Thunderstorm, heavy rain
Midair Collision DCA
- Thread starter bomber996
- Start date
SquawkHijack
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 832
I’m lisdexic
Phanatical
⭐SuperStar
- Messages
- 1,115
TWRs underneath TRSA provide basic radar services, but do not provide vectors for approaches. They can provide vectors for the purposes of separation and additional services.
US admits liability in fatal helicopter crash with American Airlines jet
The U.S. Justice Department said late on Wednesday the federal government was liable in the fatal January 29 collision of an Army Black Hawk helicopter and American Airlines regional jet that killed 67 people near Reagan Washington National Airport.
"The Justice Department said a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controller also did not comply with an FAA order and as a result of both agencies conduct the United States was liable for damages"
"The government said an air traffic controller did not comply with an FAA order about visual separation of aircraft."
Definitely want to see what the final NTSB report has to say, but this is what I’ve been saying all along…
[edit] Here’s the lawsuit text:
And the relevant part:
250. On January 29, 2025, Defendant USA, by and through the FAA and its air traffic
control personnel, was negligent and breached the duties it owed Plaintiff’s DECEDENT and
Plaintiff as follows:
a. The controller(s) negligently failed to give first priority to separating aircraft and
issuing safety alerts in violation of FAA Order JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-2, instead
prioritizing a departures push or other non-safety critical duties;
b. The controller(s) negligently failed to establish proper and safe separation
between AE 5342 and PAT25;
c. The controller(s) negligently failed to monitor the course and altitude of PAT25 to
ensure compliance with the published route and mandatory maximum published
altitude for Helicopter Route 4;
d. e. f. The controller(s) negligently failed to notify PAT25 that it was off course and
above the mandatory maximum altitude for Helicopter Route 4 and failed to
instruct PAT25 to immediately turn left to and descend until it was at or below
200 feet and remain clear of AE 5342;
The controllers negligently failed to notify AE 5342 of the presence of PAT25;
The controller(s) negligently violated FAA Order JO 7110.65AA ¶ 7-2-1 by
failing to follow the procedures for visual separation therein. The controller(s)
did not follow the mandatory procedures for Pilot-Applied Visual Separation.
More particularly:
i. The controller(s) failed to inform PAT25 at numerous critical times of the
position, direction, type and intentions of AE 5342 and failed to properly
confirm that PAT25 had AE 5342 in sight as required by JO 7110.65AA ¶
7-2-1 subsection a.2.(b)(1) and (2);
ii. The controller(s) failed to inform AE 5342 that it was on a converging
course with PAT25 and that visual separation was being applied, as
required by JO 7110.65AA subsection a.2.(d);
iii. The controller(s) failed to advise both pilots of the other aircraft and did
not inform either pilot that targets were likely to merge as required by JO
7110.65AA ¶ 7-2-1 subsection a.2.(e);
iv. Additionally, the controller(s) failed to issue positive control instructions
to either aircraft when vertical and/or lateral separation standards were not
ensured, and failed to use proper, specified phraseology in communicating
with the subject helicopter and aircraft. The controller(s) also never
provided AE 5342 with PAT25’s position, direction, type, and intentions;
The controller negligently failed to issue a safety or traffic alert to either PAT25 or
AE 5342 despite having radar data available in real time that showed the flight
tracks, altitudes and distance between PAT25 and AE 5342, and receiving a
Conflict Alert (CA) when the aircraft were within approximately 1.5 miles of each
other and on converging courses heading directly towards one another. This was
in violation of FAA Orders:
i. JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-6, Safety Alerts;
ii. JO 7110.65AA ¶ 7-6-1, Basic Radar Service to VFR Aircraft Terminal
and;
iii. JO 7110.65AA ¶ 5-1-4, Merging Target Procedures;
The controller(s) negligently failed to issue traffic alerts to AE 5342 and/or PAT25
in violation of FAA Orders, including but not limited to JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-21;
JO 7110.65AA ¶ 3-1-6; and JO 7110.65AA ¶ 3-1-6, on at least three separate
occasions, including:
i. Failing to inform AE 5342 of the helicopter traffic after AE 5342 accepted
the request to land on Runway 33 at approximately 8:43:06 p.m. The
controller should have informed AE 5342 of PAT25’s position, direction,
type, and intentions;
ii. Failing to provide AE 5342 specific and timely traffic alerts when it was
about 2 miles southeast of the airport, on a left base to Runway 33, with
the relative o’clock position, distance and altitude of PAT25 and informing
AE 5342 that PAT25 would transit the airspace by crossing the final
approach path to Runway 33;
iii. Failing to provide specific traffic alerts to PAT25 concerning AE 5342
after receiving a “CA” at approximately 8:47:39 p.m., when the controller
should have advised PAT25 of AE 5342’s “o’clock” position, distance and
altitude, and informed PAT25 that its flight path was converging with AE
5342 and the radar targets of both aircraft would merge;
Last edited:
the inquirer
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 463
This is brutal.
