Pilot Debrief.

[gstallons]

IDK if this is a 24hr route past the Airport or IFR route only . Watching one of the videos  it gives the altitude of each aircraft.

I am sure the ATC rules here are different than anywhere else . There is 1600 Penn. Ave. to contend with along w/everything else there . I am staying open about this for now. I am sure Occam's Razr will "hopefully" decide ,  for now it looks like the chopper made a right and elevated 100' up into the airliner .

 BTW , I cannot imagine working in a Control Tower under any condition .

[p6x]

52 minutes ago, Gmc28 said:

No TCAS below 1000’?  not sure where that comes from… it should work fine, just with different parameters.

What is missing is the part of the TCAS that automatically suggests a collision avoiding manœuver;

below 1000 feet, you only get the Traffic Advisory, but not the R.A. Resolution Advisory, which will give specific instructions to the pilot. Obvious that below 1000 feet, resolution can induce a collision with an obstacle rather than solving for the initial intrusion.

Edited January 31 by p6x

[Gmc28]

36 minutes ago, p6x said:

What is missing is the part of the TCAS that automatically suggests a collision avoiding manœuver;

below 1000 feet, you only get the Traffic Advisory, but not the R.A. Resolution Advisory, which will give specific instructions to the pilot. Obvious that below 1000 feet, resolution can induce a collision with an obstacle rather than solving for the initial intrusion.

ah yes, RA inhibited.  don’t think it would make a difference in this case, as a pilot will typically need to mentally process what the barking-betty is saying, which should be quick, but whether its a “traffic, traffic” call or a “climb, climb” RA, there would be a brief pause before the pilot initiated real action, and in this case probably too late.  And i’m not sure what the (simple) logic circuit would make of the path of the helo… 

[activpop]

I've flown that Hudson River corridor dozens of times. A lot of those trips were at twilight...the setting sun lit up the NY skyline beautifully.  I think the ceiling was 1000' in the corridor. I would loop around the lady, fly over the GW and return north to Ramapo. It was always an enjoyable trip for whoever was aboard, but it was full alert on my part because of traffic. Scan instruments and outside...my head was on a swivel. I would stay at 850' and never stray above 900 while in the corridor. Lots of traffic at times, fixed wing and rotor. 

It is hard to imagine a cockpit with three sets of eyes flying in a congested area wasn't able to put see and avoid as a priority. Even more, situational awareness needs to be paramount in TCA's. Maintaining required altitude is a must.  It reminds me of the Eastern  flight that flew into the everglades in FL.  Flight crew of 3 trying to troubleshoot a gear down problem while on Miami approach. They we so engrossed on the problem that the autopilot was shut off by mistake and the plane descended into the water. NTSB found the cause of the crash was a burned out gear indicator light and nobody flying the plane. The gear was down and locked. 

I'm not saying there was confusion in the cockpit for this incident, but the NTSB will scour all evidence and come up with the cause with all contributing factors. They usually do.

 

 

Edited January 31 by activpop

[Gmc28]

agreed.  and that's neat that you got the chance to do that VFR corridor flight a number of times.  I always felt guilty scooting along that route while slowed down to whatever the max speed that was allowed, in a lovely old, gas-guzzling, loud, 20 series Lear.  Felt like somehow I was going to get in trouble. 

its a reasonable assumption in my mind that in DC the rotor driver just did an "oops", and then things happened pretty quick and ended badly. 

[audiomick]

5 hours ago, p6x said:

Mick, I don't know in Germany,

Neither do I, actually, but I'm pretty sure that crossing paths like that wouldn't happen here.

 

Another thing, that ceiling has been bothering me. Turns out I remember correctly:

Quote

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority have regulations for how low aircraft can fly. These regulations require pilots fly no lower than 1,000 feet (ft) over built-up areas, or 500 feet over any other areas, unless they are landing or taking off.

