Midair collision between Helicopter and CRJ (AA5342) at Washington (DCA)

[justinbrett]

It was, but it also had lateral movement at the time, which makes it no threat, whilst the other aircraft on finals had a constant bearing. I don't think that there's much doubt that they never locked on to the dangerous aircraft.

From what I understand about flying with goggles, you have to be careful about head movements, as they can be disorienting, so the normal head movements that a pilot might make to keep things in sight, may not be advisable. Of course that then puts us to a question of whether these goggles should really allow an aircraft to fly VFR, if they limit the ability to maintain visual separation.

Ah, but that wouldn't be convenient.

They shouldn't have accepted (or offered) pilot visual separation wearing NVGs. Perhaps this is the crux of the issue.

The simulation was clearer than I expected. Absolutely can see how the two inbound aircraft can be initially confused (hell, I've seen a tower controller confuse an aircraft with a star), but in closer range, especially at the time of the second traffic call, I would expect any VFR pilot (rated for night) to accurately spot the CRJ. At least with a controller who can make decent traffic calls.

 

[jb747]

They shouldn't have accepted (or offered) pilot visual separation wearing NVGs. Perhaps this is the crux of the issue.

It's certainly an issue that has to be resolved. The military do accept operations with reduced safety, as a matter of course. But, their standards should never end up being applied to civilian aircraft.

The simulation was clearer than I expected. Absolutely can see how the two inbound aircraft can be initially confused (hell, I've seen a tower controller confuse an aircraft with a star), but in closer range, especially at the time of the second traffic call, I would expect any VFR pilot (rated for night) to accurately spot the CRJ. At least with a controller who can make decent traffic calls.

The CRJ, for whatever reason, and contrary to what we might expect, was not seen. To be honest, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. It's quite amazing how hard it can be sometimes, to see aircraft, even when they are literally being pointed out to you. We see it here because we are looking for that second aircraft, and know where to look. And, we aren't wearing goggles. Something else that might have some relevance, is that of focus. We're looking at a 3d screen, a fixed distance away. That's not the case in flight, and I don't know how goggles will affect that.

So, could they have seen the CRJ? Yes, it would seem so. Did they see it? Obviously not. Sadly "could have" doesn't convert to a safe operation.

 

[justinbrett]

We see it here because we are looking for that second aircraft, and know where to look. And, we aren't wearing goggles.

And with a well constructed and delivered traffic call, so could the Blackhawk (sans goggles). The first traffic call was by the book, but delivered way too early. The second was non existent and just reconfirmed the previous error.

 

[elanshin]

I also wonder how frequently ATC would need to prioritise helicopter travel over airliners and even restricting landings if a VIP was travelling the route.

I have to imagine there are scenarios where they defer to and prioritise the helicopter along this corridor given the nature of the potential passengers on them.

 

[moa999]

The second was non existent and just reconfirmed the previous error.

Agreed. If the second communication had been CRJ at your 300 degrees, 400ft cleared to land on R33, the error may not have occured.

But particularly on that 33/ Route 4 crossing point where the vertical separation is likely to be pretty tight, it really should be more like a runway crossing where the helo is told to hold short at a particular point.

 

[jb747]

And with a well constructed and delivered traffic call, so could the Blackhawk (sans goggles). The first traffic call was by the book, but delivered way too early. The second was non existent and just reconfirmed the previous error.

So, does that make it an ATC error. Or an ATC error abetting a Blackhawk pilot error. Or were they really all poor sods, who were set up by a system that was never really designed, but just brought itself into being. TBH, no matter how I look at this, it just falls into the category of “sooner or later”.

Would any Australian controller give a helicopter carte blanche to cross a runway near the threshold, on the basis of “just don’t run into him”. Of course not, it would be very actively controlled. Mostly in Oz we don’t even get conditional line up clearances (i.e. behind the landing QF330, line up). I’ve always found that annoying, but certainly understood why not at night. Nobody riding in these helicopters was that important. In the event of a “continuity of government” scenario, I doubt that any civilian aircraft would want to be anywhere near DC.

 

[justinbrett]

So, does that make it an ATC error. Or an ATC error abetting a Blackhawk pilot error. Or were they really all poor sods, who were set up by a system that was never really designed, but just brought itself into being. TBH, no matter how I look at this, it just falls into the category of “sooner or later”.

Would any Australian controller give a helicopter carte blanche to cross a runway near the threshold, on the basis of “just don’t run into him”. Of course not, it would be very actively controlled. Mostly in Oz we don’t even get conditional line up clearances (i.e. behind the landing QF330, line up). I’ve always found that annoying, but certainly understood why not at night. Nobody riding in these helicopters was that important. In the event of a “continuity of government” scenario, I doubt that any civilian aircraft would want to be anywhere near DC.

No, I’d give a clearance limit to somewhere short of the confliction until pilot separation is actually maintained. As I said, it was pilot error, set up by ATC, in turn set up by procedures/management. We had a grotesque saying we said to pilots. You fk up, you die. I fk up, you die. Sadly it’s true.

I’m curious about your comment about conditional clearances. I never hesitated, even at night. I don’t know anyone else who did either. That said I never worked for AsA, only RAAF, and we always thought of the former as being risk averse (and I’m sure they’ll fight me on that). A foreign airline, yes, you’d hesitate if you thought they wouldn’t completely understand, but not Australian aircrew.

 

[RSD]

Or were they really all poor sods, who were set up by a system that was never really designed, but just brought itself into being. TBH, no matter how I look at this, it just falls into the category of “sooner or later”.

In the event of a “continuity of government” scenario, I doubt that any civilian aircraft would want to be anywhere near DC.

Very much set up by a system - and I'm not even sure that the word system is low enough down to describe what goes on there - it is pretty clear from the number of near misses that have been reported into the FAA's system over the years that sooner or later one wouldn't miss.

I suspect that if there was a continuity of government scenario that FAA / ATC would very quickly be telling them to divert to somewhere like Pittsburgh or Charlotte etc - somewhere sufficiently close-ish for fuel reasons, but well away from the DC / NYC area. One thing about America - there is no shortage of airports.

The Blackhawk has ADSB-out turned off as well -

 

[jb747]

I’m curious about your comment about conditional clearances. I never hesitated, even at night. I don’t know anyone else who did either. That said I never worked for AsA, only RAAF, and we always thought of the former as being risk averse (and I’m sure they’ll fight me on that). A foreign airline, yes, you’d hesitate if you thought they wouldn’t completely understand, but not Australian aircrew.

It's a few years now, but if I haven't lost all of the cells, the rest of the world uses conditional clearances. Sydney did. But Melbourne didn't. And in the 380 it meant a lot of lost take off opportunities, especially when waiting to line up on 16, with ATC waiting for a bloke to get to J.