Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt there was a VIP on board ever. And I doubt that the helicopter took off from Langley.

On day 1, Hangover Hesgeth said it was a continuity of government training exercise. It took off from Belvoir or Bolling and went to Mt. Weather. In order to prevent having the route monitored, they turned the transponder off when they got (initially) to Langley. On the way back they turned the transponder on when they got to Langley so as to be seen by ATC when they re-entered airspace used by DCA. No VIP. Simple.

Why would a training flight have a VIP onboard? Waste of time for the VIP and training missions carrying an actual VIP are no longer training missions.

JFC. Because they routinely use return flights from dropping off VIPs to knock out their needed training hours. And because of the call sign (of the flight, not the physical helicopter).

Why comment if you don’t read?

The call sign comes from the command not the occupant. Thisisn't an Air Force 1 or Marine 1 type situation.

DP here. It’s almost worse if there was no VIP. It was a terrible, horrible (and ultimately fatal) idea to run a “training” mission like this through busy class B at night with no other purpose. To me that is just a criminal as a mystery VIP. Either way, the military is at fault.

For many reasons, cease Army black hawk pilots. Use Air Force or navy ones only.

Name the reasons. What is your background in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt there was a VIP on board ever. And I doubt that the helicopter took off from Langley.

On day 1, Hangover Hesgeth said it was a continuity of government training exercise. It took off from Belvoir or Bolling and went to Mt. Weather. In order to prevent having the route monitored, they turned the transponder off when they got (initially) to Langley. On the way back they turned the transponder on when they got to Langley so as to be seen by ATC when they re-entered airspace used by DCA. No VIP. Simple.

Why would a training flight have a VIP onboard? Waste of time for the VIP and training missions carrying an actual VIP are no longer training missions.

JFC. Because they routinely use return flights from dropping off VIPs to knock out their needed training hours. And because of the call sign (of the flight, not the physical helicopter).

Why comment if you don’t read?

The call sign comes from the command not the occupant. Thisisn't an Air Force 1 or Marine 1 type situation.

DP here. It’s almost worse if there was no VIP. It was a terrible, horrible (and ultimately fatal) idea to run a “training” mission like this through busy class B at night with no other purpose. To me that is just a criminal as a mystery VIP. Either way, the military is at fault.

For many reasons, cease Army black hawk pilots. Use Air Force or navy ones only.

Name the reasons. What is your background in this?

Academy grad pilot family. Ask anyone in the military to compare AF, navy/marines, army training, hours and specialties of who’s piloting a heavy or fighter or helo.
Reserves are risky too.

Compare it to the ongoing and full time IDF training as well.

[Anonymous]

Military failure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt there was a VIP on board ever. And I doubt that the helicopter took off from Langley.

On day 1, Hangover Hesgeth said it was a continuity of government training exercise. It took off from Belvoir or Bolling and went to Mt. Weather. In order to prevent having the route monitored, they turned the transponder off when they got (initially) to Langley. On the way back they turned the transponder on when they got to Langley so as to be seen by ATC when they re-entered airspace used by DCA. No VIP. Simple.

Why would a training flight have a VIP onboard? Waste of time for the VIP and training missions carrying an actual VIP are no longer training missions.

JFC. Because they routinely use return flights from dropping off VIPs to knock out their needed training hours. And because of the call sign (of the flight, not the physical helicopter).

Why comment if you don’t read?

The call sign comes from the command not the occupant. Thisisn't an Air Force 1 or Marine 1 type situation.

DP here. It’s almost worse if there was no VIP. It was a terrible, horrible (and ultimately fatal) idea to run a “training” mission like this through busy class B at night with no other purpose. To me that is just a criminal as a mystery VIP. Either way, the military is at fault.

For many reasons, cease Army black hawk pilots. Use Air Force or navy ones only.

Name the reasons. What is your background in this?

Academy grad pilot family. Ask anyone in the military to compare AF, navy/marines, army training, hours and specialties of who’s piloting a heavy or fighter or helo.
Reserves are risky too.

Compare it to the ongoing and full time IDF training as well.

