Training in or near any terminal control area (TCA) is a no, no, for any type of training including helicopters. TCA is an acronym for commercial airspace and has not been treated as commercial airspace allowing only commercial operations. No training in TCAs!!! Getting outside a TCA is not a problem because over 90% of US airspace below 18,000 feet is uncontrolled; the way it should be. Only air traffic requires control of airspace which only happens at the busiest airports which are in TCAs. This appears to be a political problem with politicians thinking they could ignore non commercial operations in a TCA; not, not, not. No one should be surprised, politicians getting in the way of commercial operations allowing training in a TCA. The FAA certainly would not allow training in a TCA. And, who ever the politicion who bent the ear of an FAA bureaucrat to get training in a TCA; we will never know; the way the politicians operate; in semi secret. Government igoring the Bill of Rights, and all the detail laws that support the Bill of Rights, just really ugly.
"Nitpick here. The NTSB graphic was soooo not to scale that my literal-minded brain went to work trying to figure out how it might have been deceiving.
Raf’s text description was far better, because it was rigrously accurate."
That’s why I did the trig calculations. The NTSB graphic shows the helicopter corridor about 4,000 feet from the threshold and roughly 1,000 feet wide. I couldn’t find the actual width, but if it’s wider, and the helicopter was flying toward the inside or closer to the touchdown zone — things could get even worse. The graph made its point well enough, but the scaling seemed off, and more detail might have improved it. Still, it was a good starting point for more accurate calculations. Credit to the NTSB for getting the ball rolling.
TCAs haven’t been a thing for 30 years - most TCAs were replaced by Class B airspace. And how will pilots know how to operate in a “TCA” without ever training in one? Let’s give some credit to CFIs - they’re there to keep students (and other participating aircraft) out of trouble.
The FAA already issued a regulatory, mandatory FDC NOTAM 5/4379 implementing the NTSB’s recommendation.
Using an aircraft radio and other location devices in an aircraft has little to do with flying. Actual flight training needs to happen outside class B; C; D; & E airspace. TCAs may be an old term but cover a lot of ground making it easy to talk about busy airspace. Take some flying lessons so you know what the hell is going on. One learns to fly first, 20 to 40 flying hours, then enters the TCA system with an instructor learning radio communication standards; and what location devices to scan and how often; after learning to fly. Or, no one should be in TCA airspace, classes B; C; D; & E learning anything but communication skills and only during non busy times in the TCA. Instructors schedule time in TCAs only during non busy times. This is how the system has always worked! Where the hell have you been?
The helicopter pilot was using night vision googles. A no, no, highly unlawful in commercial TCA airspace. Like wearing an instrument hood in commercial airspace; just very wrong and very unlawful. This pilot and instructor are done for doing this. They are probably 80% responsible for this accident.
Class Bravo Airspace since 1991. Christopher Hart was acting Chair and then Chairman of the NTSB from 2014-2017, he was an engineer and pilot.
Current Chairman Homendy completed Private Pilot ground school and has logged time in a Cessna 172.
A Private Pilot Certificate or greater is required to operate as pilot in command in Class B Airspace.
There are no specific prohibitions regarding operation of private aircraft at DC except as covered by the special operating requirements for the entire DC area.
Why the airlines have simulators and use them to the nth degree!!! And these days most aircraft training schools have simulators also. No live training in TCA airspace, ever is needed. Though small schools still fly into TCAs for radio experience, I believe. Radio technique can be learned on a simulator also.
“Take some flying lessons so you know what the hell is going on.” Two-hundred hour VFR pilot who trained in and around Class B airspace (actually it WAS called a TCA back then).
“This is how the system has always worked! Where the hell have you been?” Twenty-five years in FAA as controller and support specialist (training people about today’s modern airspace). I even trained controllers at a Class B commercial airport about the airspace changes when the airspace changed from TCA to Class B. That’s where I’ve been. Thanks for asking.
Respectfully suggest you read part 61.105 and 61.109. Training is required in a traffic pattern at an airport with a control tower for a private pilot certificate. At a minimum that is class D airspace. The examiner that I got most of my ratings was located at an airport that class C. Kind of hard to get my private without knowing how to handle communication with a class C atc.
Nope. I’ve been in plenty of training devices, sims, etc. and I have operated often in the B, both visual and IMC over decades.
It’s not the same. Simulations are learning tools, but they, like most things, come with limitations. Remember the song? Nothing like the real thing, baby…
Pt 830.5(10). Operator of aircraft that responds to a RA to avoid a collision is required to file a report to NTSB. I had to file a RA response not too long ago. Was told by my chief pilot that the NTSB would contact me if they needed more information. They never did.
Either a change from when I retired three years ago or we simply missed that reg.
If people are complying, the NTSB is getting hundreds or RA reports per day. For instance, you will get an RA on at least 25 percent of IFR arrivals to runway 16R at VNY.
Hypothetical: You are leveling at the assigned altitude of 6000 feet after a descent. A VFR aircraft level at 5500 feet causes an RA. By leveling at 6000 feet, you are complying with the RA that tells you not to descend. That is legal separation, but you did get an RA and technically responded by leveling as intended. Did you avoid a collision?
Good for you Bill. You of all people should know that NTSB is not a regulatory agency and that many of their recommendations are either ignored or even never read. Attributing contributory probable cause to the absence of recommendations of a non-regulatory agency whose recommendations are regularly ignored is beyond the pale.
The NTSB’s urgent recommendation is dumb. This shows she doesn’t understand the dynamics of the accident.
In my opinion, the immediate amd urgent action is to prohibit pilot visual separation “contracts” with ATC.
Her expectations for helo bans is simply unrealistic. Helo’s need to be under positive control of ATC with ATC responsible for separation when on these routes.
Additionally an urgent action would be the military to limit NVG use flying in proximity to DCA. At no time should both pilots be wearing NVGs under VFR night conditions unless on military maneuvers far away from the flying public.
RAF,
Actually the Altimeter tolerance below 1000 ft is ± 20 ft. This is in Pt. 43 appendix E, which are relevant to 24 mo. Pt. 91-411 check. It’s a sliding scale based on the Altitude.
In regards to Altitude reporting equipment It has to be within 125 ft. of the Altimeter indication regardless if it is Mode C or S.
Good point, thanks. Your statement is very true, it’s a sliding tolerance scale, but the ±75 feet standard is more of an operational norm rather than an FAA regulatory limit.
My understanding is that the ±75 feet margin has gained traction because it aligns with practical ATC expectations and keeps pilots and controllers ahead of potential issues. It’s a solid benchmark for operational reliability, but not the hard-and-fast regulatory standard. Think cumulative errors.
Altimeter Sliding Scale Tolerance, for Military or Civilian aircraft:
- As altitude increases, the allowable tolerance expands. For instance:
- At 5,000 feet → ±30 feet
- At 10,000 feet → ±50 feet
- At 20,000 feet → ±80 feet
- At 30,000 feet → ±120 feet
Similar situation exists in NYC with choppers going from Manhattan to JFK narrowly cutting under planes landing at LGA. This helicopter route should be closed starting today. A crash in Brooklyn will not land in a river, but will devastate many densely populated residential blocks.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.