabled for flights in the Washington area has drawn sharp scrutiny from Congress since the crash. At the time of the accident, the Army’s policy was to keep its helicopter transponders off during sensitive or classified missions with commander approval, according to Brig. Gen. Matthew Braman, who testified at a March Senate hearing on the crash...

[brabus]

So congress is addressing something that had zero to do with the accident - “look, we’re doing something everybody!” Or, maybe you change the procedures, which actually will make a difference. Idiots.

[Biff_T]

If you fly at or below (not above) the required altitude for that route, the helicopter route worked.    Also, if you hear any aircraft cleared to land on the runway that crosses said route, use your hands and maneuver the helicopter out of the path of said runway.   If you're cleared to maintain visual separation, you need to do so.   

 

[Lord Ratner]

24 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

If you fly at or below (not above) the required altitude for that route, the helicopter route worked.    Also, if you hear any aircraft cleared to land on the runway that crosses said route, use your hands and maneuver the helicopter out of the path of said runway.   If you're cleared to maintain visual separation, you need to do so.   

 

Yeah, but humans don't work that way, and this line of reasoning got a bunch of innocent people killed, so new procedures are needed in my opinion.

 

Being off altitude, misidentifying visual traffic at night in an ocean of lights, or drifting off flight path are well within the reasonable bounds of human error. Procedures at congested airports should not allow for basic human error to result in a crash. That's the whole point of having these procedures.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, but humans don't work that way, and this line of reasoning got a bunch of innocent people killed, so new procedures are needed in my opinion.

 

Being off altitude, misidentifying visual traffic at night in an ocean of lights, or drifting off flight path are well within the reasonable bounds of human error. Procedures at congested airports should not allow for basic human error to result in a crash. That's the whole point of having these procedures.

Easy fix:  Don't clear someone for visual separation on route four if there's an aircraft on short final to 33.

Complacency from both Tower and the Helo caused this.  

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Biff_T
Spelling

[JeremiahWeed]

2 hours ago, Biff_T said:

If you fly at or below (not above) the required altitude for that route, the helicopter route worked.    Also, if you hear any aircraft cleared to land on the runway that crosses said route, use your hands and maneuver the helicopter out of the path of said runway.   If you're cleared to maintain visual separation, you need to do so.   

 

I agree with your post after this one I’m quoting. 
But, come on….. if they were “ at or below (not above)” the minimum clearance as the pax bird crosses over top ON GLIDEPATH was 75 feet.  There’s no way anyone involved creating this procedure should have found that acceptable. I guarantee if the pilots flying into DCA knew that was a possibility when they accepted a clearance to sidestep to the other runway with a helo on that route, they would have declined every time.  

Edited 18 hours ago by JeremiahWeed

[Biff_T]

5 minutes ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I agree with your post after this one I’m quoting. 
But, come on….. if they were “ at or below (not above)” the minimum clearance as the pax bird crosses over top ON GLIDEPATH was 75 feet.  There’s no way anyone involved creating this procedure should have found that acceptable. I guarantee if the pilots flying into DCA knew that was a possibility when they accepted a clearance to sidestep to the other runway with a hello on that route, they would have declined every time.  

I agree.   It's a dumb to fly under landing traffic.  Especially with no safe separation provided for both aircraft.  

They should have not been cleared to continue on route four via visual separation at night with an aircraft circling to land 33.  

They used to not clear you to continue on route four via visual separation with landing traffic to 33. They would have you hold over Haines Point or something similar.  

[brabus]

4 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

They used to not clear you to continue on route four via visual separation with landing traffic to 33. They would have you hold over Haines Point or something similar.  

That simple change (“SHALL hold route 4 traffic east of point X with aircraft on 33 approach”) would solve this problem. So simple, yet people are bitching about mil ADS-B.

[Lawman]

That simple change (“SHALL hold route 4 traffic east of point X with aircraft on 33 approach”) would solve this problem. So simple, yet people are bitching about mil ADS-B.

