Midair Collision DCA

[KP-ATC]

As a regular NVG user, I absolutely do not think pilot applied visual should be allowed if one of the aircrews involved is wearing NVGs, the FAR/AIM should advise all pilots to reject this from ATC if wearing them. I also don’t think anyone should be authorized to operate in class bravo airspace while using NVGs, even the military. This is a big continent and there are plenty of places to practice using that shit besides right near the final of a core 30 airport.

I am honestly surprised we aren’t seeing the DoD being slapped on the wrist for this considering a good portion of this tragic accident happened from the inherent traffic burden of a training sortie…

Well then, when you learn about view limiting devices for instrument training in VMC you'll really lose your mind.

You can issue VFR aircraft headings

Not below the MVA if also assigned an altitude below the MVA.

 

[rhombus]

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.

Let’s say we’re at a Delta and there’s a hot spot intersection that pilots screw up often. The ground controller knows this, is working a Cessna taxiing to the intersection and is careful to get a good hold short read back. He notices the Cessna is still moving pretty quick so he verifies that the Cessna is going to hold short and the Cessna confirms. He then notices that the Cessna is taxiing past the hold bars and he tells the Cessna to stop. The Cessna confirms that he will stop but continues taxiing past the edge lines and directly into a departing aircraft.

If that happened would you blame the ground controller? Because that’s essentially what you’re doing

 

[SquawkHijack]

Well then, when you learn about view limiting devices for instrument training in VMC you'll really lose your mind.

And why is that? All I'm saying is, view limiting devices (NVGs in particular) shouldn’t be authorized in class B or when ATC wants you to apply your own visual separation with another aircraft. Has nothing to do with instrument training in VMC, rather just do this stuff in a place that isn’t riddled with jets. Especially low flying ones potentially in critical phases of flight.

 

[Homsar]

Let’s say we’re at a Delta and there’s a hot spot intersection that pilots screw up often. The ground controller knows this, is working a Cessna taxiing to the intersection and is careful to get a good hold short read back. He notices the Cessna is still moving pretty quick so he verifies that the Cessna is going to hold short and the Cessna confirms. He then notices that the Cessna is taxiing past the hold bars and he tells the Cessna to stop. The Cessna confirms that he will stop but continues taxiing past the edge lines and directly into a departing aircraft.

If that happened would you blame the ground controller? Because that’s essentially what you’re doing

The part I bolded is what was missing from the DC crash. The equivalent to the controller recognizing the Cessna isn't doing what they said they would do, and telling the Cessna to stop, is the same as recognizing the helicopter isn't going to maintain separation with the jet, and telling them to turn to avoid them.

To quote myself in a later post than the one you quoted:

There’s a time when being “legal” isn’t enough, you have to project that an aircraft isn’t going to do what it agreed to do, and you need to step in and direct it to do something else. It’s not issuing a safety alert every time the CA goes off, it’s issuing one when, in your judgment, separation will not take place.

 

[ATCJoe85]

Let’s say we’re at a Delta and there’s a hot spot intersection that pilots screw up often. The ground controller knows this, is working a Cessna taxiing to the intersection and is careful to get a good hold short read back. He notices the Cessna is still moving pretty quick so he verifies that the Cessna is going to hold short and the Cessna confirms. He then notices that the Cessna is taxiing past the hold bars and he tells the Cessna to stop. The Cessna confirms that he will stop but continues taxiing past the edge lines and directly into a departing aircraft.

If that happened would you blame the ground controller? Because that’s essentially what you’re doing

While there weren't that many transmissions between controller/pilot in the DCA case, I agree with the sentiment.

In a sense: "You should've watched him and watched him and watched him and watched him"---- ***collision happens elsewhere on the field*** ---- "WHY WEREN'T YOU WATCHING THOSE TWO!?!?"

 

[ManBearPig]

And why is that? All I'm saying is, view limiting devices (NVGs in particular) shouldn’t be authorized in class B or when ATC wants you to apply your own visual separation with another aircraft. Has nothing to do with instrument training in VMC, rather just do this stuff in a place that isn’t riddled with jets. Especially low flying ones potentially in critical phases of flight.

Doing instrument training VFR with a vision limiting device requires a safety pilot to be looking outside.....

 

[SquawkHijack]

Doing instrument training VFR with a vision limiting device requires a safety pilot to be looking outside.....

Right, all I’m saying is maybe prohibit that inside class B airspace.

