Washington DC (DCA) accident

[MolaKule]

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.

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.

Procedurally speaking, I am amazed that with the 24/7 density of commercial aircraft traffic at DCA that military flights would even be allowed to cross the airspace where commercial traffic is landing.

What do you bet the NTSB will have a procedural recommendation for a change in traffic patterns for the airspace around DCA between military and commercial traffic?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Procedurally speaking, I am amazed that with the 24/7 density of commercial aircraft traffic at DCA that military flights would even be allowed to cross the airspace where commercial traffic is landing.

What do bet the NTSB will have a procedural recommendation for a change in traffic patterns for the airspace around DCA between military and commercial traffic?

It’s a busy airspace ( with lots of restrictions ) for sure. It was super busy 2004-2006 when I last flew there and it has to be a lot busier today.

Agreed, I am sure some procedural changes will occur because of this.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

In case people are curious, here is a diagram ( googled it, I don’t have the charts anymore ) of DCA aiport.

Runway 33 is very short, 5204 long ( way too short for A320 except in an emergency with no other runway option maybe ).

 

[AZjeff]

I'd like to ask one of our commercial pilots to comment on the possibility of a helicopter being able to purposely collide with a jet. At night. Right after the jet made a last minute flight adjustment. Thanks.

 

[MNgopher]

As usual, we are now in the time of speculation as to causation. Allow the investigators to do their job, and do it thoroughly.

We live in an era of instant news and thinking the answers to everything should be here - now! Proper investigation takes time.

There were a lot of holes in the swiss cheese that lined up here. The facts are that this airport has some unique operational issues with restricted sensitive airspace and lot of military operations in close proximity to a civilian passenger airport. As whole, this airport has had more than its fair share of close calls and incidents in recent years, and the reality of why it stays open is that it is close and convenient to legislators and the powers that are in DC.

RIP to the victims and peace to the friends and families...

 

[c502cid]

It's been a while since I flew in/out of DCA, but I would swear I always landed from the north on Runway 22. I might be mistaken.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Information from the FAA regarding KDCA airport,

Things have changed since I last flew into it ( there is an IFR approach to runway 33 , but the preferred arrival is to do the approach on 01 then break it off and land on 33 ).

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...rofiles/DCA-Airport-Capacity-Profile-2014.pdf

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

It's been a while since I flew in/out of DCA, but I would swear I always landed from the north on Runway 22. I might be mistaken.

I think you’re correct.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

As an airline pilot, I have no problems with informed speculation.

As for the Media, tune them out and wait for the report.

 

[Astro14]

It's been a while since I flew in/out of DCA, but I would swear I always landed from the north on Runway 22. I might be mistaken.

DCA prefers to use runway 01 for departures and arrivals. Putting smaller aircraft on 33 allows for higher landing rate with departures on 01.

01 arrivals are either the Mount Vernon visual or ILS, and then a circle to land on 33 from those arrivals. 01 departures follow the river to avoid overflight of the Pentagon, White House, and monuments.

Landing on 19 requires the river visual, which winds around over the Potomac, avoiding those same areas, and while 15 is available for landing, it is still short, and taxi back from the end of that runway requires crossing others, and I don’t think 22 has been used for a while because you have to be quite a slow airplane to make the turn and stay out of the restricted areas, so, landing south reduces the arrival rate.

DOD aircraft are exempt from the key parts of operating in the DC FRZ and don’t need a flight plan or squawk (transponder code). I suspect that was the case with this H-60, which would mean that TCAS on the CRJ would not have seen them. H-60s don’t have TCAS and both conflict aircraft need to have TCAS installed for the system to work.

The H-60 and CRJ were up the same freq. The H-60 was told to report the CRJ in sight and to pass behind the CRJ.

But to an Army helo driver not used to high density operations, "report the CRJ in sight" and "pass behind the CRJ" may not have been clear. They see one jet and think they have the "CRJ" in sight, not knowing it's circling for 33, when, in fact, they're looking at a different airplane lined up on 01. "CRJ" may not have any meaning for them - it's just another airliner.

