Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed whole thread but is anyone discussing possibility this was intentional? It just seems way too much of a coincidence that the helo doesn't see the correct plane after ATC gives explicit description using landmarks and then in the last seconds, fly up 150 feet and veer a bit right to smash directly into the plane. Even if helo had wrong plane in sight, if it didn't make these dramatic movements at the last second, there would have been no collision. It just seems way too coincidental for me.

It’s definitely a possibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People please watch this or one of the other great explanation videos posted before asking any more questions. Most of your questions will be answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3gD_lnBNu0

Thank you—this is super informative. Thinking of everyone involved.

yes informative. And really drives home the multiple errors.

To me it drives home multiple potential factors but one glaring (and avoidable) rule breach: the helicopter flew at 400 ft in an area that was restricted to 200 ft. The other factors may well have contributed but ultimately this is the one that matters and the rule is already in place. The military helicopter didn't follow the rules.

Maybe the military helicopters often break that rule, maybe they make their own rules... ok, that takes away the helo pilot's (or the crew's) personal responsibility. But from all of these helpful explanations what has become clearer is that there is a system in place to prevent this from happening and the military helicopter was at fault.

A second important question is whether we should improve safety in other ways that people here are mentioning. But I agree with PP that it is crucial to understand the specifics of this accident to prevent future tragedies. And the fact remains, if both aircrafts had followed the rules, this would not have happened.

Anonymous wrote:Just getting caught up, and I am absolutely disgusted by Trump’s response. He is a sick man. He barely uttered his condolences before blaming everyone he could think of:

Biden/Obama
Pete
Disabled
Minorities
Women

He is a child. He acts like an actual child. In this moment, it is not appropriate on any level to start pointing fingers and passing blame. People are grieving. People need reassurance that it is safe to fly.

The way he shook up the entire government on day one makes it absolutely absurd for him to blame Biden for anything at all. Nothing is as he left it. Trump had already wreaked havoc on every agency and procedure involved. He owns this.

Not to mention his flippant response when asked if he would visit the site - “You want me to go swimming?”

Egg update: prices still increasing

Perfectly stated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why were they flowing 200 feet above the maxixmum altitude. And on top of that not seeing a plane that is descending right in front of them. Seems the helicopter did so many things wrong. Doesn’t really make sense.

One question my spouse and I were just discussing is that we should find out how often helicopters flying that route along the Potomac violate the 200 ft limit for that route.

Meaning: was this helicopter doing something very out of the ordinary OR was it engaging in typical behavior (even if not prescribed behavior for helicopters on that route), and enough other stuff went on that the mistake was fatal.

I wonder if all the things that "went wrong" in this situation actually go wrong all the time, and it's just that they all went wrong at once. Which is scary because that seems like an inevitability.

Good point. I still think its crazy to think all the factors had to line up just right for the two to crash. The plane banking to go to the new runway for landing, the Blackhawk flying higher than allowed, and then just the sheer 3D geometry of it. What are the chances they actually crash into each other instead of them having a near miss?

I agree that thinking this way increases the feeling of tragedy. And I think discussing all the factors is crucial to mitigate chances of future accidents by changing rules/improving technology.

BUT I think the fact that the helicopter violated a rule that was in place to avoid exactly this. It's like he went the wrong way on the highway. Sure, there were other factors but the rule was appropriate and would have prevented the situation even with all the other things going wrong.

I agree that following the “rules” already in place would have prevented this tragedy, but sometimes rules aren’t enough and we have to take stronger action. It’s like when certain intersections say you can’t turn right on red at all there. Sure there are times where it would be safe, but overall it’s just too dangerous in that spot and therefore forbidden.

I haven't followed whole thread but is anyone discussing possibility this was intentional? It just seems way too much of a coincidence that the helo doesn't see the correct plane after ATC gives explicit description using landmarks and then in the last seconds, fly up 150 feet and veer a bit right to smash directly into the plane. Even if helo had wrong plane in sight, if it didn't make these dramatic movements at the last second, there would have been no collision. It just seems way too coincidental for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were so young, and many were traveling with their moms. It’s unimaginable.

