December 13, 2025, 11:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12004581
Though in hindsight, his initial comment "This legislation restores our military\x92s focus on lethality" is a bit on the nose.
It's just baffling why the Army doesn't keep the ADS-B equipment on their helicopters operable, it'd be safer at any altitude when they're sharing airspace with civilians.
I can only imagine someone thinking, "well we can't stop doing training flights when the equipment isn't working" (and Homendy glaring at them "then get it fixed").
Subjects
ADSB (All)
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
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.
December 14, 2025, 12:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12005085
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.
December 14, 2025, 16:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12005225
- The bill mandates a "risk assessment", but does not explain what that entails, or how the person making that assessment should be qualifed. A simple check box on the waiver form, "I assessed the risk to civil aviation", would presumably suffice.
- The civil aviation authorities (DOT, FAA, airlines) have no input on these assessments. This is why Homendy calls it a "whitewash", because it sounds like someone cares about risk, but there's no actual assurance the risk would be managed.
- Because these and other important provisions are so poorly defined, Homendy called the section badly written, and she's right. You need to know what the bill is talking about, or the ambiguity leads to court cases.
- we have seen a legislative effort to mandate ADS-B IN, which may be ongoing behind the scenes, and possibly scheduled to a push with the release of the final report. However, ADS-B IN is useless (in this context) if the military doesn't send ADS-B. I think that explains Homendy's level of anger.
I believe, without this provision, the Army needs to fix their ADS-B gear, and go to the FAA if they need a waiver for those top secret missions.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
FAA
Final Report
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
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.
January 26, 2026, 22:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12027674
The docket at https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA25MA108 is unchanged from the previous hearing, with the exception of some personal items that have been removed.
Last edited by Musician; 27th January 2026 at 16:52 .
Subjects
NTSB
NTSB Docket
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.
January 27, 2026, 16:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12028093
The caption/transcript is at https://transcript.verbit.co/?transc...WidthMode=true
The docket has had more than 60 items added. https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA25MA108
Boardmeeting Overview Animation
Aircraft Visibility Study
Control Tower Visibility Study
Subjects
NTSB Docket
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.
January 28, 2026, 02:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12028325
Subjects
Final Report
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.
January 29, 2026, 13:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12029155
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...CA25MA108.aspx
Subjects
Altimeter (All)
Barometric Altimeter
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
Findings
NTSB
PAT25
Route 4
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
Visual 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.
January 30, 2026, 12:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12029671
28. With several other targets located directly in front of the helicopter represented by points of light with no other features by which to identify aircraft type, and without additional position information from the controller, the instructor pilot likely identified the wrong target.
The question was why the NTSB chose the right seat of the helicopter, and that was because the instructor assumed responsibility for the visual separation. There is no cockpit communication about the identification, so the PF wasn't involved in that.
One problem the helicopter had was that the CRJ was flying a turn. Flying straight, you know you're going to collide with something (even if it is just a dot of light) if it doesn't move visually. The CRJ's lights were moving left, so that would've looked like it was safely passing the helicopter by. The crew needed the situational awareness that the CRJ was going to turn towards them as it lined up for runway 33, but they didn't have it. ATC did, but didn't share, for reasons also addressed in the findings.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Findings
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Situational Awareness
Visual 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 07, 2026, 07:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12033661
https://www.politico.com/live-update...-bill-00764270
The journalists asked Homendy about it on the day of the board meeting, and she diplomatically said she'd been busy with the DCA midair documents since the board meeting and final report were coming up, but she also reiterated she wants ADS-B IN on every aircraft, so...
The NTSB has the enviable role of being able to champion safety absent any other consideration. The FAA and politics in general need to balance that with economic, business and other interests, so the outcomes are pretty much guaranteed to be compromises falling short of what we would want.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
DCA
FAA
Final Report
NTSB
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
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, 2026, 01:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038924
.
[...]. The NTSB concludes that, due to additive allowable tolerances of the helicopter\x92s pitot-static/altimeter system, it is likely that the crew of PAT25 observed a barometric altimeter altitude about 100 ft lower than the helicopter\x92s true altitude, resulting in the crew erroneously believing that they were under the published maximum altitude for Route 4.
For the northern segment of Route 4, which included the area of the collision, of the 523 flights analyzed, 260 flights (49%) were identified as exceeding route altitude limitations at some point during the flight. Had the error tolerances of barometric altimeters been considered during design of the helicopter route maximum altitudes, the incompatibility of a 200-ft ceiling and barometric altimeter errors may have been identified.
Subjects
Altimeter (All)
Barometric Altimeter
Final Report
NTSB
PAT25
Route 4
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 18, 2026, 02:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038946
You are of the opinion they should've checked that the altimeter was working correctly? Is that a normal item on a pre-flight checklist?
Subjects
Altimeter (All)
Separation (ALL)
Visual 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 18, 2026, 06:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12038986
The PF actually had more hours on the "accident helicopter make and model" than the instructor pilot, and people who flew with her in 2023 and 2024 thought she was flying well enough.
Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
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, 2026, 19:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039332
We don't know of any gestures, if any pilot pointed at lights, but there is nothing in the CVR transcript that indicates the PF was aware of the traffic, or that the PIC pointed the traffic out to her; the PF certainly did not factor in the decision to request visual separation.
So when the PIC transmitted,
or did the PF know that neither of them could identify the traffic, but accepted it as normal?
Subjects
CVR
Normalization of Deviance
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
Visual 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 19, 2026, 16:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039774
Subjects
Separation (ALL)
Visual 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 19, 2026, 18:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039831
if the PF had been as equally capable as the instructor and performing their scan (the CGI reenactment shows that much of the CRJ’s flatboats occurred within the PF’s side of the scan) would the outcome have been different? Possibly.
the conduct of that flight was the final hole in the Swiss cheese arguably
What I do see is that when the instructor is flying, he's having some altitude excursions as well.
There's also a visual separation while the instructor is flying, and it plays out like this:
INT-2 [trainee] do you see him?
INT-1 [instructor] nope.
INT-2 do you see him?
INT-1 no. nine to ten o'clock. *.
20:00:22.7 RDO-2 * * traffic
INT-1 yeah. I got it. tally. coming left.
INT-1 alright you want me to keep chasing this number one needle or-
INT-2 yeah. just avoid traffic at this point.
INT-1 yup. I got the traffic out the right door
and only then does she call 'traffic in sight maintaining visual separation'.
For the CRJ, the instructor calls 'traffic in sight' without ascertaining that the PF sees it. When the tower cautions them again, the CRJ still hasn't turned, so while it's visible, it doesn't appear a threat. I think both pilots expect the CRJ to be to their right, because that's where the bridge is when ATC tells them where the CRJ is initially, and because the instructor thinks that ATC wants them to move left. They don't understand that the CRJ is on their left and will be turning onto the runway heading.
I imagine, based on that, that the PF believed the instructor has the CRJ in sight on his side. If she did see the CRJ, it would've been well above and on a diverging course, except for the final 6 seconds or so; it wouldn't have appeared to be a threat.
With his radio call, the instructor put himself in the position of being responsible for avoiding AA5342, but he didn't actually know where it was (maybe he thought he did).
There are a lot of factors contributing to that, but that's the big hole here for me.
Last edited by Musician; 19th February 2026 at 18:47 .
Subjects
AA5342
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
CRJ
CVR
Separation (ALL)
Traffic in Sight
Visual 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 19, 2026, 22:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12039932
Subjects
Night Vision Goggles (NVG)
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.