That is for Australia.

https://aircraftnoise.airservicesaustralia.com/2020/04/30/what-are-the-rules-about-altitudes/

Another thing, during my time at Uni in the 1980's there was a move to build a helipad on top of this hospital.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24595717#map=17/-37.756605/145.058914

The idea had merit, as it is a major hospital in which accident victims with major injuries often end up being treated. Being able to land the helicopter on the roof would be very convenient. It wasn't allowed, because the hospital is in the middle of a built-up area.

In the end, the helicopters used the helipad next to a Victoria Police forensics lab next to my Uni. Here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27877532#map=17/-37.725189/145.055961

4.7 km down a straight street, so about 5 minutes for an ambulance with the disco on.

What I'm getting at: given the caution used in air traffic where I grew up, and where I live now, the situation around that accident seems to me to be sheer recklessness.

Edited January 31 by audiomick

[Lucky Phil]

It will be caused by Swiss cheese. It always is.

Phil

[p6x]

6 hours ago, Gmc28 said:

ah yes, RA inhibited.  don’t think it would make a difference in this case, as a pilot will typically need to mentally process what the barking-betty is saying, which should be quick, but whether its a “traffic, traffic” call or a “climb, climb” RA, there would be a brief pause before the pilot initiated real action, and in this case probably too late.  And i’m not sure what the (simple) logic circuit would make of the path of the helo… 

I have not been in a real conflict situation, but during my training, I have been instructed to follow orders immediately without any hesitation, as it may sometimes mean life or death. As walking through a mine field for example, when you have several people around you scanning.

I don't know what kind of training pilots get about RA, but if it was me, I would not try to second guess anything. If barking-Betty was to tell me to climb, I would climb right away.

[p6x]

5 hours ago, activpop said:

I'm not saying there was confusion in the cockpit for this incident, but the NTSB will scour all evidence and come up with the cause with all contributing factors. They usually do.

I am almost certain the CRJ-700 PIC never saw it coming. Most likely focused on runway 33 ahead of them.

Since they have recovered the CVR and FDR from the CRJ, we will eventually find out.

I don't know if the Black Hawk was equipped with a CVR or/and a FDR, but those will most likely be falling under military jurisdiction.

Interesting that in the fall out of that accident, many civil pilots have stated they always were concerned about the possibility of an air collision in this area.

But as we know, it takes one catastrophic accident before anything is done.

[Gmc28]

4 minutes ago, p6x said:

I have not been in a real conflict situation, but during my training, I have been instructed to follow orders immediately without any hesitation, as it may sometimes mean life or death. As walking through a mine field for example, when you have several people around you scanning.

I don't know what kind of training pilots get about RA, but if it was me, I would not try to second guess anything. If barking-Betty was to tell me to climb, I would climb right away.

you're not wrong.  but even if trained that way and fully "buying in", its takes several moments to snap out of your reverie of doing the same old thing and then reacting.  its true that we're trained that we must follow the directions of an RA, but that flies in contrast to the "calm down and deal with things with a cool head", as over-reaction has caused a good deal more pain and suffering than a slightly delayed reaction time to an issue, in most scenarios.  But not all scenarios. 

Even for an RA, which they didn't have (only TA, presumably), you'd normally have several seconds to react.  I'll say that my reaction to a TA is first to quickly look at the fish-finder (the screen that shows you where your nearby traffic is) to see whats going on.  We get TA's semi regularly, and the response is to check the fish finder to see whats up, then look outside for the real target/aircraft, and normally little or nothing needs to be done other than monitoring that other target.  I only very rarely get RA's, and a calm reaction to do what is being directed works fine.   Down low where a helo is coming up fast from underneath you... I think that'd be a helluva test, requiring astute technique and at least a little luck, and maybe a lot of luck.

[Gmc28]

there are lots of places where the thick air traffic is crazy, though there are surprisingly few issues, despite what i would have said was common sense that "this can't end well".  

