> Perhaps the permitted flight paths were too close together?
My understanding is that the helicopter was military and didn't need to submit a flight plan. They get to fly where ever they want
My understanding is that the helicopter was military and didn't need to submit a flight plan. They get to fly where ever they want
Reminds me of the story of the Navy ship and lighthouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_ur...
All aircraft have separation and avoidance rules that apply at all times.
In controlled airspace aircraft fly where they are told to fly by controllers:
I can guarantee you, if I were flying the helo, the transcript between myself and ATC would be significantly different. When you're certain military and government pilots, it's basically, "Um, sir, I don't mean to disturb you, but are you certain you have visual?".
The real issue is allowing certain military and government aircraft to essentially do whatever they like. I understand the whole "National Security" thing, but, I mean, maybe we can at least talk about the practice? It's not a practice that seems unsafe. It's a practice that is unsafe.
Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706
And they don't need priority. If Air Force One wants to land anywhere, they simply have the airport closed and the airspace cleared. And you don't need to close an entire airport. You can just mark off a place in the sky that's restricted during a certain time.
Additionally, any plane can declare an emergency and take priority over all other traffic, including anything military, including Air Force One. It would be silly if you think you are so important that an airplane currently in the middle of crashing will go around you.
You can verify all of this by listening to ATC transcripts on YouTube. They are pretty easy to find if you're looking for sources.
"US Air Force fighters intercepting an unknown aircraft near the Whitehouse" don't request anything from anyone outside their chain of command. That's not how anyone gets orders sir.
NMCC is in charge, and any idea you have to the contrary is yours alone.
Now, will NMCC, or someone in the chain, communicate with ATC as part of the response? Yes. But only for the purposes of keeping ATC apprised of the situation and informing ATC that fighters are in the area. No one is standing around waiting on the results of clearance requests in these scenarios.
Your assertions would not only be bad policy, but they're contrary to military sense.
My idea is to sit down and have the conversation about why certain helos are engaged in some of these dangerous practices? And if that reasoning be sufficiently compelling, to consider the pros and cons of closing DCA. If the reasoning be not compelling, then we need to have another discussion about different operating protocols for these aircraft.
You may not strictly need the clearance but it's a really good idea to know where it's safe to fly.
> My idea is to sit down and have the conversation about why certain helos are engaged in some of these dangerous practices?
This isn't different from planes colliding on a runway. There are bad procedures. The NTSB will investigate and make recommendations. The military will offer their opinions. And the FAA will ignore everything until it happens a couple more times. Or with see and avoid, bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away.
Now it's easy to say, "Well, Bilbo0s, who are you to say it wasn't necessary?"
That's true, but it's an argument that's closed onto itself. We can't probe any further 'cuz "National Security". So this unimaginably dangerous practice of allowing military and government pilots to do this sort of thing "if necessary" continues.
We need to, at minimum, have a discussion about why the practice is necessary?
There's also no need to because current procedures already covers this. All the aircraft would have to do is declare an emergency and they get to go and land wherever they want.