Washington DC (DCA) accident

[edyvw]

I am listening on regular computer speakers, but my understanding is that PAT25 (helicopter) reported back that he has traffic in sight.
What did he see is in question?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The regional jet was well below 1000 feet.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/...with-us-military-helicopter-in-washington-dc/

 

[edyvw]

Here is the new angle from the terminal, I believe:

 

[loneryder]

This is very strange because helicopters have strict airspace rules in the DC airspace. And if it is a military helicopter, they are supposed to know every rule there is around there.

Helo shouldn’t have been anywhere near the glide paths of that airport. Military aircraft have their own strict areas of operation. You have Bolling afb across the river from Reagan and Ft Belvoir and Quantico just down the river. They all have airfields.

 

[loneryder]

The regional jet was well below 1000 feet.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/...with-us-military-helicopter-in-washington-dc/

I heard 200-400 ft. 2000 ft from runway.

 

[ctechbob]

Sounds like it hit home for Juan on this one.

 

[B6_Dolphin]

Not a pilot. I'm looking at this collision based on the excellent explanation from Juan's video. I'm curious about when this "side-stepping" occurred - maybe one of the pilots on BITOG can educate me on the altitude limits for this manuever, because the following theory could be quickly de-bunked with a higher altitude limit for "side-stepping".

If the CRJ-700 was "side-stepping" from Rwy 1 to Rwy 33, and the VH-60 had in fact established a visual of the CRJ before the side-step was accomplished, the VH-60 pilot thus planned that his current flight path would go behind the CRJ, but only if the CRJ continued his approach to Rwy 1. However, based on Juan's description, with the CRJ moving his flightpath to align with Rwy 33, that would unintentionally close the distance to the VH-60, and therefore on an intersect path. I would imagine it would be close to impossible for the VH-60 to spatially recognize the CRJ was "side-stepping" towards him in the dark, whereas he is assuming/expecting the CRJ to remain on his final approach when it was initially sighted.

 

[alarmguy]

Training flight??

Yes, how do they end up in the runway path?

 

[PWMDMD]

This is very strange because helicopters have strict airspace rules in the DC airspace. And if it is a military helicopter, they are supposed to know every rule there is around there.

I read a very preliminary reports that the passenger plane had been cleared to land on a different runway and at the time of the crash the tower was asking the helicopter if they could see the plane because the tower realized the plane wasn't where it was supposed to be.

 

[demarpaint]

Tragic, sending prayers.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I heard 200-400 ft. 2000 ft from runway.

No TCAS below 1000 except “ traffic, traffic “ alert ( TCAS display shows the traffic position ).

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Sounds like it hit home for Juan on this one.

The regional jet sounds like it was exactly where it was supposed to be, on a stable final approach to runway 33 after having already completed the approach on runway 01 and breaking it off to circle for a landing runway 33.

I don’t fly to DCA anymore ( last time was 2004-2006 ) but that was how we landed on the shorter runway ( 33 ).

Surely the helicopter had its transponder on ( video ) or how else could the tower accurately see where it was going other than looking out the tower window.

Curious if the helicopter also had TCAS.

What a tragedy especially in the age of TCAS.

RIP and condolences to the victims and their families.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Here is an example of a TCAS alert ( if TA only, and inhibited below 1000 feet ).

It only provides us with the traffic ( amber filled diamond ) , its position ( 11 O’clock ) and how high they are above, below , or possibly at the same altitude.

In the example below, the traffic is at 11 O’ Clock, 500 feet below and climbing. The distance is determined by the range markings with those arcs on the navigational display.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...a44bbefe5aada9e67f07f905a63e85eb58f4/figure/2

 

[97prizm]

The FAA and NTSB are very transparent, the investigation might take a while but I'm confident we'll get the truth when they release their final accident report.

I'm just trying to figure out how the helicopter was allowed to cut through the final approach to DCA? The video shows several aircraft on final approach. ATC is supposed to route the traffic around not through airspace like that.

 

[E365]

My guess is the chopper had an airplane in sight, but was looking at the wrong one. He was possibly looking at AA3130 which was on final for 1.

Many airline pilots refuse to call “traffic in sight” on approach because of stuff like this. It’s so easy to be looking at the wrong plane, lose sight of the plane you were instructed to follow, or misjudge your spacing. Just let ATC do their job and keep you separated.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Not a pilot. I'm looking at this collision based on the excellent explanation from Juan's video. I'm curious about when this "side-stepping" occurred - maybe one of the pilots on BITOG can educate me on the altitude limits for this manuever, because the following theory could be quickly de-bunked with a higher altitude limit for "side-stepping".

