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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

[/quote]

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced. [/quote]

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. [b]The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. [/b]An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. [b]But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.[/b]

[b]Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“[/b]
[/quote]

Irrelevant.  Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers.  The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened.  But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason.  But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions[/quote]

But it may have been averted if there was regular ATC stafffing.  With regular ATC staffing, maybe the ATC would have been able to tell “get down! You’re about to collide!l in that 15 seconds.  Maybe it would have made a difference.  This is why you have redundancies — so when one person or system fails, ideally there is backup.  [/quote]

It's clear that poster either didn't read or can't comprehend the NYT article. [/quote]

DP. The article does indicate possible deficiencies of the ATC, whether due to short staffing and or inexperience. It does not lay responsibility only on the pilot, although pilot error was one factor. The article outlines multiple failures - pilot, ATC, tracking turned off on helicopter. Wrt pilot error - it’s pointed out that pilot thought they were flying at a lower altitude, co pilot did not point out that error. Also not understood is why pilot replied affirmative to turn left but did not.  The co pilot was her instructor. Yet it seemed as though there was hesitancy to correct her when she got the altitude wrong. I think more needs to be understood re their instructor/student relationship, which might have been awkward because she was of higher military rank than he.

But back to ATC.

ATC- why did they shift to 1 controller earlier than typical? 3:40 pm instead of 9:30 pm when traffic is lighter. 
And why didn’t ATC issue another urgent warning of the potential collision?

“Still, some regulators and controllers said that the controller in this case could have done more.

He could have told the Black Hawk crew where Flight 5342 was positioned and which way it was bound. (The F.A.A. manual instructions direct controllers to use the hours of a clock in describing locations.) He could have provided the jet’s distance from the helicopter in nautical miles or feet.

But one thing is critical. When two aircraft are on a collision course, the controller’s top priority must be to warn both sets of pilots.

“Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge,” F.A.A. regulations state.

That did not happen.“
[/quote]

ATC was operating at approved numbers.  There is nothing else to debate about that. And the ATC asked the helicopter if they saw the plane, told them what course to take, and helicopter confirmed.  I really don’t see how you can possibly blame ATC.  These were supposed to be the best trained war pilots.  [/quote]

Are you the spouse of the ATC? "Operating at approved numbers" out of desperation and sheer lack of employees is not the same as being sufficiently staffed. Lack of sufficient staffing has already been identified as one of the issues and will no doubt make it into the final report, no matter how many times you claim "there is nothing to debate." It may yet be determined that the specific ATC in question was not personally to blame due to insufficient staffing beyond his control, but that does not mean that insufficient staffing did not play a part.

I find it so strange that, in the interest of all of our safety, you do not want to understand ALL of the contributing factors. You clearly have a weird agenda. My agenda is simply "how can we make commercial air travel as safe as possible?" and to do that we need to know a lot more than just the first person we can blame. [/quote]

You are arguing nonsense.  The ATC followed protocol on their end.  Whether there was 1 or 2, doesn’t matter.  You know who didn’t follow multiple rules and protocols? The pilot[/quote]

Stay mad. We are just telling you what NTSB has already released. More to come next January in the final report. [/quote]

I’ve read the article.  No where does it say anything about a wrong decision ATC made.  Everything from the staffing, routes, and runways were approved and within the acceptable operating parameters.  The things they could have done differently are subjective: they could have picked a different runway configuration that had less margin of error, they could have been more forceful with the helicopter.  The helicopter and the pilots are the only piece of this puzzle that were objectively making wrong decisions and breaching rules and protocols. [/quote]

You should reflect on your motives. Because a full and complete understanding of this incident is clearly not one of them. [/quote]

I understand perfectly.  Clearly you do not[/quote]

Blaming the pilot and ignoring all other factors is not a complete understanding. It ignores all of the other risk factors still present even though that specific pilot is no longer flying. Without resolving those other risk factors, the airport is still at risk. [/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