Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last Index Page
| biscuit74
January 31, 2025, 17:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818407 |
I was also a little surprised at the suggestion that the helicopter crew may have been using NVGs. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this sort of thing might comment? Would that be normal - it seems that on a fine bright night, in a busy tight environment, as well lit as it is NVGs would seriously add risk. Whjy not fly out normally then go to NVGs once out of the high intensity area? It sounds as if NVGs add flare, reduce SA and make scan much harder. I guess that is an acceptable trade of when dealing with typical military operations at night, but it rather surprises me they might be used in this emvironment. Any comment or enlightenment welcomed ! Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Situational Awareness
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| PPRuNeUser134364
January 31, 2025, 17:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818418 |
When the CRJ traffic was first called to the heli, and the heli acknowledged that they were visual, the CRJ looks to have been around 4NM south of the field. NVGs probably aren't ideal in that environment and I haven't seen any factual statement that they were using them. Even if they were wearing them it doesn't mean they were actively using them (it is usually possible to lift them up out of the way). My only concern would be flying below 200ft, at night, across multiple bridges in an environment where there may be obstructions (not knowing the specifics of that portion of airspace). It may (or may not) have been advantageous to have one person using NVGs for ground collision avoidance, but it's a balancing act that depends on the conditions on the specific night. Subjects
CRJ
IFR
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
VFR
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Dominator2
January 31, 2025, 18:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818422 |
biscuit74 Your quite right that this was not the environment to be using NVGs. Of course, at present it has not been confirmed that the helicopter crew were on NVGs.
I have flown many hundreds of hours on NVGs, all be it fast jet, down at 250ft. With the amount of lighting in a city centre the NVGs would have been unusable and detrimental to Flight Safety. I don't know if Black Hawk pilots fly with the same helmet as the Apache with all instrument information "Head Up". If not their workload to maintain 200ft or below would have been immense As I have said previously, the procedures should not have allowed the helicopter to be in that airspace at that time!!!. Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Iron Duck
January 31, 2025, 20:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818525 |
I'm curious about two factors in this event: the helo crew actively asking for visual deconfliction, and the altitude bust.
The UK Daily Telegraph reports that ' The helicopter crew involved in Wednesday night’s deadly crash were training to ensure the continuity of the US government in the event of a major crisis or emergency, the US defence secretary said.' I can rationalise that they were practicing to be as self-sufficient as possible, which may explain the first point. But the altitude bust, which seems incomprehensible. Above, Lascaille surmises "this thing which must literally have been lighting up the interior of their cockpit." Did the CRJ's landing lights bleach out the NVGs and make the instruments unreadable to the helo crew? Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Easy Street
February 01, 2025, 00:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818652 |
Bear in mind also that the helo was about 35 degrees right of the CRJ's nose during the final 20 seconds or so, well outside the typical landing light beam width of about 5 or 6 degrees semi-angle. Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd February 2025 at 02:06 . Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| nojwod
February 01, 2025, 11:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818951 |
According to CNN, the crash was waiting to happen.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/30/u...nvs/index.html
Captain Steeve has a good analyis and probably quite close to what actually happened. I agree with the comment on the video that
at the point which PAT25 initially requests visual separation and confirms traffic in sight, it looks like the AA5324 CRJ had already commenced right turn for circling approach at which point the brightest landing lights would be the aircraft behind as AA5324s would no longer be pointing directly at the helicopter. The brightest landing light is now the No.2 traffic which PAT25 identifies as their traffic and will probably now be fixated on due to confirmation bias. Terribly tragic and could happen to any pilot at night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfgllf1L9_4 If they were using NVG as speculated, the failure to see the landing lights of the approaching aircraft might be explained by a scenario where : Crew mistakenly identified the following aircraft, either with NVG on or temporarily off. Happy with the separation, the NGV gear goes back on and with the limited field of view from the goggles, focused ahead and down as visual flight demands, the landing lights, so bright in the videos, were just never seen, but without the goggles the peripheral vision of the crew might have had some warning. Subjects
CNN
CRJ
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
PAT25
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| DaveReidUK
February 01, 2025, 12:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818980 |
Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Toruk Macto
February 01, 2025, 12:49:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819002 |
Thoughts to ALL involved ! RIP Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| SASless
February 01, 2025, 13:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819026 |
Some folks here need to read back through the thread before posting.
The helicopter crew is said to have had NVG's but at this point no information has been provided re their use of NVG's. The height issue is not the primary issue as the intent of the procedures and ATC instructions was to separate the two aircraft. Had that separation effort worked there would have been no conflict thus no collision. It is the failure of the separation and the meeting over the river the two aircraft in the same bit of air that height mattered. No where in the standard procedure was it intended to have helicopter traffic fly below landing aircraft on RWY 33. Poll the Pilots here folks....ask them if they would routinely fly 100-200 feet below a crossing aircraft? What do you think the answer would be? I thank 212 Man for his input reminding me why he was the Teacher's Pet. I depend upon his ability to get into the books to keep me straight. Now a test question for him.....were you flying the incident airplane doing a Visual Approach to RWY33....would you have tuned up the IAP for that RWY as an additional reference for your approach? SOP's usually instruct Crews to use ILS data when doing Visual Approaches to runways with that kind of IAP so would that kind of thinking apply in this incident? Would that have been of any benefit considering the existing weather and terrain? Or, would that have been a distraction? This was not a "Circling Approach" but it was very similar. Subjects
ATC
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JRBarrett
February 01, 2025, 14:12:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819054 |
Some folks here need to read back through the thread before posting.
