Midair at DCA

[airway]

Here is a screenshot supposably of the ATC radar display at he time of the collision. Looks like both aircraft were at or near 300 ft.


.

DCA accident.jpg (19.09 KiB) Viewed 7948 times

[airway]

Here is one from a few seconds prior. I assume CA means collision alert?


.

DCA accident 1.jpg (21.52 KiB) Viewed 7947 times

[pdw]

On radar it looks like they should be seeing each other except these converging aircraft are crabbing opposite in strong crosswind (metar “PEAK WND” was near that time).

[Blueontop]

Talk about an absolute nothing burger story trying to ride the coattails of tragedy. How does this stuff get past the editors?…

https://apple.news/AiMrtNpYoSemobLMhPm9UWg

Flair passengers had a scare when Montreal landing was aborted before D.C. crash

A Flair Airlines Boeing 737 Max jet aborted a landing at Montreal-Trudeau International Airport on Wednesday after a private jet unexpectedly remained on a runway where it was preparing to land.
The incident, which unnerved Flair’s passengers, occurred just hours before 67 people were killed at Reagan Washington National Airport when a military helicopter struck an American Airlines regional passenger jet mid-air in the worst U.S. aviation disaster in more than a decade.

The Montreal events were confirmed Friday by officials at Flair Airlines, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and NAV Canada, the private non-profit corporation that manages air traffic control at airports across the country and 18 million km of Canadian airspace.
The two government agencies and the airline said the sequence of Montreal events did not represent a “near-miss” situation and passengers were at no time in danger.

On the contrary, they said what happened in Montreal and how the aviation players responded in a coordinated way shows how well Canada’s aviation safety system worked to keep passengers safe.
“There was no risk of collision,” NAV Canada spokesperson Maryam Amini said.

Flair Airlines Flight 1101 was flying from Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Montreal-Trudeau and was on its final approach and preparing to land.
The problem was a second aircraft which remained unexpectedly on the tarmac at the Dorval airport. It was a Bombardier Challenger 3500 corporate jet registered in Mexico, TSB spokesperson Nic Falco said.

The incident forced the Flair Airlines jet flight crew to scrub their landing, power up their two LEAP engines and increase speed and altitude while performing what is called “a go-around” above and around the airport. It was able to subsequently land safely when the Challenger jet left the area.
The Flair 737 flight crew followed instructions from the NAV Canada Montreal air traffic controllers after they saw the other aircraft remained on their intended runway.
“In this case, the aircraft ahead took longer than expected to exit the runway, which happens from time to time, and the controller instructed the aircraft to perform the normal missed approach procedure, which is a standard and safe procedure in this situation,” Amini said.

Added TSB’s Falco: “In this case, there was no violation of separation (of aircraft) standards, nor was there a situation compromising the safety of the aircraft. This was a go-around conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures.”
Falco said although the TSB was informed of the incident in NAV Canada’s daily reports to the government, TSB has not initiated an official investigative action into the matter. That’s because the two aircraft remained more than the minimum distance apart required under Canadian regulations.

Flair Airlines is a Canadian low-cost airline headquartered in Edmonton which operates a small fleet Boeing 737 Max jets and Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft.

© 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

[mijbil]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/crash-ron ... -1.7445596

They were down to 1 controller that night. Most unfortunate.

And why were they down to one controller? A shortage it would seem. And why a shortage? One root cause is a change in hiring practices during the Obama administration. Trump may be uncouth, but he may be getting a little closer to the truth than many of the so called main stream media care to admit IMO
Here is another take on why there was a shortage, not just at Reagan, but system wide.
This paragraph stood out:
"The crux of the lawsuit is that the FAA, under the Obama administration, dropped a skill-based system for hiring controllers and replaced it with a “biographical assessment” in an alleged bid to boost the number of minority job applicants."
Link here.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/us-news/f ... d-on-race/

Perhaps moving forward the divisive rhetoric and antics of the likes of Justin and the other race and sex obsessed liberal fools will come to a crashing end very soon. I would like to know that the person parked next to me is fully competent based only on a PPC and not being a DEI hire. This DEI business is also quite unfair those who it purports to help (by giving them preferential treatment) and who would have done just fine without the DEI boost. I expect that if you were to ask one of the non white males or females (any colour) that they too - the truly competent ones - find it irritating to basically have to unofficially 'prove themselves' each time they get in a cockpit (or anywhere else for that matter) with someone who does not know them. Turf the DEI bit and let everyone sink or swim solely on merit. I have heard that some orchestras do this now. Tryouts are done behind a screen to basically pick only on merit. What a concept...because its 2025 and time to get rid of Justin who is hanging around like a toxic fart - I digress.
Back to the topic

[OneYonge]

Did even once ATC point out exact bearing and altitude of the RJ to the Blackhawk?