 

[KP-ATC]

Let’s say we’re at a Delta and there’s a hot spot intersection that pilots screw up often. The ground controller knows this, is working a Cessna taxiing to the intersection and is careful to get a good hold short read back. He notices the Cessna is still moving pretty quick so he verifies that the Cessna is going to hold short and the Cessna confirms. He then notices that the Cessna is taxiing past the hold bars and he tells the Cessna to stop. The Cessna confirms that he will stop but continues taxiing past the edge lines and directly into a departing aircraft.

If that happened would you blame the ground controller? Because that’s essentially what you’re doing

The ground controller didn't alert local to the runway incursion? Then ground owns a piece of it.

Right, all I’m saying is maybe prohibit that inside class B airspace.

Why? Class B is positive control airspace. Use of view limiting devices is riskier in class D where airborne aircraft aren't separated from each other.

 

[ManBearPig]

Right, all I’m saying is maybe prohibit that inside class B airspace.

Im okay with it a long as there is a safety pilot. I agree maybe both pilots in our UH60 case should not be under NODs. If they want to train like they fight, put 1 with and 1 without.

 

[Termine]

You can issue VFR aircraft headings

KP-ATC is correct that you can't if the VFR is given an altitude below the MVA, which I would argue they were because the cleared heli route had a published top altitude of 200'.

But also you need to be careful when you say that "you" can issue headings. TRACONs can, yes... Centers can, yes... tower facilities can only issue headings if it's a combined tower/TRACON or if they have special permission. By default a tower facility that isn't up/down isn't allowed to issue random vectors.

 

[SquawkHijack]

Why? Class B is positive control airspace. Use of view limiting devices is riskier in class D where airborne aircraft aren't separated from each other.

By design, Class B is also very restrictive airspace toward VFR operations for a reason, it’s usually very busy with a lot of higher performance aircraft in close proximity. And since it would be pretty pointless (and illegal) to operate under IFR while using NVGs, I’m just saying, there are LOTS of better places to practice this. How many real world military night ops are going to be in an environment like a busy bravo where you’re dodging airplanes?

I understand that the military needs to train, but this in particular would be like a Piper Cherokee wanting to come into a bravo airport and do touch and gos during periods of moderate to peak traffic. It would be unreasonable, unsafe and most likely denied by ATC in many instances. I think the same nature should apply to the use of NVGs contributing to the incident at DCA.

Im okay with it a long as there is a safety pilot. I agree maybe both pilots in our UH60 case should not be under NODs. If they want to train like they fight, put 1 with and 1 without.

I would generally agree with that, as is a typical practice among military aircrews. Problem is, there are lots of single piloted military aircraft that operate under NVGs as well. The A-10 being an example.

Plus, I don’t foresee the military conducting a whole lot of real world night ops in an environment like a bravo where there’s a good chance they’ll be maneuvering in close proximity to lots of other aircraft. I also agree with you to train like you fight, but I just find NVG ops in a bravo to be unrealistic to about all missions. The only relevant thing I could maybe see is medevac transitions. I’m just saying. Theres a lot of airspace to practice and train elsewhere with a higher degree of safety.

 

[KP-ATC]

By design, Class B is also very restrictive airspace toward VFR operations for a reason, it’s usually very busy with a lot of higher performance aircraft in close proximity. And since it would be pretty pointless (and illegal) to operate under IFR while using NVGs, I’m just saying, there are LOTS of better places to practice this. How many real world military night ops are going to be in an environment like a busy bravo where you’re dodging airplanes?

I understand that the military needs to train, but this in particular would be like a Piper Cherokee wanting to come into a bravo airport and do touch and gos during periods of moderate to peak traffic. It would be unreasonable, unsafe and most likely denied by ATC in many instances. I think the same nature should apply to the use of NVGs contributing to the incident at DCA.


I would generally agree with that, as is a typical practice among military aircrews. Problem is, there are lots of single piloted military aircraft that operate under NVGs as well. The A-10 being an example.

Plus, I don’t foresee the military conducting a whole lot of real world night ops in an environment like a bravo where there’s a good chance they’ll be maneuvering in close proximity to lots of other aircraft. I also agree with you to train like you fight, but I just find NVG ops in a bravo to be unrealistic to about all missions. The only relevant thing I could maybe see is medevac transitions. I’m just saying. Theres a lot of airspace to practice and train elsewhere with a higher degree of safety.

Except the mission of that unit is VIP transportation in the NCR and they are expected to perform this task when the SHTF.

 

[SquawkHijack]

Except the mission of that unit is VIP transportation in the NCR and they are expected to perform this task when the SHTF.

There won’t be an insane amount of airplanes in the area when SHTF. Plus, if it means a potential crash involving dozens of lives, VIPs can go the fuck around the bravo surface area. Medevac ops are the only one I could see as valid. Maybe law enforcement if what they are handling is serious enough.

 

[+TSRA]

KP-ATC is correct that you can't if the VFR is given an altitude below the MVA, which I would argue they were because the cleared heli route had a published top altitude of 200'.

But also you need to be careful when you say that "you" can issue headings. TRACONs can, yes... Centers can, yes... tower facilities can only issue headings if it's a combined tower/TRACON or if they have special permission. By default a tower facility that isn't up/down isn't allowed to issue random vectors.

That’s not true. TWR only facilitates with certified displays (C & B airspace) can issue headings. VFR towers (D airspace) with “non certified”/no displays can only issue “suggested” headings. Personally I won’t issue a heading if I didn’t have a display.

Had the Controller gave the helo a vector, that would have taken the helo out/off the helo route nullifying the published ALT restriction. Having said that, for good measure the Controller could have added “Fly/turn left/right heading XXX, ALT your discretion.”

Had the helo been turned away from the CRJ, the ALT. would not have been required/needed.

 

[SquawkHijack]

That’s not true. TWR only facilitates with certified displays (C & B airspace) can issue headings. VFR towers (D airspace) with “non certified”/no displays can only issue “suggested” headings. Personally I won’t issue a heading if I didn’t have a display.

Had the Controller gave the helo a vector, that would have taken the helo out/off the helo route nullifying the published ALT restriction. Having said that, for good measure the Controller could have added “Fly/turn left/right heading XXX, ALT your discretion.”

Had the helo been turned away from the CRJ, the ALT. would not have been required/needed.

That’s not quite all of it. Even if you have a certified radar display in the tower, you have to have passed the radar qualification test to be able to actually give hard vectors because that is providing basic radar service. Which is something that all bravo towers do and a lot of charlies as well.

 

[+TSRA]

That’s not quite all of it. Even if you have a certified radar display in the tower, you have to have passed the radar qualification test to be able to actually give hard vectors because that is providing basic radar service. Which is something that all bravo towers do and a lot of charlies as well.

That "qualification" should be given as part of initial training at the TWR facility. Usually in the form of an ELMS if you are TWR only. Therefore, after you pass the classroom part of training, you are "qualified" to provide radar services as outlined in LOA/Orders/SOP.

If, at your facility, you say "Radar Contact", you are providing radar services. The .65 and .3 outline the limitations/functions a TWR can/cannot do with a display which in reality is only issue altitudes and/or headings.

 

[SquawkHijack]

That "qualification" should be given as part of initial training at the TWR facility. Usually in the form of an ELMS if you are TWR only. Therefore, after you pass the classroom part of training, you are "qualified" to provide radar services as outlined in LOA/Orders/SOP.

If, at your facility, you say "Radar Contact", you are providing radar services. The .65 and .3 outline the limitations/functions a TWR can/cannot do with a display which in reality is only issue altitudes and/or headings.

Go visit a Charlie or bravo tower. They have peeps call them all the time wanting to enter and they issue codes and say “radar contact,” therefore providing radar service and requiring the radar qual.

I don’t believe deltas do this, not to say there aren’t a few anomalies but the ones I’ve worked didn’t, even with a certified display. They simply use it as a visual aid. If they’re having y’all take a radar qual test and then not provide radar service then that’s kinda fruitless and confusing tbh.

 

[+TSRA]

Go visit a Charlie or bravo tower. They have peeps call them all the time wanting to enter and they issue codes and say “radar contact,” therefore providing radar service and requiring the radar qual.

I don’t believe deltas do this, not to say there aren’t a few anomalies but the ones I’ve worked didn’t, even with a certified display. They simply use it as a visual aid. If they’re having y’all take a radar qual test and then not provide radar service then that’s kinda fruitless and confusing tbh.

Yep. I agree. I was just clarifying that being radar qualified (at a TWR only) does not require you to go academy or even sit in front of a scope for any portion of time.

 

[SquawkHijack]

Yep. I agree. I was just clarifying that being radar qualified (at a TWR only) does not require you to go academy or even sit in front of a scope for any portion of time.

Can that change for a delta within a TRSA tho? Your username made me curious and I’ve never worked one lol.

 

[DankVectorz]

Im okay with it a long as there is a safety pilot. I agree maybe both pilots in our UH60 case should not be under NODs. If they want to train like they fight, put 1 with and 1 without.

Per my army helo pilot friend either both crew or neither wear NVG’s per regs