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][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]

Disobeying the command from ATC to wait until the plane passed in front of them was probably the bigger failure.[/quote]

Ok. I stand corrected. Two major violations on the part of military helicopter.[/quote]

Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.

Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm.

[/quote]

[b]Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.[/b]

The staff did exactly what it was supposed to do, so reduced or not, that is not the problem. Red herring.

[b]Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm. [/b]

For future improved safety, good point. For this situation: red herring. ATC was on top of the situation and gave instructions to avoid collision. Helicopter confirmed.[/quote]

It's all part of the swiss cheese model. All the failures need to line up. [/quote]

So now ATC needs to assume the army pilots can look at their radar for their closest jets or at which runway is which? And describe everything in poetic detail? Teach the pilot you have model? All realtime- not trust the pilots to understand basic stuff like runway number, required altitude, active airport, middle of the river vs East bank?

No that’s not the Swiss Cheese model where every stakeholder is simultaneously failing.

This was helicopter pilot team not following altitude protocol and not double checking radars or two runway lines.

ATC did not fail

CRJ did not fail.

No thanks. Pilot DQ. Get a neuropsych. [/quote]

I've seen this "look at their radar" comment a few times, from someone who obviously has never sat in a cockpit. The pilot flying is looking OUTSIDE, not staring at their on-board radar scopes. This isn't flight simulator - the radar systems are not the same at ATC and while [b]yes there is a conflict alert this isn't something you can scan easily with might vision[/b]. Fault here will go to the helo pilot but this is absolutely swiss cheese - if ATC hadn't screwed up the incoming traffic he wouldn't have had to have anyone do a circling approach to 33 that always conflicts with Route 1.[/quote]

Not to mention, if the BH didn't ALSO have TCAS, the plane's TCAS wouldn't have picked it up. Both aircraft have to have it.[/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