Plane crash DCA?

[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?

+1. Anyone arguing a second ATC wasn't a factor is a liar and their motives need to be questioned.

The helicopter was on visual separation. That means the pilot of the Helicopter was responsible for avoiding aircraft.

scary but true. unclear what the issue was in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They'd just received an email asking them to resign. They are already understaffed. But maybe you can ask the Peter Thiel boy toys helping Elon Musk break into the government computer systems.

They have access to classified info already, so maybe the 19 yo who goes by "bigballs" can help you or maybe Luke Farritor can let you know why they didn't have backup.

After all, they are in charge at OPM now!

ATC is not allowed to resign. They aren't part of that deal that's being offered.

As someone else pointed out, they received an email suggesting they resign.

This crash is Trump’s fault.

The crash was not due to an ATC staffing issue (which has been short for YEARS). We already know several of the multiple errors that have led to the crash, and none of them are a problem with ATC. But you know that..

Not the PP to whom you're responding, but: An ATC in the DCA tower was handling both plane and helicopter traffic, earlier in the evening than was standard practice, apparently because another controller left work early. The two types of aircraft were supposed to be handled by separate ATCs until 9:30 p.m. But on that night, a solo ATC was handling both about an hour earlier than normal. This is according to reporting in the Post and many other outlets.

No one is saying yet whether this change caused or even affected the crash at all; that is for the investigators to decide. But it is foolish and extremely premature of you to insist at this time that ATC staffing and/or actions had nothing to do with events that night.

They handled the one helicopter that hour and the normal 8-9pm plane landings just fine.

The Blackhawk had the issues, investigation will uncover what the issues were.

When's the next NTSB press conference on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NTSB report confirmed heli was flying too high, why are we still discussing this?

I agree. To me the only question that remains is are we looking at malicious intent or gross incompetence. My money is on the latter.

Or something mechanical. These are really the only three viable possibilities at this time- but agree it looks like gross incompetence. Blaming Trump, Musk, some VIP, FAA is all wild and delusional

Or something medical with the BH pilots. Hence waiting for the reports.

+ 1 on the mechanical or medical. They should be able to block and tackle that if the black box works - ie controls not responding, or seizure or heart attack when all four limbs driving the helo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s mind blowing that not one of the three saw the plane. How many times have you been with two other people even on a drive and not had atleast one person say hey did you see that? Or spot something the other two did not?

[Anonymous]

Not if all 3 were wearing NVGs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Rebecca turn this off? Was this pure error or were they ordered to because of the still unnamed VIP? This is why we need to know who the VIP was.

I suspect they always fly without it. It wouldn't work in a war zone anyway and would just be a distraction.

No, but they can turn it off when they want to be invisible.

How do you explain the FlightAware data from ADS-B that was turned on over Saudi property? Can you pick one conspiracy and stick with it?

Conspiracy? All I said was that they don’t always fly without it and that military aircraft can disable their ADS-B, preventing their position from being broadcast. This helps them stay off flight tracking systems when necessary, especially during sensitive operations. In this case, we don’t know what happened with ADS-B, so we should wait for the official report.

I see Blackhawks fly over most days. I’ve only seen one show up on a flight app, and that was probably because they forgot to turn it off. The others in the group did not appear.

I click around on FlightRadar24 all the time to see what’s flying, both here and all over the country, and rarely saw military aircraft show up anywhere until a few days ago.

Interesting, maybe they do keep it off, which is fine. But then passenger jets can't see them either in urban areas, and those jets are flying on NextGen GPS software and then their eyes and radar at final approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Rebecca turn this off? Was this pure error or were they ordered to because of the still unnamed VIP? This is why we need to know who the VIP was.

I suspect they always fly without it. It wouldn't work in a war zone anyway and would just be a distraction.

No, but they can turn it off when they want to be invisible.

How do you explain the FlightAware data from ADS-B that was turned on over Saudi property? Can you pick one conspiracy and stick with it?

Conspiracy? All I said was that they don’t always fly without it and that military aircraft can disable their ADS-B, preventing their position from being broadcast. This helps them stay off flight tracking systems when necessary, especially during sensitive operations. In this case, we don’t know what happened with ADS-B, so we should wait for the official report.

I see Blackhawks fly over most days. I’ve only seen one show up on a flight app, and that was probably because they forgot to turn it off. The others in the group did not appear.

I click around on FlightRadar24 all the time to see what’s flying, both here and all over the country, and rarely saw military aircraft show up anywhere until a few days ago.

guess you don’t know anyone who lives or works in Old Town. See military helos weekly and more if you just sat there looking west.

I work downtown by GW, Old Town, and Rosslyn, Arlington and between news, medivac and military helicopters daily they've all been handled well. Until last month's tradegy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Now a plane just crashed in Alaska, with all on board dead.

Neither this flight (terrible weather) nor the medical flight (private aviation, foreign trained pilots) concern me nearly as much as the DCA crash. People trying to equate them are silly.

Same. The DCA crash has brought to light that our military pilots are not as well trained as people perceive. If you aren’t trained to fly through DC safely, that doesn’t bode well for being battle ready

No. You’re making giant leaps in logic.

Nope. There is no clear reason for that crash other than pilot incompetence

A Blackhawk pilot posted on another forum that many pilots are competing for flying hours. I just assumed a pilot could get flight hours whenever they wanted to fly. Didn’t know there was a pecking order.

***

Wtf.

That’d be all the time. Ever meet or know a pilot?!?

Yes, they'd love to be flying all the time! Especially if free aircraft and gas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now a plane just crashed in Alaska, with all on board dead.

Neither this flight (terrible weather) nor the medical flight (private aviation, foreign trained pilots) concern me nearly as much as the DCA crash. People trying to equate them are silly.

Same. The DCA crash has brought to light that our military pilots are not as well trained as people perceive. If you aren’t trained to fly through DC safely, that doesn’t bode well for being battle ready

No. You’re making giant leaps in logic.

Nope. There is no clear reason for that crash other than pilot incompetence

A Blackhawk pilot posted on another forum that many pilots are competing for flying hours. I just assumed a pilot could get flight hours whenever they wanted to fly. Didn’t know there was a pecking order.

Wtf.

That’d be all the time. Ever meet or know a pilot?!?

Only Test pilots.

Highest death rate pilots out there. and usually former fighter jet folks. Test pilots and the air show guys are something else.

[Anonymous]

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

Whelp, if ATC telling them the jet and runway two or three times and then to go around the landing plane can't help the Black Hawk then they need to be grounded during 6am to 12 midnight around Wash DC.

There already were many stop gaps: Radar, Navs, ATC directions and warnings, 3 people in the helo looking around or piloting, maintenance checks every time, jet had blinking wing lights to land plus landing floodlight, laminated Zone 1 flight requirements in the helo and route book, etc.

I am curious if the CRJ, at any point of landing, was told there was a Black Hawk traveling south on an intersecting route, albeit at different altitudes.

I feel experienced pilots would have aborted the landing based on that alone. Just general untrust of part-time military pilots or cowboy mentality.

[Anonymous]

When is the public going to hear about what was on the black boxes?

[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.

This is where the rubber meets the road here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is not. I know a lot of older military pilots and they’re extremely serious about safety at work. Most people don’t want to die, mitigating this risk is obviously a priority. And even more so when civilians are involved.

Granted, the pilot quality may have changed in recent years, though. You used to need an engineering degree to get a pilot slot, but now they’re taking Bible Studies majors. I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t know if this is because recruiting is so hard and so few people qualify, or if it’s the creepy takeover of Christofascsim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Concur. Every country practices air and land evacuations of its capital city leadership, now ours is exposed. Badly. The route, the gear, the pilot skills, the rules, the failures.

If we’re evacuating, commercial flights aren’t landing. Practicing this is not a legitimate reason to put civilians at risk.

[Anonymous]

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

Whelp, if ATC telling them the jet and runway two or three times and then to go around the landing plane can't help the Black Hawk then they need to be grounded during 6am to 12 midnight around Wash DC.

There already were many stop gaps: Radar, Navs, ATC directions and warnings, 3 people in the helo looking around or piloting, maintenance checks every time, jet had blinking wing lights to land plus landing floodlight, laminated Zone 1 flight requirements in the helo and route book, etc.

I am curious if the CRJ, at any point of landing, was told there was a Black Hawk traveling south on an intersecting route, albeit at different altitudes.

I feel experienced pilots would have aborted the landing based on that alone. Just general untrust of part-time military pilots or cowboy mentality.

PP I explained before, but to repeat, the ATC switched the jet’s runway to 33 I believe which is a shorter runway than 1 (probably bc this was a smaller plane) and which brought the jet right into the helicopters path. The helo perhaps thought another jet was the plane they were looking for, and the NVG didn’t help, nor did the fact that the plane and helo transmissions were inaudible to each other

Re the blinking lights, a pilot explained that if the plane was directly in the helo’s path, their eyes might not have seen the blinking. They also said that NVG severely diminish ones field of vision and also can be very distracted in in city lights.