Reply to Plane crash DCA?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Plane crash DCA?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics