Langley jet involved in near-miss with Delta at DC airport

Daleandee

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
8,354
Display Name
Dale Andee
"A Delta plane and a U.S. Air Force T-38 Talon from Langley Air Force base in Hampton had a near collision at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Friday, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and news reports."


www.usatoday.com

Delta jet's near miss with military aircraft near DCA reignites safety concerns

A Delta Air Lines flight narrowly avoided a collision with a U.S. military jet shortly after takeoff from Washington National Airport on Friday.
www.usatoday.com

“On that departure … was there an actual aircraft about 500 ft below us as we came off of DCA?” the Delta pilot asked air traffic control at around 3:18 p.m., according to audio captured by LiveATC.net. “Delta 2983, affirmative,” the controller responded.
Click to expand...
 
I'm getting some popcorn to see who defends the ATC on this one
 
Even if all the reporting turns out to be hyperbolic overblown clickbait BS, still..."not a good look"
 
500 ft is Airventure separation.
 
ADSB latency problem, the military jet passed nw bound over the departing Delta as the departure started rolling southbound, at 3:18 the jet was well nw of DCA.

The ADSB track was earlier, and noticed after the Delta had climbed well above the mil inbound track.

As a pilot based at KCGS, departing southbound, I have passed over airliners with a 1000 foot separation many times, usually they were on the runway.

So here, the ATC held the Delta at the north end of the ns runway until the mil passed them to the nw, and then released the Delta.

From the radio news this morning, my wife said a military jet nearly hit an airliner. Click bait news.

When I flew over DCA, there were many parked or taxiing aircraft within 1000 feet!
 
The real question here, is what was the mission critical need for that mil jet to pass through the DCA airspace that low, as opposed to 10,000 feet, or above?

It obviously did not plan to stop at the Pentagon helipad.
 
geezer said:
So here, the ATC held the Delta at the north end of the ns runway until the mil passed them to the nw, and then released the Delta.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"The FAA said that the Delta aircraft got an onboard alert that another aircraft was nearby. Air traffic controllers gave corrective instructions to both aircraft."


geezer said:
The real question here, is what was the mission critical need for that mil jet to pass through the DCA airspace that low, as opposed to 10,000 feet, or above?

It obviously did not plan to stop at the Pentagon helipad.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"The plane left at the same time that four U.S. Air Force T-38 Talons were flying to Arlington National Cemetery for a flyover, according to the FAA, which did not say where they were flying from."

 
geezer said:
The real question here, is what was the mission critical need for that mil jet to pass through the DCA airspace that low, as opposed to 10,000 feet, or above?

It obviously did not plan to stop at the Pentagon helipad.
Click to expand...
Probably some no-name politician that managed to get a spot in Arlington cemetery and demanded an AF flyover. Or a secret CoG mission like the Iron Eagle movie.
 
500' vertical? and/or was there green between?
 
bbchien said:
....but not at 350 kts.....(if that's true).
Click to expand...
The T-38 has a waiver to exceed 250 below 10,000 during normal operations. @hindsight2020 would know better, but I think 300 KIAS used to be the normal speed we'd use day to day. 350 KGS doesn't seem too far out the realm of normal ops.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
I'm getting some popcorn to see who defends the ATC on this one
Click to expand...
Well it all depends. What’s the separation between a VFR…I’m assuming the T-38s hadn’t picked up their IFR yet and an IFR (Airbus)?

I stated it on the other thread, the problems with all these TCAS alerts around busy airspace such as DCA, isn’t necessarily based on controller error. I’d bet you anything that the vast majority of these TA / RAs ATC wasn’t at fault. There’s a disparity here in what ATC requires for min sep vs what TCAS is programmed for. In this case, a jet VFR (T-38) only needs 500 ft vertical or 1.5 mi lateral from another jet IFR (Airbus). Obviously if visual is used, even those standards go out the window. So, all day long TCAS is going to throw a fit with those tight standards.

You can do one of two things. 1) Increase the ATC standards for VFR vs IFR sep in class B airspace or 2) Reprogram TCAS to allow a larger buffer before it alerts. Until any of that happens, TCAS alerts will continue to go off in DCA or any busy terminal airspace for that matter.
 
A TCAS RA does not, in itself, indicate that there was a loss of separation or a collision habit. A loss of separation does not guarantee that an RA will be issued.

TCAS doesn't know what either airplane is going to do, only what they are currently doing at that one moment and it projects that forward. Some RAs only tell you not to change what you're doing. i.e. they might prohibit a descent while you're level or they might prohibit reducing your rate-of-climb while you are climbing.

TCAS TAs and RAs are based on time to closest approach, not distance. The relatively high-speed of the T38s would make it more sensitive. A very slight climb, as the T38 was bracketing its altitude, could result in an RA because if that momentary climb continued the point of closest approach would be just a few seconds away. TCAS wouldn't know that the T38 was just making a small change to maintain its present altitude.

My point is that a TCAS RA is not evidence that something occurred that should not have. It is only a datapoint that suggests it should be investigated further.

I watched the VASAviation presentation of this incident. It wasn't clear to me who, if anyone, did something wrong. The Delta flight did not immediately report the RA which might suggest that the RA did not require them to do anything contrary to their ATC clearance. They made the report to the next controller.
 
I’m hearing rumors that departures were supposed to be shutdown 3 minutes prior to TOT for the T-38s and the Airbus departed after that shutdown time???
 
Depending on what they find out, I can easily see an outcry for not allowing ANY other aircraft in the vicinity of major (read Class B AND C) airports in the future. The possible sensationalizing of these possible incidents will end up placing further restrictions on flying in the country. Thank you, all knowing but ignorant media!
 
I mean, when all you got is a hammer, everything is a nail. Breathe, then divide 350 MPH by 15% = 304.wgaf KIAS = 300KCAS. Aka standard T-38 speed below 10K. Don't try and blame dum dum aviation illiterate journos for that one, they did type it as MPH on the article. Radar track had them around 310kts ground (rounded) around the time of the RA. They were not going 350kts ground. I think this angle is moot anyways.

--break break--

geezer said:
The real question here, is what was the mission critical need for that mil jet to pass through the DCA airspace that low, as opposed to 10,000 feet, or above?
Click to expand...

It's a question, just not a good faith question. It's already established in the airline supremacist view of the national airspace, there's never justification for non-121 participants to be anywhere near the POIs of public transpo revenue. As such, I'm not going to engage on that de facto litigation of "why" they were overflying DCA at that altitude.

--- break break---

From the read of the tower comm, this one seems to be on ATC to me, if you think there's a problem with DCA. Now, @Velocity173 already piped in as to how they're covered by the book (IFR/VFR blah blah), even though that too won't satisfy the "mUh airlaYnNers" crowd anyhow. From the initial read it seems to me they [ATC] knew of the flyover, they opted to be push it up about TOT-slop and not ground delay the sacred cow in question. Or alternatively, just decline the flyover coordination for the Langley 38s (these overflys are requested days to weeks in advance with local TRACON, I've done/flown many of them) if it was that injurious to the almighty DCA traffic flow.

Given the Army helo padlocked on the wrong light spot in the conga line thence killing a bunch of people, it's just open season on DoD flyers to be blamed for being root causal for anything that challenges 121 supremacy.

--break break--

Larry in TN said:
I watched the VASAviation presentation of this incident. It wasn't clear to me who, if anyone, did something wrong.
Click to expand...
What, nobody did something wrong? Oh no, we can't have that. But Two soviet sub commanders were upset, we need answers *clutches pearls*.

Snark aside, it doesn't even read as though that was the case. It doesn't even read as though the ride report crew was the one who complained to the media. This is the media starting ish, which is what they often do. Which leads me to my macro point: To me VASA and all these online engagement grifters are the source of this kerfuffle. Blanco can spare me; these people aren't interested in the furtherance of aviation safety. No different than the rent-seeking we always understood the advertiser-captured "journalism" model was always, even before the internet (to be fair to the modern gig economy sucker trying to make a living on YT).

