Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

So the Blackhawk radios are wonky? The whole fleet needs to be checked out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Blackhawk radios are wonky? The whole fleet needs to be checked out

From how I understood it, they think the microphone button was depressed (off) for the “be behind” instruction.

But still…they did hear the other instructions, they confirmed are the plane, knew the plane was going to runway 33 (and should have known what direction that was) confirmed they saw the plane and that they would maintain visual separation. So I don’t think not hearing “go behind” is reason enough to hit the plane.

They are looking into the altitude discrepancy too. If the plane was at the correct altitude for that route, they wouldn’t have collided either.

[Anonymous]

Thx for the semi update on the black box info.

Still bizarre they had 3 mins and 2 full ATC warnings (plus this 3rd direct order to go behind) to see the plane lining up for runway 33

[Anonymous]

I still think it’s completely messed up that the military trains with NVG in an airspace crowded with civilian airplanes. Families have been destroyed because of this. Children are dead because of this. It’s awful. Did they say exactly where the BH was coming from? Anything about the VIP? The crew was based out of Ft. Belvoir. Why were they coming from Langley?

[Anonymous]

I suspect the coverup has started. NSTB said thst NSTB instructed Blackhawk to go behind plane BUT. There was a a possibility that BH didn't receive message!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the coverup has started. NSTB said thst NSTB instructed Blackhawk to go behind plane BUT. There was a a possibility that BH didn't receive message!

Because a button was pressed (in ATC or the by??) or was held down. Weird.

Still had two prior descriptors of what was happening that the BH took visual responsibility for

[Anonymous]

The way I read it on Wapo, at the moment ATC was giving instructions to go behind the aircraft, the BH was holding down a button to speak to ATC, so they were both speaking at the same time. The ATC's instructions were not heard on the blackbox of the BH, so it is assumed those didnt' go through. These were the last instructions like 15 seconds before impact, not before that.

[Anonymous]

I also read that the may not have heard that the plane had changed runways (and therefore approach).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also read that the may not have heard that the plane had changed runways (and therefore approach).

What does that mean? They hear half a message twice yet say Yes we have visuals?

Hopefully the written report isn’t so badly written or ambiguous as the press coverage of the press conference. The technicals matter, as usual.

[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.

Agree 100%. This is on the maneuverable helicopter who assumed all control, and insisted on visual, despite that they couldn’t see, and apparently couldn’t hear, and it’s on the Army - scheduling nighttime certification flights with zero room for error, in a busy civilian corridor where jets land every two minutes, and the standard approved path is to go underneath a landing passenger jet. I hope the military will never be allowed to fly their training flights on this path again.

[Anonymous]

Yep. This is all on the Army. They killed 64 people.

[Anonymous]

A shocking compilation of ineptitude from the people on that Blackhawk. This is the best of the best? Can’t keep their altitude correct, can’t operate with night vision goggles, can’t spot airplanes, can’t work their radio? Baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. This is all on the Army. They killed 64 people.

+1 There’s no excuse for a non-essential flight putting civilians at risk.

They can practice that route at midnight, when no commercial flights are landing - which is just like if we were evacuating anyway because those flights would be diverted.

[Anonymous]

Has something new come out of the investigation?

[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.

Straight up bs. Your assumptions about military pilots are ignorant. Cowboy mentality? You watch too many bad movies.