January 31, 2025, 02:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817866
uh your 'no' is to what - explain are you contradicting me - when/where did I say MWAA or either facility was owned by the state of Va? ===Not unless you think all the other helo corridors like Hudson River are. It's a hectic place but no deathtrap. a lot of non-PP nonsense here.
(Of course, the ones in the Training Command that involve Flight Students are classified that way, and I had to investigate two of those).
Thanks for saying that in a different way than I did, but you are casting pearls before swine.
Subjects: None
10 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
January 31, 2025, 13:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818224
My experience is just the opposite from yours. I can't speak about this Black Hawk but I can say that every military aircraft I've ever flown, and there have been many, spoke to civilian controllers on UHF manly because they were not equipped with VHF radios. I've never been helicopter qualified (thank the Lord) but I've ridden in a few military helos and they were also strictly UHF.
I am not sure what local rules, MOUs, and agreements that Army flying unit had, or has, with the ATC and Reagan tower, but I suspect that they are more involved than just the helo routes already discussed in this extended thread. Given that they habitually fly across the river in pursuit of their mission, and that Reagan/National is used to them being there on a daily basis, there may be MOUs and special procedures pre-agreed (Probably under an MOU or formal letter) and signed off by the FAA.
I know that we had a couple of such letters (a couple of decades ago) for the various MOAs and operating areas in Texas, but that was a different kind of flying. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
FAA
Hover
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820674
The right turn does not make sense.
If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.
It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.
Speculation follows:
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.
For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.
If the guess that PAT25 saw the traffic for 01 (further south,who was #2 for landing, with the CRJ being #1) and not the traffic for 33, they were still advised by ATC to pass behind their traffic .
As you look at the various diagrams of the final geometry, with their initial southerly heading, any right turn would have them pass in front of the traffic approaching 01 (and yes, also it would cause them to cross in front of landing traffic for 33 if they saw that, though it appears that they didn't.).
Why the right turn rather than simply following the east bank (of the declared route) until the traffic that they did see (apparently the aircraft approaching 01) was passing their right side?
It makes no sense to me.
It appears that poster 51bravo has made a similar observation, worded differently.
Originally Posted by
51bravo
So why for gods sake did they continue into 33 runway extension
before
AA3130. Was there also a disorientation towards their current position relative to DCA runway systems and they also easily (at night, mental bias) took RWY01 for RWY33 ? It almost looks so. Once more the narrow vision of NVG cheese slice ?!
If what you suggest is true, that neither pilot in the cockpit was familiar with the runway lay out of National(Reagan) Airport, that's an enormous hole in a slice or three of the cheese. I expect that subtle details like this may, or may not, eventually come out as the investigation progresses.
For patrickal:
While I appreciate the effort your put into that extended analysis, you are quite wrong about what a training mission is, the least of which is why one needs to do actual flying in an area to be competent in a given operations area, and why you have to do them in daylight and at night since your mission will call on your unit to undertake that mission, VIP transport, day or night.
The airspace in and around DC, writ large, is one of that unit's required operations area.
Your point 11 has so many things wrong about it that I won't waste further time on it.
In terms you might understand: no sale.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd February 2025 at 16:45 .
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
PAT25
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 03, 2025, 16:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820699
The position of Aircraft Commander or Instructor is (in my experience in the military) well understood, and it isn't necessarily rank based.
What the roles mean for a given mission are well understood.
As but one example: when I was an instrument check pilot as a Navy Lieutenant, I had to give senior officers Instrument checks. We didn't have a cockpit gradient problem.
I did some flying with Army pilots, all warrant officers, when I was flying Blackhawks. I was the equivalent of an Army LTC (me = Navy Commander). (A bit over 20 years ago).
One of the big things we were doing then was really emphasizing the formal ORM (operational risk management) process before every flight, regardless of the mission's complexity or simplicity.
It was a required part of the briefings, and I doubt that has changed in the 20+ years since.
CRM was also a part of the brief.
We had no problem with cockpit gradient. I knew quite well who had more time and experience in the UH-60L...and it wasn't me.
To be fair to your question, the "cockpit gradient" issue may or may not be a factor that the investigation will be able to sort out.
Subjects: None
5 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 04, 2025, 13:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821431
Well, it's probably my worn out eyes, but I don't see really any reliable evidence of the helo turning right ... remember it came out of Route 1 which ends in one big right-hand turn until joining Route 4 which only after passing KDCA airfield, has a very slight course adjustment to the left.
And the "amateur MLAT" tracking of the helo, is only a rough indication of the trajectory with a wide margin of position error and should be interpreted more like the right side hereunder:
And the "amateur MLAT" tracking of the helo, is only a rough indication of the trajectory with a wide margin of position error and should be interpreted more like the right side hereunder:
Thanks for that insight as well.
It's almost as though wearing the NVG in the vicinity of the airport on that evening would, by itself, create a degraded lookout ability. Seems counterintuitive unless one gets into the details of how NVGs work.
Subjects
KDCA
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Route 4
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 05, 2025, 14:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822257
So it wasn't just me.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th February 2025 at 13:20 .
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
Route Altitude
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 05, 2025, 18:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822429
Since they were flying at roughly 100kts (based on the evidence so far presented) a smooth slowdown to 60 knots works, you aren't doing a quick stop, and the plane handles easily.
They were flying Night VFR, not Day VFR.
If I am flying at night over a river at 200' yes, I want to fly smoothly, particularly if my
hard
max altitude
for that route is 200'.
Maybe, Mech, if you don't know what you are talking about, you keep a sock in it rather than saying something stupid like this:
1. I didn't say that, you did
2. I was sharing (IME means In My Experience) my experience with flying that family of helicopters.
The core problem seems to have been that they never saw the CRJ. Had they seen it, my guess ~ this is speculation ~ is that they'd have turned left and done a 360 degree turn for spacing, particularly since towers instruction was "pass behind" ... and doing that would have, accomplished that. But that isn't how it turned out.
=======
Edited to account for the technical point John Dixson made.
They were flying Night VFR, not Day VFR.
If I am flying at night over a river at 200' yes, I want to fly smoothly, particularly if my
Maybe, Mech, if you don't know what you are talking about, you keep a sock in it rather than saying something stupid like this:
Impossible to stay in the air at 50 knots?
2. I was sharing (IME means In My Experience) my experience with flying that family of helicopters.
The core problem seems to have been that they never saw the CRJ. Had they seen it, my guess ~ this is speculation ~ is that they'd have turned left and done a 360 degree turn for spacing, particularly since towers instruction was "pass behind" ... and doing that would have, accomplished that. But that isn't how it turned out.
=======
Edited to account for the technical point John Dixson made.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th February 2025 at 13:10 .
Subjects
CRJ
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 06, 2025, 13:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822970
And thank you for sharing your experience. I asked this earlier but haven't gotten a direct reply: If you know, what would have happened if the controller had asked PAT25 to "hold" at the holding point near Hains Point? Is that the function of those holding points and is there some set procedure or pattern?
Subjects
ATC
PAT25
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 06, 2025, 13:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822982
You are partly right, in that their look out is lateral (8-10 o'clock or 2-4 o'clock, depending on which seat they are in) which is very handy during hovering operations and during flight where another set of eyes is needed. IME, they were actively engaged in keeping their eyes out and calling traffic over the ICS when we flew near urban areas or airports.
Subjects: None
No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 07, 2025, 02:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823364
Subjects
ADSB (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 14, 2025, 21:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828211
The subtext for me is that the Blackhawk crew never saw them...but there's more for the NTSB to sort out, as the lady was VERY CLEAR about.