Yes. ATC told the blackhawk the exact position and intentions. "south of woodrow bridge at 1200 for 33"

CRJ position was broadcasted again at 2 mile left base. Right before blackhawk was asked visual confirmation again and instructed to go behind.

That's 3 times over the radio.

If they heard the initial clearance for 33, that would be 4 opportunities to learn that a jet is about to land on 33.

What should ATC have done differently here?

[digits_]

Did even once ATC point out exact bearing and altitude of the RJ to the Blackhawk?

Yes. ATC told the blackhawk the exact position and intentions. "south of woodrow bridge at 1200 for 33"

CRJ position was broadcasted again at 2 mile left base. Right before blackhawk was asked visual confirmation again and instructed to go behind.

That's 3 times over the radio.

If they heard the initial clearance for 33, that would be 4 opportunities to learn that a jet is about to land on 33.

What should ATC have done differently here?

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

[khedrei]

Did even once ATC point out exact bearing and altitude of the RJ to the Blackhawk?

Yes. ATC told the blackhawk the exact position and intentions. "south of woodrow bridge at 1200 for 33"

CRJ position was broadcasted again at 2 mile left base. Right before blackhawk was asked visual confirmation again and instructed to go behind.

That's 3 times over the radio.

If they heard the initial clearance for 33, that would be 4 opportunities to learn that a jet is about to land on 33.

What should ATC have done differently here?

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

That could end up being the procedure going forward. But I'm betting under the current rules, ATC did not do anything wrong and likely followed procedure. We will find out soon enough. Unless someone works ATC in that tower, they can't say if procedure was violated. Sure, we can debate what the procedure "should" be until we are blue in the face. Based on the videos, and the charts, this seems to be business as usual here.

[digits_]

Yes. ATC told the blackhawk the exact position and intentions. "south of woodrow bridge at 1200 for 33"

CRJ position was broadcasted again at 2 mile left base. Right before blackhawk was asked visual confirmation again and instructed to go behind.

That's 3 times over the radio.

If they heard the initial clearance for 33, that would be 4 opportunities to learn that a jet is about to land on 33.

What should ATC have done differently here?

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

That could end up being the procedure going forward. But I'm betting under the current rules, ATC did not do anything wrong and likely followed procedure. We will find out soon enough. Unless someone works ATC in that tower, they can't say if procedure was violated. Sure, we can debate what the procedure "should" be until we are blue in the face. Based on the videos, and the charts, this seems to be business as usual here.

At the end of the day an IFR and VFR traffic collided in class B airspace. How is that not a violation of procedures? Would giving the blackhawk a heading/vector have been a violation of the current procedures? If not, why was that not given?

If 2 aircraft are on a collision course because one aircraft, intentionally or not, is not listening to your instructions, does that absolve ATC from giving instructions to the second aircraft to attempt avoiding a collision? Or can they just give up while they approach each other and traffic collision alerts are showing on their radar screen?

[khedrei]

Kept the traffic separated perhaps?
"Blackhawk, you're getting too close to traffic, turn 40 degrees to the left"

That could end up being the procedure going forward. But I'm betting under the current rules, ATC did not do anything wrong and likely followed procedure. We will find out soon enough. Unless someone works ATC in that tower, they can't say if procedure was violated. Sure, we can debate what the procedure "should" be until we are blue in the face. Based on the videos, and the charts, this seems to be business as usual here.

At the end of the day an IFR and VFR traffic collided in class B airspace. How is that not a violation of procedures? Would giving the blackhawk a heading/vector have been a violation of the current procedures? If not, why was that not given?

If 2 aircraft are on a collision course because one aircraft, intentionally or not, is not listening to your instructions, does that absolve ATC from giving instructions to the second aircraft to attempt avoiding a collision? Or can they just give up while they approach each other and traffic collision alerts are showing on their radar screen?

