4 ms·

I wonder whether telling either the army to use cars, or that the airport should be moved further away from the city was doable for atc personnel, or even their

by pyrale 2y ago

I wonder whether telling either the army to use cars, or that the airport should be moved further away from the city was doable for atc personnel, or even their higher ups.

mandevil 2y ago
One of the missions of those helicopters was the immediate evacuation of personnel in the event of attack against Washington D.C. That requires the speed and range that a helicopter can provide but cars can't. To do that mission requires training and practice flying through the area, because as everyone in the military knows, you fight like you train, and so they need to be flying through DC regularly, both day and night. As for DCA itself, yeah, there have been people trying to close it for decades- that was originally the plan once they opened IAD in 1962. But DCA was so close and so convenient to the city and IAD (and later BWI) are so far away that no one has really wanted to pull the trigger on closing it, even as the airspace got more and more complex after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
wat10000 2y ago
You wouldn't need anything so extreme. Just prohibiting landings on runway 33 simultaneous with helicopter traffic underneath the approach path would have done wonders here. Additionally, require military traffic to have ADS-B, and ensure that the tower is sufficiently staffed to have the dedicated helicopter controller that it's supposed to have.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Just prohibiting landings on runway 33 simultaneous with helicopter traffic underneath the approach path .. Additionally, require military traffic to have ADS-B I'm thinking you're not quite understanding the nature of the missions many of these helos undertake. I personally don't think the practice should be allowed, but that's why we need to have a discussion. We need to determine how necessary are these practices? That said, I can guarantee you that the ideas you put forth would be rejected by government and military planners. Those ideas would defeat the entire point of some missions. What we can do is talk about whether or not DCA is a facility that should be open? Things of that nature. But any ideas that result in tipping off the mission will be non-starters for the guys and gals seated on the military/intelligence side of the table.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. What is it about these flights that would make it impossible to prohibit them from flying under the 33 approach while it's in use, or prohibit incoming traffic from landing on 33 while these flights are nearby? Why can't they use ADS-B?

by pyrale 2y ago

I wonder whether telling either the army to use cars, or that the airport should be moved further away from the city was doable for atc personnel, or even their higher ups.

mandevil 2y ago

One of the missions of those helicopters was the immediate evacuation of personnel in the event of attack against Washington D.C. That requires the speed and range that a helicopter can provide but cars can't. To do that mission requires training and practice flying through the area, because as everyone in the military knows, you fight like you train, and so they need to be flying through DC regularly, both day and night. As for DCA itself, yeah, there have been people trying to close it for decades- that was originally the plan once they opened IAD in 1962. But DCA was so close and so convenient to the city and IAD (and later BWI) are so far away that no one has really wanted to pull the trigger on closing it, even as the airspace got more and more complex after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

wat10000 2y ago

You wouldn't need anything so extreme. Just prohibiting landings on runway 33 simultaneous with helicopter traffic underneath the approach path would have done wonders here. Additionally, require military traffic to have ADS-B, and ensure that the tower is sufficiently staffed to have the dedicated helicopter controller that it's supposed to have.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Just prohibiting landings on runway 33 simultaneous with helicopter traffic underneath the approach path .. Additionally, require military traffic to have ADS-B I'm thinking you're not quite understanding the nature of the missions many of these helos undertake. I personally don't think the practice should be allowed, but that's why we need to have a discussion. We need to determine how necessary are these practices? That said, I can guarantee you that the ideas you put forth would be rejected by government and military planners. Those ideas would defeat the entire point of some missions. What we can do is talk about whether or not DCA is a facility that should be open? Things of that nature. But any ideas that result in tipping off the mission will be non-starters for the guys and gals seated on the military/intelligence side of the table.
- wat10000 2y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. What is it about these flights that would make it impossible to prohibit them from flying under the 33 approach while it's in use, or prohibit incoming traffic from landing on 33 while these flights are nearby? Why can't they use ADS-B?