Crash at Reagan National Airport, DC. Helicopter crash into airliner.

Velocity173 said:
Well all I can tell is that when I was in, none of the guys I knew cared about serving with women. At least I never heard anyone openly expressing an opinion against it. I never witnessed any machoism with guys wanting to keep the “men’s flying club” intact. That was a real thing in the early 90s when they integrated women into fighters. That’s essentially non existent today. Of course there are guys that talk trash about certain women that have no business flying but they do the same for the men as well. Every unit has the rumor mill and a pecking order and sex has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Agree female aviators weren’t an issue during my time (96-16). Now, the first female thru Ranger, that was a big deal. I seem to recall one of the first two was an Apache pilot. Now, there’s a scrolled female Ranger and at least one that made it to BRC.

Integrating females in TACP has/is still harder simply because there’s one standard. Most females don’t have the frame to make it thru training without serious and potentially life-altering physiological issues. But that doesn’t prevent them from at least trying.
 
Velocity173 said:
Army even proved that women are better pilots than men.
;)
avweb.com

Army Women: Better Helo Pilots Than Men?

Ten out of every 100 Army helicopter pilots are women - but they account for only three out of every 100 accidents. Thats the bottom line in an Army report
avweb.com avweb.com
Click to expand...
This was interesting.

“…Pilots do not choose which missions to fly, she says. Their bosses choose the missions. The key question is why flight crews with at least one woman on board have fewer crashes. The obvious conclusion is that mixed [gender] crews are safer, she says. Why is the question. Less cowboying? More safety checks? More thoughtful behavior in the air? Or is this apparent pattern random variation?”

Do you know if dual female crews is just not a thing that is done?
 
Larry in TN said:
But part 121 pilots are not.


And it says Runway 1 in the title.

No matter how pedantic, an analysis of the procedure is not going to find a restriction which prevents the procedure as flown by the CRJ. The procedure can be broken off to complete a visual approach to other runways.
Click to expand...

They certainly are at the major airlines. As I mentioned there are often hundreds of ops using charted visual approaches into LGA each day. It’s was written into our ops specs.
 
Jeff767 said:
They certainly are at the major airlines. As I mentioned there are often hundreds of ops using charted visual approaches into LGA each day. It’s was written into our ops specs.
Click to expand...
Does that mean if the Tower told you to change, and land on a different runway, you would refuse to?
 
luvflyin said:
This was interesting.

“…Pilots do not choose which missions to fly, she says. Their bosses choose the missions. The key question is why flight crews with at least one woman on board have fewer crashes. The obvious conclusion is that mixed [gender] crews are safer, she says. Why is the question. Less cowboying? More safety checks? More thoughtful behavior in the air? Or is this apparent pattern random variation?”

Do you know if dual female crews is just not a thing that is done?
Click to expand...
I never witnessed any dual female crews when I was in because I was in units that only had one female pilot. I suppose it can happen. Just never seen it.

The problem that I have with the study, is that it assumes women having the equivalent flight hours and flight risk of men. You can’t simply say that since a group makes up 10 % of a combat branch and they only have 3 % accident rate, they’re safer. That’s ridiculous. Who was actually on the controls for these accidents? Some of that’s known but sometimes not known. Women at that time didn’t serve in 160th. Not even sure if they have any today but that’s obviously a higher risk unit. I witnessed women not deploying for medical reasons. War is obviously another high risk environment that will have an increased accident rate. Also, there’s an unusual number of women in fixed wing. That’s not exactly a high risk environment. Can’t even remember the last time an Army fixed wing crashed. So in order for that study to truly be valid, you’d have to crunch some serious numbers pertaining to flight hours and high risk environments. I think if that’s done, you’d see there isn’t any difference in the safety record of men vs women.
 
Jeff767 said:
They certainly are at the major airlines.
Click to expand...
They're flying unstable approaches? I think we've gotten crossed on to what each of us is referring.

As I mentioned there are often hundreds of ops using charted visual approaches into LGA each day.
Click to expand...
Sure. There is not a charted visual approach to DCA Rwy 33. LGA's going more with the RNAV approaches now, over the charted visuals, though I see two of them are still published. The RNAV's fly a very similar ground track to the charted visuals we used to fly.

luvflyin said:
Does that mean if the Tower told you to change, and land on a different runway, you would refuse to?
Click to expand...
Sure, if we aren't legal, or prepared, to land on the other runway. In most cases, we're already aware of the possibility of a runway change and know if we're legal and, if so, are prepared.
 
Velocity173 said:
I never witnessed any dual female crews when I was in because I was in units that only had one female pilot. I suppose it can happen. Just never seen it.

