One would think ADS-B could be installed in these executive (not combat) Blackhawks flying around the National Capital Region. Not needed - turn it off, otherwise keep it on in this congested area.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
One would think ADS-B could be installed in these executive (not combat) Blackhawks flying around the National Capital Region. Not needed - turn it off, otherwise keep it on in this congested area.

ADSB out is installed - and used - in Iowa ARNG Chinooks and Lakotas based at Davenport (DVN), no control tower but on the edge of Moline (MLI) Class C airspace. When I'm flying my Cessna 152 I hear them (VHF) on CTAF or approach for flight following and see them on Foreflight using my iPad. They fly day VFR most of the time. I also hear them from home on the scanner and see them on the OPen ADSB app.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
One would think ADS-B could be installed in these executive (not combat) Blackhawks flying around the National Capital Region. Not needed - turn it off, otherwise keep it on in this congested area.

ADS-B is great, but in order to make full use of it aircraft need to have it both IN and OUT. And even then you need a separate function, called ATAS to get traffic advisories. And while ATAS can give you an alert, it doesn’t provide any maneuvering information in order to avoid a collision. The only equipment that currently provides that in the cockpit is TCAS, which has its own limitations as discussed here and elsewhere.

In this case the helo did have a transponder, and the RJ crew did get alerts. But at the low altitude, which helicopters routinely operate at, TCAS warnings are limited in order to prevent false alerts during takeoff and landing. It would only stand to reason the same will be the case if and when ADS-B alerting is required in all aircraft, but that would remain to be seen. I don’t know of any commercial passenger carriers that currently have ADS-B IN, and I don’t know if there’s anything in the works to mandate it any time soon.

My current understanding is that the helo had ADSB installed but it was turned off. Who the heck would decide that for a training flight in Washington DC airspace.

Meaning the bird didn't have it? or that it was turned off? the posted article says
the Black Hawk helicopter had turned off its automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B),

Even if permitted? who on earth would do that in this airspace? for a training mission?

Seems like they had it, but it was turned off. They are questioning the 2018 FAA regulation that allows this for military aircraft. And why anyone would choose to switch it off for a simple training mission.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
And why anyone would choose to switch it off for a simple training mission.

Incompetence, hubris. Just didn't turn it on in the first place.

How would having it turned on changed the outcome?

Did either aircraft have ADS-B IN?

My inexpensive drone has an ADS-B receiver of some sort built in and will warn me if there are aircraft nearby. I haven’t used it enough to know if it’s actually ADS-B IN such that it gives me the position, altitude, and speed of the other aircraft, or if it just simply senses the ADS-B OUT signal from other aircraft and flashes a warning.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
How would having it turned on changed the outcome?

Did either aircraft have ADS-B IN?...

My ADSB experience is limited to VFR in a 152 & 172 in eastern IA and western IL, not exactly congested airspace though I always get flight following out of the pattern. Both planes have the tail beacon for out and I use Foreflight on my iPad for in.

The RJ had ADSB out so anyone with ADSB in could see it. AFAIK it had TCAS, not ADSB in.

Whatever the -60 had was not on, presumably following procedures which is always a good idea. With an operating out, other planes with in (not the RJ) could see them as could ATC which saw them anyhow off the transponder (which may be less precise than ADSB). If they had an operating in screen, the 60 could see traffic in the area.

In the VERY congested airspace around DCA, there would have been lots of traffic and probably several alerts to ignore. Plus looking at the ADSB screen takes eyes off the outside. I know, with three sets of eyes they still managed to hit the RJ.

Even if the 60 had ADSB in and paid attention, their approved course at 200' took them about 125' below a landing RJ. That would been another alert to ignore but, more importantly, that seems way too close!

We need another update from Juan, he always asks the right questions.

Plus or minus 25' according to the NTSB, so maybe 100'. Then take into account that's 100' between two points in space which aircraft are not. The CRJ had a 76' wingspan and was over 100' long. The information the DCA tower had for altitude was rounded to the nearest 100'.

The NTSB has said the Blackhawk was within the vertical walls of helicopter route. Is planning for 100' of serperation normal when setting the routes aircraft take? I knocked the plastic cover off the wing tip light on a 172 once pulling it out of the hanger. I was pulling from the nose wheel and it looked like it was going to clear. I was lazy and didn't open the hanger doors all the way which became the new rule for me. I can't imagine making that call at speed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,

The radar altimeters in the RJ provide a good data point for the NTSB to compare the baro altimeters. They should be able to derive a very accurate altitude profile for the RJ.

TCAS provides good information to the crew about the traffic around them, with the caveat that altitude data is reliant on the other aircrafts' altimeter calibrations.

The last few minutes on the approach are extremely busy, especially with a runway change. They've just put gear down, the non-flying pilot is reading the Before Landing Checklist. The flying pilot is verifying checklist items by looking at the relevant switch or indicator all the while flying the airplane, looking at the flight instruments, scanning to look at the landing runway, and cross checking with the flight instruments. The non-flying pilot is simultaneously keeping an eye on the flight path and ensuring airspeed is ok.

Nobody has time to lock eyes on the TCAS. They could see the helo on the screen, and reasonably assumed they would abide visual separation.

There's no additional data or display that could have helped this RJ crew.

FAA reopens two runways at DCA following helicopter and jet mid-air collision

Excerpt:
DCA has three runways. The two that were closed – runways 4/22 and 15/33 – are shorter than the main runway and typically used during busier periods at the airport to alleviate congestion and smooth the flow of traffic into and out of DCA.

With the reopening of these runways, the FAA says it has increased the hourly arrival rate to 28 aircraft. The typical maximum arrival rate is 32 flights every hour.

The restrictions on helicopter traffic around DCA remain in effect as the National Transportation Safety Board investigation continues.

The NTSB says it expects to release its preliminary report into the cause of the crash around February 28.

Critical comm, "Pass behind the..." missed? Also some interesting info on altitude reading.

quote:

Critical comm, "Pass behind the..." missed?

Missed because the instructor pilot guy keyed his mic during the ATC’s transmission. That was 17 seconds before impact. At 15 seconds before impact, the Blackhawk instructor guy radioed “that traffic was in sight and requested visual separation which was approved by DCA tower. The instructor pilot then told the pilot flying they believed the ATC was asking for the helicopter to move left towards the east bank of the Potomac.” NTSB Briefing Points That is consistent with the helicopter going behind the CRJ.

The telling part is the Blackhawk crew had no “Oh, SHIT!” moment recorded on their voice recorder. They didn’t see the CRJ.

Two minutes before the crash, this is the critical moment:
“At 8:46:08, the Blackhawk crew responded they had the traffic in sight and requested visual separation which was approved by DCA tower.”

That’s when the ATC passed his responsibility for creating separation off to the Blackhawk crew. I’m not questioning that decision in the slightest, but this is the point where the accident is set in motion. I do believe that if those helicopter routes are reopened, then visual separation will no longer be an option in that area.

Another update from Juan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8sNVcm9TMU