Brutal, but expected. Since it happened, I couldn’t see how anyone wouldn’t issue a turn to the helicopter or a traffic alert, or not let the jet know about the helicopter traffic. I couldn’t believe some of the posts in this thread insisting the controller did everything correctly.
This is expected. Controller could have done everything correctly down to a T, they would still drag his poor ass over the coals. Someone has to take the fall.
Remember this when a pilot tries to talk you into trying to do something stupid just so they can land sooner or get a short cut
Remember this when a pilot tries to talk you into trying to do something stupid just so they can land sooner or get a short cut
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 11,174
You’ll never get an award for moving more airplanes but you’ll get in trouble for messing up every time
Even if you don't really mess up and trust the pilot to do as instructed. If they don't listen or pay attention to what they were supposed to do then you are still gonna be at fault
This right here. A pilot will fuck you over and it will somehow still be your fault.
i walk that fine line. I run a tight final. Mostly because I’m trying get these idiot pilots on the ground before I get in trouble because they do something stupid 😂
ClearanceClarence
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,810
I find it insane some people want to Monday morning quarterback the controller’s actions. It’s easy to say I would have or wouldn’t have done whatever in hindsight. But the reality is, the vast majority of us likely would have handled it the same way. The controller used an approved form of separation, and also issued a control instruction (“pass behind the CRJ”).
To top it off, this guy was put into a position by the FAA that he should have never been in to begin with. Multiple people had filed countless ATSAPs about the dangerous conditions around DCA and nothing was done. This controller was working multiple positions combined and was likely managing at least moderate workload. Chances are he had also probably worked multiple hours of OT that week like the rest of us and very well could have been fatigued.
All that said, when you legally employ pilot applied visual separation, the VFR pilot acknowledges they have the traffic in sight and verifies they’ll maintain visual, you have done your part. With the proximity that the airspace design allowed aircraft to be within, a last second vector may have not even been enough, then the whole discussion would have been “why did he turn the traffic into the other?” It really was an un-winnable scenario for the controller. That poor guy has to live with what he witnessed for the rest of his life. He’s probably going to deal with years of accusations, harassment, lawsuits, etc. because of this. The least we could give him is to have his back as fellow controllers. It just as easily could have been any of you there that night.
To top it off, this guy was put into a position by the FAA that he should have never been in to begin with. Multiple people had filed countless ATSAPs about the dangerous conditions around DCA and nothing was done. This controller was working multiple positions combined and was likely managing at least moderate workload. Chances are he had also probably worked multiple hours of OT that week like the rest of us and very well could have been fatigued.
All that said, when you legally employ pilot applied visual separation, the VFR pilot acknowledges they have the traffic in sight and verifies they’ll maintain visual, you have done your part. With the proximity that the airspace design allowed aircraft to be within, a last second vector may have not even been enough, then the whole discussion would have been “why did he turn the traffic into the other?” It really was an un-winnable scenario for the controller. That poor guy has to live with what he witnessed for the rest of his life. He’s probably going to deal with years of accusations, harassment, lawsuits, etc. because of this. The least we could give him is to have his back as fellow controllers. It just as easily could have been any of you there that night.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 11,174
The way I see it is the government just isn’t going to fight any lawsuits which makes sense. You either blame the FAA or the Blackhawk or both.
Foppery&Whim
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 192
Why would you ever bust your ass to move more traffic when you'll be put on the firing line if shit goes sideways? DCA and other facilities will continue to be a shit show, I wouldn't be surprised if the controllers there decide to quit or just refuse further helicopter operations. Screw squeeze plays or making flow times, give me 5-6 miles entrail spacing every time. SAFETY > DELAYS.
- Messages
- 3,303
US admits liability in fatal helicopter crash with American Airlines jet
The U.S. Justice Department said late on Wednesday the federal government was liable in the fatal January 29 collision of an Army Black Hawk helicopter and American Airlines regional jet that killed 67 people near Reagan Washington National Airport.www.reuters.com
"The Justice Department said a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controller also did not comply with an FAA order and as a result of both agencies conduct the United States was liable for damages"
"The government said an air traffic controller did not comply with an FAA order about visual separation of aircraft."
Definitely want to see what the final NTSB report has to say, but this is what I’ve been saying all along…
[edit] Here’s the lawsuit text:
And the relevant part:
250. On January 29, 2025, Defendant USA, by and through the FAA and its air traffic
control personnel, was negligent and breached the duties it owed Plaintiff’s DECEDENT and
Plaintiff as follows:
a. The controller(s) negligently failed to give first priority to separating aircraft and
issuing safety alerts in violation of FAA Order JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-2, instead
prioritizing a departures push or other non-safety critical duties;
b. The controller(s) negligently failed to establish proper and safe separation
between AE 5342 and PAT25;
c. The controller(s) negligently failed to monitor the course and altitude of PAT25 to
ensure compliance with the published route and mandatory maximum published
altitude for Helicopter Route 4;
d. e. f. The controller(s) negligently failed to notify PAT25 that it was off course and
above the mandatory maximum altitude for Helicopter Route 4 and failed to
instruct PAT25 to immediately turn left to and descend until it was at or below
200 feet and remain clear of AE 5342;
The controllers negligently failed to notify AE 5342 of the presence of PAT25;
The controller(s) negligently violated FAA Order JO 7110.65AA ¶ 7-2-1 by
failing to follow the procedures for visual separation therein. The controller(s)
did not follow the mandatory procedures for Pilot-Applied Visual Separation.
More particularly:
i. The controller(s) failed to inform PAT25 at numerous critical times of the
position, direction, type and intentions of AE 5342 and failed to properly
confirm that PAT25 had AE 5342 in sight as required by JO 7110.65AA ¶
7-2-1 subsection a.2.(b)(1) and (2);
ii. The controller(s) failed to inform AE 5342 that it was on a converging
course with PAT25 and that visual separation was being applied, as
required by JO 7110.65AA subsection a.2.(d);
iii. The controller(s) failed to advise both pilots of the other aircraft and did
not inform either pilot that targets were likely to merge as required by JO
7110.65AA ¶ 7-2-1 subsection a.2.(e);
iv. Additionally, the controller(s) failed to issue positive control instructions
to either aircraft when vertical and/or lateral separation standards were not
ensured, and failed to use proper, specified phraseology in communicating
with the subject helicopter and aircraft. The controller(s) also never
provided AE 5342 with PAT25’s position, direction, type, and intentions;
The controller negligently failed to issue a safety or traffic alert to either PAT25 or
AE 5342 despite having radar data available in real time that showed the flight
tracks, altitudes and distance between PAT25 and AE 5342, and receiving a
Conflict Alert (CA) when the aircraft were within approximately 1.5 miles of each
other and on converging courses heading directly towards one another. This was
in violation of FAA Orders:
i. JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-6, Safety Alerts;
ii. JO 7110.65AA ¶ 7-6-1, Basic Radar Service to VFR Aircraft Terminal
and;
iii. JO 7110.65AA ¶ 5-1-4, Merging Target Procedures;
The controller(s) negligently failed to issue traffic alerts to AE 5342 and/or PAT25
in violation of FAA Orders, including but not limited to JO 7110.65AA, ¶ 2-1-21;
JO 7110.65AA ¶ 3-1-6; and JO 7110.65AA ¶ 3-1-6, on at least three separate
occasions, including:
i. Failing to inform AE 5342 of the helicopter traffic after AE 5342 accepted
the request to land on Runway 33 at approximately 8:43:06 p.m. The
controller should have informed AE 5342 of PAT25’s position, direction,
type, and intentions;
ii. Failing to provide AE 5342 specific and timely traffic alerts when it was
about 2 miles southeast of the airport, on a left base to Runway 33, with
the relative o’clock position, distance and altitude of PAT25 and informing
AE 5342 that PAT25 would transit the airspace by crossing the final
approach path to Runway 33;
iii. Failing to provide specific traffic alerts to PAT25 concerning AE 5342
after receiving a “CA” at approximately 8:47:39 p.m., when the controller
should have advised PAT25 of AE 5342’s “o’clock” position, distance and
altitude, and informed PAT25 that its flight path was converging with AE
5342 and the radar targets of both aircraft would merge;
This is text from the complaint. They can allege whatever they want in there. The only thing that was conceded out of all of this was
For you slackers who haven't memorized the .65:
(d) If aircraft are on converging courses, inform the other aircraft of the traffic and that visual separation is being applied.That was one of the (many) arguments the complaint made.
The FAA is fighting it. One of the defenses claimed is:
Last edited:
I think I speak for everyone when I say thank God you feel vindicated, that's the most important thing and I appreciate you sharing that so I can sleep again
So the one thing he did wrong was incredibly minor that it wasn't even anything that you had pointed out...
Also I get what you're saying to a degree. At my airport there is zero chance I'm seeing the targets get that close at a similar altitude even if I'm using pilot visual separation unless I can 100% clearly see it's no factor myself, but we do not know what their standard procedures are their. It seems it's a route that was flown constantly and targets were always getting that close at similar altitudes so likely nothing looked off at all and he was trusting the pilot to follow the instructions they were issued multiple times. MOST controllers put in that similar spot would have done the same thing because nothing was out of the ordinary for how their operation works at their airport.
It's not cool to try and arm chair quarterback something like that when it clearly was not the controllers fault.
Glad you feel vindicated for talking shit to one of your coworkers on the worst day of their life for something that wasn't their fault though
ClearanceClarence
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 1,810
Bet a lot of your coworkers don’t want to work next to your pompous, judgmental ass either.