Midair Collision DCA

Homsar said:
When, if ever, would you issue a traffic alert? Do you think one was warranted in this situation?

I can’t imagine looking at the leaked replay, seeing the altitude and history trails of those two targets, and not issuing a traffic alert. I’m also shocked that this is somehow a minority opinion on here.

There’s so much that the local could have done, and I struggle to understand those who say otherwise.

I’ll wait for the NTSB to professionally say who is at fault, but I would never work traffic like that, and never accept a trainee working like that during OJT.
Click to expand...
If someone issues a traffic alert and then the guy says in sight then your be like ok cool
 
KP-ATC said:
How is your peripheral vision with those NVGs on? How about your depth perception?
Click to expand...
Standard binos don’t have great FOV, we all who’ve used NODs know that, about 40 degrees. But a lot of pilots (helicopters included) fly with panoramic systems nowadays. Namely the GPNVG-18 from L3. Not knowing if they had a bino or pano system for sure is why I mentioned they may have stopped their scan (a required practice when operating an aircraft wearing night vision).

As for depth perception, that’s really not an issue in any capacity unless you’re using a biocular system like a PVS-7, which is why the DoD got away from those decades ago. There are tons of people who fly or get into freaking gunfights with NV without the issues you state being much of a problem if at all, otherwise they probably wouldn’t train on this stuff like they were when this happened and gotten away from it a long time ago…

boots said:
This isint fucking Breaking Bad dude.
Click to expand...
I never said it was, I’m just shedding light on the doubts of potential raises and the public’s perception of the like.

I’m also 90% sure you’re a boot-licking supe, hence your username. Mind clearing that up for us?
 
I think a better question is the legality of a pilot accepting a visual separation clearance while using NVG's. If allowed, I think that was overlooked. Part of their medical is having good enough eyesight. If the helo would have said unable visual separation, then the controller would have needed to take an alternate action as some of you are suggesting.
 
Shikaka said:
I agree, the system is sketchy and I haven't said anything saying it isn't. It's the people saying the controller should have turned him like +TSRA and KP-ATC or that it was somehow his fault. The entire .65 is rigged to let helicopters do sketchy shit. The DCA airspace is screwed by Congress.

The guy working local did absolutely nothing wrong, and he worked it within the confines of which he was supposed to. The H60 didn't hold up their responsibility.

Helicopters passing close behind traffic is not an unusual operation in any tower. Maybe the rules should change, but those two implying the controller was at fault is fucked.
Click to expand...
I believe the helicopter pilot was the primary cause but to say the controller did absolutely nothing wrong is not accurate, the traffic should absolutely have been called to the RJ. If the controller had said something like “traffic 11 and moving to 12 o’clock, 1 mile, opposite direction, your altitude, he has you in sight”, the collision probably doesn’t happen because I guarantee that RJ captain would sit up, find the traffic and at least have a fighting chance
 
Homsar said:
When, if ever, would you issue a traffic alert? Do you think one was warranted in this situation?

I can’t imagine looking at the leaked replay, seeing the altitude and history trails of those two targets, and not issuing a traffic alert. I’m also shocked that this is somehow a minority opinion on here.

There’s so much that the local could have done, and I struggle to understand those who say otherwise.

I’ll wait for the NTSB to professionally say who is at fault, but I would never work traffic like that, and never accept a trainee working like that during OJT.
Click to expand...
I agree with you to an extent. Completely Monday-morning-QB'ing here.....it appeared after the 'pass behind' instruction the H60 pilot turned in the complete opposite manner. Also, its easy to forget that the controller was also working arrivals and departures to both runways so this wasn't the only conflict he was managing. However the pilot also accepted visual separation twice. OTOH, if I'm the LC, I hear the acceptance of visual separation I might turn my attention back towards the runways. I'm guessing the NTSB is gonna put the majority of the blame on the H60 pilots for not maintaining visual separation.
 
SquawkHijack said:
Standard binos don’t have great FOV, we all who’ve used NODs know that, about 40 degrees. But a lot of pilots (helicopters included) fly with panoramic systems nowadays. Namely the GPNVG-18 from L3. Not knowing if they had a bino or pano system for sure is why I mentioned they may have stopped their scan (a required practice when operating an aircraft wearing night vision).

As for depth perception, that’s really not an issue in any capacity unless you’re using a biocular system like a PVS-7, which is why the DoD got away from those decades ago. There are tons of people who fly or get into freaking gunfights with NV without the issues you state being much of a problem if at all, otherwise they probably wouldn’t train on this stuff like they were when this happened and gotten away from it a long time ago…
Click to expand...
I want a GPNVG-18 🤑.. maybe even a second set as a loaner 😅

It's terrible to drive (or fly with), but watching airplanes with thermal works really really well. None of the bloom from lights and they still stick out like a sore thumb against the atmosphere.
 
ATOH said:
I agree with you to an extent. Completely Monday-morning-QB'ing here.....it appeared after the 'pass behind' instruction the H60 pilot turned in the complete opposite manner. Also, its easy to forget that the controller was also working arrivals and departures to both runways so this wasn't the only conflict he was managing. However the pilot also accepted visual separation twice. OTOH, if I'm the LC, I hear the acceptance of visual separation I might turn my attention back towards the runways. I'm guessing the NTSB is gonna put the majority of the blame on the H60 pilots for not maintaining visual separation.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying it wasn’t a clean operation per the .65, I’m just saying that I don’t work (and wouldn’t let a trainee get away with working) like that. Job task A might be satisfied on the -25 because the separation is legal, but I’d have lots of comments for task D.

Discussing this a month ago, someone on here said that once they got the visual read back they would have stopped looking at the radar scope and engaged in sidebar conversation. I don’t even have words for that.
 
Homsar said:
When, if ever, would you issue a traffic alert? Do you think one was warranted in this situation?

I can’t imagine looking at the leaked replay, seeing the altitude and history trails of those two targets, and not issuing a traffic alert. I’m also shocked that this is somehow a minority opinion on here.

There’s so much that the local could have done, and I struggle to understand those who say otherwise.

I’ll wait for the NTSB to professionally say who is at fault, but I would never work traffic like that, and never accept a trainee working like that during OJT.
Click to expand...
Because local had no reason to question the H60 after they twice requested visual seperation. Traffic alerts are for situations where it is perceived unsafe, I'm not giving traffic alerts running side bys on final, why would I do it if someone requested and received approval for visual seperation.

The onus was on the H60, local had done everything they could short of baby walking their traffic in the area.
 
Shikaka said:
Because local had no reason to question the H60 after they twice requested visual seperation. Traffic alerts are for situations where it is perceived unsafe, I'm not giving traffic alerts running side bys on final, why would I do it if someone requested and received approval for visual seperation.

The onus was on the H60, local had done everything they could short of baby walking their traffic in the area.
Click to expand...
Local had done everything they could have short of calling traffic to the RJ, which is not optional, and could have saved the lives of 67 people…..there I fixed it for you
 
NotKC said:
I think a better question is the legality of a pilot accepting a visual separation clearance while using NVG's. If allowed, I think that was overlooked. Part of their medical is having good enough eyesight. If the helo would have said unable visual separation, then the controller would have needed to take an alternate action as some of you are suggesting.
Click to expand...
I would agree, or at least something in the FAR/AIM or military regs that says pilots wearing night vision shall not accept the application of visual separation from ATC. Or hell to even be allowed to operate in Class B Airspace.

It’s tough to say without knowing what they’re exact requirements already are, but I’m pretty sure one of the pilots is supposed to not be using NVGs while the other is to basically act as a safety pilot and monitor avionics etc. I’m no pilot in any capacity, but that’s just thinking off the top of my head. The fact that there were NVGs involved changes things though for sure. I just wouldn’t say to the extent that others have claimed above with depth perception, proper scanning etc.
 
Dialoutmfer said:
Local had done everything they could have short of calling traffic to the RJ, which is not optional, and could have saved the lives of 67 people…..there I fixed it for you
Click to expand...

It's not required since local told the H60 to pass behind the traffic and they were no longer on converging courses to the controllers knowledge. 7-2-1 A 2 d

Fixed that for you.

Why are you guys so eager to throw another controller under the bus when you don't even know how to work traffic?
 
Last edited:
Homsar said:
When, if ever, would you issue a traffic alert?
Click to expand...
If in my judgement the aircraft is at an altitude which puts it in unsafe proximity to the other aircraft.

If I see the situation far enough out that it isn't an "oh shit immediate traffic" then it's not a traffic alert, just a normal traffic call. Which is what the controller issued, a normal traffic call. And then the helo pilot OF THEIR OWN ACCORD volunteered that they would maintain visual separation.

At that point I'm considering my hands washed of the situation. Visual separation is visual separation and it's completely on the pilots. I guess if they had turned around and went north for a minute and then came back toward final I would re-issue the traffic, but they didn't; they kept going the same direction they had been going when they called traffic in sight. Why would I disbelieve them or think that I need to do more to control the situation? The CA goes off all the time when using pilot visual and I ignore it because I know the pilot has the the traffic in sight.

And while we're all in this safety alert refresher training why don't we do a reading from the .65, book of General, chapter General, verse Safety Alert: Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts.
 
Spoony90 said:
DCA has been the reason for updated rules and procedures already. Weren’t they the reason we have all this non sense ODO rules?
Click to expand...
DCA is like the ultimate make it work situation with everyone having some form of responsibility. It’s slot restricted with a permitted rule but congress carves out all these exemptions and keeps adding more and more flights. There’s even more flight scheduled to start in the future! They probably need to redesign the whole airspace and reevaluate if they still need all that 9/11 stuff. Or just close it and make congresspeople drive a little further
 
32andBelow said:
DCA is like the ultimate make it work situation with everyone having some form of responsibility. It’s slot restricted with a permitted rule but congress carves out all these exemptions and keeps adding more and more flights. There’s even more flight scheduled to start in the future! They probably need to redesign the whole airspace and reevaluate if they still need all that 9/11 stuff. Or just close it and make congresspeople drive a little further
Click to expand...
I vote for whatever makes politicians lives more difficult
 
Back
Top Bottom