We have the majority of our operations in Alaska, where the skill set needed there is one that requires a real change for pilots coming up from lower 48 (for the village flying, not so much the big airport flying), and not all the folks from down south can adapt.  on the other hand, when we have an alaskan pilot move south, its fun in many cases to watch those confident, skilled, experienced aviators suddenly have a look of shock when they first depart the LA basin in a jet, with so much traffic and ATC chatter... thats something they have to adapt to.  I moved from Anchorage to LA in the 90's, and that first month down there i'll admit I was properly humbled.  Then i got to enjoy watching my friends that I hired and moved down from Alaska all go through the same thing...."What, what are you looking at?" they'd say, as we're holding short for their first take off.  "oh, you'll see, mr. tough guy...".

[p6x]

@Gmc28

Again, during my training, one of the key was to avoid complacency at all costs, and to be on the look out at all times. Which we know is extremely difficult to achieve because human beings are unable to focus for long period of times. Hence, the reason why when you are on guard, there are frequent changes.

This is why our specific training was always different, and never predictable, so we could never start to be cosy and keeping on our toes at all times.

I believe that civil aviation has become a real snooze compared to what it used to be. There are too many aids that somehow diminish your ability to use the skills that you worked so hard to get during your training.

I will only give you an example: AF447...

Cruising altitude, auto-pilot, suddenly pitot tubes freeze, no more airspeed indication, auto-pilot exits, and none of the flight crew managed to recover, the FO was pulling on the stick, stalling the aircraft until they hit the water. Since then, AF has instigated scheduled training for pilots to manage situations which are very seldom encountered or never encountered.

Since you seem to be an aviator, tell me; is there any specific training for TCAS warnings in flight simulators? situations where you have minimum response time?

[p6x]

By popular demand:

 

Edited February 1 by p6x

[MartyNZ]

15 hours ago, p6x said:

What is missing is the part of the TCAS that automatically suggests a collision avoiding manœuver; below 1000 feet, you only get the Traffic Advisory, but not the R.A. Resolution Advisory, which will give specific instructions to the pilot. Obvious that below 1000 feet, resolution can induce a collision with an obstacle rather than solving for the initial intrusion.

Attached are some extracts from an A320 FCOM. Depending on hardware config and software version, the CRJ is likely to be similar. As the aircraft is on final approach, TCAS RAs are inhibited/downgraded to TAs if windshear alert, stall warning, GPWS alert, are given, or aircraft is below 1000ft. Experts have determined that ignoring windshear alert, stall warning, or GPWS alert are more likely to have a bad outcome, than downgrading a Resolution Advisory to a Traffic Advisory. 

Also, the flight crew don't need to be annoyed by RA alerts caused by aircraft landing on a parallel runway.

 

  

TAU = Time to intercept, the ratio between the distance that separates both aircraft, and the sum of their speed.

AGL = Above Ground Level.

 

GPWS = Ground Proximity Warning System.

Edited February 1 by MartyNZ

[p6x]

7 hours ago, MartyNZ said:

Also, the flight crew don't need to be annoyed by RA alerts caused by aircraft landing on a parallel runway.

Well, the EICAS is required on all planes (737-Max 8,9,10 excepted), which I think helps rather than complicates.

Being proposed solutions to a problem rather than relying on the pilot looking for them if there is not much time, should be a great help, and not a nuisance.

Sullenberger's instinctive reaction to start the APU immediately after he lost the two engines, could be proposed by the EICAS; maybe it is.

There are situations when you do not have the luxury to sort things out by yourself. In my humble professional career, I started logging using fully analogical equipment, trouble shooting problems relied solely on your training and experience and analytic virtues. Today, any deviation from nominal is reported by the tools themselves to the operator.

I remember logging hours of well profiles, only to find out after post-job calibration checks, that one of my tool was not working properly. Meaning lost time, and reruns. Having a warning system to detect malfunctions would have helped a lot.