Two Lessons From The DCA Crash

[GeeBee]

As the tapes come out I notice two things which really stand out to me.

1. The acceptance of visual separation by the helicopter. I guess for helicopters, not unusual but at night? I never accept a visual separation at night. Too easy to call the wrong aircraft or get lost in the lights. Depth perception is also difficult so judging distances and closure rates much more difficult. In this case add in NVG and stir well.

2. One controller, two frequencies. In one tape you can hear the controller talking to both aircraft but you don't hear the Blackhawk. I assume he was on Uniform. Whenever I hear a controller talking on two frequencies, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. I see this often with a controller handling two runways with different frequencies. It should be banned. Everyone should be on the same "party line" with a given controller. It used to be many military aircraft did not have Victor radios but I know that has changed because the size of radios has changed greatly. In airspace like DCA, everyone should be on Victor and on the same frequency if the paths are going to cross.

[N201MKTurbo]

I wonder why the helicopter was allowed to fly across the final approach path of an active runway? If you asked to do that at PHX they would tell you to get lost. 

Does the military get special exemption from normal rules?

I read that at that altitude the city lights wash out any aircraft lights, so visual separation is very difficult at best.

[Ragsf15e]

Visual separation on nvgs is tenuous at best even in the same formation of planes flying together.  You have zero depth perception until you’re within a few hundred feet (maybe a little farther for a real big plane).  You just see a really bright light.  Could be 1/2 mile, could be 12 miles. No way to tell.

[N201MKTurbo]

I have thought about NVGs and people are talking about it. Has anybody heard for certain weather they were using them or not?

It seems with all the city lights the NVGs would be difficult to use.

[redbaron1982]

It is amazing that they allow non-IFR operations to cross short final on a class B airspace. I never thought they would clear someone to do that.

Forcing all operations to be IFR within 5 miles and below 2000 AGL of any departure/arrival runway end in a class B airspace makes sense.

I'm not sure if 5 miles and 2000 AGL are the best numbers, maybe smaller, maybe larger.... but doesn't make sense at all to have VFR operations messing around in short final to a class B airport.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by redbaron1982

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

As the tapes come out I notice two things which really stand out to me.

1. The acceptance of visual separation by the helicopter. I guess for helicopters, not unusual but at night? I never accept a visual separation at night. Too easy to call the wrong aircraft or get lost in the lights. Depth perception is also difficult so judging distances and closure rates much more difficult. In this case add in NVG and stir well.

2. One controller, two frequencies. In one tape you can hear the controller talking to both aircraft but you don't hear the Blackhawk. I assume he was on Uniform. Whenever I hear a controller talking on two frequencies, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. I see this often with a controller handling two runways with different frequencies. It should be banned. Everyone should be on the same "party line" with a given controller. It used to be many military aircraft did not have Victor radios but I know that has changed because the size of radios has changed greatly. In airspace like DCA, everyone should be on Victor and on the same frequency if the paths are going to cross.

One thing they are saying in the media at least, we shall see what the real scoop is in time, is that there were two controllers in a tower that is meant to be staffed for four controllers.  That seems as if it is a huge contributing factor.

[Ragsf15e]

29 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have thought about NVGs and people are talking about it. Has anybody heard for certain weather they were using them or not?

It seems with all the city lights the NVGs would be difficult to use.

Yeah, I agree they might have been more distracting than useful there, but there are some dark areas (woods/river) where they were supposed to be flying at 200’ that might be tough to see without?  It will be interesting to see if they were wearing them.

[Paul Thomas]

I saw the radar track this morning as the controller would have seen it. That looks a lot different than what the news was showing yesterday and provides more context.

[Paul Thomas]

16 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

It is amazing that they allow non-IFR operations to cross short final on a class B airspace. I never thought they would clear someone to do that.

Forcing all operations to be IFR within 5 miles and below 2000 AGL of any departure/arrival runway end in a class B airspace makes sense.

