Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

I can appreciate that night flying is hard but three pilots on the BH missed it?? And it wasn't like the jet came out of nowhere. BH knew they were crossing right in front of runway 33. Not one person decided they should look left, even absent ANY atc communication? If this wasn't intentional or something mechanical, it really says a lot of not so good things about our military.

Seriously. Who is promoting this nonsense?

It’s an honor and expensive to train/use to even get in a Blackhawk, let alone pilot it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

Thank goodness for navigational flying, radar, gauges, alerts and ATC!

Right but apparently that wasn't enough in this instance and the helicopter still flew directly into a plane they'd been told about by ATC three times and that should have shown up on their internal radar which one of the three people on the helicopter might have bothered to look at during the several minutes prior to collision when they were being alerted to a plane in their flight path and they were passing a very busy commercial airport during a peak traffic time.

But apparently that's all unreasonable to expect because, after all, it's just super hard to see at night when flying a helicopter!

I don’t have time to read all of the pages but earlier on, a couple of people had pointed out that the helicopter seems to have taken off from a residential address in river oaks. I couldn’t tell if it was behind Lawton or lupine, but several of those are Saudi owned. Now it’s erased from tracking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

Yeah those stationary lights on my left above me & my helo must be a planet or the intl space station lights. Oh look a green blinking one on the right wing. Yeah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

Thank goodness for navigational flying, radar, gauges, alerts and ATC!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

I can see how city lights and lights in the sky from a moving plane blur together and become hard to distinguish….but still. I just cannot wrap my head around these are Black Hawk pilots! The are supposed to be the best and highly trained at flying in all sorts of difficult conditions and especially having had extra training to be flying around in DC with VIPs. Then to have such a huge and obvious error happen, despite all their training, ATC warnings, three people on board, and the plane technologies, is so hard to wrap my head around

The same is true of the BH pilots. If the plane was a stationary light in the sky (traveling directly at them it would appear to not be moving) then they could have mistaken it for a city light on the ground. It's very hard to know right now what happened. The pilots in the plane missed the BH, and the BH pilots missed the plane. Plus ATC was understaffed when they otherwise may have caught it in time. A perfect storm of conditions created the crash, and the NTSB investigation will expose/explain them all hopefully.

The did "catch it in time." I don't know why people keep saying this. ATC saw it and gave instructions to BH to avoid collision. There is nothing else ATC can do. They don't have a joystick.

Multiple instructions over the course of several minutes. Confirmed and re-confirmed that the helicopter had visual separation. Provided last second instructions to help the helicopter evade the plane (which it did not have to do because, again, the helicopter had TWICE confirmed it had visual separation and would be responsible for maintaining distance from the plane).

You can argue the ATC should have guessed that the helicopter might have identified the wrong plane and was looking at the plane further down the Potomac, and therefore provided more specific instructions to the helicopter about where the plane was. Fine. And perhaps if there had been a second ATC on duty assigned to helicopter traffic, this is what they would have done. But note this requires the ATC to realize that the helicopter has identified the wrong aircraft. It requires ATC to read the helicopter pilots' minds. I'm sure ATC do sometimes do that. But it's not technically part of their jobs.

I find it so odd that people seem determined to act as though these highly trained military pilots on the helicopter could not possible have been expected to identify the correct plane (even at night, even with ground lights, even wearing night vision goggles). If they identified the wrong plane, this is still their screw up. And regardless of which plane they identified, why did they rise to 350 ft and bank hard toward the middle of the river in violation of protocol for their flight path? Why did they do this right as they were passing the runways where planes flying north for landing will be landing, even after being alerted twice to the presence of aircraft landing at runway 33?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.

Will you be going to the crash site to pay your respects: how is that not a completely ordinary, expected, and even softball question. The answer should have been: yes, I will be going to the crash site to console the families and to thank the first responders as soon as doing so will not impede the recovery efforts. Had he said that, no one would be talking about his actual response. I’ve never taken a journalism class and have no political training but can easily determine this is the right Q&A. Stop defending him. Stop gaslighting that the reporter’s question was the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

East of the river is mainly anacostia resi lights, that’s it. Street lights or car lights. Nothing with huge belonging ring lights and the big bright white landing floodlight.

This is insane.

I hope all DC area military exercises are halted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In situations like this where a helicopter route goes right next to a commercial airport and pilots on helo and airliners lack direct communications, is there something like “right of way” established between them? Who should yield to whom?

Helicopter yields to the plane. Helicopter is more mobile and can change course. Also in this situation, the helicopter had specifically requested and received permission to be in charge of maintaining separation from the plane. If you are in charge of maitaining visual separation, you have to assume that the plane will continue on its trajectory and that you have to maneuver around them.

This is why everyone is saying that it seems fairly evident the helicopter screwed up.

Also, helicopter was at wrong altitude.

Also, helicopter was told to go after the plane so, even if it was looking at wrong plane, it also didn't follow instructions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unbelievable

These new video camera angles plus the data o t he last second altitude rise from 200 to 350 and right turn to middle of the river are VERY SUSPICIOUS.

We need to know if the training pilot at the controls had their head on straight or not.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence in the video of a last second altitude rise or sharp turn to the right. Looks like the helicopter just holds course.

Read the radar map and data. Stop spewing easily refutable nonsense, this is serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

It really is obtuse. Tell us what your journalism professor would have directed you to say instead of what the reporter asked and how the improved question would have been clearer and less stupid?

I’m sorry, I can’t ask him. I wish I could. He died several years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

Sounds like you need to get to work STAT on some conspiracy theories and rumors!!

Nope. I have not engaged in any conspiracy theories or rumors. I am simply telling you that no one is every going to accept the explanation that, well, it's just very hard to see when flying at night as an acceptable explanation for why 64 civilians and 3 military personnel lost their lives here. I don't want a wild conspiracy theory to explain it, I want an explanation that makes sense. "Oops well doing this thing that planes and airplanes do all the effing time is hard" does not makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely baffling.

Even if the theory that the helicopter though ATC was referring to a different airplane is true, that is inexplicable. By the time they collide, the helicopter is perpendicular to the airplane, rendering the issues with spotting a plane that is dead on irrelevant. The Black Hawk is capable of heroic maneuvers in that situation, it is a very agile aircraft. But we don't see the helicopter slow up or move at all to evade the airplane. It just plows right into it.

I am more confused than ever.

Me again.

Also it appears the helicopter is actually coming down in altitude at the moment of impact, but we know from the radar that they'd climbed up in altitude shortly before this. If they'd continued their original trajectory of climb, they might have gone over the aircraft as it descended. Potentially the plane also adjusted altitude at the last minute, that's harder to see on these videos because you are looking at the plane head on from the runway. But wow does it really look like the helicopter noses down straight into the plane.

All the radars have the altitude and oaths marked for the black hawk and all jets.
You are wrong.

It was 200 ft for awhile, then when at DCA it doubled in altitude. Then collided with the landing CRJ. But yeah, then it dropped altitude fast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

I can see how city lights and lights in the sky from a moving plane blur together and become hard to distinguish….but still. I just cannot wrap my head around these are Black Hawk pilots! The are supposed to be the best and highly trained at flying in all sorts of difficult conditions and especially having had extra training to be flying around in DC with VIPs. Then to have such a huge and obvious error happen, despite all their training, ATC warnings, three people on board, and the plane technologies, is so hard to wrap my head around

The same is true of the BH pilots. If the plane was a stationary light in the sky (traveling directly at them it would appear to not be moving) then they could have mistaken it for a city light on the ground. It's very hard to know right now what happened. The pilots in the plane missed the BH, and the BH pilots missed the plane. Plus ATC was understaffed when they otherwise may have caught it in time. A perfect storm of conditions created the crash, and the NTSB investigation will expose/explain them all hopefully.

The did "catch it in time." I don't know why people keep saying this. ATC saw it and gave instructions to BH to avoid collision. There is nothing else ATC can do. They don't have a joystick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.