quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
This seems odd and Haven't seen it mentioned here.

quote:

Female Pilot Rebecca Lobach’s Entire Social Media Scrubbed before Army Released Her Name – So What Are They Hiding?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...d-her-entire-social/

Maybe the family didn't want a bunch of internet ghouls nitpicking every little damn thing she posted. Doesn't seem odd to me in the least. In fact, their instincts were probably 100% correct in that regard.

I do agree the controller was overly busy at the time, the one thing that irks me about the incident is that the RJ crew was never given traffic information about the helo. If they were paying close attention they could hear the controller talking to the helo, but the helo was on a different frequency so they would’ve only heard one side of the conversation. Now as it turns out they did get a TCAS traffic alert shortly before the collision, but it was only an advisory and so wouldn’t have warranted evasive action. Just a horrible deal all around.[/QUOTE]


This is my only real criticism for ATC, they could have mentioned helicopter traffic, 2 oclcock has you in sight and will pass behind. This would have given the RJ crew a chance to look that direction and maybe pick up the impending collision. Other than that, the helo crew asked for and was given visual separation, this relieves ATC of their responsibility. Of course if they had time, they could have continued to monitor the VFR helo, but the crew relieved them of that role. Of course it they were at the right altitude, it would been a moot point.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
Of course it they were at the right altitude, it would been a moot point.

This right here. Over and over.

Senator Kennedy - Time for some new conspiracy theories - the old ones are coming true.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
I do agree the controller was overly busy at the time, the one thing that irks me about the incident is that the RJ crew was never given traffic information about the helo. If they were paying close attention they could hear the controller talking to the helo, but the helo was on a different frequency so they would’ve only heard one side of the conversation. Now as it turns out they did get a TCAS traffic alert shortly before the collision, but it was only an advisory and so wouldn’t have warranted evasive action. Just a horrible deal all around.

This is my only real criticism for ATC, they could have mentioned helicopter traffic, 2 oclcock has you in sight and will pass behind. This would have given the RJ crew a chance to look that direction and maybe pick up the impending collision. Other than that, the helo crew asked for and was given visual separation, this relieves ATC of their responsibility. Of course if they had time, they could have continued to monitor the VFR helo, but the crew relieved them of that role. Of course it they were at the right altitude, it would been a moot point.[/QUOTE]

Busy is arbitrary. I don’t know this controller, their background, years of experience, years of experience at DCA, etc. Where I work, the experience ranges from last month certified to 24 years. Levels of traffic tolerance vary controller to controller. Telling Bluestreak about the helicopter more than likely would have helped the total situational awareness for all involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

quote:

Originally posted by mo4040:
If you have seen the radar replay (FALCON), you will see that prior to impact, the 'CONFLICT ALERT' alarm activates (flashing 'CA' with each aircraft's data tag and an audible alarm). There was warning to the impending impact. Again, having worked in the DC metro, there is a lot going on. The controller was overloaded (and the FAA will have to answer for that), but, the 'Prime Directive' of ATC is to Ensure Separation. If the controller was getting too busy, he should have denied the helo entry into the airspace. Yes, this is clearly monday morning quarterbacking, but it is fact. PAT was a VFR helo, low on the priority list of requiring ATC services. The problem is that controllers, by their very nature, try to provide as much service as they can; sometimes exceeding their ability to do so safely. 99.9% of the time, nothing happens. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times.

The helo pilot fucked up, and paid the ultimate price. However, the controller does have a part in this. It pains me to say it, but, IMHO, it is true.

The "silver lining' in this might be a cold, hard look at operations/capacity at DCA. Staffing levels in the FAA, and everything else under the sun.

It has been long said that the FAA is, to paraphrase, a 'coffin agency.' Nothing drastic changes until someone dies.

Conflict Alert doesn’t mean a collision is imminent, it just means the targets are within a prescribed parameter (I’m not ATC so can’t for sure say what that is). You can hear alerts during radio transmissions all the time in busy airspace. Once the helicopter reported the RJ in sight and was given visual separation by the tower controller they assumed responsibility for collision avoidance.

I do agree the controller was overly busy at the time, the one thing that irks me about the incident is that the RJ crew was never given traffic information about the helo. If they were paying close attention they could hear the controller talking to the helo, but the helo was on a different frequency so they would’ve only heard one side of the conversation. Now as it turns out they did get a TCAS traffic alert shortly before the collision, but it was only an advisory and so wouldn’t have warranted evasive action. Just a horrible deal all around.

As an ATC specialist, your primary duty is the separation of air traffic, period. When the conflict alert sounds/indicates, you are supposed to look and see what is the issue. Yes, it goes off a lot in the cab, but, that still does not mean that it is supposed to be ignored. Take the DCA incident as an example:

I am working local and the RJ is cleared to land. PAT calls, is given the RJ traffic (and the RJ is given the helo traffic...something the controller did not do.) PAT sez he will maintain visual separation. All well and good. If the RJ does not call the helo in sight, I will issue traffic until he sez he does. Yes, time consuming, especially when busy, but, we know the outcome if you don't. Anyway, when the conflict alert goes off, I will task PAT as to whether or not he has the correct traffic in sight and if necessary, I'll issue instructions to ensure the conflict is resolved. To be fair, that guy at DCA sounded young, and therefore does not have the breadth of experience that old heads like me had (I am now retired). Also, as others have said, he was busy, very busy. However, that does not absolve him from his primary responsibilities.

Things have changed in the FAA from when I first started. Back then, if you had a loss of separation, you had to endure an 'Operational Error Review Board.' Think of the movie 'Sully' and that is what it was like. Every little detail, from 10minutes before the error, til 5 minutes after is put under the microscope and you are beaten over the head about every little thing you did wrong. While it was a nasty thing to have to endure, it did clearly illustrate every mistake you made leading up to the loss of separation. You did learn a lot from it and once you've been thru one, you made damn sure to try to never have to deal with that again. Today, if you have a loss of separation, you go sit in front of a computer and file a report and that pretty much is it (it is the ATC version of ASAP). For the old tiers, memories of dealing with review boards kept one on their toes. Additionally, back in the day, if you had more than two losses of separation in a 30 month period, you could be summarily fired, no ifs ands or buts. Again, I am not here to beat up on the controller, however, it was his responsibility to separate the aircraft in his airspace. Yes, the Helo pilot said he was going to maintain visual sep, but, at the end of the day, it is the controllers responsibility. For example if a controller issues a clearance, and the pilot reads it back incorrectly AND the controller fails to catch it and correct it, then any loss of separation is on the controller, not the pilot. I have listened to countless tapes where clearances were issued clearly, with correct phraseology, at the correct cadence, etc and still it was read back wrong.

At the end of the day, the pilot has the front row seat to any problems, but the buck stops at the controller. He is going to buy some of the blame.

At this time, all I wish for him is peace and for him to forgive himself for what has happened. It could have been any of us.

quote:

To be fair, that guy at DCA sounded young, and therefore does not have the breadth of experience that old heads like me had (I am now retired). Also, as others have said, he was busy, very busy.

How are you going to make assumptions about someone’s age because you heard them once on a recording? He was busy because other people who don’t know anything about him or his experience said he was busy?

When the conflict alert goes off and I know the traffic has the other in sight and I’ve issued a control instruction for them to pass behind the traffic, what else would you like me to do? Yes the controller should have issued traffic to Bluestreak about the PAT and informed Bluestreak that PAT had him in sight. Am I not to believe any pilot from now on when they tell me they have the traffic in sight? I take it you never worked a VFR tower where everything is basically visual sep. When working, how many times did you ever ask a pilot if they had the traffic after they already said they had the traffic twice? PAT didn’t follow the east side of the river at 200ft. If you look at their ground track, they turned towards the middle of the river. You know the radar lags behind what exactly is going on. Yes, the controller is always going to buy a little responsibility because that’s the nature of the job but ultimately PAT was responsible because they were maintaining visual separation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:

When the conflict alert goes off and I know the traffic has the other in sight and I’ve issued a control instruction for them to pass behind the traffic, what else would you like me to do?

So, if a conflict is clearly not being resolved, and there are only seconds to a possible collision, you're saying the attitude of the controller is, "well, there's nothing else I can do" and just watch the two targets come together? He has no other responsibility at that point? "Sorry RJ and PAT, you're on your own. PAT says he owns it."

That just seems wrong.

quote:

what else would you like me to do?

Honest question. Is instructing the CRJ to abort the landing and immediately climb not an option? It seems to me, when things are getting that tight and uncertain, best to be better safe than sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:

When the conflict alert goes off and I know the traffic has the other in sight and I’ve issued a control instruction for them to pass behind the traffic, what else would you like me to do?

So, if a conflict is clearly not being resolved, and there are only seconds to a possible collision, you're saying the attitude of the controller is, "well, there's nothing else I can do" and just watch the two targets come together? He has no other responsibility at that point? "Sorry RJ and PAT, you're on your own. PAT says he owns it."

That just seems wrong.

No, what I’m saying is that the conflict alert will go off regardless if they are separated or not. Hypothetically at DCA, the controller called the traffic to PAT. PAT reports the correct traffic in sight. The controller informs Bluestreak of the traffic and that the PAT has them in sight and will maintain visual sep. as they get closer, the controller confirms PAT does indeed have the traffic in sight and updates Bluestreak. PAT says they will go behind Bluestreak, the conflict alert will still go off, even if everything is separated. The computer doesn’t know that the controller did their job and everyone is separated.

If you are relying on conflict alert to separate your traffic, you’re too late. The controller at DCA trusted the PAT pilot that they had the traffic in sight and would maintain visual separation. When it got closer, the controller issued a control instruction to pass behind but the helicopter turned into the RJ. At some point we have to trust the pilot or else no one flys.

Why is this so hard for people to come terms with the pilot made a mistake?

Not a single person here has said that the BH pilot didn't make a mistake, or wasn't the primary person at fault.

What is so hard for me to understand is how the controller can watch the two contacts on his screen continue to merge and not take immediate, DIRECT action to try to avoid a collision when it was clear that the pilot was not following through with his commands. And I don't see how some here think that the actions, or more specifically lack of actions, by the ATC controller wasn't a significant factor in the ultimate tragedy that unfolded.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Not a single person here has said that the BH pilot didn't make a mistake, or wasn't the primary person at fault.

What is so hard for me to understand is how the controller can watch the two contacts on his screen continue to merge and not take immediate, DIRECT action to try to avoid a collision when it was clear that the pilot was not following through with his commands. And I don't see how some here think that the actions, or more specifically lack of actions, by the ATC controller wasn't a significant factor in the ultimate tragedy that unfolded.

I’m getting that because you don’t know anything about the job. When a pilot says they see the traffic and will maintain visual separation from that traffic, you have to trust that they have that traffic and will maintain visual separation from that traffic. The PAT pilot was doing everything right until he wasn’t and that’s the controllers fault? We can’t fly the planes for them. I had a pilot depart the wrong way even with me yelling “STOP!! YOU’RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!! CANCEL TAKEOFF!!! STOP!!!” He continued and after he got airborne, he casually said “oh I see what I did wrong”. I wanted to beat the piss out of him but I had to fix the situation for the pilots who were doing the right thing. I’ve told a helicopter pilot to make a left downwind departure, they went right and over my runways with traffic. As much as I told them they needed to go left and north but again, I can’t fly the aircraft for them. We are controllers, not magicians.

Ive been on my local safety council, professional standards, pilot outreach and have trained countless new controllers. I’ve been a pilot since I was 13. Believe that I have more invested in this than some random guy on a gun forum who’s never done the job. I may have a differing opinion than the other controllers on this forum but I can respect their opinion because they’ve done the job.

Balzé, if I saw you trying to cross a street and I saw a car coming and asked “hey, do you see that car coming?” And you responded “yes and I’ll go behind them”. As the car gets closer I ask again “hey do you still have that car in sight?” and you say “yes and I’ll keep myself separated from them”. As the car gets even closer, I wonder if you really do see the car and tell you to go behind it. You say ok, then walk right in front of it and get hit. That’s somehow my fault?

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:
I’m getting that because you don’t know anything about the job.

Yes, I'm not an air traffic controller, but another member here does know the job and appears to disagree with what you're saying.

quote:

The PAT pilot was doing everything right until he wasn’t

Oh, was she? Well, it seems to me she wasn't and for enough time before the accident that the controller noticed and made note more than once.

I'll reiterate what I said previously. Though a majority of the blame will be assigned to the Blackhawk crew, I believe the NTSB report will also have a lot to say about how the controller handled this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:
Balzé, if I saw you trying to cross a street and I saw a car coming and asked “hey, do you see that car coming?” And you responded “yes and I’ll go behind them”. As the car gets closer I ask again “hey do you still have that car in sight?” and you say “yes and I’ll keep myself separated from them”. As the car gets even closer, I wonder if you really do see the car and tell you to go behind it. You say ok, then walk right in front of it and get hit. That’s somehow my fault?

Aren't you also in communication with the car? If you suddenly have doubt that I really do see the car as i say, don't you think it'd be a good idea to err on the side of caution (after all, a life is on the line) and tell the car to STOP?

Man

Take a break

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:

quote:

To be fair, that guy at DCA sounded young, and therefore does not have the breadth of experience that old heads like me had (I am now retired). Also, as others have said, he was busy, very busy.

How are you going to make assumptions about someone’s age because you heard them once on a recording? He was busy because other people who don’t know anything about him or his experience said he was busy?

When the conflict alert goes off and I know the traffic has the other in sight and I’ve issued a control instruction for them to pass behind the traffic, what else would you like me to do? Yes the controller should have issued traffic to Bluestreak about the PAT and informed Bluestreak that PAT had him in sight. Am I not to believe any pilot from now on when they tell me they have the traffic in sight? I take it you never worked a VFR tower where everything is basically visual sep. When working, how many times did you ever ask a pilot if they had the traffic after they already said they had the traffic twice? PAT didn’t follow the east side of the river at 200ft. If you look at their ground track, they turned towards the middle of the river. You know the radar lags behind what exactly is going on. Yes, the controller is always going to buy a little responsibility because that’s the nature of the job but ultimately PAT was responsible because they were maintaining visual separation.

Phantom...You say you are a controller. Ok fine. The thing is, the FAA I was hired into (the 80's) is somewhat different than the FAA today. I spent nearly 33 years in ATC, 24 of them in the DC metro. I know from the voice the dude is young -- > I personally know folks on that tape. As to the pilot saying he has the traffic in sight, I have had several situations where the pilot had the traffic in sight, but, it was the wrong aircraft. Thus, in spite of their statement of having the traffic, I still have to ensure separation. I dont want to argue, but, this point seems to be lost on you. The prime directive in ATC is to ENSURE separation. Yes, the helo pilot made the critical error, however, the controller must monitor and advise. If necessary, take steps to correct. Guys would tell me they are established on the localizer, however, their radar track indicates otherwise. You query them again and they insist they are on the loc. Lo and behold, they breakout way off course. Trust, but verify.

It is not fair, but, again as I indicated earlier, unless completely exonerated, the controller will get some of the blame. It is the nature of the business. As controllers, we hated the fact that the FAA "wanted us in the cockpit." Meaning that if we missed incorrect readbacks on perfectly issued clearances, it was on us. It chapped our hides, but, "that's what we pay you the big bucks for" was the oft heard refrain when I went thru the screen at MMAC. Deal with it, or, choose another career. That's the bottom line. The PAT pilot messed up, but, the controller did not catch it. He is going to buy part of this deal.

There is a difference between deep analysis with the intent of finding a better way to deal with the reality after understanding how shit went wrong (and how good, reasonable people) missed the cues.

And the Monday morning Quarterbacking, where people try and beat any and everyone down, in order to feel superior to everyone else with either true knowledge and experience, or even those that might have insight based on the ability to understand the dynamics.

Life is tough, get a fucking helmet.

How many drive on the road every day, and trust that every other person is seeing and avoiding you?

Think about the shear ratio.

Then apply that to a 3D space, moving at 4-5 times the speed of closure. Think about it hard and long.

It's not as simple as it looks from the recliner...

New footage from CNN really makes the casual observer wonder how a helicopter could plow right into a landing airliner.

I have a question, may be stupid. Don’t airplanes and military helicopters have some type of radar system that would alert them to other aircraft in the area?

quote:

You say you are a controller. Ok fine.

You say you were a controller. Ok fine. Let me ask you then if you were approving pilot applied visual separation and they told you twice that they had the aircraft in sight, how did you ensure separation? Cause this DCA issued a control instruction to pass behind the traffic but the PAT pilot not only climbed into but turned into the traffic. How was he suppose to turn the helicopter other than telling him to turn? Is there some magical remote control that I don’t know about?