An ATC scheme that calls for the pilots of a passenger jet to be alert for conflicting traffic on short final is - to put it mildly - badly flawed.
As @Joey_P said, part of the preflight process includes setting all the altimeters, crosschecking they are within tolerance of each other and of the altitude of that part of the ramp area.
This mishap almost certainly has nothing to do with altimeter settings. And certainly not with them on the jet. I say that not because I have total faith in altimeter setting procedures, but because at that point in the maneuver the jet pilots are looking out the window and flying in relationship to the runway. The altimeter could magically suddenly jump to thousands of feet off and nobody would notice until post-flight.
But they have to be. I’ve seen (on youtube) a handful of scenarios where the pilot had to go-around because there was something on the runway that ATC wasn’t aware of. Ops truck crossing without clearance, wildlife etc. Even another plane lining up (or starting to take off) without clearance.
And in any case, VFR landing requires the pilot to be able to watch for other aircraft and obstacles.
Even for IFR, the wiki page says “Despite the protection offered by flight in controlled airspace under IFR, the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the aircraft rests with the pilot in command, who can refuse clearances”
Also, this is right from the FAA
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_5.html
When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles.
I don’t, however, know how this plays into the current discussion,
Pilots should certainly be paying attention to the runway, what might block it & how to land safely on it - that’s pretty much the main job on short final. And I’m all in favor of encouraging pilot vigilance.
My point is that it’s crazy to implement a system that includes the routine possibility of nearby aircraft that might need to be dodged - basically, a “not whether, but when” situation.
A question to pilots here:
In the training of airline pilots and of air traffic controllers, is there any familiarisation with the other side’s workplace, particularly with what they see?
I.e. do pilots in training get a look of how air traffic looks on an ATC screen, and/or do controllers in training get a look of how flights look from the cockpit?
In my case, I sought out that experience on my own - it was never offered to me. I’ve visited a number of towers and ATC centers and found it interesting, but I don’t know that it needs to be required. As a pilot, you mostly learn your end of it by doing the job.
I’ve also heard from a controller or two that maybe the powers-that-be don’t want too much familiarity between controllers and pilots. Sometimes ATC has to say no to pilot requests and perhaps it’s better that they don’t over-identify with us in those moments. OTOH, I’ve known several controllers who were also pilots and they seemed to think it helped them understand the workings of the system better.
During an early visit to a combined tower and approach / departure radar facility I asked a number of technical questions that were important from my POV as a pilot. But the controllers were more easygoing about it. I got the impression they weren’t looking to be police officers or create opportunities for paperwork - as long as you traversed their airspace safely and without drama they weren’t looking to call out pilots for screwing up. They certainly weren’t interested in what kind of holding pattern entries we executed, as long as we stayed in protected airspace (a lot of effort goes into that in IFR training, but I later learned it’s more about understanding underpinnings of the system and developing situational awareness).
My guess would be that many professional pilots have never visited an ATC facility or met a controller in person. When I was an airline pilot on a reserve schedule, I once organized a “field trip” to the tower at our base airport. None of my coworkers had done it before, while the controllers said they rarely hosted visitors, though they were thrilled we made the effort.
I would say an ATC scheme that has helicopters flying 100 feet under a plane on short final is badly flawed. Reducing the angle of visibility using night vision is just making it worse.
On a similar note I wouldn’t be too fond of a helicopter flying 150 above me while I drive over a bridge.
I don’t think that was the scheme. As I understand it, the ATC directed the helicopter to pass behind the CRJ, not under it.
Enforced unfamiliarity seems like bad policy. If aircraft crews are expected to adhere to crew resource management practices in the cockpit, then cooperation with ATC should be an extension of that: ATC may be in charge of the airspace, but they need to understand pilots’ concerns before making decisions, and pilots need to understand what info ATC is working with so that they (the pilots) can put ATC decisions in context and have a more complete understanding of their own situation as a result.
I mean they don’t really need to go on pub crawls together, but a seminar, site visit, or informational video seems like it could be helpful in both directions. In the present case, there are questions about whether the helicopter pilot had identified the correct aircraft; it might have been helpful for ATC if they had understood how difficult it can be to ID a particular aircraft in crowded airspace over a nighttime cityscape, or how difficult it is for a jet pilot on a short banking final approach to notice an approaching helicopter when it’s way out to the side, possibly even beyond the edge of the cockpit window…
According to what @Llama_Llogophile said, unfamiliarity is not being enforced, per se, but rather it sounds like familiarity may not necessarily be encouraged. There’s a subtle difference.
IANAP but I can see how becoming familiar with ATCs’ work environments can be helpful to some pilots, while for other pilots it could be too much information, or too much context, and therefore not helpful.
Again, IANAP but in my tech civilian career developing medical devices I personally found it helpful to be familiar with how doctors and clinicians used my products, but it was not necessary for all personnel in product design to help them develop better products. The separation of knowledge can be a good thing. ‘Information overload’ can be detrimental to the performance of one’s job.
IME most ATC facilities have some sort of local pilot outreach. Which is not widely taken up. As an example, I’ve been in a couple of control towers large and small, but never visited an approach control radar facility nor an enroute center.
ATC controllers are allowed to ride for free in airliner cockpits. On supposedly official familiarization flights approved by their boss and submitted to the relevant airline for their approval. Which is granted pro forma. Which fam rides coincidentally often go to tourist destinations.
In my 30+ years in the biz I think I’ve flown 6, maaybe 10 controllers. The folks who do that are interested and engaged in what’s going on, and are clearly aviation nuts. The fact so few do this suggests they are outliers.
Every airline pilot department has an official ATC liaison function at HQ and at each hub to deal with both the statitically inevitable pilot or ATC goofs and with procedural optimizations. In this biz time is money at a very high exchange rate, and shaving seconds can be very profitable if it’s a matter of working smarter, not just more hastily.
The airline ATC liaison function is also heavily involved with with impending changes. When some procedure is to be changed at a busy hub, then people who’ve been doing X, Y, and Z almost without thinking for years suddenly on some certain date need to begin doing X, W, then Q instead. ATC has an internal training program to get their folks ready to do it the new way and they feed all that into the affected airlines early so they too can get the word out via memo, or even a formal training program to get everybody ready for the [whatever] change, be it small or large.
As to separation of concerns …
I had the “privilege” of having a career riddled with furloughs. As did many of my co-workers. Which led to more varied cockpit convos as we regaled one another with tales of our (mis-)adventures doing something else. I heard some real success stories and some real tragedies.
During those gaps some of them became ATC controllers. Or had been military controllers before becoming civilian pilots. It was interesting (and sometimes “interesting”) to fly with them for their greater insight into what’s going on at the other end of the radio. Sometimes their desire to kibitz led them off into the weeds of speculation that seemed to me to be misleading and confusing.
There is certainly great value in correctly gathering the big picture of what the controller is thinking and what everyone else is doing. Drilling into that too deeply is unwise IME/IMO.
It was interesting on the few times I’ve had a controller riding with us that they were doing the same thing, but sorta in reverse. They’d be watching the ATC game from the “wrong” end of the radio at least as much as they’d be watching us play the pilot game. I imagine I’d have had the mirror-image reaction had I sat for an hour alongside a radar controller doing their thing with departure, arrival, or en route traffic.
I’m reminded of an article I read about baseball umpiring. Which later led to me reading a book about baseball umpiring. The umpires have plays just like the players do. But they’re utterly different. Becasue they’re playing a different game. Where the game’s goal is to be in position to see what’s about to happen, while also not getting in the way of it.
It’s kind of fun to watch a couple innings of live baseball just watching the umps play their game, run their plays, etc., while ignoring the players insofar as possible. Have to do it live since on TV the cameras are aimed at the players and the balls and an ump being in view is just an unfortunate coincidence from the TV director’s POV.
Late edit:
Can recommend for anyone who enjoys baseball beyond the basics and/or the lore and mystique of the game.
It’s real easy to see that at lower levels, low minors or HS ball where they only have two (or sometimes) three umps. If no one is on base, you have one calling balls & strikes & the other is a first base ump; once someone gets on base the first base up becomes the bases ump & he moves into the field of play so that he can be closer to multiple bases. I’m guessing on an infield grounder, he’s looking at second while the home plate ump scurries down the line to watch the timing to see if it’s a double play; that they have ‘plays’ to divide & conquer all the bases between them.
All true. That book I mentioned isn’t an ump training manual but does go into some of that in the course of his rather engaging story.
You are correct as it relates to the instructions from ATC.
However, I was using the term “scheme” in the broader sense to mean a systematic or organized configuration. The continued reports of the helicopter flying higher than it’s 200 ft ceiling implies a procedure that allows for it.
Here’s a repost of link to a PDF showing the Helicopter routes with a description of altitudes along the routes. I don’t see instructions to avoid runway glide slopes but there are instructions saying ATC can alter them.
Maybe the FAA should require more air traffic controllers per shift at Reagan National?
It would be a very bad day if a combat pilot flew with ADS-B on. GPS tracking would be too helpful for enemy air defense systems.
They’re flying 200 ft off the deck. Even a shoulder fired ant-aircraft weapon is taking it down. The Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan with Stingers.
It doesn’t seem prudent to fly so close to commercial aviation without ADS-B under the guise of training.
didn’t he blame it on DEI?
He now blames something just about everyone here agrees with:
Regarding all this ATC stuff, this is once case where you’d think the leopards would remember that they also need to fly and without a solid ATC workforce, their planes are just as likely to get into trouble as anyone else’s.