If the CRJ-700 was "side-stepping" from Rwy 1 to Rwy 33, and the VH-60 had in fact established a visual of the CRJ before the side-step was accomplished, the VH-60 pilot thus planned that his current flight path would go behind the CRJ, but only if the CRJ continued his approach to Rwy 1. However, based on Juan's description, with the CRJ moving his flightpath to align with Rwy 33, that would unintentionally close the distance to the VH-60, and therefore on an intersect path. I would imagine it would be close to impossible for the VH-60 to spatially recognize the CRJ was "side-stepping" towards him in the dark, whereas he is assuming/expecting the CRJ to remain on his final approach when it was initially sighted.

I used to fly into DCA all the time for two years ( YOW - ORD and YOW DCA was all I did , nothing else …when got demoted to CRJ from A320 when Air Canada still directly operated those CRJ until 2006 before transferring to the regionals ) and have done that exact approach hundreds of times.

I don’t have the approach plates for DCA, but they would probably fly to about a 5 mile final ( 1700 feet ) to runway 01 , then break it off and circle ( visual manoeuvre ) to line up with runway 33 while continuing to descend ( gear, flaps out ) while lining up with runway 33.

Runway 33 is very short, only regional jets would land on that runway but all aircraft have to come in from the south ( do the approach on ILS 01 and break it off ) , do the IFR approach on 01. Combination of factors why they don’t just fly straight in on runway 33 - a long final would put aircraft into restricted airspace and the runway only has a visual approach because if this.

We don’t know the full story but based on the Juan Browne video, the CRJ was where it was supposed to be and we don’t hear the tower controller questioning the CRJ pilots, we hear the tower asking the helicopter it has the CRJ in sight.

The CRJ was on an IFR flight plan but cleared to circle and land ( visual manoeuvre ) on runway 33 while the helicopter was not on an IFR flight plan.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

My guess is the chopper had an airplane in sight, but was looking at the wrong one. He was possibly looking at AA3130 which was on final for 1.

Many airline pilots refuse call “traffic in sight” on approach because of stuff like this. It’s so easy to be looking at the wrong plane, lose sight of the plane you were instructed to follow, or misjudge your spacing. Just let ATC do their job and keep you separated.

Agreed but the helicopter was flying VFR and the CRJ was on the IFR flight plan even though visually breaking off the IFR approach 01 to circle and visually land in runway 33.

That helicopter route sounds dependant on THEM having visual separation from arriving IFR aircraft.

For non pilots, when we arrive on an IFR flight plan , the tower is supposed to keep VFR aircraft away from us. The onus is on the tower to make sure the VFR aircraft in the control zone have IFR air aircraft in sight and avoid hitting us.

The tower will just mention VFR aircraft to IFR pilots for traffic information purposes ( e.g “ Air Canada 456, VFR traffic 11 O’clock , showing 3000 altitude, I am not talking to them “ or “ Air Canada 456, VFR traffic has you in sight and will pass behind you to land on parallel runway “ ).

DCA Tower: ATC: PAT25 do you have the CRJ in sight? PAT25 pass behind that CRJ.

 

[alarmguy]

I'm just trying to figure out how the helicopter was allowed to cut through the final approach to DCA? The video shows several aircraft on final approach. ATC is supposed to route the traffic around not through airspace like that.

Im not sure if this is still relevant. I guess we will know when the flight recorder is read?
One comment on TV (forgot source) was the plane unexpectedly dropped in altitude. Im sure there are a lot of comments.

 

[4WD]

Sounding like the chopper pilot needed a plexiglass navel

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Im not sure if this is still relevant. I guess we will know when the flight recorder is read?
One comment on TV (forgot source) was the plane unexpectedly dropped in altitude. Im sure there are a lot of comments.

NTSB is leading the investigation.

They already have the audio ( tower , helicopter communication ) , radar data , and once they get the FDR from the CRJ ( will show what TCAS was telling them and their comments as they searched for the traffic ) and CVR, they will be able to understand more.

Unless the helicopter had a CVR ( I don’t think it has any ) , it’s a guess what the helicopter crew was thinking ( crews think out loud often…talk to each other ) except from ATC audio.