Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain the term "Langley"? Do you mean the CIA headquarters? If so, say so. Or do you mean Langley Air Force Base, in Hampton, VA? People con fuse the two all the time. Not sure of the latter is within range of a BH helicopter, however. Anyway, where did anyone hear that the helo flew either to or from "Langley" (either one)?

[Anonymous]

Most people call CIA Hq Langley in Wash DC area.
Yes we also all know there’s a city called Langley Va and hour away.

No confusion. Similar to how most people publicly say ‘going to washington,’ and they mean DC, not the state. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people call CIA Hq Langley in Wash DC area.
Yes we also all know there’s a city called Langley Va and hour away.

No confusion. Similar to how most people publicly say ‘going to washington,’ and they mean DC, not the state. Oh well.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain the term "Langley"? Do you mean the CIA headquarters? If so, say so. Or do you mean Langley Air Force Base, in Hampton, VA? People con fuse the two all the time. Not sure of the latter is within range of a BH helicopter, however. Anyway, where did anyone hear that the helo flew either to or from "Langley" (either one)?

People in DC do not confuse the two all the time. Langley is the CIA. I’ve never even heard of the Air Force Base. I also don’t know anything about Hampton, VA. But I don’t lurk on their message boards, I guess if I did, I would know about the Base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

It is helpful if the deviation isn't normalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

Not helpful because won’t do last two miles and isn’t in black hawks.

Doesn’t black hawks have a radar an instrument panel?!? Couldn’t they see the jet lined up for runway 33? The very runway and plane landing that ATC told them 3 times over 4 minutes to avoid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

No, it's not really designed to be used near an airport, down low, in a traffic pattern environment where planes are close to each other. Even planes on the ground with their systems on will show as conflict alerts. People are making too big of a deal about the electronic warning systems in planes and asking how they failed in this case. Again, those systems are not designed for, or used in an airport traffic area. They are used to warn of potential conflicts between two aircraft closing in on each other, or closer than they should be at altitude.
This accident happened in clear visibility conditions. The helo pilot asked for, and accepted a visual separation clearance after acknowledging that he had the traffic in sight. That's normal and means they accepted the responsibility for maintaining visual separation. Legal and situational responsibility. That relieves the controller of issuing further traffic call-outs and allows him to shift his focus elsewhere. It's like saying hey Helo pilot, you see him, you got this? Yeah Mr. Controller, I see him, I've got this, I'll take it from here. A traffic alert to the CRJ cockpit is useless at that point. There is very little in the way of evasive action a jet can take on short final, wings heavily loaded, throttled back, flaps and slats out, descending. It's not a fighter jet or even an airshow aerobatic plane that can perform snap rolls and bank away from danger in seconds. It's more like trying to turn a container ship or aircraft carrier in open seas. There is some suggestion in a recent report that the pilot of the CRJ may have attempted to pull up at the last second which suggests he may have spotted the helo just before impact but that's not confirmed. Either way, they just can't maneuver quickly enough to make any meaningful course correction. This was all on the helo pilot. Not the controllers and not any failure of the warning systems in either cockpit.

[Anonymous]

Agree wapo article is moot. Such a dumb newspaper, over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

Not helpful because won’t do last two miles and isn’t in black hawks.

Doesn’t black hawks have a radar an instrument panel?!? Couldn’t they see the jet lined up for runway 33? The very runway and plane landing that ATC told them 3 times over 4 minutes to avoid?

Pretty much yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

+1

The system “automatically communicates with all commercial aircraft within 12 miles of other aircraft,” and gives a voice warning 15- 30 seconds before a projected impact, but “does not provide warnings or course corrections below 1000 ft.”

Ok. So not exactly helpful near landing strips.

No, it's not really designed to be used near an airport, down low, in a traffic pattern environment where planes are close to each other. Even planes on the ground with their systems on will show as conflict alerts. People are making too big of a deal about the electronic warning systems in planes and asking how they failed in this case. Again, those systems are not designed for, or used in an airport traffic area. They are used to warn of potential conflicts between two aircraft closing in on each other, or closer than they should be at altitude.
This accident happened in clear visibility conditions. The helo pilot asked for, and accepted a visual separation clearance after acknowledging that he had the traffic in sight. That's normal and means they accepted the responsibility for maintaining visual separation. Legal and situational responsibility. That relieves the controller of issuing further traffic call-outs and allows him to shift his focus elsewhere. It's like saying hey Helo pilot, you see him, you got this? Yeah Mr. Controller, I see him, I've got this, I'll take it from here. A traffic alert to the CRJ cockpit is useless at that point. There is very little in the way of evasive action a jet can take on short final, wings heavily loaded, throttled back, flaps and slats out, descending. It's not a fighter jet or even an airshow aerobatic plane that can perform snap rolls and bank away from danger in seconds. It's more like trying to turn a container ship or aircraft carrier in open seas. There is some suggestion in a recent report that the pilot of the CRJ may have attempted to pull up at the last second which suggests he may have spotted the helo just before impact but that's not confirmed. Either way, they just can't maneuver quickly enough to make any meaningful course correction. This was all on the helo pilot. Not the controllers and not any failure of the warning systems in either cockpit.

Great post

[Anonymous]

There is a press conference going on right now

[Anonymous]

BlackHawk may not have received all of the the ATC transmission, including the "pass behind" order.

[Anonymous]

BlackHawk at 278 ft, which is too high, and the BlackHawk gauges may not have told the crew that they were that high. There was some differences in an altitude reading a few minutes earlier in the BlackHawk's internal audio transmission.