ST Dog Page: 1 of 1

ST Dog
July 31, 2025, 22:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11931570

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

My recollection from the CW3 Roth (former 12th AB pilot) interview was he said the opposite; i.e., due to the frequent bridges/islands in the river, PAT25 would have been flying referenced to baro for route 1 and 4 altitude limits.

And I forget who, but there was mention of RADALT varying with the depth of the water.

Subjects PAT25

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

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.

ST Dog
August 01, 2025, 00:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11931595

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

Don\x92t recall hearing that. Roth referred to the river clutter causing the radalt to bounce around.

Once the recording/transcript is available I'll try to find it. I remember it struck me as odd.

Quote:

To complicate further, the Army Day 1 witness, CW4 Lewis, indicated she would have flown route 1/4 using radalt as her altitude reference. She also offered that she had zero DC route experience.

Was it her that later said she'd use baro since the route was MSL not AGL?

Again need to recheck against the transcript. my memory may be fuzzy. I was doing 3 different things at the time.

I have several things I want to revisit from the 2 days so far.

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.

ST Dog
August 01, 2025, 19:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11932011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

They weren't in a hover. And backwash, when in forward flight at 100 kts? Where are you coming up with this?
Do you understand what translational lift is?
If they were flying at 100 kts (which is roughly what speed they seem to have been going) their static ports will work fine.

The tests NTSB did said otherwise. Reading 80-130 ft lower in flight vs 20-55 ft on the ground and the FDR data didn't match the video from the tests.

Subjects Hover NTSB

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

ST Dog
August 01, 2025, 20:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11932030

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

Don\x92t recall hearing that. Roth referred to the river clutter causing the radalt to bounce around.

To complicate further, the Army Day 1 witness, CW4 Lewis, indicated she would have flown route 1/4 using radalt as her altitude reference. She also offered that she had zero DC route experience.

I had time to look through the live transcript I still have open.

It was her.

Lewis: In my experience, when flying at low altitude, I would be referencing the radar altimeter.

Mueller: And when would you transition roughly between the two?

Lewis: In my experience, certainly 200 feet and below, I would be referencing the radar altimeter. However, if I was flying on a published MSL route, I would be referencing barometric altitude.

and later

(unsure): This is a scenario based, one based on what the chairman asked about flying over the Potomac River route. If you had a route ceiling of about 200 feet and you were to look at your barometric altimeter and see about 160 feet, but then it's all on your radar altimeter, about 280 feet. How would you triage that situation in your experience?

Lewis: So if the barometric altimeter is reading 160 feet, you're saying and the radar altimeter is reading significantly higher than that, I would still my primary concern on the MSL route would be staying below the 200 feet. And I would definitely, you know, take note of that and and maybe write the aircraft up for some, you know, maintenance action. But at that particular time I would as long as there was nothing wrong with the aircraft before we took off. As far as the field elevation and barometric altimeter, I would, you know, continue to assume that I was below that 200 foot MSL.

Subjects Barometric Altimeter Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

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.

ST Dog
August 02, 2025, 01:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11932144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downwind_Left

Low point of the whole hearing was Jennifer Homendy halting proceedings and moving witnesses to different seats, as one of the FAA managers elbowed a colleague while she was giving testimony - at which point she went quiet. Inference being she was being reminded to stop talking.

She was really not happy with the FAA more than once.

Was was hoping to rewatch this weekend but for some reason day 1 isn't on YouTube (but day 2 is).

I do have links for the live transcripts but they can be hard to follow.

Day 1
https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=c8273991-7823-4761-8ab1-95618f517981

Day 2
https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=02727bab-a1a2-4efd-95cb-de7991bdce87

Day 3
https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=42394932-5289-4aa9-b9ea-4a5d3ee725f6

Subjects FAA NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

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.

ST Dog
August 06, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11933896

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

3. Is there an investigation process by the Army which will be (or already is) publicly available, in whole or in part?

Beyond the Army reps that were at the hearing? Day 1 first panel had "CW4 Kylene Lewis, Department of Evaluation and Standardization with the U.S. Army. Mr. Steve Braddom, chief airworthiness engineer with the U.S. Army. And Mr. Scott Rosengren, the chief engineer with the U.S. Army."

Mr. Braddom is with SRD ( https://www.avmc.army.mil/Directorates/SRD/ (formerly AED)) which is the Army airworthiness authority. Basically the Army's version of the FAA (like NAVAIR for the Navy and TAA for the Air Force)
Mr. Rosengren is the Chief Engineer with the Utility Helicopter Project Office which buys the UH-60 and all the equipment installed on it.

Last edited by ST Dog; 6th August 2025 at 02:29 .

Subjects FAA

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

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.

ST Dog
August 07, 2025, 01:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11934436

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

My inquiry was meant to refer to an internal investigation process, possibly with witness testimony. Or does the NTSB investigation in effect preempt any internal Army investigation and reporting functions which presumably are conducted when there is no civilian involvement in an Army aviation accident?

If such an internal investigation happens it won't be public. Just look at how sparse accident investigations are when the NTSB/civilians aren't involved.
I've not seen a public release for the AH-64 that crashed in Galveston Bay Dec 2016. I know a few ASAMs were issued late 2017/early 2018, basically some pre and post flight inspections. Apache helicopter down in Galveston Bay, Texas

And that's about par for the course, particularly the Army.

Quote:

It wasn't mentioned ( afaik ) in the NTSB hearings but does the Policy Board on Federal Aviation (which I understand is situated within DoD) have any investigation role in this accident? Or in deciding upon and possibly implementing recommendations the NTSB presumably will make when its report is complete, to the extent the recommendations are directed to Army aviation specifically (or other types of military aviation generally) as these operate in the NAS?

I doubt they have an investigative role. They probably will be involved with policy changes once the report is final, though we likely won't hear much about it.

Subjects NTSB

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

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.

ST Dog July 31, 2025, 22:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11931570	Quote: Originally Posted by BFSGrad My recollection from the CW3 Roth (former 12th AB pilot) interview was he said the opposite; i.e., due to the frequent bridges/islands in the river, PAT25 would have been flying referenced to baro for route 1 and 4 altitude limits. And I forget who, but there was mention of RADALT varying with the depth of the water. Subjects PAT25 Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 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.
ST Dog August 01, 2025, 00:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 11931595	Quote: Originally Posted by BFSGrad Don\x92t recall hearing that. Roth referred to the river clutter causing the radalt to bounce around. Once the recording/transcript is available I'll try to find it. I remember it struck me as odd. Quote: To complicate further, the Army Day 1 witness, CW4 Lewis, indicated she would have flown route 1/4 using radalt as her altitude reference. She also offered that she had zero DC route experience. Was it her that later said she'd use baro since the route was MSL not AGL? Again need to recheck against the transcript. my memory may be fuzzy. I was doing 3 different things at the time. I have several things I want to revisit from the 2 days so far. 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.
ST Dog August 01, 2025, 19:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11932011	Quote: Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 They weren't in a hover. And backwash, when in forward flight at 100 kts? Where are you coming up with this? Do you understand what translational lift is? If they were flying at 100 kts (which is roughly what speed they seem to have been going) their static ports will work fine. The tests NTSB did said otherwise. Reading 80-130 ft lower in flight vs 20-55 ft on the ground and the FDR data didn't match the video from the tests. Subjects Hover NTSB Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ST Dog August 01, 2025, 20:09:00 GMT permalink Post: 11932030	Quote: Originally Posted by BFSGrad Don\x92t recall hearing that. Roth referred to the river clutter causing the radalt to bounce around. To complicate further, the Army Day 1 witness, CW4 Lewis, indicated she would have flown route 1/4 using radalt as her altitude reference. She also offered that she had zero DC route experience. I had time to look through the live transcript I still have open. It was her. Lewis: In my experience, when flying at low altitude, I would be referencing the radar altimeter. Mueller: And when would you transition roughly between the two? Lewis: In my experience, certainly 200 feet and below, I would be referencing the radar altimeter. However, if I was flying on a published MSL route, I would be referencing barometric altitude. and later (unsure): This is a scenario based, one based on what the chairman asked about flying over the Potomac River route. If you had a route ceiling of about 200 feet and you were to look at your barometric altimeter and see about 160 feet, but then it's all on your radar altimeter, about 280 feet. How would you triage that situation in your experience? Lewis: So if the barometric altimeter is reading 160 feet, you're saying and the radar altimeter is reading significantly higher than that, I would still my primary concern on the MSL route would be staying below the 200 feet. And I would definitely, you know, take note of that and and maybe write the aircraft up for some, you know, maintenance action. But at that particular time I would as long as there was nothing wrong with the aircraft before we took off. As far as the field elevation and barometric altimeter, I would, you know, continue to assume that I was below that 200 foot MSL. Subjects Barometric Altimeter Radar Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 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.
ST Dog August 02, 2025, 01:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11932144	Quote: Originally Posted by Downwind_Left Low point of the whole hearing was Jennifer Homendy halting proceedings and moving witnesses to different seats, as one of the FAA managers elbowed a colleague while she was giving testimony - at which point she went quiet. Inference being she was being reminded to stop talking. She was really not happy with the FAA more than once. Was was hoping to rewatch this weekend but for some reason day 1 isn't on YouTube (but day 2 is). I do have links for the live transcripts but they can be hard to follow. Day 1 https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=c8273991-7823-4761-8ab1-95618f517981 Day 2 https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=02727bab-a1a2-4efd-95cb-de7991bdce87 Day 3 https://transcript.verbit.co/?transcriptJobId=42394932-5289-4aa9-b9ea-4a5d3ee725f6 Subjects FAA NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 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.
ST Dog August 06, 2025, 02:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11933896	Quote: Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 3. Is there an investigation process by the Army which will be (or already is) publicly available, in whole or in part? Beyond the Army reps that were at the hearing? Day 1 first panel had "CW4 Kylene Lewis, Department of Evaluation and Standardization with the U.S. Army. Mr. Steve Braddom, chief airworthiness engineer with the U.S. Army. And Mr. Scott Rosengren, the chief engineer with the U.S. Army." Mr. Braddom is with SRD ( https://www.avmc.army.mil/Directorates/SRD/ (formerly AED)) which is the Army airworthiness authority. Basically the Army's version of the FAA (like NAVAIR for the Navy and TAA for the Air Force) Mr. Rosengren is the Chief Engineer with the Utility Helicopter Project Office which buys the UH-60 and all the equipment installed on it. Last edited by ST Dog; 6th August 2025 at 02:29 . Subjects FAA Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 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.
ST Dog August 07, 2025, 01:08:00 GMT permalink Post: 11934436	Quote: Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3 My inquiry was meant to refer to an internal investigation process, possibly with witness testimony. Or does the NTSB investigation in effect preempt any internal Army investigation and reporting functions which presumably are conducted when there is no civilian involvement in an Army aviation accident? If such an internal investigation happens it won't be public. Just look at how sparse accident investigations are when the NTSB/civilians aren't involved. I've not seen a public release for the AH-64 that crashed in Galveston Bay Dec 2016. I know a few ASAMs were issued late 2017/early 2018, basically some pre and post flight inspections. Apache helicopter down in Galveston Bay, Texas And that's about par for the course, particularly the Army. Quote: It wasn't mentioned ( afaik ) in the NTSB hearings but does the Policy Board on Federal Aviation (which I understand is situated within DoD) have any investigation role in this accident? Or in deciding upon and possibly implementing recommendations the NTSB presumably will make when its report is complete, to the extent the recommendations are directed to Army aviation specifically (or other types of military aviation generally) as these operate in the NAS? I doubt they have an investigative role. They probably will be involved with policy changes once the report is final, though we likely won't hear much about it. Subjects NTSB Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 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.

Posts by user "ST Dog" [Posts: 7 Total up-votes: 1 Page: 1 of 1]¶