Eng-Tips is the largest forum for Engineering Professionals on the Internet.

Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of engineering information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations JStephen on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

AA jet and Military helicopter collide over Potomac 10

I have looked again at the conversation between the pilots, as shown a couple of posts above.

It does read as if there was a 100' error on the PF's altimeter, and that both pilots were now aware of that. But then the PF appears to have corrected for the defect. The PF now knew, and acted upon, the altimeter being 100' off. And then apparently immediately forgot, as the craft rose almost 200' while approaching the 200' flight level.


spsalso
 
I realize that the rules would have to be different in the vicinity of high traffic areas like airports but I think there are requirements that aircraft keep considerable distance of separation during normal flight (several miles horizontal and 1000's of feet vertical). It seems the normal traffic pattern here routinely allowed aircraft to come within a couple of hundred feet of each other, which is not very far when transiting at speed. It really leaves no margin for error. I can't imagine the mental workload of flying at night, wearing night vision, with an instructor watching and talking to the tower, and trying to compensate for faulty instruments. Add traffic congestion and it just amplifies that exponentially. Flying the designated route of the Blackhawk in those conditions seems like it should have been restricted to experienced and fully qualified pilots. I'm not trying to impugn the PF, I'm pointing out how difficult that training scenario could be. Maybe I missed something and that the PF was fully qualified and only on a check ride, but I think it was a training flight.
 
Problem is Army rotates pilots and officiers every 2-3 years, so constant changeover and no consistent corporate knowledge.

Med-I-Vac manager mentioned this, and fact that he had lots of folks with over 20 years flying those routes, and he sees the lack of old and wise data base with Army on these very difficult routes
 
thebard3 said:
I realize that the rules would have to be different in the vicinity of high traffic areas like airports but I think there are requirements that aircraft keep considerable distance of separation during normal flight (several miles horizontal and 1000's of feet vertical). It seems the normal traffic pattern here routinely allowed aircraft to come within a couple of hundred feet of each other, which is not very far when transiting at speed. It really leaves no margin for error. I can't imagine the mental workload of flying at night, wearing night vision, with an instructor watching and talking to the tower, and trying to compensate for faulty instruments. Add traffic congestion and it just amplifies that exponentially. Flying the designated route of the Blackhawk in those conditions seems like it should have been restricted to experienced and fully qualified pilots. I'm not trying to impugn the PF, I'm pointing out how difficult that training scenario could be. Maybe I missed something and that the PF was fully qualified and only on a check ride, but I think it was a training flight.
Click to expand...
Standard minimum separation is 3 miles/ 5km horizontal and 1,000ft vertical.

On the approach into the rarely used runway 33 it would have been less than 75 ft IF the helicopter was at 200 ft max.

This was an wholly avoidable loss of life and was simply waiting to happen. The individual controller may get fired or even prosecuted, but really its the system that was at fault for not responding to what seems like a whole heap (like hundreds) of near misses.
 
"The individual controller may get fired or even prosecuted..."

Well, as the only person involved who's not dead, that would be the candidate. I'm not sure what the guy did wrong, though.

It's my understanding that this was a helicopter frequently used for transporting very IMPORTANT people. I wonder what happens when a controller holds up one of those events. Perhaps they're commended for being safety conscious.


spsalso
 
Your forgetting the placement of the petot static ports to measure alt.

Fixed wing will be 5 degs nose pitch up with it's just under the pilots windows.

Zero clue about the blackhawk position.
 
"Perhaps they're commended for being safety conscious"........... Haha..... Typically NOT the kind of attention you want from 'So Called' VIPs ..........
 
Uk army helicopter transport Mrs Thatcher prime minister in the back with Prince Philip.

Starting Engines the aircraft commander is outside watching for fire on hot start.

He jumps back in and doesn't spot the knee pad with "pax plugged in!!!!!" Which means they are on headsets and can hear the front.

AC plugs in and announces "some feckers farted!"

Female voice from the back...... "it wasn't me!"

To note Mrs Thatcher was a chemical Engineer fully qualified and industry experienced.
 
I'm not saying the controller is the only person at fault by s long way, but ultimately that person is responsible for not allowing two aircraft to run into each other.

Only that person could see the position of both aircraft on a single screen.

Still not sure if there was an automated collision warning, but if there was then not doing something about it other than a "can you see the plane" is not good.

The very rapid approval of night VFR looks almost performative.

If that helicopter was actually carrying some high value person then letting them die is rather counter productive.
 
Prince Philip was a qualified Naval pilot. And by all accounts he was a god as a pilot and ships captain.

He designed and policed the helicopter routes along the thames until into the 90's.