I'm a mom and my first thought was I would have wanted to be on that plane with my kids. I can't imagine otherwise.

Such an awful choice because they probably have kids at home too.

I'm PP, and in that case I'd feel different about it. I was thinking of the two sisters (because I have two girls who also do the same sport) but I have no idea if their parents had other children. It just makes me sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

I read that while typically two ATC would have been doing that job (one for helicopter, one for planes) it is within the current FAA safety guidelines to combine to one person, and is commonly done. But this does seem problematic

Maybe. But in the WaPo article I just posted, a retired NTSB investigator states that the helo pilot saying (twice) that he can see the plane and will stay away would have (and should have) been enough to satisfy ATC. ATC did their job.

Wait, just two people man the entire DCA airspace? And that is the FAA safety guidelines?

What is he has a stroke or needs a drink or water?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We fly out of both Dulles and Regan. Is Reagan Dulles father away from military flight paths? I’m getting anxious about our summer plane tickets.

"Regan"? Do you mean National?

Dulles does not have these congestion issues.

Some people still call it Reagan, don't be obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

The plane had absolutely no trouble switching the approach and did so beautifully. Many experienced pilots have said it’s very common for RJs. There never should have been a Helo in the way and all would have been fine.

Also this makes no sense. They switched to 33 because of wind. 33 crosses 1. You can’t do any more landings on 1 because you changed a plane to 33. The rate of landings would be the same. And so would the “line” to land. They’re all coming from the same direction.

They didn’t switch to 33 because of wind. They switched to 33 because too many plans were lined up on final for 1. ATC tried to get the immediate previous plane to switch to 33 but they said they couldn’t. It does spread the planes out a bit. There was also an aircraft taking off on 1 at nearly the same time. You should watch the video posted recently with the ATC audio overlayed on to the radar.

This is all typical procedure and totally permissible in accordance with FAA order and SOP. This controller did a great job within the procedures that applied to the situation. The helo had repeatedly taken responsibility for avoiding other aircraft and the controller even confirmed when it looked like the targets were too close. He received that confirmation. At the time of the crash, the helo was also above the max altitude for that route. For some inexplicable reason, the helo hit the jet after having said multiple times it had visual on that aircraft.

Questions about where the procedures in place at the time are adequately safe are reasonable (and I am sure those procedures will be changed if they haven't already) but it is not accurate say or insinuate that the controller did not handle this situation properly. I can only imagine how horrible he and his colleagues must be feeling in the wake of this unthinkable tragedy.

From what I understand from Black Hawk experts, the pilot talking wouldn’t have been the one at the controls flying the plane. That it is always the one acting as co-pilot that handles radio. Perhaps this is a key detail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why were they flowing 200 feet above the maxixmum altitude. And on top of that not seeing a plane that is descending right in front of them. Seems the helicopter did so many things wrong. Doesn’t really make sense.

One question my spouse and I were just discussing is that we should find out how often helicopters flying that route along the Potomac violate the 200 ft limit for that route.

Meaning: was this helicopter doing something very out of the ordinary OR was it engaging in typical behavior (even if not prescribed behavior for helicopters on that route), and enough other stuff went on that the mistake was fatal.

I wonder if all the things that "went wrong" in this situation actually go wrong all the time, and it's just that they all went wrong at once. Which is scary because that seems like an inevitability.

Good point. I still think its crazy to think all the factors had to line up just right for the two to crash. The plane banking to go to the new runway for landing, the Blackhawk flying higher than allowed, and then just the sheer 3D geometry of it. What are the chances they actually crash into each other instead of them having a near miss?

I agree that thinking this way increases the feeling of tragedy. And I think discussing all the factors is crucial to mitigate chances of future accidents by changing rules/improving technology.