For all we know, those collision alerts happen every day, all day long, and normally don't warrent more than the exact reminder that was given that day.

I'm not sure how someone who doesn't know the procedures and ATC obligations in this airspace can say with such certainty that procedures were violated. Can you post the ATC rules for that sector? And tell me which ones were violated?

It's an interesting comment coming from you.... if someone else makes an assumption based on gut feeling, you call them out on not knowing facts. But it's ok if you do it.

Edit: i take your point that the collision happened so that means there was a violation. I should clarify. Which procedures did ATC violate? You seem quick to blame ATC.

[digits_]

That could end up being the procedure going forward. But I'm betting under the current rules, ATC did not do anything wrong and likely followed procedure. We will find out soon enough. Unless someone works ATC in that tower, they can't say if procedure was violated. Sure, we can debate what the procedure "should" be until we are blue in the face. Based on the videos, and the charts, this seems to be business as usual here.

At the end of the day an IFR and VFR traffic collided in class B airspace. How is that not a violation of procedures? Would giving the blackhawk a heading/vector have been a violation of the current procedures? If not, why was that not given?

If 2 aircraft are on a collision course because one aircraft, intentionally or not, is not listening to your instructions, does that absolve ATC from giving instructions to the second aircraft to attempt avoiding a collision? Or can they just give up while they approach each other and traffic collision alerts are showing on their radar screen?

For all we know, those collision alerts happen every day, all day long, and normally don't warrent more than the exact reminder that was given that day.

I'm not sure how someone who doesn't know the procedures and ATC obligations in this airspace can say with such certainty that procedures were violated. Can you post the ATC rules for that sector? And tell me which ones were violated?

It's an interesting comment coming from you.... if someone else makes an assumption based on gut feeling, you call them out on not knowing facts. But it's ok if you do it.

Edit: i take your point that the collision happened so that means there was a violation. I should clarify. Which procedures did ATC violate? You seem quick to blame ATC.

Both the helicopter, ATC and whoever designed the airspace there are to blame. I responded to the question 'what could ATC have done differently'.

And yes, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think the controller should be severely punished. I don't think it was intentional. I do think the controller was also victim of the environment in which he had to operate. But that doesn't take away that I do think both the controller and ATC did play a major part in this accident.

I don't mind people making assumptions when there is no official data out, to try and figure out what could have happened, or how things might be prevented in the future. What I do not like is people bringing out pitch forks and calling for extreme actions based on said assumptions, which has been known to happen on AvCanada. I don't think I am doing that.

Class B Airspace
Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some Class B airspace areas resemble upside‐down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the airspace. The cloud clearance requirement for VFR operations is “clear of clouds.”

Link:https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... 20airspace.

You could argue that the helicopter did receive separation services/instructions but didn't follow them properly. However, the CRJ most certainly did not receive appropriate separation services.

If I enter class B, follow my clearance, just like the CRJ did, I do not expect other aircraft to hit me. I count on ATC to keep traffic out of my way. If that doesn't happen (barring intentional deviations), I fault ATC. An aircraft being confused about a clearance, or deviating half a mile or 100 ft from their clearance, should not be a valid excuse for a collision.

[pdw]

Looks like both aircraft were at or near 300 ft.

Which altimeter setting source would they have been using … (of course) the landing ac had the actual (on the minute) …

[airway]

Looks like both aircraft were at or near 300 ft.

Which altimeter setting source would they have been using … (of course) the landing ac had the actual (on the minute) …

The Heli pilot would have been given the latest altimeter setting when they entered the zone too. I suppose either of the aircraft could have entered it incorrectly, if that is what you are suggesting.

[khedrei]

At the end of the day an IFR and VFR traffic collided in class B airspace. How is that not a violation of procedures? Would giving the blackhawk a heading/vector have been a violation of the current procedures? If not, why was that not given?

If 2 aircraft are on a collision course because one aircraft, intentionally or not, is not listening to your instructions, does that absolve ATC from giving instructions to the second aircraft to attempt avoiding a collision? Or can they just give up while they approach each other and traffic collision alerts are showing on their radar screen?

For all we know, those collision alerts happen every day, all day long, and normally don't warrent more than the exact reminder that was given that day.