Everybody cloaks themselves in the plausible deniable "I'm just trying to bring awareness" shtick. It's a bad faith front for their hustle. The mob then torches a couple stores/harasses a few school shooting victim parents/I digress lest I get banned/ and they're all of a sudden putting their PRESS labeled kevlar and act innocent, or actually argue in court their content is entertainment and it ain't their fault americans are gullible-STOOPID.

Clowns. And it's unfortunate, because I'm a fervent defender of a Free Press, and think there's actual heroes in that fight to keep us from authoritarianism. But grifters always mess things up, like a cancer.
 
Airline supremacy versus .Mil supremacy:

.Mil has literally tens of thousands of square MILES reserved for their exclusive use.

I have requested clearance to transit some, the response is rarely yes. When the space is not occupied, the answer is often "We may get a request to go hot before you complete your transit".

Only once in 40 years have I received permission to transit an "R". Easter day seemed to be low on training.

So why not an airspace centered on DCA and a few miles in diameter that is an "R" exclusively for civilian airliners? They already exclude little guys like me who flew Cessna single engine prop planes. It could have a cutout for ADW traffic.
 
geezer said:
So why not an airspace centered on DCA and a few miles in diameter that is an "R" exclusively for civilian airliners? They already exclude little guys like me who flew Cessna single engine prop planes. It could have a cutout for ADW traffic.
Click to expand...
Are you proposing also relocating Arlington National Cemetery?
 
Funerals without flyby's are frequently held there, even high ranks such as Admirals and Generals.

Even an Airforce Corporal, whose qualification to be buried there is classified.

Good old-fashioned cannon should suffice.

Most WW 2 combat veterans get a digital recording of taps, and a couple of blanks fired. I have been to a lot of those, in addition to 3 at Arlington.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well there ya go. ATC bust all the way. Not sure where they got 1 mile lateral though. No extra mile would be added for the formation but class B in this case should be 1.5 miles.
Click to expand...
I think it should be 2.5 miles. DRAGO was a standard formation
 
Should’ve been a no brainer to shutdown departures & arrivals during their flyover. Even if they pushed their TOT, tell tower and get it shutdown. Can’t make this stuff up.

 
luvflyin said:
I think it should be 2.5 miles. DRAGO was a standard formation
Click to expand...
Yeah but that’s a bit gray though. The extra mile is added for standard IFR radar sep. So 3 plus 1 would be 4 miles total. Not sure they’d add it when it’s just a class B VFR vs IFR. Either way, I don’t think the 1 mile in the MOR is correct.
 
Velocity173 said:
Should’ve been a no brainer to shutdown departures & arrivals during their flyover. Even if they pushed their TOT, tell tower and get it shutdown. Can’t make this stuff up.

Click to expand...
So is the "advice" to shut down departures from somebody who has the authority to tell ATC what to do? If they noticed that departures were not shut down did they go ahead with the plan regardless.
 
JimLAFB said:
So is the "advice" to shut down departures from somebody who has the authority to tell ATC what to do? If they noticed that departures were not shut down did they go ahead with the plan regardless.
Click to expand...
Yeah PCT should’ve told DCA Twr CIC that DRAGO is early and shutdown departures. Should’ve had a bigger buffer built around their TOT as well.

I think PCT continued as planned because they hoped they still be able to maintain separation with DCA departures. Pretty much impossible though with the close proximity of Arlington to DCA. They basically flew right over the airport.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah PCT should’ve told DCA Twr CIC that DRAGO is early and shutdown departures. Should’ve had a bigger buffer built around their TOT as well.