BUT I think the fact that the helicopter violated a rule that was in place to avoid exactly this. It's like he went the wrong way on the highway. Sure, there were other factors but the rule was appropriate and would have prevented the situation even with all the other things going wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

The plane had absolutely no trouble switching the approach and did so beautifully. Many experienced pilots have said it’s very common for RJs. There never should have been a Helo in the way and all would have been fine.

Also this makes no sense. They switched to 33 because of wind. 33 crosses 1. You can’t do any more landings on 1 because you changed a plane to 33. The rate of landings would be the same. And so would the “line” to land. They’re all coming from the same direction.

They didn’t switch to 33 because of wind. They switched to 33 because too many plans were lined up on final for 1. ATC tried to get the immediate previous plane to switch to 33 but they said they couldn’t. It does spread the planes out a bit. There was also an aircraft taking off on 1 at nearly the same time. You should watch the video posted recently with the ATC audio overlayed on to the radar.

DP but... So? This seems reasonable. Was the plane that said they couldn't switch a bigger jet? That's also reasonable. The plane from Wichita was a smaller plane, probably easier for them. And that's a valid reason to have them switch runways. It sounds to me like ATC handled and extremely busy evening with short staffing remarkably well.

If there's anything to take from that, it's that Congress's insistence that National keep adding more flights for THEIR convenience has the consequence of burdening ATC and complicating their jobs. But beyond that, I don't see why it matters that ATC asked two planes to switch to 33 from 1. That's literally their job -- they are controlling air traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

The plane had absolutely no trouble switching the approach and did so beautifully. Many experienced pilots have said it’s very common for RJs. There never should have been a Helo in the way and all would have been fine.

Also this makes no sense. They switched to 33 because of wind. 33 crosses 1. You can’t do any more landings on 1 because you changed a plane to 33. The rate of landings would be the same. And so would the “line” to land. They’re all coming from the same direction.

They didn’t switch to 33 because of wind. They switched to 33 because too many plans were lined up on final for 1. ATC tried to get the immediate previous plane to switch to 33 but they said they couldn’t. It does spread the planes out a bit. There was also an aircraft taking off on 1 at nearly the same time. You should watch the video posted recently with the ATC audio overlayed on to the radar.

This is all typical procedure and totally permissible in accordance with FAA order and SOP. This controller did a great job within the procedures that applied to the situation. The helo had repeatedly taken responsibility for avoiding other aircraft and the controller even confirmed when it looked like the targets were too close. He received that confirmation. At the time of the crash, the helo was also above the max altitude for that route. For some inexplicable reason, the helo hit the jet after having said multiple times it had visual on that aircraft.

Questions about where the procedures in place at the time are adequately safe are reasonable (and I am sure those procedures will be changed if they haven't already) but it is not accurate say or insinuate that the controller did not handle this situation properly. I can only imagine how horrible he and his colleagues must be feeling in the wake of this unthinkable tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People please watch this or one of the other great explanation videos posted before asking any more questions. Most of your questions will be answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3gD_lnBNu0

Thank you—this is super informative. Thinking of everyone involved.

+1

Just getting caught up, and I am absolutely disgusted by Trump’s response. He is a sick man. He barely uttered his condolences before blaming everyone he could think of:

Biden/Obama
Pete
Disabled
Minorities
Women

He is a child. He acts like an actual child. In this moment, it is not appropriate on any level to start pointing fingers and passing blame. People are grieving. People need reassurance that it is safe to fly.

The way he shook up the entire government on day one makes it absolutely absurd for him to blame Biden for anything at all. Nothing is as he left it. Trump had already wreaked havoc on every agency and procedure involved. He owns this.

Not to mention his flippant response when asked if he would visit the site - “You want me to go swimming?”

Egg update: prices still increasing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

I read that while typically two ATC would have been doing that job (one for helicopter, one for planes) it is within the current FAA safety guidelines to combine to one person, and is commonly done. But this does seem problematic

Maybe. But in the WaPo article I just posted, a retired NTSB investigator states that the helo pilot saying (twice) that he can see the plane and will stay away would have (and should have) been enough to satisfy ATC. ATC did their job.