Hacker News Reader

Comment by kube-system | Hacker News Reader

This accident didn't involve the main runway, but runway 33. Although -- look at a map -- runway 33 points across the river to a military base with a heliport. It seems obvious as to why military helicopters would have to be there.

Now, this particular flight wasn't landing there, but I don't think it is in any way confusing as to why military helicopters are in this area or taking these routes.

This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.

View on HN

> This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.

Three are occasional news articles and sci-fi worlds advocating for flying cars to replace normal cars. I imagine that would actually be like this situation but a gazillion times worse, rather than the promised elimination of traffic jams.

Actually, its a great way to eliminate traffic jams. The vehicles involved in the collision will naturally exit the roadway. So long as the flame and smoke don't obscure visibility, traffic will unjam itself.

The naturally exiting vehicles then just rain debris down on whatever unsuspecting <insertWhateverHere>.

My question would be “why not close down Reagan?” especially now that the DC Metro runs to Dulles. Yes, yes, Congress likes to fly into Reagan. Too bad.

Not only does Reagan have the same design problem as LGA and SFO (built before jetliners, runways too short), it’s incredibly close to restricted airspace. No civilian needs to fly into an airport that close to DC.

The area has enough traffic to support three airports, and all three (DCA/IAD/BWI) carry between 26-27 million passengers a year, each. I don't think you could close one of them without some significant disruption to service.

Travel in/out of IAD from DC can take an hour, which is obviously why people there prefer DCA. And the flights there are all short-haul anyway, so many are the types of flights people are doing on short turnarounds.

Well that settles it then, military aircraft will have to just turn on their ADS-B transponders when within X miles of a commercial/public airport

They're not all short haul. I can do a direct to DCA from SLC.

There are a handful of exceptions (of which SLC is one), but broadly the airport is legally limited to destinations within a 1250 mile perimeter to keep long haul traffic at IAD/BWI.

A compromise could be to close it for arrivals during certain hours, opening up one entire side of airspace (depending on the wind).

The pain could be mitigated somewhat by adding seating areas and more aircraft parking while using larger planes. For instance, fewer flights total, consisting of 737s and a320s and eliminating flights that previously used shorter commuter sized aircraft.

I think Midway (another old airport) is like this in that it’s “Southwest + some private flights”

I don't think IAD has the capacity to absorb the DCA traffic, at least not on a regular basis. Even if you include BWA I have my doubts that you wouldn't have to cut a bunch of flights due to gate or runway limitations.

Reagan is not shut down because Congress wants it to be open.

Immediately after 9-11, lots of people talked seriously about whether to re-open it. Ultimately they did, because Congress wants it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com