From their perspective (not this camera's) and in the 3 dimensional real world this is happening (not the 2 dimensional screen you're watching) is where we will find the answer to this question.

titan said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Let's not forget to blame Congress for keeping this open as a commercial airport despite its obvious flaws.

https://www.abc27.com/national/congress-authorized-more-flights-at-reagan-national-despite-warnings/

---

That is certainly a factor -- a product of actual location and just risk overall. Seems though a look should be taken at whether this cross transverse traffic is strictly needed. Where are they going to and fro? Maybe build a heliport at different vector from there. (Property there is probably a premium though.)

---

This has been a known problem, at least for me, for well over 40 years. The excessive noise nazis forced all air traffic over the Potomac in the 70s and 80s causing this congestion. The airport is definitely a convenience. Before MWAA increased the airport size 30 years ago there were concerns raised about the increase in air traffic with the increased number of gates. Nevertheless, if the airspace is handled correctly and established paths are followed then these accidents should not occur.

Let me see if I've got this straight....
Female with ~500 hours was the pilot flying
Male with ~1000 hours was the pilot monitoring and serving as an instructor? Was this also the voice on the radio?

I know in fixed wing the Pilot Flying handles the flying and the Pilot Monitoring monitors, runs checklists, and handles the radio.

Both of these individuals could ultimately have spotted the CRJ. Would one of them (the Pilot Monitoring) be doing things that would have kept their eyes down and not outside the windscreen?

I'm starting to think the following...

• At the first radio call they might have correctly identified the CRJ. The American departing RW1 was I think still on the ground or maybe on the roll. AAL 3130 would have been a long ways away.
• ATC told them to look for the CRJ near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This bridge is a landmark specifically indicated on their charts. (And posted on this thread on page 18)
• PAT25 makes the right turn to move from Route 1 to Route 4
• During the turn they climb above 200
• During the turn they lose the CRJ. I think there could be some spacial disorientation at this point. It's night time and although the airport would be a very good fixed reference point, they could easily lose the CRJ. It was making the left turn (gentle) to intercept the approach for 33 at the same time that PAT25 was turning Right. It was much closer and descending.
• Due to being much closer, even only slightly higher it could have been in a blind spot. Near or even looking through the rotors.
• AAL 3031, being on the ILS approach to RW1 would be more on the path of where the CRJ was initially.
• So even IF they spotted the correct airplane initially they might have not followed that aircraft correctly.

Other questions I have. Regarding the transponder data thats reported to the ATC radar scope; how is it rounded? Does it always round up so that 201ft - 300ft is reported as 300ft? OR does it round in the middle so that anything from 250ft -- 349ft is reported as 300ft? Either way they were above 200, but this does affect the by how much are they above 200.

Probable solution... Shift Route 4 to the east, back over land. I'm sure it was placed on the east bank of the river for noise abatement. Shift it 1,000ft east and all descending traffic into RW33 will be higher.

Supervisor let air traffic controller leave shift early before DC plane crash:

Quote:

---

A supervisor at the Reagan National Airport tower reportedly let an air traffic controller leave early from his shift shortly before Wednesday night's deadly collision over the Potomac River.

As a result, a single controller was handling the air traffic of both airplanes and helicopters flying in the area, a source familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/us-news/supervisor-let-air-traffic-controller-leave-shift-early-before-dc-plane-crash-report/

---

ATC FUBAR just keeps getting worse.....

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Let me see if I've got this straight....
Female with ~500 hours was the pilot flying
Male with ~1000 hours was the pilot monitoring and serving as an instructor? Was this also the voice on the radio?

I know in fixed wing the Pilot Flying handles the flying and the Pilot Monitoring monitors, runs checklists, and handles the radio.

Both of these individuals could ultimately have spotted the CRJ. Would one of them (the Pilot Monitoring) be doing things that would have kept their eyes down and not outside the windscreen?

I'm starting to think the following...

• At the first radio call they might have correctly identified the CRJ. The American departing RW1 was I think still on the ground or maybe on the roll. AAL 3130 would have been a long ways away.
• ATC told them to look for the CRJ near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This bridge is a landmark specifically indicated on their charts. (And posted on this thread on page 18)
• PAT25 makes the right turn to move from Route 1 to Route 4
• During the turn they climb above 200
• During the turn they lose the CRJ. I think there could be some spacial disorientation at this point. It's night time and although the airport would be a very good fixed reference point, they could easily lose the CRJ. It was making the left turn (gentle) to intercept the approach for 33 at the same time that PAT25 was turning left. It was much closer and descending.
• Due to being much closer, even only slightly higher it could have been in a blind spot. Near or even looking through the rotors.
• AAL 3031, being on the ILS approach to RW1 would be more on the path of where the CRJ was initially.
• So even IF they spotted the correct airplane initially they might have not followed that aircraft correctly.