I'm not sure how someone who doesn't know the procedures and ATC obligations in this airspace can say with such certainty that procedures were violated. Can you post the ATC rules for that sector? And tell me which ones were violated?

It's an interesting comment coming from you.... if someone else makes an assumption based on gut feeling, you call them out on not knowing facts. But it's ok if you do it.

Edit: i take your point that the collision happened so that means there was a violation. I should clarify. Which procedures did ATC violate? You seem quick to blame ATC.

Both the helicopter, ATC and whoever designed the airspace there are to blame. I responded to the question 'what could ATC have done differently'.

And yes, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think the controller should be severely punished. I don't think it was intentional. I do think the controller was also victim of the environment in which he had to operate. But that doesn't take away that I do think both the controller and ATC did play a major part in this accident.

I don't mind people making assumptions when there is no official data out, to try and figure out what could have happened, or how things might be prevented in the future. What I do not like is people bringing out pitch forks and calling for extreme actions based on said assumptions, which has been known to happen on AvCanada. I don't think I am doing that.

Class B Airspace
Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some Class B airspace areas resemble upside‐down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the airspace. The cloud clearance requirement for VFR operations is “clear of clouds.”

Link:https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... 20airspace.

You could argue that the helicopter did receive separation services/instructions but didn't follow them properly. However, the CRJ most certainly did not receive appropriate separation services.

If I enter class B, follow my clearance, just like the CRJ did, I do not expect other aircraft to hit me. I count on ATC to keep traffic out of my way. If that doesn't happen (barring intentional deviations), I fault ATC. An aircraft being confused about a clearance, or deviating half a mile or 100 ft from their clearance, should not be a valid excuse for a collision.

Ok, now post the rules/procedures regarding authorization of visual separation. And who is responsible when an aircraft doesn't comply? Visual separation is tricky. In canada it has no lower limit. Just separation. Could be an inch or a mile. "Don't exchange paint" is what a tower controller told me.

[digits_]

Ok, now post the rules/procedures regarding authorization of visual separation. And who is responsible when an aircraft doesn't comply? Visual separation is tricky. In canada it has no lower limit. Just separation. Could be an inch or a mile. "Don't exchange paint" is what a tower controller told me.

Why? What point are you trying to make? It's very likely that the controller strictly speaking didn't do anything legally wrong, I'm not debating that.

I'm saying there are courses of action the controller could have taken to prevent this accident. And just because he possibly wasn't legally required to do so, doesn't mean it was the right decision.

And again, the CRJ did not receive the traffic separation he was entitled to in class B airspace. If your system or instructions can't handle an aircraft responding slowly or slightly inaccurate, something's seriously wrong.

[karmutzen]

It is a question of perspective, military operation is guided by mission objective, civilian by safety of the travelling public.
Imagine what the Blackhawk pilots were looking at: the lights of the CRJ already on the left side of the windshield and moving further left. You’d expect you’d be passing behind. Er, until the CRJ turns left for 33, then the lights in the windshield stop moving and start moving right again. Pilot reflex is to turn right and climb. Impact.
I’ve flown night helicopter 150’ routinely for work. No easy to maintain altitude within 50’. Route here over the water at 200’ sounds good, but close to the shore are obstacles, so the tendency is to fly further out over the water to keep the light mirror reflection, and creep up a little.
Then there’s the pilots, instructor sitting left seat as PNF handing comms and letting the low time flying pilot make her mistakes as part of the learning/evaluation process. Sounds like she had an interrupted flying career, left flying for a while to pick up dropped napkins in the White House, wanted to be a physician instead. Whatever, left seat instructor is responsible for the aircraft. He didn’t sound overloaded, but made a mistake in a situation that had non-civilian margins of error. Oh, and NVG’s to effectively blind both pilots with the surplus of ambient cultural lighting.
CRJ and ATC were by the book, no fault.

[digits_]

ATC were by the book, no fault.

Just because they are by the book, doesn't mean they are not at fault.

Let's get philosophical:

You see a car approaching and it's about to hit a dog that ran off the pavement into the road. There's a leash attached to the dog. You have the option to pull on the leash and save the dog, at no danger to yourself. You did not let the dog run loose. If you don't do anything, the dog will die due to no fault of your own. If you do pull the leash, you'll save the dog.

