Avoid DCA for my regular commute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

The root cause was the understaffed control tower, not the runway configuration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

The root cause was the understaffed control tower, not the runway configuration.

Controller staffing did not cause the accident. The helicopter was flying in the wrong place, too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

The root cause was the understaffed control tower, not the runway configuration.

No. That may have been a contributing factor, but the primary factor was the location of runway 33 and the helicopter route and the helicopter being at the wrong altitude. Had the doomed plane simply landed on the main runway as they were originally supposed to (before being rerouted to runway 33) they would not have crossed paths with the helo route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

Not true in any way. Regular narrow bodies can land on 15/33 as long as it's dry. Not optimal, but they can do it.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586405

The crash in January, from is known so far, had everything to do with the helicopter traffic near the airport, not the runway configuration.

Sort of. Had they stayed lined up for the main runaway as they were originally (before they were asked to move to 33) they would not have encountered the helo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

Not true in any way. Regular narrow bodies can land on 15/33 as long as it's dry. Not optimal, but they can do it.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586405

The crash in January, from is known so far, had everything to do with the helicopter traffic near the airport, not the runway configuration.

Sort of. Had they stayed lined up for the main runaway as they were originally (before they were asked to move to 33) they would not have encountered the helo.

.
You have a lot of specific opinions on DCA operations for someone who didn't know that 737/A320s periodically use 15/33.

[Anonymous]

No. I hate Dulles. It takes so much longer with that stupid bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

Not true in any way. Regular narrow bodies can land on 15/33 as long as it's dry. Not optimal, but they can do it.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586405

The crash in January, from is known so far, had everything to do with the helicopter traffic near the airport, not the runway configuration.

Sort of. Had they stayed lined up for the main runaway as they were originally (before they were asked to move to 33) they would not have encountered the helo.

.
You have a lot of specific opinions on DCA operations for someone who didn't know that 737/A320s periodically use 15/33.

I have watched/read an insane amount of information on the crash. The doomed flight was originally inbound for the main runway. Had they simply landed there, instead of being asked to move to runway 33, it wouldn't have happened. The flight immediately before them was asked to take 33 and the pilot declined, which is allowed. This is not my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

Not true in any way. Regular narrow bodies can land on 15/33 as long as it's dry. Not optimal, but they can do it.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586405

The crash in January, from is known so far, had everything to do with the helicopter traffic near the airport, not the runway configuration.

Sort of. Had they stayed lined up for the main runaway as they were originally (before they were asked to move to 33) they would not have encountered the helo.

.
You have a lot of specific opinions on DCA operations for someone who didn't know that 737/A320s periodically use 15/33.

I have watched/read an insane amount of information on the crash. The doomed flight was originally inbound for the main runway. Had they simply landed there, instead of being asked to move to runway 33, it wouldn't have happened. The flight immediately before them was asked to take 33 and the pilot declined, which is allowed. This is not my opinion.

You may want step back and read more broadly about these sorts of events. It's an understandable thing to do, but assigning so much blame to one specific thing is not usually the right way to look at it. One common way to think about it is what they call "Swiss cheese theory". These systems all have failure points, like holes in swiss cheese. Usually one failure point in one system will get stopped by the body of the piece of cheese below it. Maybe once a couple of holes will lineup, but not in the 3rd piece.

And then, horribly, say 5 slices all line up where the failure points are together, and an accident like this happens. There have been people asking for the helo routes around DCA to be limited for decades. They warned about the pressure it put on the system because it induced so many more potential places where the holes might line up. It finally did, sadly. The operation of 15/33 probably was a part of that happening, of course. But no one has been clamoring for that runway to be shutdown in nearly the same way.

If I were you I would wait until the final report is issued before jumping too far in your conclusions. There is often very important info that is discovered later during the process.

This is a great example article- Langwiesche has been writing about aviation for 30+ years.

https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2014/10/the-human-factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just avoid regional jets. Normal jets can’t land on runway 33 anyway, and that runway is the issue. DCA is so much quicker in and out.

Not true in any way. Regular narrow bodies can land on 15/33 as long as it's dry. Not optimal, but they can do it.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586405

The crash in January, from is known so far, had everything to do with the helicopter traffic near the airport, not the runway configuration.

Sort of. Had they stayed lined up for the main runaway as they were originally (before they were asked to move to 33) they would not have encountered the helo.

.
You have a lot of specific opinions on DCA operations for someone who didn't know that 737/A320s periodically use 15/33.

I have watched/read an insane amount of information on the crash. The doomed flight was originally inbound for the main runway. Had they simply landed there, instead of being asked to move to runway 33, it wouldn't have happened. The flight immediately before them was asked to take 33 and the pilot declined, which is allowed. This is not my opinion.

You may want step back and read more broadly about these sorts of events. It's an understandable thing to do, but assigning so much blame to one specific thing is not usually the right way to look at it. One common way to think about it is what they call "Swiss cheese theory". These systems all have failure points, like holes in swiss cheese. Usually one failure point in one system will get stopped by the body of the piece of cheese below it. Maybe once a couple of holes will lineup, but not in the 3rd piece.

And then, horribly, say 5 slices all line up where the failure points are together, and an accident like this happens. There have been people asking for the helo routes around DCA to be limited for decades. They warned about the pressure it put on the system because it induced so many more potential places where the holes might line up. It finally did, sadly. The operation of 15/33 probably was a part of that happening, of course. But no one has been clamoring for that runway to be shutdown in nearly the same way.

If I were you I would wait until the final report is issued before jumping too far in your conclusions. There is often very important info that is discovered later during the process.

This is a great example article- Langwiesche has been writing about aviation for 30+ years.

https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2014/10/the-human-factor

This thread is about flying out of DCA (or not.)

[Anonymous]

Acela all the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take the train

+1 I’m confused why flying would be easier than the train.

[Anonymous]

All this talk of more air traffic controllers and runway 33…do either of these explains all the other near misses at DCA? Including the Delta flight that came dangerously close to the Arlington cemetery flyover and the two American planes that clipped each other’s wings (these being the most recent near misses of many). I thought the issue was general over capacity at DCA. Too many planes coming in and out in general. I’m not sure more air traffic controllers, while helpful, fully solves the problem. And we’re all the issues related to runway 33?

[Anonymous]

I don't mind flying out of DCA. But I did this trip several times a week for years and I hate Amtrak, just take the train. It will save you more time and times than it will burn you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take the train

+1 I’m confused why flying would be easier than the train.

I take the train if I have time and it’s near where I am going. Tomorrow I’m taking the train because my meeting is at Hudson Yards. But if I have a meeting before 10 am I fly because it’s faster, even factoring in airport time. Also the Acela is often more expensive than flying.

[Anonymous]

Acela- More comfortable. Easier. Nicer. Safer. Better for the planet.