I'm not sure if 5 miles and 2000 AGL are the best numbers, maybe smaller, maybe larger.... but doesn't make sense at all to have VFR operations messing around in short final to a class B airport.

 

I think it depends on the operation; people should be able to come in and land VFR. This was a bad place to transition (there was another airline in trail) and an even worse place to be practicing.

[AJ88V]

This is one of the very busiest times to be flying around DCA.  Not that I was in their airspace, but my old field W32 (with Potomac Field VKX) was roughly in the flight path for the south approach to DCA. 

5:30 - 8:00 pm is an absolute zoo.  Just listen to the tapes!  That's normal!  Add in the practically insane approach and departure routings to avoid flying over parts of WDC, the visual approach on the short rwy 33, and the low altitude helo flyways along the river and we have a recipe for disaster.  So what the h@ll was a military "training flight" even doing in the airspace at the time?  And why were they off altitude?  Call me paranoid, but there's something effed up going on.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

Way too many factors here.  Before you get into it, you have a few questions that should be answered.

1.  What Mission was the helicopter performing?

2.  What is their SOP for such flights?

3.  Were any/all three crewmembers wearing NVGs?

4.  What equipment did they have onboard?

5.  What was their experience in the area?

Then there are a few facts to make clear.

1.  NVGs are easy to see under while flying, not like the old ones that closed off your vision to only the screens. 

2.  The airplane received a change to land on 33.

3.  I used to fly from Fort Belvoir, but we were restricted to IFR only.  I am not sure what the rules are these days.

The bottom line is that one dumbshit said he had the aircraft in sight, and that he would pass behind it.  Instead, he ran into it.  You cannot simply pile on more rules that somehow fix 'pilot error'.

[flyboy0681]

Nice to see MS is up and running again..

I'll assume that there are some Army helo pilots here. When wearing night vision goggles, do you have have full peripheral vision or straight ahead, tunnel vision?

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

Imagine two toilet paper tubes suspended a few inches in front of your eyes.  You can see below them pretty well, which is how most people view the instrument panel.  Leaning your head back a little will let you see outside.  Peripheral vision is not really affected.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Imagine two toilet paper tubes suspended a few inches in front of your eyes.  You can see below them pretty well, which is how most people view the instrument panel.  Leaning your head back a little will let you see outside.  Peripheral vision is not really affected.

If you have flown with NVGs you may be able to shed some light (heh) on whether those things suppress strobes (or any super bright light).  It occurs to me that the regional jet may have had strobes but, if the helo pilots were using NVGs, they may not have seen the strobes.

[Brian2034]

2 hours ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Way too many factors here.  Before you get into it, you have a few questions that should be answered.

1.  What Mission was the helicopter performing?

2.  What is their SOP for such flights?

3.  Were any/all three crewmembers wearing NVGs?

4.  What equipment did they have onboard?

5.  What was their experience in the area?

Then there are a few facts to make clear.

1.  NVGs are easy to see under while flying, not like the old ones that closed off your vision to only the screens. 

2.  The airplane received a change to land on 33.

3.  I used to fly from Fort Belvoir, but we were restricted to IFR only.  I am not sure what the rules are these days.

The bottom line is that one dumbshit said he had the aircraft in sight, and that he would pass behind it.  Instead, he ran into it.  You cannot simply pile on more rules that somehow fix 'pilot error'.

As soon as I heard the ATC audio of the helo saying he had visual??
At night in congested airspace on top of a major airport!!!

 

[PeteMc]

6 hours ago, GeeBee said:

 I see this often with a controller handling two runways with different frequencies.

What Airports use two frequencies for two Runways and one controller?  Is this also military & civilian, or do you mean something like 118.8 for the Left and 119.2 for the Right?  That is one airport I don't think I'd like to go into and not sure of the logic if they are only dealing with landing and departing aircraft.  When FRG got really busy on those summer afternoons right before sunset and EVERYONE was trying to get back to the Airport, they would often have an inner and and outer Controller.  Outer guy would stack them up and control the flow into the pattern.  Inner guy would then just deal with the "last mile" as it were. 

But it is extremely common on long XC flights or near MOAs.  Even if there are no military aircraft, often ATC will be using multiple transmitters.  So I'll hear the Controller, but never hear the other planes, be it military in the MOA next to me or civilian 200nm away. 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by PeteMc

[Pinecone]

There is a helicopter frequency.  UH-60 was on that.

The Route 4 helicopter route, in that area (from Wilson bridge to Memorial Bridge) is at or BELOW 200 feet.  Collision was at 300 - 400 feet.

Route 4 is over the eastern shore of river until north of DCA, but then stays near the eastern shore.

I have flown Route 4 in daylight with traffic to 33, they fly over you.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

If you have flown with NVGs you may be able to shed some light (heh) on whether those things suppress strobes (or any super bright light).  It occurs to me that the regional jet may have had strobes but, if the helo pilots were using NVGs, they may not have seen the strobes.

NVGs attenuate lights in the same way a camera does.  You still can see them, and you can differentiate brighter lights.

[Danb]

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

One thing they are saying in the media at least, we shall see what the real scoop is in time, is that there were two controllers in a tower that is meant to be staffed for four controllers.  That seems as if it is a huge contributing factor.

Erik I saw your baby at Weber’s yesterday but someone stole your power plant..

D 

[Igor_U]

3 hours ago, PeteMc said:

What Airports use two frequencies for two Runways and one controller?  Is this also military & civilian, or do you mean something like 118.8 for the Left and 119.2 for the Right? 

Pete, in my neck of woods, Paine field uses two frequencies for it's two runways (16R/34L=132.95 and 16L/34R= 120.2) and often using one controller when traffic is "light". BFI has the same, however I am not sure how often they use one controller nowadays. They certainly did in the past when I frequent the field. I think it's not that unusual on bigger airport.  

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, Igor_U said:

Pete, in my neck of woods, Paine field uses two frequencies for it's two runways (16R/34L=132.95 and 16L/34R= 120.2) and often using one controller when traffic is "light". BFI has the same, however I am not sure how often they use one controller nowadays. They certainly did in the past when I frequent the field. I think it's not that unusual on bigger airport.  

Interesting, haven't been to BFI in decades and almost went to PAE, but ended up at AWO a few years ago on a X-US trip.  

FRG seldom had a need for the Inter/Outer frequencies, just the occasional crunch on some summer evenings.  And I see that PAE has about 66,000 less Operations in 2024, so I still don't get the need.  But then I'm not the one up in the Cab.  Someday when/if I do fly into PAE, it will be interesting if it seems like they need both Controllers. 

[MikeOH]

I've heard the collision occurred above 300 feet.  The part I'm confused by is that an approach slope of 3 degrees would put the RJ at around 200' 1/2 mile from the threshold.  1/2 mile is nearly on the EAST side of the Potomac.  Is this some kind of 6 degree 'slam dunk' visual approach that would explain how the RJ was over 300 feet?

[redbaron1982]

51 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I've heard the collision occurred above 300 feet.  The part I'm confused by is that an approach slope of 3 degrees would put the RJ at around 200' 1/2 mile from the threshold.  1/2 mile is nearly on the EAST side of the Potomac.  Is this some kind of 6 degree 'slam dunk' visual approach that would explain how the RJ was over 300 feet?

Yep, this doesn't make sense to me either. The RNAV RWY 33 shows a 3 degree slope.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Danb said:

Erik I saw your baby at Weber’s yesterday but someone stole your power plant..

D 

Im having it replaced with a nuclear powered rocket engine so I can go 95% the speed of light.

I miss my bird...

Engine should come back - eventually - I had a thread on it but it will be a nice RAM engine now.

[MikeOH]

18 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Im having it replaced with a nuclear powered rocket engine so I can go 95% the speed of light.

LOL!

After 10 years, at 100 hours per year, you'll be 4 months younger than the rest of your family (unless they come along, too)