Our stabilized approach criteria are more stringent today than it was when you flew it. A CRJ is also flying faster than the biz jets you flew. Flying that approach completely over the water today will require a go-around every single time.
Dturi,
The whole point is the restrictions of the mt Vernon visual didn’t apply. Not being over the river did not cause this accident.Technically, I think what you wrote applies to parallel runways according to Order 8260.61, like the Parkway Visual to JFK.
The chart is noise abatement to the airport via the Potomac, so I'd follow it until necessary to turn downwind, wouldn't you?
Ok, so you would too.
My point is, today it's deemed necessary to fly over terrain where in my experience it wasn't. Everybody today follows the same route, so it isn't just the crew on that RJ, but it's why the helicopter didn't see them. Which doesn't absolve the helicopter of blame, it only explains the accident.
Well, the noise still applies no matter what you call it so I'd stay over the river because I can, but I guess nobody seems to care anymore.
Hey, you made me answer without reference to the charted Mt. Vernon approach, so I used the ILS/LOC/circle to land analogy instead.
I would like some clarification of this. @dtuuri keeps mentioning it, others say it not applicable. Which is it?
That is true, but I don't think it made much of a difference. It would have been difficult for the CRJ crew to identify the helicopter and realize that it was a threat in time to take action. The helicopter was likely hidden by aircraft structure during the time that those decisions needed to be made. The final NTSB report should address the visibility issues from each aircraft.
Bingo, that's basically it. This whole back and forth essentially comes down to that hidden subtext. The inference that if younger (generationally) airline pilots weren't such meow meows, things would work out. At the end of the day, it's just MCS language.
Methinks you’re the one with wrong facts. If you’re referring to Capital Airlines Flight 500,
It's ok. Isn't it funny how the farther in the rearview mirror things get, the harder it is to distinguish which events came before the other? Don't sweat it.
One way, which I wouldn't bet money on, is that maybe airlines have an FMS database loaded with an "RVFP" by the same name as the public CVFP that hasn't changed in 50 years. The RVFP is secret. Ok, it isn't published; I couldn't resist making it more interesting. You can read about the differences here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_826060B.pdf
@Larry in TN might know.
They flew the RNAV 33 which I posted about earlier. There's no noise abatement procedure.One way, which I wouldn't bet money on, is that maybe airlines have an FMS database loaded with an "RVFP" by the same name as the public CVFP that hasn't changed in 50 years. The RVFP is secret. Ok, it isn't published; I couldn't resist making it more interesting. You can read about the differences here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_826060B.pdf
I just learned of them myself. Perhaps that's why they aren't violating the published noise abatement procedure legally — they have had their desired course over land approved and it's running stealthily instead of the original Mt. Vernon Visual when it's selected?
I'm not sure to what noise abatement procedure you are referring. The Mt. Vernon's noise abatement feature is that you follow the river, south of the bridge, instead of the localizer. It doesn't have anything to do with the east bank east of the airport.Perhaps that's why they aren't violating the published noise abatement procedure legally — they have had their desired course over land approved and it's running stealthily instead of the original Mt. Vernon Visual when it's selected?
Click on the flight number in post 1771.
I get ya. It's a bit too coincidental to be a coincidence. I wonder if the Air India Flight 171 captain had a lot of premonitions too.
I doubt it. See the last paragraphs of the pdf file. He was hired in 1932 as a non-pilot. After ten years he qualified for a commercial certificate and was sent through training. Then more training. Then assigned as a copilot. After two years he made captain.
Was the captain's name the same as your acquaintance?
Boat club, huh? If boat club drinking was involved in this tale there's no telling what the facts really are or if he even crashed anything.
Why wouldn't the CRJ be above the lights since it was at a higher altitude?
During yesterday’s hearing, the NTSB explained that the visibility simulations could use either green or white (they had to pick one or depict a simulation twice) because there were two sets of green NVGs and two sets of white NVGs aboard PAT25 and the NTSB was not able to conclude which crew member was using white or green.
Yeah it would be slightly above as depicted but mixed in as in, there’s several dots of light in that area. Complicating this is that they’re over water at around 300 MSL. The terrain out to the 10-11 o’clock is around 300 MSL as well. So essentially they’re just slightly above the terrain in the distance. The aircraft isn’t that definitely separated from the city lights like the aircraft further in the distance.
Well we don’t know where the IP was looking so I suppose the NTSB assumed straight ahead. If I had to guess, I think both were staring straight ahead or off to the 1 o’clock. Still like to know what the CE was doing in the back. Can’t remember what seat he was in. Unfortunately, being as cold as it was, I’d be willing to bet his window was shut and not able to scan that area. Heater is horrible in the back.
No, watch it again. While it was initially called out to them when it was crossing the Wilson Bridge (about 4-5 miles south of where they collided), ATC asked them when they were very close if they had it in sight to pass behind it. It was then that they requested visual separation.
DCA LC: PAT two five traffic just south of the Wilson Bridge is a C-R-J one thousand two hundred feet circling runway three three.