Oh don’t worry, we initiated a scramble to field tablets and stratus that also don’t solve the actual problem, but can be briefed to leadership as, “did something.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pitt4401]

Earlier in this thread, I laid out my well-informed hunch that the pilot in charge was not focused on her duties, enamored with the D.C. lifestyle, and eager to head to medical school.

 

Some folks here got butt hurt.  Well if it looks like a distracted duck flying through congested airspace... its probably a distracted duck

 

 

----

 

The helicopter was twice warned by an air traffic controller about the approaching passenger jet, once about two minutes before the collision and again about 90 seconds later, the presentation shows.

 

Both times, the helicopter said it could see the other plane and requested a “visual separation,” in which they would be allowed to navigate around the jet. A controller approved that.

 

About 20 seconds before the crash, air traffic control instructed the helicopter to "pass behind" the jet — but that command wasn't heard in the Black Hawk because of a brief audio interruption from their microphone, the cockpit transcript states.

 

Five seconds after the second warning to watch out for the incoming plane, Eaves, the helicopter instructor, told Lobach, “Alright, kinda come left for me ma’am, I think that’s why he’s asking,” to which she replied, “Sure."

 

Eaves then said, “We’re kinda out towards the middle,” and Lobach said, “Oh-kay fine," drawing out the okay, according to the transcript.

 

 

https://people.com/final-seconds-before-american-airlines-dc-crash-revealed-by-ntsb-11781679

[HuggyU2]

8 hours ago, brabus said:

So congress is addressing something that had zero to do with the accident - “look, we’re doing something everybody!” Or, maybe you change the procedures, which actually will make a difference. Idiots.

Or maybe, since the FAA has not gotten the job done, it's time for somebody further up the chain to get the job done.

Additionally, if the investigation exposes issues that are safety related… even if they are not directly related to the mishap… I would hope they would address and fix them, so more people won't die in the future. 

We have a former helicopter pilot in our squadron who flew out of DC, and talking to him it sure sounds like the entire place needs to be revamped.
 

Edited 15 hours ago by HuggyU2

[brabus]

20 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

it's time for somebody further up the chain to get the job done

Completely on board, but locking onto a red hering like ADS-B accomplishes nothing. Completely revamping technology and how ATC executes in the NAS - well now we’re onto something. 

Edited 15 hours ago by brabus

[disgruntledemployee]

When this situation got to the point of a collision alarm, ATC should have directed the RJ to execute an immediate go around.

I  agree that holding points work would have worked well in this situation, and if helo traffic is already passed said point, don't direct DCA traffic to 33.

[Lawman]

Completely on board, but locking onto a red hering like ADS-B accomplishes nothing. Completely revamping technology and how ATC executes in the NAS - well now we’re onto something. 

As we further democratize participation in the lower tier of airspace (which is growing exponentially in users thanks to sUAS) we’re gonna have to accept that basing air traffic control off methods developed in the 60s are no longer optimal.

I say that kind of stuff out loud in a room full of dinosaurs to blank stares because in their minds voice comms are perfect and nobody has ever had to miss/wait on critical information passed via a single comm exchange while things are moving at a minimum 35-50 meters/second.

Dynamic airspace management, digital predictive modeling, and visualization changes are the only way we really move this forward. Anything else is a bandaid at this point. There are company’s out there that have already demonstrated the capability to be expanded, but it’s stuck in program management hell of convincing some GS civilian who hasn’t been in air traffic control for over 15 years that technology (like radar did before) will change the way we safely manage airspace, only if we invest in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

31 minutes ago, Lawman said:

while things are moving at a minimum 35-50 meters/second.

You lost me, what's that in freedom units?

[brabus]

42 minutes ago, Lawman said:

convincing some GS civilian

No need to say anymore - root cause of 99% of our problems identified. 

[Lawman]

You lost me, what's that in freedom units?

Sorry, that’s 7-10 Rods/second


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk