Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

ATC is least accurate and most delayed, still shows firmer 200’. Radar one showed 200’ then went to 350’

cRJ one was deemed working, was on belly of plane, and has collision alt made public by nTSB. Was higher than 250’.

Helo altimeter at time of impact has not been cited yet.

[Anonymous]

How was the helicopter behaving around other airplanes waiting to land that evening? (If this was not the first plane it encountered/needed to pass around in some manner) Was it acting irrationally? Approaching too close to other planes as well? Showing signs of hesitation?

Would any data capture this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because of so many errors made, yet confirmed with ATC so close to collision, I have to think nothing bad actually happened, it is just a case of lack of training or just poor training. I hope someone of combing through what these pilots are being taught

[Anonymous]

Agree. Comparing army BH training hours or intensity over time cohorts plus versus Air Force and navy black hawk pilots.

[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

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.

So not the helo changing its altitude and river portioning from the requirements to fatality zone? But just the sheer use of a second runway at an airport.
Got it, with brains like that, we’re sure glad you work in the air traffic and safety industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because of so many errors made, yet confirmed with ATC so close to collision, I have to think nothing bad actually happened, it is just a case of lack of training or just poor training. I hope someone of combing through what these pilots are being taught

DP. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. The blithe, automatic, almost reflexive requesting of visual separation when they should have known better and had more situational awareness, getting sloppy as they're flitting around in the landing path of a major airport, the arrogant assumptions by the military overall in ever requesting or allowing such helicopter routes in the first place and resting on their laurels that their "exceptional" training and piloting skills would never allow something like this to happen. And now 67 people are dead and it seems like pure luck that it didn't happen earlier. There had better be a transparent exposure of failures here and they better pay through the nose to compensate the families of the victims and American Airlines and the crews that had the horrible job of extracting wreckage and bodies from the Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because of so many errors made, yet confirmed with ATC so close to collision, I have to think nothing bad actually happened, it is just a case of lack of training or just poor training. I hope someone of combing through what these pilots are being taught

DP. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. The blithe, automatic, almost reflexive requesting of visual separation when they should have known better and had more situational awareness, getting sloppy as they're flitting around in the landing path of a major airport, the arrogant assumptions by the military overall in ever requesting or allowing such helicopter routes in the first place and resting on their laurels that their "exceptional" training and piloting skills would never allow something like this to happen. And now 67 people are dead and it seems like pure luck that it didn't happen earlier. There had better be a transparent exposure of failures here and they better pay through the nose to compensate the families of the victims and American Airlines and the crews that had the horrible job of extracting wreckage and bodies from the Potomac.

The FAA was aware of the problem. Federal agencies don't seem to care until someone dies. Same thing with the broken USDA. They didn't shut down the plant until people died of food poisoning. I have to remind myself that these are the adults. The wise bureaucrats looking out for my welfare.

The Caller looked specifically at self-reported airborne conflicts and near misses between aircrafts near Washington Reagan National Airport and found there had been 220 such incidents from 1988 to 2025. Of those, 30 have been between helicopters and airplanes, marking an almost annual occurrence.

By comparison, nearby Dulles National Airport has had 181 self-reported airborne conflicts and near misses between aircrafts in the same time period. Just five have been between helicopters and airplanes.

https://dailycaller.com/2025/02/10/faa-dca-plane-crash-helicopter-warnings-near-misses/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because of so many errors made, yet confirmed with ATC so close to collision, I have to think nothing bad actually happened, it is just a case of lack of training or just poor training. I hope someone of combing through what these pilots are being taught

DP. The more I think about this, the angrier I get. The blithe, automatic, almost reflexive requesting of visual separation when they should have known better and had more situational awareness, getting sloppy as they're flitting around in the landing path of a major airport, the arrogant assumptions by the military overall in ever requesting or allowing such helicopter routes in the first place and resting on their laurels that their "exceptional" training and piloting skills would never allow something like this to happen. And now 67 people are dead and it seems like pure luck that it didn't happen earlier. There had better be a transparent exposure of failures here and they better pay through the nose to compensate the families of the victims and American Airlines and the crews that had the horrible job of extracting wreckage and bodies from the Potomac.