He did apparently tell a pilot in-slightly suspect weather that if he got scared he was going to order his SAS security to brake his legs.... the dude just looked at the pilot and said remember i am onboard as well...

Young pilot officer smiled and said in that case gentleman shall we retired to the scruffs bar? He made air vice Marshall at the end of his career with multiple visits to the scruffs bar and crewing various cowes boats with Philip.
 
www.theguardian.com

RAF air traffic controller cleared of pilots' deaths

There were calls for an inquiry yesterday after the longest running court martial in RAF history acquitted an air traffic controller of causing the deaths of two US fighter pilots.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

This was hot when i started my career. It changed a-lot of case law in Scotland and also removed a lot of us air force training until gulf war 1. They went to Wales instead.

I believe Malcolm couldn't at the time travel to any USA legally friendly country because he would have been sued and arrested. Last time i met him was 2010 and he said he didn't expect it to change. The court cases both military and civil in the uk were nit recognised in the usa.
 
"I'm not saying the controller is the only person at fault by s long way, but ultimately that person is responsible for not allowing two aircraft to run into each other."

I think it's the pilot(s). Ultimately.

And when a pilot says "No, thanks. I can handle it myself.".......

Way back in this topic, I said there should be a toggle switch in front of the controller. It allows either the helicopter or the plane to occupy the space. It CANNOT allow both. It should'a been there.
 
Its always the pic responsibility.

Its international law and dates back to maritime law.

They are called air traffic service. They are there to provide a service to the aviators. They are not control. To not comply is extremely rare but does happen.

I have played the joker twice in the last 24 years and 13000 hours both times with mil controllers taking the piss.
 
"If that helicopter was actually carrying some high value person then letting them die is rather counter productive."

There are some high value persons that are so IMPORTANT that the universe wouldn't DARE cause them the inconvenience. Not naming names, mind you.


spsalso
 
I agree with littleinch, ATC has prime responsibility on this one. But was it unfair that management stuck him with doing the job normally done by two people.

You risk losing your job if you do not accept both assignments, and some would have been strong enough to have refused to do both jobs. But a marginal employee that was worried about losing their job due to poor performance, might just attempt to do the dual roles.

So lots of times employees are forced to do things they don't sgree with, then become the fall guy when 💩 hits the fan.

Bottom line is ATC failed as bad as u can fail performing assigned duties.
 
Last edited:
Personally I refuse visual runway changes.

Did so last week in Germany.

What's you diversion airfield?

Here, I suggest you rethink your plan before I declare... Continue approach contact tower...
 
"The hearing featured testimony about a high number of takeoffs and landings at the airport, combined with heavy helicopter traffic, that led to air traffic controllers “pushing the line” on safety, in the words of a tower manager."

"The tactics included frequent use of “visual separation” allowing helicopter crews to use their own judgment and skills to avoid other traffic, as well as the use of runway 33, which is shorter and requires jets arriving from the south to leave the usual flight path and travel further east."

“Should the local controller have let the PSA crew know there was a helicopter there?” Homendy asked at the hearing Thursday.

Nick Fuller, the acting No. 2 ranking official in the FAA’s air traffic control branch, answered in the affirmative. Fuller said the controller should have told the airliner’s crew that the helicopter was using visual separation and that “the targets were likely to merge.”

The picture that emerged from documents and a second day of NTSB hearings was of an airport that was being pushed to its limit on a daily basis, with controllers stretched thin and trying to safely separate a demanding mix of airline and helicopter traffic."



 
ATC might have responsibility to direct traffic, but can't do too much to prevent someone from running a red light.
 
Here's a retired controller (starting at 1:23):




that says (I believe) that the work load at the time of the crash was not high. He also says the primary fault lies with the pilots of the helicopter. He also says the existing equipment is adequate. And he also says controllers need more training.


spsalso
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LittleInch
  • Question Question
Helicopter crash Hudson River
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
32K
waross
waross
pegarrett
  • Question Question
Semi Hauling Excavator Hits Bridge over I-10 in New Mexico
2 3
Replies
53
Views
16K
FacEngrPE
FacEngrPE
LittleInch
  • Question Question
Spain and Portugal power grid collapse
2 3
Replies
49
Views
17K
lyrawinslow
L
SSCon
  • Question Question
Spain and Portugal power grid collapse | Report Released
2
Replies
30
Views
22K
FacEngrPE
FacEngrPE
Murph 9000
  • Locked
  • News News
Residents evacuated in Nashville, Illinois after dam overtops and floods amid heavy rainfall
Replies
2
Views
900
FacEngrPE
FacEngrPE

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top