I think PCT continued as planned because they hoped they still be able to maintain separation with DCA departures. Pretty much impossible though with the close proximity of Arlington to DCA. They basically flew right over the airport.
Click to expand...
Just now realizing that PCT is Tracon. What is Twr CIC? Do they tell the active controller to shut down departures now? I would think the T-38s were in a hold, timing their TOT. When it got pushed up PCT sent them on their way. When PCT saw departures still happening I wonder if there were no good options to vector a 300 Kt. formation anywhere else. Seems like they need to confirm departures stopped before sending the T-38s on the way, especially if the TOT changes. ATC needs to also control the funeral procession :)
 
JimLAFB said:
Just now realizing that PCT is Tracon. What is Twr CIC? Do they tell the active controller to shut down departures now? I would think the T-38s were in a hold, timing their TOT. When it got pushed up PCT sent them on their way. When PCT saw departures still happening I wonder if there were no good options to vector a 300 Kt. formation anywhere else. Seems like they need to confirm departures stopped before sending the T-38s on the way, especially if the TOT changes. ATC needs to also control the funeral procession :)
Click to expand...
Controller in Charge. Not a supervisor qual but someone in charge of the tower operation when the supervisor isn’t there. Like a babysitter when the parents are out to dinner. :)
 
Velocity173 said:
Controller in Charge. Not a supervisor qual but someone in charge of the tower operation when the supervisor isn’t there. Like a babysitter when the parents are out to dinner. :)
Click to expand...
So CIC does not answer to Tracon? Does CIC have to inform Tracon that departures are stopped before Tracon releases the T-38s? Sounds like both outfits were in a can do mode. Twr moving metal, Tracon making the TOT for the ceremony.
 
JimLAFB said:
So CIC does not answer to Tracon? Does CIC have to inform Tracon that departures are stopped before Tracon releases the T-38s? Sounds like both outfits were in a can do mode. Twr moving metal, Tracon making the TOT for the ceremony.
Click to expand...
It’s not about answering to anyone. It’s about proper coordination that obviously failed. Now, releases of IFR aircraft generally require tower to get specific departure controller approval but a lot of Bs even some Cs use automatic releases. Not sure what DCAs agreements are with PCT but it sounds automatic to me.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah but that’s a bit gray though. The extra mile is added for standard IFR radar sep. So 3 plus 1 would be 4 miles total. Not sure they’d add it when it’s just a class B VFR vs IFR. Either way, I don’t think the 1 mile in the MOR is correct.
Click to expand...
The rule requiring an extra mile for a standard formation is not qualified. Like this kinda Radar separation but not that kind. The 1 1/2 mile requirement in B when separating from aircraft weighing over 19,000 lbs is Radar separation. Where someone came up with 1 mile, I dunno.


5−5−8. ADDITIONAL SEPARATION FOR FORMATION FLIGHTS
Because of the distance allowed between formation aircraft and lead aircraft, additional separation is necessary
to ensure the periphery of the formation is adequately separated from other aircraft, adjacent airspace, or
obstructions. Provide supplemental separation for formation flights as follows:
a. Separate a standard formation flight by adding 1 mile to the appropriate radar separation minima.
 
luvflyin said:
The rule requiring an extra mile for a standard formation is not qualified. Like this kinda Radar separation but not that kind. The 1 1/2 mile requirement in B when separating from aircraft weighing over 19,000 lbs is Radar separation. Where someone came up with 1 mile, I dunno.


5−5−8. ADDITIONAL SEPARATION FOR FORMATION FLIGHTS
Because of the distance allowed between formation aircraft and lead aircraft, additional separation is necessary
to ensure the periphery of the formation is adequately separated from other aircraft, adjacent airspace, or
obstructions. Provide supplemental separation for formation flights as follows:
a. Separate a standard formation flight by adding 1 mile to the appropriate radar separation minima.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you’d think they’d add that comment for formations in chapter 7 for increased separation. That’s chapter 5 for IFR vs IFR. Target resolution is radar sep as well but you wouldn’t add a mile to that for a formation. It’s not clear the way it’s written. Their 1 mile rule might be a local LOA for reduced sep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top