Ditto on background. This accident should result in safety adjustments, not any rush to ban all Army BH pilots, but yes, multiple issues may be at issue and may need to be corrected or adjusted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problems that all lined up tragically:

Number one issue: Crowded airport with helicopters crossing into the flight paths of landing jets with little clearance room. This was standard, yes, but it diminishes room for human error or other issues, which needs to always be assumed in safety analysis. I can only aasume this will change after this incident

Plane was switched to a different run way and did a little turn that brought it into the black Hawks flight path

The new runway was shorter than the original runway and so the planes descent was likely steeper than if they’d landed on the original run way- again, bringing it into thr Blackhawk path at the worst moment

Plane and Blackhawk were talking to the same controller but on different frequencies so couldn’t hear each other or gain any sort of awareness that way

Blackhawk pilots likely had on night vision goggles which significantly reduces one’s field of vision and with city lights was probably distracting rather than helpful

Weird how you left off the Required Flying altitude (200 fr max) and river positioning (east bank only) from your mumbo jumbo.

Bc it’s not confirmed that that reading was correct. But in any event, I mentioned clearance above. If you fly, you would know 100 feet of clearance with only visual separation is ridiculous and should not be the standard. I can only hope that this will change.
You must be a sad, unhappy and uneducated person to want to run to blame the pilots for an issue that was an overall system failure.

They had Navs in their craft Pp. They aren’t flying around at a fast ground speed “eyeballing” 100 ft from a spot in the air.

And the helos altimeter could be broken or having issues. But doing 150 ft alt between the Dc bridges is more common than doing 250 or 300.

Anyhow- mechanical issue, pilot medical issue, pilot error, pilot plus team error.

The rest is accommodative rules and restrictions to mitigate rare mechanical, medical or pilot errors. Like river

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problems that all lined up tragically:

Number one issue: Crowded airport with helicopters crossing into the flight paths of landing jets with little clearance room. This was standard, yes, but it diminishes room for human error or other issues, which needs to always be assumed in safety analysis. I can only aasume this will change after this incident

Plane was switched to a different run way and did a little turn that brought it into the black Hawks flight path

The new runway was shorter than the original runway and so the planes descent was likely steeper than if they’d landed on the original run way- again, bringing it into thr Blackhawk path at the worst moment

Plane and Blackhawk were talking to the same controller but on different frequencies so couldn’t hear each other or gain any sort of awareness that way

Blackhawk pilots likely had on night vision goggles which significantly reduces one’s field of vision and with city lights was probably distracting rather than helpful

Weird how you left off the Required Flying altitude (200 fr max) and river positioning (east bank only) from your mumbo jumbo.

Bc it’s not confirmed that that reading was correct. But in any event, I mentioned clearance above. If you fly, you would know 100 feet of clearance with only visual separation is ridiculous and should not be the standard. I can only hope that this will change.
You must be a sad, unhappy and uneducated person to want to run to blame the pilots for an issue that was an overall system failure.

They had Navs in their craft Pp. They aren’t flying around at a fast ground speed “eyeballing” 100 ft from a spot in the air.

And the helos altimeter could be broken or having issues. But doing 150 ft alt between the Dc bridges is more common than doing 250 or 300.

Anyhow- mechanical issue, pilot medical issue, pilot error, pilot plus team error.

The rest is accommodative rules and restrictions to mitigate rare mechanical, medical or pilot errors. Like river

You missed the main point. 100 feet is not enough room for a jet and a helicopter to be intersecting without risk

As I stated above, there were a number of unfortunate things that lined up at the exact worst time but the elevation issue and night goggle usage are two obvious things that very likely need to be reassessed and fixed

[Anonymous]

From AP on the NTSB investigation


‘This is a complex investigation,” said Brice Banning, NTSB investigator in charge. “There are a lot of pieces here. Our team is working hard to gather this data.”

Inman expressed frustration, too, that accidents like these occur, noting that the board has made “several hundred” recommendations to improve aviation that have not been acted upon.

[Anonymous]

The larger issue at hand if this turns out to be a suicide mission on part of one of the helicopter pilots is military mental health and how the rate of high suicide can be tackled by the military and government. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue at hand if this turns out to be a suicide mission on part of one of the helicopter pilots is military mental health and how the rate of high suicide can be tackled by the military and government. .

Pp - that really is not what happened here. Or extremely extremely unlikely. There are too many people who don’t like facts or know anything about aviation safety on this thread…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problems that all lined up tragically:

Number one issue: Crowded airport with helicopters crossing into the flight paths of landing jets with little clearance room. This was standard, yes, but it diminishes room for human error or other issues, which needs to always be assumed in safety analysis. I can only aasume this will change after this incident

Plane was switched to a different run way and did a little turn that brought it into the black Hawks flight path

The new runway was shorter than the original runway and so the planes descent was likely steeper than if they’d landed on the original run way- again, bringing it into thr Blackhawk path at the worst moment

Plane and Blackhawk were talking to the same controller but on different frequencies so couldn’t hear each other or gain any sort of awareness that way

Blackhawk pilots likely had on night vision goggles which significantly reduces one’s field of vision and with city lights was probably distracting rather than helpful

Weird how you left off the Required Flying altitude (200 fr max) and river positioning (east bank only) from your mumbo jumbo.

Bc it’s not confirmed that that reading was correct. But in any event, I mentioned clearance above. If you fly, you would know 100 feet of clearance with only visual separation is ridiculous and should not be the standard. I can only hope that this will change.
You must be a sad, unhappy and uneducated person to want to run to blame the pilots for an issue that was an overall system failure.

They had Navs in their craft Pp. They aren’t flying around at a fast ground speed “eyeballing” 100 ft from a spot in the air.

And the helos altimeter could be broken or having issues. But doing 150 ft alt between the Dc bridges is more common than doing 250 or 300.

Anyhow- mechanical issue, pilot medical issue, pilot error, pilot plus team error.

The rest is accommodative rules and restrictions to mitigate rare mechanical, medical or pilot errors. Like river

You missed the main point. 100 feet is not enough room for a jet and a helicopter to be intersecting without risk

As I stated above, there were a number of unfortunate things that lined up at the exact worst time but the elevation issue and night goggle usage are two obvious things that very likely need to be reassessed and fixed

And clearly ATC agrees or they wouldn’t have told the Help to wait and go behind. If it were “enough” clearance, they’d have her let them go on their way without comment.

As I’ve said before I can’t decide which is worse: gross incompetence, gross negligence, or malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problems that all lined up tragically:

Number one issue: Crowded airport with helicopters crossing into the flight paths of landing jets with little clearance room. This was standard, yes, but it diminishes room for human error or other issues, which needs to always be assumed in safety analysis. I can only aasume this will change after this incident

Plane was switched to a different run way and did a little turn that brought it into the black Hawks flight path

The new runway was shorter than the original runway and so the planes descent was likely steeper than if they’d landed on the original run way- again, bringing it into thr Blackhawk path at the worst moment

Plane and Blackhawk were talking to the same controller but on different frequencies so couldn’t hear each other or gain any sort of awareness that way

Blackhawk pilots likely had on night vision goggles which significantly reduces one’s field of vision and with city lights was probably distracting rather than helpful

Weird how you left off the Required Flying altitude (200 fr max) and river positioning (east bank only) from your mumbo jumbo.

Bc it’s not confirmed that that reading was correct. But in any event, I mentioned clearance above. If you fly, you would know 100 feet of clearance with only visual separation is ridiculous and should not be the standard. I can only hope that this will change.
You must be a sad, unhappy and uneducated person to want to run to blame the pilots for an issue that was an overall system failure.

They had Navs in their craft Pp. They aren’t flying around at a fast ground speed “eyeballing” 100 ft from a spot in the air.

And the helos altimeter could be broken or having issues. But doing 150 ft alt between the Dc bridges is more common than doing 250 or 300.

Anyhow- mechanical issue, pilot medical issue, pilot error, pilot plus team error.

The rest is accommodative rules and restrictions to mitigate rare mechanical, medical or pilot errors. Like river

You missed the main point. 100 feet is not enough room for a jet and a helicopter to be intersecting without risk

As I stated above, there were a number of unfortunate things that lined up at the exact worst time but the elevation issue and night goggle usage are two obvious things that very likely need to be reassessed and fixed

And clearly ATC agrees or they wouldn’t have told the Help to wait and go behind. If it were “enough” clearance, they’d have her let them go on their way without comment.