If you don't pull the leash, were you by the book? Were you at fault? What's the right course of action?

[khedrei]

ATC were by the book, no fault.

Just because they are by the book, doesn't mean they are not at fault.

Let's get philosophical:

You see a car approaching and it's about to hit a dog that ran off the pavement into the road. There's a leash attached to the dog. You have the option to pull on the leash and save the dog, at no danger to yourself. You did not let the dog run loose. If you don't do anything, the dog will die due to no fault of your own. If you do pull the leash, you'll save the dog.

If you don't pull the leash, were you by the book? Were you at fault? What's the right course of action?

Ok let's play your game.

Every single day you see a dog run onto the pavement in front of a car. Each time, you ask the car if they see the dog, and will avoid it. Everytime you ask, they say yes, and they do avoid it. You know that if you decide to pull the leash, it will cost the dog owner thousands of dollars. Because of the fact that every time you asked the car to avoid the dog, it did, so you trust them. Until they don't.

Your argument is ridiculous. If ATC didn't follow procedure, or regs, then they are at fault. Everything I've seen says they did. It seems like they did everything reasonable within their power to prevent this. We can argue all you want about the procedure and how dangerous it is, but I have a hard time believing ATC has any direct blame in this.

[khedrei]

Or how about a real world example.

I used to operate freight trains for the railway. Every single day we saw people crossing/walking on/near the tracks. We give them a honk, they get off. Sometimes it takes 2 honks, or occasionally 3. But they always move. Until this one time....

It was horrible. Could I have done something to prevent it? Yup. Is it reasonable to expect me to have? Nope! If we stopped the train every time we saw someone walking on the tracks just to be safe, the trains would never move.

Your argument can't hold a drop of water.

[digits_]

ATC were by the book, no fault.

Just because they are by the book, doesn't mean they are not at fault.

Let's get philosophical:

You see a car approaching and it's about to hit a dog that ran off the pavement into the road. There's a leash attached to the dog. You have the option to pull on the leash and save the dog, at no danger to yourself. You did not let the dog run loose. If you don't do anything, the dog will die due to no fault of your own. If you do pull the leash, you'll save the dog.

If you don't pull the leash, were you by the book? Were you at fault? What's the right course of action?

Ok let's play your game.

Every single day you see a dog run onto the pavement in front of a car. Each time, you ask the car if they see the dog, and will avoid it. Everytime you ask, they say yes, and they do avoid it. You know that if you decide to pull the leash, it will cost the dog owner thousands of dollars. Because of the fact that every time you asked the car to avoid the dog, it did, so you trust them. Until they don't.

Your argument is ridiculous. If ATC didn't follow procedure, or regs, then they are at fault. Everything I've seen says they did. It seems like they did everything reasonable within their power to prevent this. We can argue all you want about the procedure and how dangerous it is, but I have a hard time believing ATC has any direct blame in this.

Telling the helicopter to turn left 30 degrees would have cost thousands of dollars? I know they are expensive to operate, but we're talking about perhaps a 20 second delay. Even a full circle would only have taken 2 minutes.

I disagree with the underlined part of your quote. I find it unreasonable to see 2 aircraft approaching each other and just stick with 'do you see him'. Giving the helicopter a heading would definitely be within their power and would be an entirely reasonable thing to do.

How often does ATC have to ask the helicopters twice for visual separation? Is that normal? From the -admittedly unverified- audio clips on youtube it seems like the controller did have an inkling the helicopter was not behaving as expected.

How far can the helicopter deviate before ATC would have to start giving headings? Surely there must be some kind of contingency in place to deal with unresponsive/erratically behaving traffic? What would have happened if the helicopter lost comms 2 minutes before the accident?

The controller had the power to intervene and he didn't, or at least not in the right way. That it hasn't been necessary hundreds of times before, doesn't change that. It makes it easier to understand *why* he didn't intervene, but it doesn't change the fact that he *could* and *should* have intervened to save those lifes. A very sucky situation to be in, which makes him another victim in this accident in my eyes.

[digits_]

Or how about a real world example.

I used to operate freight trains for the railway. Every single day we saw people crossing/walking on/near the tracks. We give them a honk, they get off. Sometimes it takes 2 honks, or occasionally 3. But they always move. Until this one time....