Other questions I have. Regarding the transponder data thats reported to the ATC radar scope; how is it rounded? Does it always round up so that 201ft - 300ft is reported as 300ft? OR does it round in the middle so that anything from 250ft -- 349ft is reported as 300ft? Either way they were above 200, but this does affect the by how much are they above 200.

Probable solution... Shift Route 4 to the east, back over land. I'm sure it was placed on the east bank of the river for noise abatement. Shift it 1,000ft east and all descending traffic into RW33 will be higher.

---

Pretty concise and on point with what I've seen. (Although I think you said a left turn for PAT25 where you meant right at one point?
Couple more things that possibly contributed:
-PAT25 crew using NVGs limiting their peripheral vision after established on route 4 and much much closer to CRJ.
-PAT25 appearing to be off route 4 to the west putting them closer to the threshold of the runway and thereby reducing altitude deconfliction further.

The text describing route 4 on their chart clearly describes it as along the East Bank. So, to me, when you are closer to the middle of the river, that problematic.

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Right. Not going to blame something like that. This was not a holiday night crunch. Just a day. Could have been any number of good reasons to let one leave early. If shorthanded, before a $ 1 goes to Gaza, hire more.

Edited to fix the left/right turn typo...

Yeah, I didn't mention NVG's because I've never seen confirmed they were using them on this portion of the flight though they could have been.

Also, yes PAT25 was not on the East bank. they were at best most likely over the river centerline. A quick Google Maps measurement, projecting RW 33 CL to the CL of the river, shows river CL to East bank to be ~1,800ft. I would be interested to know how "precise" those Route marks are meant to be. My gut/initial reaction would say it means stick to the side of the river the mark is on. The big fat mark on the map would scale up 500-700 feet wide in real life. Either way, again, being closer to the bank vs the CL increases the deconfliction.

The helo crew bears the blame for this tragedy.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

BBRex said:

---

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

---

Maybe you missed this:

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

---

Maybe you missed this:

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

---

That's more of the media not understanding aviation and needing drama and sensationalism. What the article did not say is that is a common occurrence due to short staffing. Doesn't make it right, but the lack of that controller did not cause the accident

You want ATC to be at fault, just admit it

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

---

Maybe you missed this:

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

---

Nope. Seen it. Not buying that as a cause or even a contributing factor. The Helo crew was informed of the potential conflict when they were still on Route 1 before even beginning their right turn onto Route 4. They informed ATC they had the conflict in site and accepted clearance contingent on maintaining visual separation.

ATC then saw the conflict advisory and again asked them to confirm they had the CRJ in site and the helo crew acknowledged in the affirmative.

What do you want that second controller to do? Agent Smith himself into the helicopter cockpit and fly the chopper?

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

---

You're saying that ATC is 100% blameless, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree re ATC.

As this story continues to unfold, I'll be back with more news re ATC culpability.

Should ATC have notified the helo that they were almost 200 ft above their operating window?

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

---

You're saying that ATC is 100% blameless, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree re ATC.

As this story continues to unfold, I'll be back with more news re ATC culpability.

---

Nope, I'm saying ATC is a contributing factor, but they…did…not…fly…the helicopter into another airplane

---

your words: "ATC was no longer responsible"

they...did...contribute...to...the...collision

There are ex-ATC controllers who have called the DCA control tower instructions 'very ambiguous.'

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

---

You're saying that ATC is 100% blameless, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree re ATC.

As this story continues to unfold, I'll be back with more news re ATC culpability.

---

Nope, I'm saying ATC is a contributing factor, but they…did…not…fly…the helicopter into another airplane

---

your words: "ATC was no longer responsible"

they...did...contribute...to...the...collision

There are ex-ATC controllers who have called the DCA control tower instructions 'very ambiguous.'

---

And as a pilot, I clearly understood the controllers instructions. You clearly do not understand aviation very much.

I never said that ATC did not contribute to the accident, but they did not cause it. You keep implying that ATC caused it

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

---

You're saying that ATC is 100% blameless, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree re ATC.

As this story continues to unfold, I'll be back with more news re ATC culpability.