The helicopter crew is said to have had NVG's but at this point no information has been provided re their use of NVG's. The height issue is not the primary issue as the intent of the procedures and ATC instructions was to separate the two aircraft. Had that separation effort worked there would have been no conflict thus no collision. It is the failure of the separation and the meeting over the river the two aircraft in the same bit of air that height mattered. No where in the standard procedure was it intended to have helicopter traffic fly below landing aircraft on RWY 33. Poll the Pilots here folks....ask them if they would routinely fly 100-200 feet below a crossing aircraft? What do you think the answer would be? I thank 212 Man for his input reminding me why he was the Teacher's Pet. I depend upon his ability to get into the books to keep me straight. Now a test question for him.....were you flying the incident airplane doing a Visual Approach to RWY33....would you have tuned up the IAP for that RWY as an additional reference for your approach? SOP's usually instruct Crews to use ILS data when doing Visual Approaches to runways with that kind of IAP so would that kind of thinking apply in this incident? Would that have been of any benefit considering the existing weather and terrain? Or, would that have been a distraction? This was not a "Circling Approach" but it was very similar. Subjects
ATC
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| island_airphoto
February 01, 2025, 16:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819158 |
Some folks here need to read back through the thread before posting.
The helicopter crew is said to have had NVG's but at this point no information has been provided re their use of NVG's. The height issue is not the primary issue as the intent of the procedures and ATC instructions was to separate the two aircraft. Had that separation effort worked there would have been no conflict thus no collision. It is the failure of the separation and the meeting over the river the two aircraft in the same bit of air that height mattered. No where in the standard procedure was it intended to have helicopter traffic fly below landing aircraft on RWY 33. Poll the Pilots here folks....ask them if they would routinely fly 100-200 feet below a crossing aircraft? What do you think the answer would be? I thank 212 Man for his input reminding me why he was the Teacher's Pet. I depend upon his ability to get into the books to keep me straight. Now a test question for him.....were you flying the incident airplane doing a Visual Approach to RWY33....would you have tuned up the IAP for that RWY as an additional reference for your approach? SOP's usually instruct Crews to use ILS data when doing Visual Approaches to runways with that kind of IAP so would that kind of thinking apply in this incident? Would that have been of any benefit considering the existing weather and terrain? Or, would that have been a distraction? This was not a "Circling Approach" but it was very similar. Subjects
ATC
Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Separation (ALL)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| DaveReidUK
February 01, 2025, 17:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819168 |
Also, Reuters:
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the helicopter was flown by a "fairly experienced crew" of three soldiers who were wearing night-vision goggles on an annual training flight."
Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| SASless
February 01, 2025, 17:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819169 |
Island,
Thank you....figured that would be the answer especially if the runway change is very close in to the Airport. Dave, The video Clip I saw of Hegseth he noted the Crew "had" them then stated it had not been confirmed they were "using" them. That was last night sometime I saw that on the Re-Run Stream channel I had on that draws from multiple sources. Also....the NTSB guy said much the same thing saying the Investigation in time would try to determine that. I trust the video and my lip reading ability over the media anymore. I just did a google search and found this video clip that has Hegseth talking about the Mid-Air Collision and he clearly states the case as I described it. About one minute into the video Hegseth addresses NVG's. Last edited by SASless; 1st February 2025 at 17:28 . Subjects
NTSB
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| W9SQD
February 01, 2025, 18:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819211 |
Island,
Thank you....figured that would be the answer especially if the runway change is very close in to the Airport. Dave, The video Clip I saw of Hegseth he noted the Crew "had" them then stated it had not been confirmed they were "using" them. That was last night sometime I saw that on the Re-Run Stream channel I had on that draws from multiple sources. Also....the NTSB guy said much the same thing saying the Investigation in time would try to determine that. I trust the video and my lip reading ability over the media anymore. I just did a google search and found this video clip that has Hegseth talking about the Mid-Air Collision and he clearly states the case as I described it. About one minute into the video Hegseth addresses NVG's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycudDIUM9JU Subjects
NTSB
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| remi
February 01, 2025, 18:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819234 |
There have to be many, many locations where low level urban NVG flight can be practiced/exercised that don't essentially graze the end of an active runway. If nothing else, exercises could be suspended when certain runways are in use. Or conducted after airport curfew. Etc.
Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Denflnt
February 02, 2025, 00:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819398 |
The CRJ were asked by ATC if they were able to accept an approach onto R33, they replied they could. They were well within their rights to refuse it, apparently one of the previous aircraft ahead of them had refused a request to to switch to R33.