This should not be a training route. DCA has enough well documented challenges and already has too many close calls. I place blame squarely on the Army.

If DC evacuates, there won’t be inbound planes landing there, so there’s no reason to train for that. Plus the even more obvious reason: too much risk to civilians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

So not the helo changing its altitude and river portioning from the requirements to fatality zone? But just the sheer use of a second runway at an airport.
Got it, with brains like that, we’re sure glad you work in the air traffic and safety industry.

I do not work in the industry, but I have 4 pilots in my family who have flown that route, commercial airliners and black hawks, and they have given me their educated opinions.

Previously I gave an entire list of unfortunate events that lined up that resulted in this tragedy, the changed path being one of them (which yes, happens occasionally when a smaller jet gets re-assigned to a shorter runway to make room for a larger jet on R1) but you seemed intent on arguing and placing blame solely on the individuals when this is clearly a system failure, and safety rules need to be adjusted.

Thankfully the NLRB typically does a great job in these situations and focuses on safety redundancies rather than assigning individual blame, as they understand human error and/or mechanical errors occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

So not the helo changing its altitude and river portioning from the requirements to fatality zone? But just the sheer use of a second runway at an airport.
Got it, with brains like that, we’re sure glad you work in the air traffic and safety industry.

I do not work in the industry, but I have 4 pilots in my family who have flown that route, commercial airliners and black hawks, and they have given me their educated opinions.

Previously I gave an entire list of unfortunate events that lined up that resulted in this tragedy, the changed path being one of them (which yes, happens occasionally when a smaller jet gets re-assigned to a shorter runway to make room for a larger jet on R1) but you seemed intent on arguing and placing blame solely on the individuals when this is clearly a system failure, and safety rules need to be adjusted.

Thankfully the NLRB typically does a great job in these situations and focuses on safety redundancies rather than assigning individual blame, as they understand human error and/or mechanical errors occur.

Then you also know the difference between black hawk pilot training from the Air Force, navy or marines versus a NoVA Army base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

So not the helo changing its altitude and river portioning from the requirements to fatality zone? But just the sheer use of a second runway at an airport.
Got it, with brains like that, we’re sure glad you work in the air traffic and safety industry.

I do not work in the industry, but I have 4 pilots in my family who have flown that route, commercial airliners and black hawks, and they have given me their educated opinions.

Previously I gave an entire list of unfortunate events that lined up that resulted in this tragedy, the changed path being one of them (which yes, happens occasionally when a smaller jet gets re-assigned to a shorter runway to make room for a larger jet on R1) but you seemed intent on arguing and placing blame solely on the individuals when this is clearly a system failure, and safety rules need to be adjusted.

Thankfully the NLRB typically does a great job in these situations and focuses on safety redundancies rather than assigning individual blame, as they understand human error and/or mechanical errors occur.

Then you also know the difference between black hawk pilot training from the Air Force, navy or marines versus a NoVA Army base.

The Nova army base is a duty station. It isn’t flight school. But you should know that

[Anonymous]

This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

So not the helo changing its altitude and river portioning from the requirements to fatality zone? But just the sheer use of a second runway at an airport.
Got it, with brains like that, we’re sure glad you work in the air traffic and safety industry.

I do not work in the industry, but I have 4 pilots in my family who have flown that route, commercial airliners and black hawks, and they have given me their educated opinions.

Previously I gave an entire list of unfortunate events that lined up that resulted in this tragedy, the changed path being one of them (which yes, happens occasionally when a smaller jet gets re-assigned to a shorter runway to make room for a larger jet on R1) but you seemed intent on arguing and placing blame solely on the individuals when this is clearly a system failure, and safety rules need to be adjusted.

Thankfully the NLRB typically does a great job in these situations and focuses on safety redundancies rather than assigning individual blame, as they understand human error and/or mechanical errors occur.

Then you also know the difference between black hawk pilot training from the Air Force, navy or marines versus a NoVA Army base.

What is your point?

And how do you reconcile this event with the numerous near collisions at the same airport? Do you consider multiple near collisions an acceptable risk for civilians on commercial flights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?