As I’ve said before I can’t decide which is worse: gross incompetence, gross negligence, or malice.

Exactly. The standards need to change and should have a long time ago. This can’t be laid on those pilots directly. This was an accident waiting to happen, and tragically it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the more recent posts on the 239! pages. Any word on who was being transported in the BH between whereever it was they were? Was it actually a vip and whom?

They weren’t transporting anyone. It was just the 3 of them in the helicopter.

They began the route at Langley in McLean. That’s not a training run.

There were over 40 close calls over the last few years. It could have been any flight. So what if you get a list of everyone who has been in a helicopter in that area over the last few years who created danger by using a helicopter in a congested airspace. What are you going to do with that information?

There are two separate problems. Yeah, there are close calls all the time. That’s a known problem.

The other problem is that it’s possible this flight never should have happened. We have an administration that likes to treat themselves and their friends to buildings, servers, documents, and benefits that they are not entitled to. If someone who doesn’t qualify for VIP flights got one, that’s reckless. Oh, and it’s fraud, waste, and abuse.

Maybe someone in the military or reserves can explain checkride requirements and scheduling to you again some day.
Meanwhile don’t quit your remote blogger job.

No one does a check ride picking up a civilian unauthorized to receive military flights. Maybe the last leg of the flight was used for training, but the point is, the flight might not have been necessary at all. The question is: was training added on to justify the flight for someone who shouldn’t have received a ride? THAT is fraud, waste, and abuse. And unnecessary risk.

Get a grip PP.

Start your own threads under paranormal activity or something.

You’re so defensive. All that’s being asked is was main reason for the flight legitimate? Or do you really believe that the entire flight to the most secure location in our area and through the most overcrowded, known high-risk, civilian -heavy flight path was “for training”? I don’t.

[Anonymous]

It was unnecessary for the BH to be in the airspace. np here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue at hand if this turns out to be a suicide mission on part of one of the helicopter pilots is military mental health and how the rate of high suicide can be tackled by the military and government. .

Pp - that really is not what happened here. Or extremely extremely unlikely. There are too many people who don’t like facts or know anything about aviation safety on this thread…

Extremely unlikely but it cannot be ruled out at this time. A theory among the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problems that all lined up tragically:

Number one issue: Crowded airport with helicopters crossing into the flight paths of landing jets with little clearance room. This was standard, yes, but it diminishes room for human error or other issues, which needs to always be assumed in safety analysis. I can only aasume this will change after this incident

Plane was switched to a different run way and did a little turn that brought it into the black Hawks flight path

The new runway was shorter than the original runway and so the planes descent was likely steeper than if they’d landed on the original run way- again, bringing it into thr Blackhawk path at the worst moment

Plane and Blackhawk were talking to the same controller but on different frequencies so couldn’t hear each other or gain any sort of awareness that way

Blackhawk pilots likely had on night vision goggles which significantly reduces one’s field of vision and with city lights was probably distracting rather than helpful

Weird how you left off the Required Flying altitude (200 fr max) and river positioning (east bank only) from your mumbo jumbo.

Bc it’s not confirmed that that reading was correct. But in any event, I mentioned clearance above. If you fly, you would know 100 feet of clearance with only visual separation is ridiculous and should not be the standard. I can only hope that this will change.
You must be a sad, unhappy and uneducated person to want to run to blame the pilots for an issue that was an overall system failure.

They had Navs in their craft Pp. They aren’t flying around at a fast ground speed “eyeballing” 100 ft from a spot in the air.

And the helos altimeter could be broken or having issues. But doing 150 ft alt between the Dc bridges is more common than doing 250 or 300.

Anyhow- mechanical issue, pilot medical issue, pilot error, pilot plus team error.

The rest is accommodative rules and restrictions to mitigate rare mechanical, medical or pilot errors. Like river

You missed the main point. 100 feet is not enough room for a jet and a helicopter to be intersecting without risk

As I stated above, there were a number of unfortunate things that lined up at the exact worst time but the elevation issue and night goggle usage are two obvious things that very likely need to be reassessed and fixed

The ATC told them to go behind the jet. Not under it. No one would clear a helicopter to fly 100 ft under a jet.