Having worked extensively with the US Army while at the CAOC in Al-Udeid, the Army views aviation differently than everyone else. They own* all airspace below 500 feet and have no need* to worry about other traffic. No need* to coordinate. No need to de-conflict in “their” space.

*Completely false, of course, as Joint Pubs and regulations require that coordination and the Army does not own that space, but that is the prevailing attitude. It is pervasive.

That same attitude led to the 1994 shoot down of an H-60 by an F-15 when it was operating in Iraq - The H60 had no flight plan, no squawk, no need to coordinate with other agencies.

I imagine that the DOD exemption for operating in the DC FRZ will be amended.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

DCA prefers to use runway 01 for departures and arrivals. Putting smaller aircraft on 33 allows for higher landing rate with departures on 01.

01 arrivals are either the Mount Vernon visual or ILS, and then a circle to land on 33 from those arrivals. 01 departures follow the river to avoid overflight of the Pentagon, White House, and monuments.

Landing on 19 requires the river visual, which winds around over the Potomac, avoiding those same areas, and while 15 is available for landing, it is still short, and taxi back from the end of that runway requires crossing others, and I don’t think 22 has been used for a while because you have to be quite a slow airplane to make the turn and stay out of the restricted areas, so, landing south reduces the arrival rate.

DOD aircraft are exempt from the key parts of operating in the DC FRZ and don’t need a flight plan or squawk (transponder code). I suspect that was the case with this H-60, which would mean that TCAS on the CRJ would not have seen them. H-60s don’t have TCAS and both conflict aircraft need to have TCAS installed for the system to work.

The H-60 and CRJ were up the same freq. The H-60 was told to report the CRJ in sight and to pass behind the CRJ.

But to an Army helo driver not used to high density operations, "report the CRJ in sight" and "pass behind the CRJ" may not have been clear. They see one jet and think they have the "CRJ" in sight, not knowing it's circling for 33, when, in fact, they're looking at a different airplane lined up on 01. "CRJ" may not have any meaning for them - it's just another airliner.

Having worked extensively with the US Army while at the CAOC in Al-Udeid, the Army views aviation differently than everyone else. They own* all airspace below 500 feet and have no need* to worry about other traffic. No need* to coordinate. No need to de-conflict in “their” space.

*Completely false, of course, as Joint Pubs and regulations require that coordination and the Army does not own that space, but that is the prevailing attitude. It is pervasive.

That same attitude led to the 1994 shoot down of an H-60 by an F-15 when it was operating in Iraq - The H60 had no flight plan, no squawk, no need to coordinate with other agencies.

I imagine that the DOD exemption for operating in the DC FRZ will be amended.

That would explain things if they didn’t have a transponder on ( no code ) but I am surprised they would get away with doing that given the high traffic and no transponder ( why turn it on if no code , no point ).

Pretty hard for the tower to see military traffic if no transponder and even more so at night other than looking out the tower windows.

Curious if it’s normal for no transponder and they mitigate risk of collision by always staying below 500 feet which would always be safe …..until crossing final approach to any runway.

Edit: Maybe they keep the transponder off to avoid nuisance TCAS alerts to airlines given no risk below 500 except if they cross a runways final approach corridor.

 

[I<3oil]

Procedurally speaking, I am amazed that with the 24/7 density of commercial aircraft traffic at DCA that military flights would even be allowed to cross the airspace where commercial traffic is landing.

What do bet the NTSB will have a procedural recommendation for a change in traffic patterns for the airspace around DCA between military and commercial traffic?

We were just talking about this at lunch. One of the other teachers has flown into DC quite a bit and into Reagan and was like, "that sounds like a complete disaster and a recipe for disaster that they let this type of thing/training happen."

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Actually, the TCAS system on the A320 we have inhibits ALL TCAS alerts below 400 ( even TA ).

So, if I am flying I to Las Vegas ( landing on 19R ) and a helicopter lifts off and gets too close when on final , we won’t hear any TA traffic alerts from the TCAS. We will see it on the Nav Display , but not hear it. It’s possible to miss it when looking outside below 400 and not expecting any conflicting traffic.