If they had held the Helo short of the runway approach until enough radar separation to cross the approach path was available the Helo would have been orbiting for hours. When the helicopter crew confirmed they had the aircraft in sight they accepted responsibility they had identified the correct aircraft and could remain visual with it as they they crossed the approach path. If they had any doubt to this they should have stated so. ATC intended for the helicopter to pass behind that CRJ not below it. Actually ATC asked the Helicopter twice if they had the CRJ visual about 40 seconds apart, both times the helicopter replied yes, and the helicopter crew, not ATC, asked to maintain visual separation. Yes, the CRJ could have not accepted ATC's request to divert to 33. They would have then been set to go around to set up again for Runway 1, the usual runway. ATC put the CRJ on an intersecting runway, which added complexity to the pattern picture. The helo would have only had to hold for a short time to wait for the CRJ that was diverted to a runway not normally used for commercial air carriers. Knowing that, they asked the helo to maintain visual separation, placing everything on that crew to see and avoid the CRJ. I have read that they didn't even tell them where to actually look to see the traffic, no bearing, no altitude. The helo likely saw traffic, just not where they were supposed to look. There were plenty incoming and departing Runway 1, which is why the CRJ was asked to divert. Add to that, both aircraft were low and operating over an urban area at night where it is difficult to see other aircraft. Worse even if the helo crew was using NVG. ATC should have held the helo short, waiting for an unusual approach to a runway not used normally, so to let the CRJ pass. The CRJ crew was already saturated in tasks at the time I have not hear ATC asking them to look out for the helo. IMO, ATC created a "single point of failure" relying on the helo to see and avoid the CRJ. Had they held the helo, and helos can hover, for even a minute, this doesn't happen. ATC's main purpose is to keep aircraft from occupying the same place at the same time. In this case, they didn't. I am sure that the helo pilots made]mistakes. But, this appears to be a massive failure of ATC. Last edited by Denflnt; 2nd February 2025 at 00:46 . Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Hover
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
See and Avoid
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Easy Street
February 02, 2025, 02:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819470 |
If the Army pilots mistook another aircraft for the CRJ they were warned of at least three times, can someone look at the radar and explain which aircraft they thought was the CRJ? I see none they could have possible been watching instead. Considering the distance from one warning to the next and the Army pilot's assurance of seeing the CRJ both times, I don't see how any light on the ground could have been their focus either.
I suspect the helicopter's gradual turn to the right was a result of the pilots fixating on AAL3130 and instinctively flying to pass just behind it, without realising how far away it was. Edit: this is the reconstruction which shows the similarity in elevation. Captain Steve and Juan Browne have put forward the same theory on their channels but without quite the same compelling graphics. Last edited by Easy Street; 2nd February 2025 at 03:09 . Subjects
CRJ
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Radar
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| photonclock
February 02, 2025, 08:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819575 |
Helicopters avoid stopping unless landing or undertaking a task that requires a fixed position such as rappelling (sometimes...) winching (almost always). Power requirement goes way up, control is more interesting, and the H-V curve come into play, particularly if a SE helicopter. To do a quick stop at night, over water, low level, is an interesting maneuver, the chance of ending up with a splash is above zero. rapid deceleration and sharp turns add to the pleasures of low flying at night with an indistinct horizon, varied lighting, NVG or not. If that is the plan to avoid a disaster, then they really need to rethink the plan.
watch?v=X3PtOdR_VCc&t=1675s
He is not a Blackhawk pilot, and has given quite inaccurate advice Senior Pilot Last edited by Senior Pilot; 2nd February 2025 at 20:46 . Reason: Add footnote Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
Hover
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| 10 DME ARC
February 02, 2025, 15:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819849 |
I don't think visual separation would relax the height altitude for the route?? If you listen a little longer request visual separation and visual separation approved were requested and given so matter of factly almost without thought? Only my opinions....
If the reports of NVG's being used in such airspace this could be a factor? Plus instead of "confirm you have the CRJ in sight" a "confirm you have the CRJ in your left 10 O'clock 3 miles insight?" But it's easy with hindsight! Subjects
CRJ
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| fdr
February 02, 2025, 16:51:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819917 |
You can do pretty much anything in a helicopter, they also bite back "biggly" quicker than a heart beat, and there are a lot of UH-60's sitting in water where the crew were disoriented, SAS n' all. An R-22 doing its stuff in the GAFA A UH 60 doing its thang of a "quick" stop A nice view of the Hathaway bridge just near the USN Panama City NSF, with a MH53 doing a turn from cruise, and a subsequent "quick" stop. How on earth a helo driver is expected to do any hard maneuvering while maintaining visual contact with conflicting traffic is lost upon me, with or without NVG. Most of the time, a crew will do it and not have a problem, on other occasions the next day there are headlines of "Blackhawk crew lost in training mission over the ICW" etc.. Hope is not a plan, the crews deserve better and the passengers do as well. Last edited by fdr; 2nd February 2025 at 21:53 . Reason: the 60 is vastly more capable than its predecessors. Thanks John for the info Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
Hover
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |