Reply to Plane crash DCA?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Plane crash DCA?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.[/quote]

Runway 33 is perfect for regional jets.

200 seaters can’t use it.

Not a big deal. Usually.[/quote]

That's fine but that wasn't the original flight plan - the tower ATC had multiple landings spaced too closely and needed one of them to move from the pattern (landing on 1) to landing on 33. This is normal, but it shouldn't be normal - there should be enough ATC capacity so that the tower doesn't get behind the queue. Like everything else by itself it's fine, but it's another hole in the swiss cheese that led to this disaster. Just like having see and avoid. Just like night vision goggles. Just like conflicting traffic patterns. None of these on their own was the only cause. They all had to line up together and they did tonight. The public has no idea how close things have been.[/quote]

I strongly disagree with the "all had to line up together" argument. There is one issue that is one major violation of protocol that trumps everything: the altitude of the helicopter.

You can discuss that there should be a better procedure in place and many would agree with you. But here is one that was in place and was violated. Everything else is a contributing factor.[/quote]

A later poster brings up a great point - how often do helicopters violate the 200’ altitude rule in this situation? If the answer is “never”, then yes, I think we can consider it a major transgression. But we don’t know that answer yet. Perhaps, as the later poster said, there was an obstacle to avoid, like a flock of birds. Perhaps the 200’ feet rule was not adhered to all the time, much like most of us don’t adhere to the 55 mph rule on the highway.

The point is, there are too many factors at play to make a determination of blame. I assume you are not a Blackhawk pilot. Because even the Blackhawk pilots out there are saying to wait until we have all the evidence. I suggest we follow their advice. [/quote]

I’m sick of systems where we all have to make work arounds for the one guy or one group that just won’t follow the requirements.

That’s dysfunctional at home and at work.

ATC, commercial jet pilots, ground crew are not supposed to be constant stopgaps for military exercises that aren’t following the rules or even common sense. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics