Beck Water Posted February 2 Posted February 2 8 hours ago, Figster said: This is a big part of the problem in my humble opinion. Military and civilian aviation flying together under different rules/ chain of command. Military and civilian aviation share airspace and sometimes airports all over the.country without particular problems as long as they’re talking to the same controllers (which these were). Reading the ASRS and some other articles, it appears that near misses aren’t limited to the military helicopters, there are apparently civilian medivac helicopters which have been involved. I’m not down with finger pointing and assigning cause before an investigation is complete, so we’ll see how that goes. As a general issue, IMHO having a heavily used helicopter flyway which passes ~200 ft below the altitude a jet flying a stabilized approach will pass through on a standard approach to a heavily used airport just seems like a Very Bad Idea. It seems to me clearance for that helicopter route should be withheld while those runways are in use for landing. That’s an operational decision that goes above the level of the guys and gals manning the tower though. 1 1 Quote
Figster Posted February 2 Posted February 2 (edited) 14 hours ago, Beck Water said: As a general issue, IMHO having a heavily used helicopter flyway which passes ~200 ft below the altitude a jet flying a stabilized approach will pass through on a standard approach to a heavily used airport just seems like a Very Bad Idea. It seems to me clearance for that helicopter route should be withheld while those runways are in use for landing. That’s an operational decision that goes above the level of the guys and gals manning the tower though. I agree, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/radar-showed-army-helicopter-flying-lower-than-jet-before-crash/ar-AA1yg2nc?ocid=xboxntp&pc=U531&cvid=a29cd1ace4984eba9e97e144567348e5&ei=11 A clue perhaps When you look at the flight paths it appears the Blackhawk would have had all the time in the world to see the airliner and make a course adjustment. In reality and at the speeds they were traveling I'm not so sure because of the slight left bank the airliner was making on approach to the runway. Looking directly at the airliner from the BlackHawk it may have made it difficult to make the proper course adjustment. Looks like the BlackHawk made a sharp right bank at the last second trying to miss the airliner. Directing the BlackHawk to go behind the airliner may have inadvertently helped trigger the crash IMO. Edited February 2 by Figster Quote
RiotAct Posted February 4 Posted February 4 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/01/capt-rebecca-lobach-army-pilot-killed-crash/78130730007/ 1 Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 On 2/2/2025 at 1:46 AM, Figster said: Directing the BlackHawk to go behind the airliner may have inadvertently helped trigger the crash IMO. Where else is helo gonna go? Beat around in front? So you would send the more maneuverable aircraft in front of the less maneuverable aircraft? That's insane! That simply doesn't make sense. Let's just consider this the same elevation, one's gotta give way... And that would always be the helicopter in this situation. If this was on the water (same elevation), the plane would be the stand-on vessel & helicopter the give-way vessel. You wouldn't even need a controller to explain this. I simply can't see how the plane or tower is to fault here. The highly maneuverable helo is always the burdened one here... The plane the privileged one here... AND that's exactly what the ATC conveyed & helo assumed, agreed to visual. AVOID the privileged aircraft. Again... The helo sees the plane's starboard lights early enough?? Zipping along in a helicopter, in the dark, through busy flight patterns is gamble EVEN given that aircraft can pass above or below each other. AND the plane was attempting to land, which I assume was also losing altitude. The pilot had under 500 hours. That's not a lot. Like 11 weeks of being on the job in the air. Just saying... 1 Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Where else is helo gonna go? Beat around in front? So you would send the more maneuverable aircraft in front of the less maneuverable aircraft? That's insane! That simply doesn't make sense. Let's just consider this the same elevation, one's gotta give way... And that would always be the helicopter in this situation. If this was on the water (same elevation), the plane would be the stand-on vessel & helicopter the give-way vessel. You wouldn't even need a controller to explain this. I simply can't see how the plane or tower is to fault here. The highly maneuverable helo is always the burdened one here... The plane the privileged one here... AND that's exactly what the ATC conveyed & helo assumed, agreed to visual. AVOID the privileged aircraft. Again... The helo sees the plane's starboard lights early enough?? Zipping along in a helicopter, in the dark, through busy flight patterns is gamble EVEN given that aircraft can pass above or below each other. AND the plane was attempting to land, which I assume was also losing altitude. The pilot had under 500 hours. That's not a lot. Like 11 weeks of being on the job in the air. Just saying... Seconds away from paths crossing and you are telling a moving aircraft to stop in its tracks and let the other moving aircraft pass so you can go behind it. Cruising speed of a Blackhawk is over 150 mph To me that's insane and not the kind of instructions that can help the Blackhawk at this point. How about a course change, different heading perhaps. The kind of generic response you might get though when one person tries to do the job of two IMO. 100ft discrepancy in 300 ft of airspace is the problem I see here. Tower had the Blackhawk at 200ft. Collison occurred at 300ft. Edited February 4 by Figster Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 58 minutes ago, Figster said: Seconds away from paths crossing and you are telling a moving aircraft to stop in its tracks and let the other moving aircraft pass. Cruising speed of a Blackhawk is over 150 mph To me that's insane and not the kind of instructions that can help the Blackhawk at this point. 100ft discrepancy in 300 ft of airspace is the problem I see here. Tower had the Blackhawk at 200ft. Collison occurred at 300ft. What kind of instructions would help? Common sense says look where you are going. A plane is landing... They are coming from the starboard side... I assume they saw the green starboard navigation lights of plane? If they got confused with another taking off, wouldn't they have seen the red port lights? They were in communication. Transfered visual flight rules over, helo complied, plenty of time to slow down. Yeah, I will wait for it to conclude, but how it can it NOT be their fault. Avoid the plane! One job. Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: What kind of instructions would help? Common sense says look where you are going. A plane is landing... They are coming from the starboard side... I assume they saw the green starboard navigation lights of plane? If they got confused with another taking off, wouldn't they have seen the red port lights? They were in communication. Transfered visual flight rules over, helo complied, plenty of time to slow down. Yeah, I will wait for it to conclude, but how it can it NOT be their fault. Avoid the plane! One job. Course change, different heading. Pilots had on night vision goggles. Colored lights NA. Blackhawk pilots may have mistaken the front of the Aircraft for the back. The two aircrafts are going 150 mph at each other. Absolutely, as will I, The Blackhawk pilots still died serving our country. I will gladly give them the benefit of the doubt. keep in mind the investigation already found a 100ft discrepancy in 300ft of Airspace. Instrumentation error, not human. As Beck pointed out. Clearance for that helicopter route should be withheld while those runways are in use for landing. Edited February 4 by Figster Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Figster said: Course change, different heading. Pilots had on night vision goggles. Colored lights NA. Blackhawk pilots may have mistaken the front of the Aircraft for the back. The two aircrafts are going 150 mph at each other. Absolutely, as will I, The Blackhawk pilots still died serving our country. I will gladly give them the benefit of a doubt. keep in mind the investigation already found a 100ft discrepancy in 300ft of Airspace. As Beck pointed out. Clearance for that helicopter route should be withheld while those runways are in use for landing. They can't mistake. That's what navigation lights are for. White light aft, etc... Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 27 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: They can't mistake. That's what navigation lights are for. White light aft, etc... You don't see colored lights wearing night vision goggles. Different shades https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/us/politics/dc-plane-crash-night-vision-goggles.html While the image seen through the goggles would present light as either green or white, it does not allow pilots to distinguish between the red or green lights on another aircraft that would signal its direction of flight, which pilots could see by looking just to the side of their goggles. Flying in highly lit areas, like cities, could also prove challenging, said the pilot, who requested anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly about standard flight procedures in the nation’s capital. Any limitations to a pilot’s peripheral vision or depth perception caused by wearing night-vision goggles are mitigated through frequent training and night-flying, the military pilot said, and it would be up to the pilots whether to wear their goggles up or down at any given moment – depending on the situation or environment. NYTIMES Edited February 4 by Figster Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 42 minutes ago, Figster said: You don't see colored lights wearing night vision goggles. Different shades https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/us/politics/dc-plane-crash-night-vision-goggles.html While the image seen through the goggles would present light as either green or white, it does not allow pilots to distinguish between the red or green lights on another aircraft that would signal its direction of flight, which pilots could see by looking just to the side of their goggles. Flying in highly lit areas, like cities, could also prove challenging, said the pilot, who requested anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly about standard flight procedures in the nation’s capital. Any limitations to a pilot’s peripheral vision or depth perception caused by wearing night-vision goggles are mitigated through frequent training and night-flying, the military pilot said, and it would be up to the pilots whether to wear their goggles up or down at any given moment – depending on the situation or environment. NYTIMES Well there's your problem! Helicopter error! Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/d-c-plane-crash-black-hawk-pilot-error.html Clearly falls on helo: "...The controller handling the aircraft in the Reagan tower likewise didn’t do anything wrong. He was keeping track of the Black Hawk as it flew south along the Potomac through a narrow corridor called Route 4 that passed well under the approach path for Runway 33. Seeing that the plane and the helicopter were flying toward each other in opposite directions, the controller called the helicopter on the radio about two minutes before the accident occurred and asked if it had the plane in sight. The pilot replied in the affirmative and asked for “visual separation,” meaning that they would take responsibility for staying clear of the other aircraft. The tower granted it: “Visual separation approved.” ..." Edited February 4 by ExiledInIllinois Quote
sherpa Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Figster said: You don't see colored lights wearing night vision goggles. Different shades It would also be very difficult to discern the navigation lights, which are low power red a green depending on the side of the airplane, when the landing lights are on, which they are below 10,000' and when the landing gear are lowered, which it was, the taxi light is on. These are way brighter than the nav lights. On another point suggested, military and civilian operations are constantly conducted in the same airspace, and use the same air traffic control and rules. The frequency thing is because many military airplanes use UHF, while civilians use VHF. When a controller transmits, he/she goes out on both, but the military would not hear a civilian response made on VHF, nor the civilian hear the military on UHF. This does not include areas where the military does its mission training, ie bombing or fighting etc., those are in MOAS, military operating areas, restricted areas or warning areas where civil traffic is not permitted when the areas are "hot", with few exceptions. The issue is that whomever screwed up, and I think the helo did, but it the ATC responsibility to control that airspace, and flying an approach to runway 1 then given a circle to land to 33 with a helo operating in that area is a very bad situation that should not have occurred. Edited February 4 by sherpa 1 1 Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 9 minutes ago, sherpa said: It would also be very difficult to discern the navigation lights, which are low power red a green depending on the side of the airplane, when the landing lights are on, which they are below 10,000' and when the landing gear are lowered, which it was, the taxi light is on. These are way brighter than the nav lights. On another point suggested, military and civilian operations are constantly conducted in the same airspace, and use the same air traffic control and rules. The frequency thing is because many military airplanes use UHF, while civilians use VHF. The a controller transmits, he/she goes out on both, but the military would not hear a civilian response made on VHF. The issue is that whomever screwed up, and I think the helo did, but it the ATC responsibility to control that airspace, and flying an approach to runway 1 then given a circle to land to 33 with a helo operating in that area is a very bad situation that should not have occurred. But, sadly it did happen. Things will change, unfortunately at a very high cost! 😔 If they are requesting visual separation a full 2 minutes before... Granted it, isn't it out of the ATC's hands? What the heck are they wearing hindrances (night vision) for, if it's going to mess up the ability to spot lights on surrounding aircraft? I guess that will be a no-no in future when going visual in a commercial area? City lights, etc... Edited February 4 by ExiledInIllinois Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/d-c-plane-crash-black-hawk-pilot-error.html Clearly falls on helo: "...The controller handling the aircraft in the Reagan tower likewise didn’t do anything wrong. He was keeping track of the Black Hawk as it flew south along the Potomac through a narrow corridor called Route 4 that passed well under the approach path for Runway 33. Seeing that the plane and the helicopter were flying toward each other in opposite directions, the controller called the helicopter on the radio about two minutes before the accident occurred and asked if it had the plane in sight. The pilot replied in the affirmative and asked for “visual separation,” meaning that they would take responsibility for staying clear of the other aircraft. The tower granted it: “Visual separation approved.” ..." Yet air traffic control had the Blackhawk at 200 ft right where it should be and 100ft below where the accident occurred. Don't jump to conclusions... Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 minute ago, Figster said: Yet air traffic control had the Blackhawk at 200 ft right where it should be and 100ft below where the accident occurred. Don't jump to conclusions... I thought this is fact: "...The pilot replied in the affirmative and asked for “visual separation,” meaning that they would take responsibility for staying clear of the other aircraft. The tower granted it: “Visual separation approved.” ..." I do find even in my mundane job, young operators tend to lean on tech more than when I started. Just saying... Young pilot with under 500 hours. It's a tragedy, very big tragedy. When she went visual... IN THOSE CONDITIONS, maybe the night vision should have been switched off??? Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: I thought this is fact: "...The pilot replied in the affirmative and asked for “visual separation,” meaning that they would take responsibility for staying clear of the other aircraft. The tower granted it: “Visual separation approved.” ..." I do find even in my mundane job, young operators tend to lean on tech more than when I started. Just saying... Young pilot with under 500 hours. It's a tragedy, very big tragedy. When she went visual... IN THOSE CONDITIONS, maybe the night vision should have been switched off??? Well lets finish the communication As the two aircraft get closer to each other, an air traffic controller checks in with the military helicopter, asking the pilot, "PAT25, do you have the CRJ in sight?" The air traffic controller then tells the helicopter pilot to "pass behind" the American Airlines jet. Air traffic control took control again by telling the Blackhawk where to go, You get that right? Edited February 4 by Figster 1 Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 13 minutes ago, Figster said: Well lets finish the communication As the two aircraft get closer to each other, an air traffic controller checks in with the military helicopter, asking the pilot, "PAT25, do you have the CRJ in sight?" The air traffic controller then tells the helicopter pilot to "pass behind" the American Airlines jet. Air traffic control took control again by telling the Blackhawk where to go, You get that right? It's still the helicopters responsibility to avoid. Where else is it going to go that late in the game? Zip in front... I most certainly hope not! Seems like common sense... ATC didn't control anything. Just stated the obvious. And again, if night vision was impairing color discernment, why were they on? Maybe... There's the issue? Their in visual mode and given the bright environment, did they really need night vision? Was it actually an impairment? I am sure they will look at that? 1 Quote
sherpa Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 44 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: I guess that will be a no-no in future when going visual in a commercial area? City lights, etc... Traffic, medivac, construction, occasionally police etc., helos operate all the time in these areas, but they are altitude restricted or fly canned routes. They are told to avoid certain areas, like the approach or departure paths from runways in use. This helo route is in a very bad location if DCA is operating circling approaches to 33 with the little guys. Very similar at LaGuardia within the NY metro area. Edited February 4 by sherpa 1 Quote
Figster Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 31 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: It's still the helicopters responsibility to avoid. Where else is it going to go that late in the game? Zip in front... I most certainly hope not! Seems like common sense... ATC didn't control anything. Just stated the obvious. And again, if night vision was impairing color discernment, why were they on? Maybe... There's the issue? Their in visual mode and given the bright environment, did they really need night vision? Was it actually an impairment? I am sure they will look at that? I tried to explain how in the scenario of trying to go behind a moving object coming at you at 150 mph, it's easier said then done. You seem to think the Blackhawk can just slam on its brakes and let the airliner go by when it's not even possible. Simple heading change saves the day. Any direction, good lord. Fair enough... Edited February 4 by Figster Quote
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4 Posted February 4 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Figster said: I tried to explain how in the scenario of trying to go behind a moving object coming at you at 150 mph is easier said then done. You seem to think the Blackhawk can just slam on its brakes and let the airliner go by when it's not even possible. Simple heading change saves the day. Any direction, good lord. Fair enough... No... But they have a full 2 minutes to slow down. Then there's the night vision. Was it a hindrance? Why were they going balls to the wall after they were granted visual separation. Alter course? Alter airspeed (20%) and maybe there's a near miss? Edited February 4 by ExiledInIllinois 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.