---

Nope, I'm saying ATC is a contributing factor, but they…did…not…fly…the helicopter into another airplane

---

your words: "ATC was no longer responsible"

they...did...contribute...to...the...collision

There are ex-ATC controllers who have called the DCA control tower instructions 'very ambiguous.'

---

And as a pilot, I clearly understood the controllers instructions. You clearly do not understand aviation very much.

I never said that ATC did not contribute to the accident, but they did not cause it. You keep implying that ATC caused it

---

I'm not implying anything.
The folks that understand aviation are.
So don't shoot the messenger.

Enviroag02 said:

---

Should ATC have notified the helo that they were almost 200 ft above their operating window?

---

Radar scope showed 300ft.
I'll ask again. Where does the rounding occur?

• Automatically round UP? -- All transponder altimeter data from 201ft -- 300ft reported to ATC as 300
• Round up at midpoint? -- Transponder altimeter data from 250ft -- 349ft reported to ATC as 300

You say the helo was almost 200ft above Route 4 levels. ATC sees them at 300. Yes, that is high and I'm not arguing that point. But were they 50ft high or 150 ft high? The intricacies of that data management is important.

Also the river profile and the precise Route 4 track is not shown on the ATC scope. So ATC does not get an indication that the helo is closer to the river centerline than the east bank where the route is published and described to be.

Look at scale. The controllers radar scope/screen is at best maybe 2 feet wide. A 3D area of responsibility that's what 5 maybe 10 miles in diameter (the tower as opposed to approach/departure control) and 10,000ft high has been reduced to 18 maybe 24 inches of flat screen. Those two aircraft could be going to clear one another within established limits for that area and their blips could still touch or come within a few pixels on the screen.

Edit... Typos

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

---

Maybe you missed this:

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

---

That's more of the media not understanding aviation and needing drama and sensationalism. What the article did not say is that is a common occurrence due to short staffing. Doesn't make it right, but the lack of that controller did not cause the accident

You want ATC to be at fault, just admit it

---

If the lack of the additional controller did not contribute to the accident, do they contribute at all to overall safety? Why even have the position? If not needed than they would actually not be short-staffed.

Point being, if the additional controller is specified, then it is for a reason. I suspect that reason is to manage the unique traffic for DCA that includes numerous helicopters. Also, the main runway at DCA is extremely busy (top 2 or 3 in the nation). Add in the restrictions on where you can fly due to national security and again you see why additional resource was needed.

I get your stance that the helo pilot is the primary cause based on what we know now, but to dismiss ATC as a contributor seems premature.

Mentioned previously there was potential issues with the visual traffic warning given by ATC and whether it had the required specifity to ensure the helo pilot did have visual confirmation on the correct plane - given 3 planes would be visible to the helo pilot all at similar levels but at different points going different directions.

Not saying you're wrong overall, just that dismissing ATC seems premature.

Enviroag02 said:

---

Should ATC have notified the helo that they were almost 200 ft above their operating window?

---

IF they had time note it. That video on the other post said they had been at correct level most of the approach---depending on how good tracking was that bob up to 300+ may have come too late for ATC to warn.

The other element --- if ATC was following their assigned procedures and they do not further notify or asking for confirmations by bearings, or `oclocks' or such --- that isn't the fault of the operator then. Its a strange oversight in process if that is the case, but not the operator's fault.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

All I'm saying is that there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was allowed to leave. We also don't know how often that occurs. It might be a one-time incident. But, as many people who work in jobs that are understaffed know, sometimes there starts to be a new normal, if you will, for when people have to be out.

---

Maybe you missed this:

One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash.

---

That's more of the media not understanding aviation and needing drama and sensationalism. What the article did not say is that is a common occurrence due to short staffing. Doesn't make it right, but the lack of that controller did not cause the accident

You want ATC to be at fault, just admit it

---

If the lack of the additional controller did not contribute to the accident, do they contribute at all to overall safety? Why even have the position? If not needed than they would actually not be short-staffed.

Point being, if the additional controller is specified, then it is for a reason. I suspect that reason is to manage the unique traffic for DCA that includes numerous helicopters. Also, the main runway at DCA is extremely busy (top 2 or 3 in the nation). Add in the restrictions on where you can fly due to national security and again you see why additional resource was needed.

I get your stance that the helo pilot is the primary cause based on what we know now, but to dismiss ATC as a contributor seems premature.

Mentioned previously there was potential issues with the visual traffic warning given by ATC and whether it had the required specifity to ensure the helo pilot did have visual confirmation on the correct plane - given 3 planes would be visible to the helo pilot all at similar levels but at different points going different directions.

Not saying you're wrong overall, just that dismissing ATC seems premature.

---

Ctrl-F: "contributing factor"

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

titan said:

---

Enviroag02 said:

---

Should ATC have notified the helo that they were almost 200 ft above their operating window?

---

IF they had time note it. That video on the other post said they had been at correct level most of the approach---depending on how good tracking was that bob up to 300+ may have come too late for ATC to warn.

The other element --- if ATC was following their assigned procedures and they do not further notify or asking for confirmations by bearings, or `oclocks' or such --- that isn't the fault of the operator then. Its a strange oversight in process if that is the case, but not the operator's fault.

---

Regarding the O'clocks...
When the tower first instructed PAT25 to confirm the CRJ in site they referenced the Wilson Bridge. That landmark is shown on the flight chart for Helo routing. So I don't think they need to tell them it's at your 3 O'Clock (PAT25 had not turned south at that point), when they did give them a visual landmark that they should have on their charts.

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

Fascinating. You can even hear the PAT helo's rotors beating whenever he comes online.

I do think it's stupid that we still use voice commands for this crap in 2025. It should all be computerized by now. At worst, commands should be sent with millisecond packets of data and displayed for the pilot to read and acknowledge with a button press. Ideally, PVIs and maps would would update with symbology on what the pilot is instructed to do. Voice should be reserved special circumstances like emergencies or weird requests that are hard to express with a few button presses.

titan said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

Fascinating. You can even hear the PAT helo's rotors beating whenever he comes online.

---

Yep whatever sounds are in the cockpit are transmitted over the radio

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more about why that person left and how often that actually happens. If the boss suspects the controller has the flu, it might be better to let them leave than get the whole tower sick.

---

Who said anything about the flu??????

This is the FUBAR takeaway:

"One controller is typically in charge of helicopters while another watches over airplanes. The FAA said Thursday that one air traffic controller was doing the job of two people at the time of the devastating crash."

---

You seem really intent on blaming ATC for this accident. Why is that?

As a pilot, I realize the temptation to do this, but this accident was not ATC's fault

---

I'm just following the news reports regarding the ATC potential responsibly in the collision, I guess you could say that is forming my ATC fubar opinion.

Also, no doubt the helo played significant role.

Based on everything that I have read, both things can be true.

---

Helo played THE role. ATC is merely a factor. When the helicopter accepted visual, ATC was no longer responsible

---

You're saying that ATC is 100% blameless, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree re ATC.

As this story continues to unfold, I'll be back with more news re ATC culpability.

---

Nope, I'm saying ATC is a contributing factor, but they…did…not…fly…the helicopter into another airplane

---

your words: "ATC was no longer responsible"

they...did...contribute...to...the...collision

There are ex-ATC controllers who have called the DCA control tower instructions 'very ambiguous.'

---

And as a pilot, I clearly understood the controllers instructions. You clearly do not understand aviation very much.

I never said that ATC did not contribute to the accident, but they did not cause it. You keep implying that ATC caused it

---

I'm not implying anything.
The folks that understand aviation are.
So don't shoot the messenger.

---

Be wary about any aviation expert on TV, if they *pay me enough I'll create whatever narrative they want me to

*the price of my integrity is very, very high…so I doubt I'll ever be on TV talking about aviation

Quote:

---

Mentioned previously there was potential issues with the visual traffic warning given by ATC and whether it had the required specifity to ensure the helo pilot did have visual confirmation on the correct plane - given 3 planes would be visible to the helo pilot all at similar levels but at different points going different directions.

Not saying you're wrong overall, just that dismissing ATC seems premature.

---

Helo should have been able to distinguish the difference between a departing plane and a plane descending for landing.

Helo asked for VFR and was granted it.

Flyboy didn't say ATC was perfect in the situation but for the folks who want this first to be blamed on them or a lack or staff, etc...what should they have done differently?

They told the helo exactly what was going on. The helo acknowledged then asked for VFR and was granted it.

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

PAT11 repeatedly confirmed Visual Separation to identified traffic.

PAT11 had TWO (edit THREE) Conflict Advisories in that one video. Neither got a callback/response from ATC.

When Brickyard 4514 called the go around they had 800ft separation. TCAS (as I understand) does not give a Resolution Advisory (RA) below 1000ft, but they were still at 1400 and PAT11 was at 600.