Originally Posted by DaFace:
And, likewise, you can't see below a jet very well either, so it's pretty likely that neither aircraft saw the other.
I'd be surprised if there was a true error on the ATC side, as it sounds like the flight rules in the area allow for visual separation. The ATC pointed out the heading of the CRJ, and the Black Hawk pilot confirmed that they had a visual on it. That very probably seems like a miscommunication and mistake on the pilot's part. All that said, I think it's a very valid question if the flight rules in the area should be reconsidered.
All that said, others have alluded to the "swiss cheese" metaphor, and it's very likely that it applies here. Some level of fault lies with:
-BH flying "dark" and, therefore, not visible on CRJ's equipment
-Short-staffed ATC having one person working multiple roles, which isn't unusual but might need to be considered due to the complexity of this airspace
-ATC not understanding that the BH couldn't actually have a visual on the CRJ (assuming that's true)
-Rules that allow helicopters to fly directly into the descent path at all
-Rules that allow for visual separation in the area
-Simple BH pilot error
Time will tell what they conclude in the investigation, but it sure seems like this is iffy enough that they should change how things operate in the area.
Probably a combination of those thigs listed which is almost always the case.
The staffing issue seems to be pretty glaring to me though. That's WHY the ATC exist, to keep this shit from happening. [Reply]
Rarely will the NTSB/FAA find that an accident was the result of just one mistake. It usually is a domino effect of several mistakes. They will usually find that one aircrew/group was mostly responsible. Until we have a lot more information, we're all just guessing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
And, likewise, you can't see below a jet very well either, so it's pretty likely that neither aircraft saw the other.
I'd be surprised if there was a true error on the ATC side, as it sounds like the flight rules in the area allow for visual separation. The ATC pointed out the heading of the CRJ, and the Black Hawk pilot confirmed that they had a visual on it. That very probably seems like a miscommunication and mistake on the pilot's part. All that said, I think it's a very valid question if the flight rules in the area should be reconsidered.
All that said, others have alluded to the "swiss cheese" metaphor, and it's very likely that it applies here. Some level of fault lies with:
-BH flying "dark" and, therefore, not visible on CRJ's equipment
-Short-staffed ATC having one person working multiple roles, which isn't unusual but might need to be considered due to the complexity of this airspace
-ATC not understanding that the BH couldn't actually have a visual on the CRJ (assuming that's true)
-Rules that allow helicopters to fly directly into the descent path at all
-Rules that allow for visual separation in the area
-Simple BH pilot error
Time will tell what they conclude in the investigation, but it sure seems like this is iffy enough that they should change how things operate in the area.
I don't think any of us here have anywhere near the expertise to definitively conclude anything about what they could or couldn't see. I just know that other incidents that outsiders would conclude should have been easily avoided are less so once they really look at the factors at play. It's obviously not the same situation, but an A350 collided with a coast guard plane on the runway in Japan a year ago. People have asked how it's possible that the A350 wouldn't have seen the coast guard plane sitting on the runway, which seems logical until they actually mocked up what it would look like to the pilots...
(Note the slight break in the centerline about halfway down the runway. That's what they estimate the coast guard plane looked like to the A350 pilots.)
This is why investigations are important. We can guess all we want, but until they carefully study everything that happened, we don't really know where the fault lies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I don't think any of us here have anywhere near the expertise to definitively conclude anything about what they could or couldn't see. I just know that other incidents that outsiders would conclude should have been easily avoided are less so once they really look at the factors at play. It's obviously not the same situation, but an A350 collided with a coast guard plane on the runway in Japan a year ago. People have asked how it's possible that the A350 wouldn't have seen the coast guard plane sitting on the runway, which seems logical until they actually mocked up what it would look like to the pilots...
(Note the slight break in the centerline about halfway down the runway. That's what they estimate the coast guard plane looked like to the A350 pilots.)
This is why investigations are important. We can guess all we want, but until they carefully study everything that happened, we don't really know where the fault lies.
I work about a quarter mile south of where this incident took place. These helicopters are always out and they're always following a flight path that hugs the eastern Potomac river bed. Yet based on the coordinates I can see they'd drifted off course while at the same time exceeded the 200 ft ceiling.
And the helicopter pilots were warned twice by the tower yet both times claimed they (Blackhawk pilot) were taking responsibility of the visual separation between themselves and the jet. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing these Air Traffic Controllers could have done. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I don't think any of us here have anywhere near the expertise to definitively conclude anything about what they could or couldn't see. I just know that other incidents that outsiders would conclude should have been easily avoided are less so once they really look at the factors at play. It's obviously not the same situation, but an A350 collided with a coast guard plane on the runway in Japan a year ago. People have asked how it's possible that the A350 wouldn't have seen the coast guard plane sitting on the runway, which seems logical until they actually mocked up what it would look like to the pilots...
(Note the slight break in the centerline about halfway down the runway. That's what they estimate the coast guard plane looked like to the A350 pilots.)
This is why investigations are important. We can guess all we want, but until they carefully study everything that happened, we don't really know where the fault lies.
Yah, that's pretty much what airfields look like at night. people like to think that everything's lit up, and the aircraft look like X-Mas trees or something, but that's just not what it looks like in reality. When you approach an airport at night, you typically are looking for the long-ish black/unlit rectangle amid a sea of lights. As you get within a few miles you can start to see the actual runway environment lighting, but from a dozen miles away it's just a black rectangle. Other aircraft, unless they're pointed at you, are fairly dark, because recog/nav/logo lighting just isn't very bright.
Also, at B-class airports, most commercial jets are flying the ILS, so the pilots aren't even looking out the windscreen; they're focused on the glideslope indicator until they're just a few hundred feet off the ground, while they're traveling 3-4 miles/minute.l [Reply]
