Summary of the video: 24 hours before the fatal helicopter-American CRJ midair crash, a similar event was prevented by TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) because the plane was above 1000 feet altitude. It shuts off below that.
>The entire thing looks and sounds like an uncontrolled VFR airfield in the middle of summer. And yet it's supposed to be the absolute opposite
Having worked at one such establishment for several years I only witnessed one close call and it involved the state police helicopter doing what they wanted with no regard for other traffic.
I'm not sure why they allow helicopters to fly against the other traffic at that airport. You don't see passenger planes flying past each other like that. This practice was obviously a contributor to the recent collision. I'd expect a change to that in the near future.
Same reason taxiways cross runways at most airports. You've got vehicles that need to be on the other side of the approach/departure path, and the only way for that to happen is if the paths cross.
The airspace in the area is complex, so it's a challenge to provide useful helicopter routes while reducing potential conflict.
The airports I fly at (student rotary pilot) have all had the same traffic for rotary/fixed wing, but the FAA talks about [flying _opposite_ planes at a different altitude](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...) as a potential practice.
My understanding of why (and also why we're cleared _direct_ a lot of times) is that we move a lot slower than planes, and that ends up being dangerous in its own right in a pattern shared with planes!
But think of all of the dignitaries who would have to be driven around DC in traffic as opposed to being flown on helicopters to where they need to go!
These people see themselves as aristocrats. You don't expect them to travel with the commoners? They might have to see or even touch someone below them.
(Sometimes attributed to differently: “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.” ― Gustavo Petro)
It's probably time to close that airport. It's too small and very inconveniently (for safety and security) located, even though it's convenient for travelers.
Which is why it will not close. It's easier for Congress members, senior staff, etc. to use rather than the drive out to Dulles of BWI. It's convenient for powerful people.
It’s convenient for everyone. Normal, local people (including myself) tend to strongly prefer DCA when a route is available in/out rather than deal with Dulles or BWI.
What's extremely confusing to me (as a private pilot) is that traffic is almost always routed directly over an airport (midfield), to safely avoid departing and landing traffic. The sense that I get is that it became routine for traffic to be routed directly through the glidepath in a staggered manner, likely because it's military.
Such unsafe habits (like driving without a seatbelt on) statistically will eventually result in a tragic outcome.
Same, I live in San Diego where there are lots of military helicopters and activity in close proximity to SAN. I mostly see them go directly above the airport. I wonder what is different about DCA (maybe noise abatement?) why this isn't done.
DC has a staggering density of restricted airspace; Reagan National has unusually tight approach/departure requirements... so it doesn't surprise me that if this was going to happen somewhere, it would be there.
I wonder if the relatively high level of VIP / security choppers in the area has led to a level of complacency / normalisation of deviance over near misses for aviators and controllers. Sure, they occasionally trigger alarms, but everyone knows the routes, so the pilots always know where to look etc. so nothing bad actually happens…
The FAA only has direct authority over civilian flights. They can't unilaterally suspend military flight operations anywhere (like the military helicopter flight involved in the recent mishap), although in this case I assume the military will voluntarily go along with a request.
Seems like a bit of an overcorrection. They might want to re-think their criteria for allowing visual separation inside of class B. ATC already has discretion over when visual separation is applicable, and they could raise the visibility threshold for when it's allowed.
If they were at the same height on a collision course then to each other their lights would appear stationary on or near the horizon. Its possible there were some other lights that the helicopter pilot mistook as the plane. From the crash video it appears there was another plane taking off and it's possible the helicopter pilot thought this was the traffic they had to avoid. Strobe would be the only clue the lights belong to air traffic but would be hard for the helicopter pilot to see drowned out by the planes landing lights. Maybe they will fly a reenactment to find out what each pilot could see.
PS reportedly the helicopter crew were wearing night vision goggles that might restrict their peripheral vision or make it harder to distinguish really bright landing lights on the plane from normal bright lights.
The last new big airport in the US was opened in 1995 (Denver International Airport). Since then, the US gained 80 million inhabitants and people, on average, fly a lot more than before.
Would you say that there is a relative shortage of airports in the US´with regard to the aggregate (civilian and military) demand?
I wasn't able to fully understand the video but from prior knowledge TCAS requires both aircraft to communicate and give their pilots differing instructions (go up to one, go down to another) right? Do all army helicopters have TCAS and is it generally interoperable with commercial airliners?
Just an amateur av-nerd, but from what I gather the army helicopter would have had a compatible TCAS, but TCAS won't issue instructions (RA / Resolution Advisory) below 1000 ft. Unclear what happens when one aircraft is above 1000 and one is below, but video seems to imply that the plane got an RA to immediately climb and did so, while presumably the helicopter just got a Traffic advisory without any required instruction to follow.
Ah that's really good to know. Makes sense for it not to operate under 1000 ft since you clearly can't have a "Dive" RA for the lower aircraft. I assume maybe just the higher aircraft gets the "Climb" RA then by design.
The helicopter was following the route and at the right altitudes. It was ~700-800' below the jet, rules would be 500' separation I think. Jet was not being wrong being overly cautious as they probably didn't have a visual on it.
> 6.3.1.5 When an RA is issued, pilots are expected to respond immediately to the RA unless doing so would jeopardize the safe operation of the flight. This means that aircraft will at times manoeuvre contrary to ATC instructions or disregard ATC instructions.
reply