That collision between the helicopter and CRJ was below 400 according to the data on the Juan Browne video.

 

[Astro14]

We were just talking about this at lunch. One of the other teachers has flown into DC quite a bit and into Reagan and was like, "that sounds like a complete disaster and a recipe for disaster that they let this type of thing/training happen."

So, 15 minutes of experience in an environment, sitting in the back of the airplane, with no visibility, no ability to see what’s going on, no actual understanding or experience with the communications, requirements or training, in other words, without any actual, first-hand knowledge of how that environment is structured or operates, allows them to reach a conclusion?

Fascinating.

What a gift they have - able to reach a conclusion when in possession of no actual data.

 

[PWMDMD]

So, 15 minutes of experience in an environment, sitting in the back of the airplane, with no visibility, no ability to see what’s going on, no actual understanding or experience with the communications, requirements or training, in other words, without any actual, first-hand knowledge of how that environment is structured or operates, allows them to reach a conclusion?

Fascinating.

What a gift they have - able to reach a conclusion when in possession of no actual data.

Dunning-Kruger is way too common these days...

 

[Dave Hess]

You didn't ask me but my opinion is it "looks" like the helicopter deliberately flew into the plane. I DO NOT believe this is what happened. I believe it was helicopter pilot error and nothing else.

I am an engineer (civ. contractor) on the Army's Black Hawk Simulator program (BAT). I will be watching the investigation of this crash closely.

I agree with you helicopter pilots made error. Military pilots do make mistakes unfortunately.

Some mentioned light pollution, loss of situational awareness and helicopter pilots may have mistook another aircraft (further away) for CRJ aircraft….. not realizing they are on collision course.

Very tragic mistake, RIP.

 

[I<3oil]

So, 15 minutes of experience in an environment, sitting in the back of the airplane, with no visibility, no ability to see what’s going on, no actual understanding or experience with the communications, requirements or training, in other words, without any actual, first-hand knowledge of how that environment is structured or operates, allows them to reach a conclusion?

Fascinating.

What a gift they have - able to reach a conclusion when in possession of no actual data.

Yes, it's a layperson's outsider opinion. I was just merely mentioning our conversation from lunch, not giving or defending a doctoral dissertation. To him, it didn't really seem like a great idea with all the congestion around DC/the Pentagon/airport. He understood that there have been probably hundreds, if not thousands of helicopter flights near the airport without incident, but it just takes one time for something to go wrong. Simmer down.

 

[Astro14]

Yes, it's a layperson's outsider opinion. I was just merely mentioning our conversation from lunch, not giving or defending a doctoral dissertation. Simmer down.

It’s an uninformed, outsider opinion.

What did it add to the thread? Insight? Explanation? Perspective? Value?

Would you like to start a thread about your classroom? Then, and on the basis of zero experience in your school, those of us who have never taught in a classroom, could all offer our uninformed opinions about your profession.

Sound reasonable?

I’ll make sure and remind you to simmer down, after you read the posts that shock you with their ignorance.

 

[I<3oil]

It’s an uninformed, outsider opinion.

What did it add to the thread? Insight? Explanation? Perspective? Value?

Would you like to start a thread about your classroom? Then, and on the basis of zero experience in your school, those of us who have never taught in a classroom, could all offer our uninformed opinions about your profession.

Sound reasonable?

I’ll make sure and remind you to simmer down, after you read the posts that shock you with their ignorance.

Are we not on a discussion board? Are we not able to share discussions? I never stated it was fact nor he was an expert, just sharing a conversation from today, that was in context with the quote that I quoted. I'm sorry it offended your gaze. I'll make sure to ask myself, "What would Astro post?" in the future before trying to discuss things on an internet social media discussion forum. Thank you for helping me see the error of my ways so that I might better myself, even just in the slightest. Thank you.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Really sad, I was stationed there actually. So the Blackhawk was the "Executive" version?