How is a 100 foot buffer between helicopters and incoming jets acceptable by the FAA?

[MarathonMike]

We've all heard by now how the Blackhawk helicopter was flying a hundred feet or so above the "safe zone" for helicopters during the horrible mid-air collusion at DCA. How in the world does the FAA think that is reasonable and safe? Why do military helicopters need to be flying training missions in the most packed airspace in the country? I don't blame the helicopter pilot or the ATC. I blame the FAA for failing to keep that airspace safe. What say you?

 

[martybegan]

We've all heard by now how the Blackhawk helicopter was flying a hundred feet or so above the "safe zone" for helicopters during the horrible mid-air collusion at DCA. How in the world does the FAA think that is reasonable and safe? Why do military helicopters need to be flying training missions in the most packed airspace in the country? I don't blame the helicopter pilot or the ATC. I blame the FAA for failing to keep that airspace safe. What say you?

That's the distance set as a last resort if they fuck up and put two craft in the same XY planar spacing.

Those two aircraft should have also had XY separation due to the controllers not having both of them in the same square at the same time.

If the helicopter was at the proper altitude, it still would have been a "possible" and an incident, but they would not have struck each other.

 

[MarathonMike]

That's the distance set as a last resort if they fuck up and put two craft in the same XY planar spacing.

Those two aircraft should have also had XY separation due to the controllers not having both of them in the same square at the same time.

If the helicopter was at the proper altitude, it still would have been a "possible" and an incident, but they would not have struck each other.

The question posed is "do you think this is safe management of the DCA airspace"?

 

[martybegan]

The question posed is "do you think this is safe management of the DCA airspace"?

they have a tough situation, a river which is a perfect path for low flying small craft, crossing the foot of a runway at a major airport.

It's worked for decades, so I understand your question, but we need more data from the investigation to see where the other fuckups were.

We think we have fuckup #1, chopper was too high. Curious to see what fuckup gets released next.

 

[Woodznutz]

Horizonal distance was violated as well. That set the stage for the vertical distance error. What has yet to be revealed is normal altitude on the glide path of the landing aircraft at the exact location of the crash.

 

[MarathonMike]

Horizonal distance was violated as well. That set the stage for the vertical distance error. What has yet to be revealed is normal altitude on the glide path of the landing aircraft at the exact location of the crash.

Again the question posed: " is a 100 foot buffer between aircraft acceptable"?

 

[Woodznutz]

Again the question posed: " is a 100 foot buffer between aircraft acceptable"?

We don't know what was seen on the radar screen and how it was interpreted by the tower.

 

[MarathonMike]

We don't know what was seen on the radar screen and how it was interpreted by the tower.

It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. It's fine if you don't want to answer.

 

[martybegan]

It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. It's fine if you don't want to answer.

The answer is 100 ft separation vertical is what is possible if they want to use that airspace for both the small craft path and the landing path.