Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

The fact that we haven’t heard the administration trying to exploit this tragedy since they did their DEI presser tells me everything I need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that we haven’t heard the administration trying to exploit this tragedy since they did their DEI presser tells me everything I need to know.

Yep. Imagine if it had been black military personnel flying and in that BH.

Say the name of the "VIP" who was aboard the BH earlier that night. If there was no one, say so. WHY won't they say their name(s)??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes the main reason for the flight was legitimate. It was a check ride test scheduled ahead of time for the female pilot. She needed the hours and ride time, this was the day and evening it was scheduled.

It’s not like they called her off her base last minute and said get to WDC in an hour to do an impromptu test with no prep time.

[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

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.

Where did you hear this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Where did you hear this?

DP. From pilots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes the main reason for the flight was legitimate. It was a check ride test scheduled ahead of time for the female pilot. She needed the hours and ride time, this was the day and evening it was scheduled.

It’s not like they called her off her base last minute and said get to WDC in an hour to do an impromptu test with no prep time.

That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting that the more experienced pilot flew for the VIP part of the ride, then, after dropping off the VIP, she flew for the training hours to justify the flight ever happening at all because the “VIP” may not have actually been authorized military helo rides. Because this administration follows no rules, no laws, and no norms. Or worse, maybe she DID fly the whole dangerous route through known problematic, mostly civilian congested flight path to justify the whole trip for someone who shouldn’t be getting military rides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that we haven’t heard the administration trying to exploit this tragedy since they did their DEI presser tells me everything I need to know.

Yep! He'd be talking about it nonstop otherwise.

[Anonymous]

All that really matters is the results of an independent investigation by the NTSB, which I doubt we will get because the current regime is destroying every part of government that actually benefits and protects citizens. We will never get the truth and as terrible as it is, that will be the least of our concerns.

[Anonymous]

Question- if the helicopter was flying beneath airliners, are they unable to see them or hear them when they pass nearby or underneath? Would the wind disturbance not create a physical sensation from under the planes?

I’ve seen people say the airliner pulled up before impact, would the helicopter not see the plane but the plane see it? It seems that it would make more sense in reverse - helicopter sees plane rather than plane sees helicopter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question- if the helicopter was flying beneath airliners, are they unable to see them or hear them when they pass nearby or underneath? Would the wind disturbance not create a physical sensation from under the planes?

I’ve seen people say the airliner pulled up before impact, would the helicopter not see the plane but the plane see it? It seems that it would make more sense in reverse - helicopter sees plane rather than plane sees helicopter

Helicopter team would see a plane and so would its radar. Unless it was confused and so overconfident that a taking off plane or runway 1 plane was who the ATC was 2-3x calling them about that was landing on runway 33.

Poor listening and brain processing skills to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who was the ATC who left their shift early? Who was the supervisor who let them?

Maybe they had explosive diarrhea. You have no idea the circumstances.

Shouldn't they have a backup?

Have you missed all the coverage everywhere about how understaffed the ENTIRE FAA is, and has been for a long time? Magical "backups" don't just appear, PP. Maybe they should, but they aren't a given like you seem to assume. Not in such an understaffed environment. Keep up with the coverage better. Even the increasingly problematic Post has covered this.

This. It sounds like many of you people either never read the news or never travel. We recently flew into and out of Newark on our way out of the country and the flights had to circle for HOURS because they couldn't land all the planes they had up there safely with so few ATCs.

But ATC was still able to communicate this to the pilots had the skills and knowledge to listen for and follow instructions, and ultimately land their plane safely. That’s how it is supposed to work.

Agree, big disconnect going on with this BH ride.

[Anonymous]

https://www.newsweek.com/dc-plane-crash-ntsb-provides-update-black-hawk-data-2026272

doing a good job. has Helo's black box recording been debriefed yet with the public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be deep look into qualifications of pilots. How is it that a pilot with only 450 hours flying and a couple yrs out of flight school gets tasked with flying around high profile government officials and is flying around DC air? This isn’t even enough experience to be hired as a commercial pilot.
Major airlines require 1500 hrs

Commerical long haul hours can't be compared. But it would be meaningful to know the last time the pilot was in the driving position and how many hours she had the last 12 and 24 months. Every pilot we know is fanatical about memorizing craft manuals, flight specs, and required routes. Plus visualizing their controls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The helicopter never had clearance to fly under the plane. They were told to go behind it. They aren't going to clear a helicopter to fly under a plane at low altitudes.

That was kind of a last ditch order seconds before impact, by then it was clear the helicopter was not responding to or seeing the actual incoming CJR to runway 33.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the second ATC who left early (because of staff shortages) would have been more specific re where the plane was. Some pilots say absolutely should be been more specific in that air space. Anyone know what is actually required?

How much more specific could they have been? I’m sure the helicopter team would’ve been offended by being talked down to as if they didn’t know what they were doing. That happens all the time across all career paths. Additional instruction is taken as an insult to your abilities.

Agree, not casting any blame, but appears the helo crew was quick to respond both times along the lines of "yeah yeah we got it, visual sep pls, thank you".

Some kind of a malfunction, maybe the altimeter will likely be the proximal cause.
We need to invest in finding ways to fail safely.

Including if the copilot just flippantly responds with Yeah yeah yeah but didn't really have anyone do an aerial look or runway check.

We all have co-workers or family members who tune out, say Yes, and never do a thing. But that shouldn't be the standard response for a military pilot.