Anonymous wrote:The CRJ was banking to the left so the helicopter was seeing the bottom of the plane where there are far fewer lights.

I think this is just a case of human error. They were looking at another plane, didn't see this one as it was coming from a different direction and flew into it. Human error is always a possible risk and that is why air spaces need to be as safe as possible and have as many contingencies as possible to account for human error and prevent tragedy. Which is usually what happens and is what happened the day before.

The investigation won't necessarily be about assigning blame but what changes need to happen to prevent this happening again.

I agree with the bolded and generally with the the idea that this is likely a case of human error for which we need to better insulate the system.

However I disagree that we can know what the helicopter pilot saw or why they did what they did at this point. I know many people, including many fellow pilots, are eager to say that this was an understandable mistake based on visibility in that corridor at this time of night. I think it is important those perspectives are heard and accounted for -- that may indeed have been what happened.

But we don't KNOW that's what happened. There are other factors here, including the helicopter's last minute maneuvers that brought it directly into collision with the airplane (veering SW and rising over 100 ft in altitude in a short period of time). To be clear, I do NOT think this is evidence that it was intentional. I just think it's weird and it's not explained by the speculation that the helicopter could not see the plane. If this were just a question of the helicopter not seeing the plane, presumably they would have maintained their current trajectory, right? The only direction they received from ATC was to go behind the plan, which even if they thought it was further away, "behind" a plane approaching either runway at National would mean moving to the east, not to the west.

There are too many unanswered questions for us to conclude what happened based on the commentary of other helicopter pilots who have flown that route. Their input is very helpful but not a full answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

I'm a female pilot. Given the tone from our government leaders and the witch hunts taking place online ... if I were involved in an accident, knowing I'd likely be the only female crew member from either airplane, I would want my family protected from the media as long as possible. I don't blame them for trying to shield her memory and reputation until more is known about the actual events of the crash.

That’s a superficial response.

You withhold information when yours covering something up or hiding something. They can go hang out at a mountain house and let the name come out.

The pilot Bo doubt has a stellar education, background, top of their class, best training and track record of success. Otherwise how would you continually get to the point where you’re flying a $6m helicopter.

It’s a rationed response. Unfortunately the president doesn’t see that she was as qualified or more so than the men, which is unfortunately why we’re here.

Then shut it down and show her 20 year track record. Put some peer side by sides there too.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

I'm a female pilot. Given the tone from our government leaders and the witch hunts taking place online ... if I were involved in an accident, knowing I'd likely be the only female crew member from either airplane, I would want my family protected from the media as long as possible. I don't blame them for trying to shield her memory and reputation until more is known about the actual events of the crash.

That’s a superficial response.

You withhold information when yours covering something up or hiding something. They can go hang out at a mountain house and let the name come out.

The pilot Bo doubt has a stellar education, background, top of their class, best training and track record of success. Otherwise how would you continually get to the point where you’re flying a $6m helicopter.

It’s a rationed response. Unfortunately the president doesn’t see that she was as qualified or more so than the men, which is unfortunately why we’re here.

Then shut it down and show her 20 year track record. Put some peer side by sides there too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That POS president has taken away her family, her friends, the public's right to mourn her. Shame on him! He needs to go back to h#ll where he came from.

I'm no trump supporter but he hasn't done that. Her family chose to hide this information from the public who have a right to know. More importantly, the families of those killed because of her error (if it was actually unintentional), deserve to know who caused them to lose their family member. Her mistake cost lives and saying it would affect her family doesn't cut it.

So you’re assuming it was just her error, and hers alone. Go away, you miserable excuse for a human being.

DP. We don’t know whose “fault” is was, but when the military helicopter you are flying is flown directly into a commercial jet, killing 64 people, you aren’t owed privacy, especially when the other two in the helicopter have been named

+1 Exactly! And it suggests that they know it was her fault.

It’s always the woman’s fault. Right?

Anonymous wrote:Those who say it was intentional, do you think it was just a last minute decision by the pilot? How could it even have been planned? The CRJ was told to change runways at last minute. Even if the helo wanted to crash into the plane, they were approaching each other from different directions at different height at different speeds. Wouldn't it have been difficult for the helo to time it correctly?

Hey, I’m flying past two active runways a mere 400 meters from where my path is. I’ll watch my radar and 270 degree plexiglass cockpit for the perfect timing. Time for a show.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That POS president has taken away her family, her friends, the public's right to mourn her. Shame on him! He needs to go back to h#ll where he came from.

I'm no trump supporter but he hasn't done that. Her family chose to hide this information from the public who have a right to know. More importantly, the families of those killed because of her error (if it was actually unintentional), deserve to know who caused them to lose their family member. Her mistake cost lives and saying it would affect her family doesn't cut it.

So you’re assuming it was just her error, and hers alone. Go away, you miserable excuse for a human being.

DP. We don’t know whose “fault” is was, but when the military helicopter you are flying is flown directly into a commercial jet, killing 64 people, you aren’t owed privacy, especially when the other two in the helicopter have been named

+1 Exactly! And it suggests that they know it was her fault.

The CRJ was banking to the left so the helicopter was seeing the bottom of the plane where there are far fewer lights.

I think this is just a case of human error. They were looking at another plane, didn't see this one as it was coming from a different direction and flew into it. Human error is always a possible risk and that is why air spaces need to be as safe as possible and have as many contingencies as possible to account for human error and prevent tragedy. Which is usually what happens and is what happened the day before.

The investigation won't necessarily be about assigning blame but what changes need to happen to prevent this happening again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the help requested visual separation. What other options were available?

Hover and do nothing??

Go around Hains point island again.
Go over bolling military base instead of river.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

I hope this wasn’t part of it:

"Initial indications suggest this may have been a checkride, or periodic evaluation by an experienced instructor pilot of a less experienced pilot," said Brad Bowman, a military analyst with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Black Hawk pilot.

"A checkride, as opposed to a normal training flight, creates some unique dynamics in the cockpit. In a checkride, the less experienced pilot can be nervous and eager to not make mistakes, while the instructor pilot is watching to see how the other pilot responds to different developments," Bowman explained. "Sometimes an instructor pilot will test the less experienced aviator to see how they respond, but such a technique would have been unusual and inadvisable in that location given the reduced margin for error."

I'm assuming the black box and data recorders would have captured all this, right? Including any conversation.

Spoiler alert: we are never finding out any of the information on the helicopters black box.

Sadly agree. This will stay classified.

Like the Luigi Mangione case, we’ll never know WTF he was actually doing or thinking all 2024.

We’ll just get the lawyer version now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That POS president has taken away her family, her friends, the public's right to mourn her. Shame on him! He needs to go back to h#ll where he came from.

I'm no trump supporter but he hasn't done that. Her family chose to hide this information from the public who have a right to know. More importantly, the families of those killed because of her error (if it was actually unintentional), deserve to know who caused them to lose their family member. Her mistake cost lives and saying it would affect her family doesn't cut it.

So you’re assuming it was just her error, and hers alone. Go away, you miserable excuse for a human being.

DP. We don’t know whose “fault” is was, but when the military helicopter you are flying is flown directly into a commercial jet, killing 64 people, you aren’t owed privacy, especially when the other two in the helicopter have been named

+1 Exactly! And it suggests that they know it was her fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s absolutely no way they did not see this plane. Goggles or not. Look at this angle. The light from the plane is illuminating strongly enough to be captured in this manner.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/security-footage-shows-new-angles-of-d-c-crash-230772805611

The planes stack up and they form line. The helicopter pilot was most likely looking down the river not to their left. The plane came from the left to land at 33. I guess they did not acknowledge the plane was landing on runway 33 as opposed to to the main runway.

All 3 of them in the Blackhawk didn’t know that runway 33 exists!?!? At an airport with only 3 runways!?! And they live 30 mins away!?!

You’re fired!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the help requested visual separation. What other options were available?

Many experts have stated “visual separation” means the helo is assuming full responsibility for staying away from the plane. Helo pilot does this twice.

Please watch the info videos. This has been explained countless times.

So ATC could have denied the request, knowing how closely the paths were crossing. Did they grant the request because they were understaffed and allowed a too risky situation?

Why did the ATC grant visual separation if the BH was flying 100 ft over maximum altitude? Doesn’t the radar show how high they are flying?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the family for wanting privacy, but it is clearly not only her fault. I do believe the BH was solely at fault but there were three people on board. Who knows what happened or should have happened. It's obvious though that more than one person screwed up.

This.

It seems like a 3-person failure. Not one of them saw the correct plane, despite verbal acknowledgement? That's not a one-person error.

No.

Look at the radar nappi

That was the only plane south of the bridge in their line of sight. The JAZZ 789 had not taken off when they first gave visual confirmation of the CRJ. Something else definitely happened and I am waiting for the black box recordings to be released (but knowing how army covers up everything I doubt we will here it all).

Wasn't there another plane coming in? I live in Alexandria, and can see the line of planes coming from the south. I thought some were saying the BH had eyes on the plane behind the one they were about to hit.

No.

Look at the radar mapping.

Runway 1 line was way south of Winston bridge in a line. Airbuses and 737s

Runway 3 planes, regional jets, swing East over Maryland a bit and then cut over the river by DCA on an angle to land.

There was the CRJ on the slight left/east of the BH doing its runway 3 approach, 10s of seconds away. And then way south was the runway 1 plane queue, minutes away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the help requested visual separation. What other options were available?

Many experts have stated “visual separation” means the helo is assuming full responsibility for staying away from the plane. Helo pilot does this twice.

Please watch the info videos. This has been explained countless times.

So ATC could have denied the request, knowing how closely the paths were crossing. Did they grant the request because they were understaffed and allowed a too risky situation?

No. It is normal for helicopters through that corridor to be in charge of keeping themselves out of the way of planes. Helicopters can maneuver much more easily than planes can.

There may be situations where the ATC assigned to helicopter traffic might guide a helicopter through particularly busy traffic or direct them away from a potential conflict, but even in that situation, most of the time the ATC is going to do exactly what the one here did -- ask if the helicopter sees the plane in question, and great visual separation if requested because the helicopter will be better positioned to maneuver.

But also this assumes the helicopters are following rules for that flight path, which requires them to stay at or below 200ft and to stick to the east side of the river. The helicopter violated both of those rules. No one knows why.

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the help requested visual separation. What other options were available?

In airspace like this, there is an option for ATC to provide separation services based on radar. For example, this is how ATC keeps airplanes apart when they are in clouds and can't see each other.

They would have to take into account the stack up of tolerances allowed in altimeter, transponder, timing of the radar pings, and more, so it ends up being a pretty conservative spacing. That's great for safety, but can be less efficient than the pilots simply seeing and steering around the other plane. The latter is what's known as "visual separation" - literally using eyesight to keep the aircraft separated.