It was horrible. Could I have done something to prevent it? Yup. Is it reasonable to expect me to have? Nope! If we stopped the train every time we saw someone walking on the tracks just to be safe, the trains would never move.

Your argument can't hold a drop of water.

You can't really change the route of a train willy nilly of course. But let's say there was another track available to get to your destination. It would add 20 seconds to your travel time, but it would avoid the people crossing the tracks. Would it not have been reasonable to take that alternate track?

[Outlaw58]

Has it occurred to anyone that sometimes, accidents happen despite everyone involved being qualified, competent, proficient, recent and having acted professionally within the boundaries of their Rules and SOPs?

PAT 25 was flying using NVGs. If you have never flown with those, try this out when you have a chance: Take 2 rolls of toilet paper and look through those, you will notice a couple things. First and foremost, your field of view is severely restricted, approximately 40 deg as opposed to the 190-200 deg FOV your normal vision usually affords you. Second, the monochromatic display greatly reduces any kind of depth perception. Since binocular vision is ineffective for distant objects, the brain uses other clues such as relative size or relative motion to assess depth. The monochromatic display greatly reduces the quality of these cues. Third, NVGS take the ambient light available and amplifies it. NVGs do not see exactly the same spectrum as normal vision and is shifted slightly toward the Near IR. This means that under NVG, a blinding green or blue light to the naked eye would be nearly invisible under NVG, Normal white lights have equivalent intensity and nearly invisible red or IR light to the naked eye will show extremely bright under NVG. Furthermore, the NVGs will automatically adjust the brightness in relation to the brightest light it picks up. Meaning that if you are looking directly at a reddish light, the NVGS will automatically dim itself to reduce the blinding effect of that light thus rendering the other light much dimmer.

The more advanced the generation of NVGs used, the less pronounced are these different effects but not completely eliminated. Pilots are thoughts a few techniques to mitigate these NVGs particularities such as developing the habit of scanning with your entire head (moving the actual tubes) from left to right to left to counter the limited FOV and to move any bright lights out of the NVG FOV to diminish the dimming effect, helping to "see" lights or features that would otherwise be dimmed out of view.

Flying with NVG with nearby cultural lighting (city lights) can be very challenging for a pilot to negate the flooding effect of these lights. I felt it was important to understand these things before one can properly make an educated guess on what happened in DCA.

Armed with that knowledge, I am no closer to figure out exactly what happened that night. I can think of quite a number of things that could have happened but incompetence, stupidity, temerity or lack of experience/professionalism does not come to mind for any and and all the parties involved.

My 2 cents,

58

[khedrei]

Or how about a real world example.

I used to operate freight trains for the railway. Every single day we saw people crossing/walking on/near the tracks. We give them a honk, they get off. Sometimes it takes 2 honks, or occasionally 3. But they always move. Until this one time....

It was horrible. Could I have done something to prevent it? Yup. Is it reasonable to expect me to have? Nope! If we stopped the train every time we saw someone walking on the tracks just to be safe, the trains would never move.

Your argument can't hold a drop of water.

You can't really change the route of a train willy nilly of course. But let's say there was another track available to get to your destination. It would add 20 seconds to your travel time, but it would avoid the people crossing the tracks. Would it not have been reasonable to take that alternate track?

No, you can't change the route, but you can blow the emergency brake as soon as you see the person. As I said, we can't do that. Same way that overreacting to situations at ATC wouldn't work either

And in the case of the chopper, if it wasn't doing what it was told, the solution for ATC is to tell the CRJ to go around. That is what costs thousands. I didnt think i needed to spell that out. And that's the only real option if you think ATC is at fault. The helicopter didn't do what it was supposed to so giving it further instructions with limited time would not make sense. The only option is to move the other guy.

It's like talking to a brick wall with you. The same way you claim my accusations that we aren't getting our moneys worth from federal workers because they don't want to go back to the office is unfounded.... your rules aparently don't apply to you

[pelmet]

One would think that they could have a procedure for a helicopter to hover briefly when an aircraft is on final and then pass behind it(although there are wake turbulence issues - not sure how that affects helicopters).

[Daniel Cooper]

Most obvious DEI crash in quite some time. Liberals be like sometimes accidents just happen.