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
NTSB
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 14, 2025, 22:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11828241
I'm not sure they did say that about the altimeter, they said that there was bad pressure altitude data recorded on the FDR. That's not the same as saying the altimeter display was wrong, although it does mean that it's going to be hard to infer what was actually displayed on the Baro Alts. I would have thought a military crew would be pretty solid on altimeter cross checks though so I think that's all a bit of a red herring. The Potomac is (give or take the tide) at sea level so I think we can be pretty confident that the RadAlt figure of 278ft is good for an altitude too.
Subjects: None
No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 17, 2025, 01:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829568
So this just cracks me up.
He's in the middle of the river where the route says it's up the East bank, and that's OK because the routes are not defined with no procedural separation from landing traffic. He's instructed to pass behind the CRJ, but that would involve him either holding short or deviating over the city at 200ft at night, but instead he chooses to plow right on. The helicopter is out of his standard altitude, and the jet is way above the glideslope, and ATC encourages them to sort it out themselves. And the helicopter crew are wearing NVGs. What could possibly go wrong.
Your litany of how the holes in the cheese lined up might be missing a detail or two, but any of those holes not lining up might have avoided this tragedy.
The rad alt is right there.
At night over water at low level, the pilots I flew with did not ignore their rad alt.
It was a part of one's scan.
If I know that field elevation is 14', and my rad alt isn't at 200' or less on a route where max altitude is 200', a correction is needed now, before the error gets larger. (The separate issue of going behind, and that tower guidance apparently being stepped on, is another pair of holes in the cheese).
I am at a loss to understand the apparent magnitude of the altitude error (they were still too close laterally, yes), but as I've been out of the cockpit for a few years I am not aware of what's being taught these days.
On most airlines, they do have a barf bag, still, in the seat pocket in front of you. Suggest you vomit into that and avoid the choke hazard.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 17, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11829593
No, at this point foaming at the mouth might be a better descriptive.
While the intent was for them to "pass behind" (and thus not be on/under final when the RWY 33 traffic is on final) there was a missed opportunity to get the spacing (in time) needed.
When the NTSB has more to share it will be interesting (to me) to see what a balanced mitigation strategy is.
Originally Posted by
GF
Maneuvering to a different is generally very acceptable, putting a helicopter on final is way too much risk. The system failed to see it for what it was.
When the NTSB has more to share it will be interesting (to me) to see what a balanced mitigation strategy is.
Subjects
NTSB
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 17, 2025, 22:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11830297
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 18, 2025, 18:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11830924
I should have said this more directly, but the legal defenses that might be available with respect to the FAA's actions almost certainly won't apply to the Blackhawk crew.
And the Government won't pay twice for the same accident in any event.
So if the Blackhawk crew was negligent, which I have to say seems likely, the FAA's possible defenses are pretty much irrelevant.
And the Government won't pay twice for the same accident in any event.
So if the Blackhawk crew was negligent, which I have to say seems likely, the FAA's possible defenses are pretty much irrelevant.
Subjects
Blackhawk (H-60)
FAA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 27, 2025, 14:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11837124
Hold at Hains Point
being a common spacing technique in the past, per the discussion in the video with the CW3, makes me wonder why that expedient wasn't resorted to in this case for spacing.
Subjects: None
1 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 28, 2025, 16:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11837889
Did something change about this?
Subjects
ATC
TCAS (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
March 06, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11842005
Assuming they correctly received/understood that the object they were to pass behind was landing runway
33
, not runway 1. That seems to be in some doubt.
Because without that information, they could IMHO quite happily look at the A319 approaching runway 1, intend to pass behind it to head south down-river until the A319 was no longer over the river, and loiter around the runway 33 approach until that happens.
Because without that information, they could IMHO quite happily look at the A319 approaching runway 1, intend to pass behind it to head south down-river until the A319 was no longer over the river, and loiter around the runway 33 approach until that happens.
(Not sure why this little hamster wheel is still spinning, but this is PPRuNe).
Subjects
NTSB
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
March 10, 2025, 17:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11844638
For Low Observable: no, it's called "an overreaction"
Spoiler
Subjects: None
No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.