Women at that time didn’t serve in 160th. Not even sure if they have any today but that’s obviously a higher risk unit.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of females in the Regiment today. I witnessed my first female CW5, and I will say she earned her spot, and is a fantastic pilot. It was weird at first for me. I came from the conventional army which was males and females, to the 160th which was all male. At the time of my assessment there were only six females on the compound, and I think most were contractors.
 
Take a look at the RNAV 33. It follows what the RJ did almost exactly. There's no charted visual to 33.
 
Hang 4 said:
Take a look at the RNAV 33. It follows what the RJ did almost exactly. There's no charted visual to 33.
Click to expand...
Um, the visual is charted. As it is, would it make sense to name it after a different runway than Runway 1?
 
dtuuri said:
Um, the visual is charted. As it is, would it make sense to name it after a different runway than Runway 1?
Click to expand...
Confused. There's the Mt Vernon visual to runway 1 and the River visual to 19. Those are the only two charted visual approaches, not sure I'm tracking?
 
Hang 4 said:
Confused. There's the Mt Vernon visual to runway 1 and the River visual to 19. Those are the only two charted visual approaches, not sure I'm tracking?
Click to expand...
Those seem to be the two options for approaching DCA visually, right? I am unaware of anybody flying a jet getting a plain vanilla "visual". Maybe it happens occasionally, but I'll guess 99% get one of those two. Even when they come in from the east during a low traffic period, my bet is they don't get a visual to runway 33. Maybe @donjohnston can find lots of evidence of tracks leading to a right base for 33? :dunno: If noise is the reason for coming up the river to runway 1, why would they let noisy planes fly over land to runway 33? Capiche?
 
Larry in TN said:
They're flying unstable approaches? I think we've gotten crossed on to what each of us is referring.


Sure. There is not a charted visual approach to DCA Rwy 33. LGA's going more with the RNAV approaches now, over the charted visuals, though I see two of them are still published. The RNAV's fly a very similar ground track to the charted visuals we used to fly.


Sure, if we aren't legal, or prepared, to land on the other runway. In most cases, we're already aware of the possibility of a runway change and know if we're legal and, if so, are prepared.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Of course you gotta stay ahead of the plane and be able to land safely. It was something about what @Jeff767 said about ops specs that made it sound to me like they couldn’t make a change to another runway ever. I think I was probably reading something into it that it didn’t mean.
 
luvflyin said:
Of course you gotta stay ahead of the plane and be able to land safely. It was something about what @Jeff767 said about ops specs that made it sound to me like they couldn’t make a change to another runway ever. I think I was probably reading something into it that it didn’t mean.
Click to expand...
To make sure we are talking about the same thing, when I'm saying "stabilize approach criteria" I'm talking about a very specific set of requirements that are detailed in an airlines operations manual. It isn't a generic "stabilized approach". It defines exactly what is acceptable and what requires a go-around.

None of that prohibits changing runways if the runway is legal for us to land on and we are prepared for it. For example, I am required to request landing data for any runway less than 9,000' LDA. Above 9,000' LDA, I can land as long as I use Autobrakes 3 or higher. To use a lower Autobrake setting I need landing data for it. For example, if I were flying either the Mount Vernon Visual Rwy 1 or ILS Rwy 1 to DCA in a 737-700, I could only transition to runway 33 if I had the landing data for 33 and the applicable Autobrakes and Flaps set by 1,000' AFL. Without all of those boxes checked, I could not accept the runway change. Due to how short the runway is, I wouldn't accept it unless we had carefully briefed for it during our approach briefing and had loaded the RNAV approach for both the ground track and glidepath data."
 
dtuuri said:
Those seem to be the two options for approaching DCA visually, right? I am unaware of anybody flying a jet getting a plain vanilla "visual". Maybe it happens occasionally, but I'll guess 99% get one of those two. Even when they come in from the east during a low traffic period, my bet is they don't get a visual to runway 33. Maybe @donjohnston can find lots of evidence of tracks leading to a right base for 33? :dunno: If noise is the reason for coming up the river to runway 1, why would they let noisy planes fly over land to runway 33? Capiche?
Click to expand...
Given that 96% of the DCA arrivals land on runways (1 and 19) that have published visual approaches, not surprising that few “plain vanilla” visual approaches are issued. As to the east arrivals, if an aircraft wants 33, it is still put in the MTV1 stack and then circled to 33 and, yes, the reason is noise. You can still get the oddball straight-in approach to 33 (see the N250AA runway incursion). As to the noise for 33, most of that land area is a military commercial/industrial installation. However, there is some military housing right along the Potomac east shore.

If you want “plain vanilla” visual approaches, head out west to IAD where there are no published visual approaches but with ATC-issued “plain vanilla” visual approaches all day long when weather and runway configuration permits.
 
dtuuri said:
Those seem to be the two options for approaching DCA visually, right? I am unaware of anybody flying a jet getting a plain vanilla "visual". Maybe it happens occasionally, but I'll guess 99% get one of those two. Even when they come in from the east during a low traffic period, my bet is they don't get a visual to runway 33. Maybe @donjohnston can find lots of evidence of tracks leading to a right base for 33? :dunno: If noise is the reason for coming up the river to runway 1, why would they let noisy planes fly over land to runway 33? Capiche?
Click to expand...
The PSA flight that crashed was doing a visual to rwy 33. They were initially doing the charted visual to rwy 1 then subsequently cleared for the visual to 33.
 
In today’s OB397, one of the things AG left the listener’s with was along the lines of a procedure can’t rely on visual separation and still work safely.

The DCA hearing was the show topic and this comment was made specifically regarding the H route/MTV1 procedure….
 
AquaLand said:
You can still get the oddball straight-in approach to 33 (see the N250AA runway incursion).
Click to expand...
Do you have inside information? The reported 6 mile final on a visual for 33 is the King Air's story. The preliminary report only repeats that, does not verify it, and does not indicate what the approach controller issued. Not saying you're wrong, just that the final report is still not available over a year after the fact. The graphic showing the flight path begins over the river.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
The PSA flight that crashed was doing a visual to rwy 33. They were initially doing the charted visual to rwy 1 then subsequently cleared for the visual to 33.
Click to expand...
Did the tower say "visual" or "circle". The former would change things in my mind, i.e., free them from the Mount Vernon/Potomac restriction. The latter would not, imo. In either case, they said it was effective at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge which, from the center of that, is a straight shot to the runway 33 threshold over water.
 
Last edited:
Flymy47 said:
I came from the conventional army which was males and females, to the 160th which was all male. At the time of my assessment there were only six females on the compound, and I think most were contractors.
Click to expand...
Did you know Bobby Ibrahim?
 
dtuuri said:
Maybe @donjohnston can find lots of evidence of tracks leading to a right base for 33? :dunno: If noise is the reason for coming up the river to runway 1, why would they let noisy planes fly over land to runway 33? Capiche?
Click to expand...
I don't know what point it is you think you're trying to make. Or why you decided to call me out.
 
donjohnston said:
I don't know what point it is you think you're trying to make. Or why you decided to call me out.
Click to expand...
Call you out? :confused2: You posted tracks earlier so I was asking if you could do it again to establish whether generic visuals exist in addition to charted visuals. Never mind now. I don't know that it would prove anything, since the incursion being referenced was by a prop plane.
 
dtuuri said:
Did the tower say "visual" or "circle". The former would change things in my mind, i.e., free them from the Mount Vernon/Potomac restriction. The latter would not, imo. In either case, they said it was effective at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge which, from the center of that, is a straight shot to the runway 33 threshold over water.
Click to expand...
The Tower said circle. Here’s the transcript.
20:43:39.6
Blue streak fifty three forty two at the wilson bridge change to cir—change to circ(le) runway three three. runway three three cleared to land.
I get your point. It’s been said many times here that he was cleared for a Visual Approach to 33. I agree that was clearly the intent of the Controller. But it was not what was said. I cannot agree with you that the Controller’s imperfect Phraseolgy changes how this approach should have been flown. Circle gets misused often. Comes up a lot in VFR traffic pattern arguments. There it gets used in a generic way. To fly in a circular/circuitous manner. In the IFR world, ‘circle to’ has explicit definitions. Sometimes you can ‘circle to’ with hardly any circuitous flying at all.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
If only.
Click to expand...

It'll happen about the same time legitimate criticism, or even questions, regarding their abilities aren't immediately taken as an attack on the entire gender. Someone can be equal or protected, but not both.
 
dtuuri said:
Did the tower say "visual" or "circle". The former would change things in my mind, i.e., free them from the Mount Vernon/Potomac restriction. The latter would not, imo. In either case, they said it was effective at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge which, from the center of that, is a straight shot to the runway 33 threshold over water.
Click to expand...
Just have to agree to disagree. It’s fine. My position is there is no possible way to circle from a charted visual to a runway and land on a different runway than the one specified on the chart. That’s the foundation of our different positions. You think they were still flying the MV visual to runway 33. That doesn’t exist in my analysis. It’s not possible to fly the MV visual all the way to the airport unless you land on 1. Any other runway requires deviation from the charted path.

Also straight up the river does point you at the 33 threshold. However you need to go out to a final at 500’ altitude and 1500’ from the touchdown point and then from that point make an arc of sufficient turn radius that allows an aircraft maneuvering at ~145 KIAS to arrive to that stabile point on a runway aligned 40 degrees from the charted runway.

Furthermore I want to remind you once again we are talking about an accident that happened in the current industry. Frankly what was normal ops at DCA even 10 years ago is irrelevant. I’ve been flying long enough into DCA there are approaches I remember flying that don’t exist anymore. None of the pilots flying that night were around to ever see an airplane circle to 33 in the manner you describe. The PSA crew was exactly where ATC and their training expected them to be for the landing on 33. I have done what you describe in a jet and it requires non compliance with current industry standard stabile approach criteria. Times have changed brother.
 
AquaLand said:
. As to the east arrivals, if an aircraft wants 33, it is still put in the MTV1 stack and then circled to 33 and, yes, the reason is noise
Click to expand...
Exactly. Arrivals from the east are put on the DEALE3 arrival which routes them southbound to MITEY which is several miles south of the airport and east of the river.
 
squincher said:
It'll happen about the same time legitimate criticism, or even questions, regarding their abilities aren't immediately taken as an attack on the entire gender. Someone can be equal or protected, but not both.
Click to expand...
Criticism will more likely be seen as legitimate and not gender-based when it doesn't include derogatory, gender-based name calling. It's probably not necessary to even mention gender.
 
dtuuri said:
Call you out? :confused2: You posted tracks earlier so I was asking if you could do it again to establish whether generic visuals exist in addition to charted visuals. Never mind now. I don't know that it would prove anything, since the incursion being referenced was by a prop plane.
Click to expand...
You asked if I could provide you with flight tracks for aircraft that flew a right base to runway 33.

Why can't you do it yourself? I obviously have plenty of time. If you don't know how, I suggest you google how to find things.

Or did you think that I'm your personal research assistant?
 
dtuuri said:
Do you have inside information? The reported 6 mile final on a visual for 33 is the King Air's story. The preliminary report only repeats that, does not verify it, and does not indicate what the approach controller issued. Not saying you're wrong, just that the final report is still not available over a year after the fact. The graphic showing the flight path begins over the river.
Click to expand...
I do have inside information. <<whispering>> It’s called ADS-B Exchange. But don’t tell anyone else. I want it to be our secret.

As to the “King Air’s story,” I consider the NTSB citing ATC audio tapes as credible. But I guess it’s possible that the King Air was actually on a 10-mile of a 2-mile final when he called a 6-mile final. So I went back and looked at the historical flight track for N250AA. At the time cited in the preliminary report, 1418:19Z (erroneously cited as EDT) when the King Air called a 6-mile visual for 33, the King Air (approaching from the south) was turning from a NE heading onto the extended centerline for runway 33 at a distance of about 5.5 nm from the runway 33 threshold and at about 1,700 ft (landmark SynerGen Panorama solar facility near the intersection of Palmer and Tucker Roads in Fort Washington). The King Air then continued on the extended runway 33 centerline crossing the Capital Beltway at the Livingston Road intersection at about 1000 ft.

You’re right we don’t know what approach ATC issued to the King Air. But given its flight path, it clearly wasn’t the RNAV 33, the only published IAP for 33. And it clearly wasn’t the MTV1, circle/visual 33. The only other option is PCT radar vectors to a visual approach.

My point in citing the King Air incident was to provide an example of an atypical visual approach to 33, nothing more.
 
AquaLand said:
It’s called ADS-B Exchange.
Click to expand...
I haven't looked at that until now. Pretty amazing and clever how they get the data. Now @donjohnston doesn't seem like the IT magician I had built him up to be.
AquaLand said:
As to the “King Air’s story,” I consider the NTSB citing ATC audio tapes as credible.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it was said, more has to be checked, like you now have, to verify it.

AquaLand said:
My point in citing the King Air incident was to provide an example of an atypical visual approach to 33, nothing more.
Click to expand...
That's good, and it answered the question of whether both charted visuals and generic visuals co-exist at the same airport, for me anyway. At least as far as prop planes go. What about jets?
 
dtuuri said:
I haven't looked at that until now. Pretty amazing and clever how they get the data. Now @donjohnston doesn't seem like the IT magician I had built him up to be.
Click to expand...

It's surprising that someone who can navigate the internet and regularly use POA thinks that finding flight information on FlightAware or ADSB-Exchange requires an "IT magician". :rolleyes:
 
donjohnston said:
It's surprising that someone who can navigate the internet and regularly use POA thinks that finding flight information on FlightAware or ADSB-Exchange requires an "IT magician". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I was never interested in more than checking whether a known flight landed. Advanced features haven't seemed to be worth the time to learn about them. Heck, I bought a smart phone for the first time about six months ago and barely know how to answer it. I don't think the hour-long video I watched even said how. Paid about $1000 for something that's totally unintuitive to operate, falls on the floor all the time, is too big and too heavy for my pockets and too small to type on. I hate it. Who ever heard of talking to a piece of glass tile anyway? [/rant]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top