Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not true. There have been dozens of near misses that in any other airport sould have triggered airspace changes.

The more incompetent the pilots are, the more changes will be needed. For sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious if you are flying a BH and ATC says there is a jet coming your way is there an option to just hold where you are and ask ATC to let you know when jet passes? I am not sure if that is possible and creates other dangers but wondered why you have to do maneuvers like fly behind when maybe just easier to hold? I have zero understanding flying. Also like to add that it would be nice if people stop saying possible malice. All these pilots were known to be great people
with zero mental issues and this feels mean to any friends/family who may read DCUM when things like malice comes up. Thank you

Yes.
Hover or flying around Haines point island again.
For sure stop and figure out WTF the ATC is talking about if you’re eyeing a plane taking off to the north of you or the landing queue miles away from runway 1.

Okay if this is the case then I think they had no idea of the danger and thought that other plane was the plane ie no need to stop. If they could stop etc it would be because they were concerned they didn’t see refereed plane. This is all very sad.

[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 commercial jet pilots would have aborted the landing based on that alone. Just general untrust of part-time military pilots or cowboy mentality.

They sure will do DCA fly bys now if an army helicopter is within 5 minutes of their landing. If Black Hawks are ever allowed back.

[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

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.

You have no point. Get the basics correct before posting.

The BH was only told of the CJR and runway 33. That decision was made 5 minutes prior to ATC comms with the BH and is n all the ATC feeds made public. So zero change or confusion from the BH perspective. The airport has (only) two active runways.

The plan was never head-on flying towards the BH so you have no point there either. It dogtailed out to the east to line up with runway 33, and was coming in to land from the airport left or SE side of the Blackhawk.

Not sure where you got the off being so snippy, but yes, the runway change might have made a difference whether the helo heard it or not directly. And obviously it made a significant change bc if you look at the flight paths, the plane made a little loop turn away from Runway 1 and started heading towards runway 33 closer to where the helo was flying. If comms had been shared, there may have been more situational awareness on the part of the helo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious if you are flying a BH and ATC says there is a jet coming your way is there an option to just hold where you are and ask ATC to let you know when jet passes? I am not sure if that is possible and creates other dangers but wondered why you have to do maneuvers like fly behind when maybe just easier to hold? I have zero understanding flying. Also like to add that it would be nice if people stop saying possible malice. All these pilots were known to be great people
with zero mental issues and this feels mean to any friends/family who may read DCUM when things like malice comes up. Thank you

Yes.
Hover or flying around Haines point island again.
For sure stop and figure out WTF the ATC is talking about if you’re eyeing a plane taking off to the north of you or the landing queue miles away from runway 1.

Okay if this is the case then I think they had no idea of the danger and thought that other plane was the plane ie no need to stop. If they could stop etc it would be because they were concerned they didn’t see refereed plane. This is all very sad.

Correct.
No one said pause and no one paused to double check a thing. Very odd to not mentally process what ATC was saying over and over. The BH was lateraling fast too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not if all 3 were wearing NVGs

How many decades of wearing NVG culminate in thousands of incidents like this one?

NVG are meant for areas with little to no light. Think over remote areas of desert. They should never be worn while flying over big cities with lots of lights and incoming planes at night. That was a HUGE misjudgment if there were in fact wearing them- which it sounds like they were.

Other than it being confirmed that NVG were onboard the aircraft, what did you see or hear that leads you to this conclusion?

Maybe they were flipped down instead of up on the helmets, that were found on their heads?

[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

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.

You have no point. Get the basics correct before posting.

The BH was only told of the CJR and runway 33. That decision was made 5 minutes prior to ATC comms with the BH and is n all the ATC feeds made public. So zero change or confusion from the BH perspective. The airport has (only) two active runways.

The plan was never head-on flying towards the BH so you have no point there either. It dogtailed out to the east to line up with runway 33, and was coming in to land from the airport left or SE side of the Blackhawk.

Not sure where you got the off being so snippy, but yes, the runway change might have made a difference whether the helo heard it or not directly. And obviously it made a significant change bc if you look at the flight paths, the plane made a little loop turn away from Runway 1 and started heading towards runway 33 closer to where the helo was flying. If comms had been shared, there may have been more situational awareness on the part of the helo.

Listen to the last 10 minutes of CRJ and PAT (BH) ATC comms yourself. Then post.

No confusion and no change of instruction for the BH.
They were told runway 33 and Regional Jet multiple times as they approached the DCA airspace, and were in the DCA air space.
None of their ATC instructions changed whatsoever. The “big change” you speak of was never a change of order or comms for the Blackhawk.

[Anonymous]

So glad some of our military pilots can’t be bothered to learn the 2 or 3 runways at the DC National airport. Hope they don’t have to fly near bigger airports ever.

[Anonymous]

There is no reason to train for evacuation with commercial flights. Those flights would be diverted. They should practice this after the last commercial flight of the day. Heads should roll over that.

Which makes me think that was not the reason for the flight. They had to justify a requested flight that wasn’t actually necessary - like for a “vip” that didn’t qualify. Lots of bad decisions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious if you are flying a BH and ATC says there is a jet coming your way is there an option to just hold where you are and ask ATC to let you know when jet passes? I am not sure if that is possible and creates other dangers but wondered why you have to do maneuvers like fly behind when maybe just easier to hold? I have zero understanding flying. Also like to add that it would be nice if people stop saying possible malice. All these pilots were known to be great people
with zero mental issues and this feels mean to any friends/family who may read DCUM when things like malice comes up. Thank you

Yes.
Hover or flying around Haines point island again.
For sure stop and figure out WTF the ATC is talking about if you’re eyeing a plane taking off to the north of you or the landing queue miles away from runway 1.

Okay if this is the case then I think they had no idea of the danger and thought that other plane was the plane ie no need to stop. If they could stop etc it would be because they were concerned they didn’t see refereed plane. This is all very sad.

Correct.
No one said pause and no one paused to double check a thing. Very odd to not mentally process what ATC was saying over and over. The BH was lateraling fast too.

Even so, they wouldn’t have hit if they had been flying the correct altitude. Every single black hawk pilot I’ve seen on TV that has talked about this has said it is well know that on this route, it is imperative altitude does not exceed over 200ft, or courses can collide and it has been this way for decades

[Anonymous]

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.

My understanding of Continuity of Government is that they trained for a terrorist or nuclear attack by flying "body doubles" of senators, congressmen, et al, up to Mt. Weather, so that if the time came for the real thing, they would act accordingly, taking the actual politicians up there. These "pseudo" lawmakers would then pretend to act as real lawmakers, passing legislation, issuing directives, etc. Don't ask me how I know. Sounds like a joke, but it happened for real after the Sept. 11, 2201 attacks, one of which was aiming for the Capitol. I forget who he was, but one senator said something along the lines of "I could get arrested for this, but after the 9/11 attacks I was whisked up to a mountain on a minute's notice" (no mention of the specific mountain). Dick Cheney was evacuated as well, possibly not to Mt. Weather but to Raven Rock on the Mason-Dixon line. There was even a dumb TV show about this, with Kiefer Sutherland.

So I conclude that the helo was returning from a legitimate training mission, after dropping off a passenger(s) at the mountain, who had a legitimate reason to be on the initial flight. The crew was not on a joyride.

[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

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.

You have no point. Get the basics correct before posting.

The BH was only told of the CJR and runway 33. That decision was made 5 minutes prior to ATC comms with the BH and is n all the ATC feeds made public. So zero change or confusion from the BH perspective. The airport has (only) two active runways.

The plan was never head-on flying towards the BH so you have no point there either. It dogtailed out to the east to line up with runway 33, and was coming in to land from the airport left or SE side of the Blackhawk.

Not sure where you got the off being so snippy, but yes, the runway change might have made a difference whether the helo heard it or not directly. And obviously it made a significant change bc if you look at the flight paths, the plane made a little loop turn away from Runway 1 and started heading towards runway 33 closer to where the helo was flying. If comms had been shared, there may have been more situational awareness on the part of the helo.

Listen to the last 10 minutes of CRJ and PAT (BH) ATC comms yourself. Then post.

No confusion and no change of instruction for the BH.
They were told runway 33 and Regional Jet multiple times as they approached the DCA airspace, and were in the DCA air space.
None of their ATC instructions changed whatsoever. The “big change” you speak of was never a change of order or comms for the Blackhawk.

Sigh you must be so fun to have as a friend. The point was it was a CHANGE (at least for the plane, I think you can admit) and that change did in fact bring the plane and helo to intersect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious if you are flying a BH and ATC says there is a jet coming your way is there an option to just hold where you are and ask ATC to let you know when jet passes? I am not sure if that is possible and creates other dangers but wondered why you have to do maneuvers like fly behind when maybe just easier to hold? I have zero understanding flying. Also like to add that it would be nice if people stop saying possible malice. All these pilots were known to be great people
with zero mental issues and this feels mean to any friends/family who may read DCUM when things like malice comes up. Thank you

Yes.
Hover or flying around Haines point island again.
For sure stop and figure out WTF the ATC is talking about if you’re eyeing a plane taking off to the north of you or the landing queue miles away from runway 1.

Okay if this is the case then I think they had no idea of the danger and thought that other plane was the plane ie no need to stop. If they could stop etc it would be because they were concerned they didn’t see refereed plane. This is all very sad.

Correct.
No one said pause and no one paused to double check a thing. Very odd to not mentally process what ATC was saying over and over. The BH was lateraling fast too.

Even so, they wouldn’t have hit if they had been flying the correct altitude. Every single black hawk pilot I’ve seen on TV that has talked about this has said it is well know that on this route, it is imperative altitude does not exceed over 200ft, or courses can collide and it has been this way for decades

Has the helo altitude been confirmed? I heard the initial reports of altitude were from the ATC readings which isn’t necessarily exact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason to train for evacuation with commercial flights. Those flights would be diverted. They should practice this after the last commercial flight of the day. Heads should roll over that.

Which makes me think that was not the reason for the flight. They had to justify a requested flight that wasn’t actually necessary - like for a “vip” that didn’t qualify. Lots of bad decisions here.

Sorry, if you can fly a black hawk consistently at 150-200 feet altitude then quit. Enemies will spot you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:curious if you are flying a BH and ATC says there is a jet coming your way is there an option to just hold where you are and ask ATC to let you know when jet passes? I am not sure if that is possible and creates other dangers but wondered why you have to do maneuvers like fly behind when maybe just easier to hold? I have zero understanding flying. Also like to add that it would be nice if people stop saying possible malice. All these pilots were known to be great people
with zero mental issues and this feels mean to any friends/family who may read DCUM when things like malice comes up. Thank you

Yes.
Hover or flying around Haines point island again.
For sure stop and figure out WTF the ATC is talking about if you’re eyeing a plane taking off to the north of you or the landing queue miles away from runway 1.

Okay if this is the case then I think they had no idea of the danger and thought that other plane was the plane ie no need to stop. If they could stop etc it would be because they were concerned they didn’t see refereed plane. This is all very sad.

Correct.
No one said pause and no one paused to double check a thing. Very odd to not mentally process what ATC was saying over and over. The BH was lateraling fast too.

Even so, they wouldn’t have hit if they had been flying the correct altitude. Every single black hawk pilot I’ve seen on TV that has talked about this has said it is well know that on this route, it is imperative altitude does not exceed over 200ft, or courses can collide and it has been this way for decades

+1. We know. Something bad happened in or to the helo and or pilot team. Hopefully they find out and disclose it.