Posts by user "photonclock" [Posts: 6 Total up-votes: 9 Page: 1 of 1]¶

Yes, I saw that. Why wasn't ATC more specific, ie, do you see the traffic at your 1 o'clock, etc? Still, the question stands: ATC sees both aircraft, so why is ATC putting them on a collision course with AA setup to turn in front of the helicopter with almost no separation? The clock was ticking and ATC wasn't reacting with instructions \x96 ATC was just asking questions. Is that SOP?

Just finished watching the NTSB briefing, which stated that the CRJ was at 325 feet AGL, and helicopter max allowed altitude is 200 feet.

Assuming the CRJ was at an expected/typical altitude at that point in it's approach, if the helicopter was at 200 feet, or lets say for their benefit 175 feet, then they would have avoided collision by a mere 150 feet of vertical separation if everything else about the position of the two aircraft remained the same.

Is 125 feet of vertical separation (with no horizontal separation) considered acceptable?

If the CRJ movement is controlled by ATC, and the helicopter is responsible for avoiding all other aircraft, then there is no question the helicopter was at fault here as the primary cause, and ATC as the secondary.

Given the collision course these aircraft were clearly on, why wouldn't ATC have diverted one of them prior to impact? Does ATC have any reason to believe that the helicopter sees everything with the same degree of detail and accuracy as ATC? This is not a sarcastic question. I'm genuinely curious. Would ATC, hearing the helicopter twice affirming visual separation, have had any plausible reason to doubt that the helicopter was unaware of the impending collision?

What's the point of having Air Traffic "Control"...if they're not actually in control?

Of course. So lets assume the readings to be at the outside of the envelope to the benefit of both aircraft, ie, CRJ at 350 (325 +/- 25 as stated by NTSB), and 200 +/- 75 for the helicopter, so 125. That's 225 feet of vertical-only separation. Is that considered acceptable? If not, why did ATC allow it?

Well, that's interesting. You seem to be saying that "the system" worked as designed? FDR notes immediately before your reply:

Did ATC do all of that? Having listened to the ATC comms (including the UHF) a few times, I believe they did, for the most part? They mentioned CRJ (of what use is mentioning the type at night, I have no idea, but they did), they mentioned where it was and where it was headed, and they received two acknowledgments...

So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?

These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.

So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?

That's not good.

Here's a Blackhawk pilot saying, and I quote, "they could have totally pulled that thing into a hover and stopped". Can't post a link. Tack on to youtube dot com.

He is not a Blackhawk pilot, and has given quite inaccurate advice

Senior Pilot

Fair enough. I inferred his experience in military helos from his many discussions of his experience training flight crews. I'm not sure what other of his statements you consider "inaccurate" though, and you don't bother to back that statement up with any specifics. Would you care to expand on what inaccurate advice he gave?

What I can say about Mike is: he puts his name and his face and his reputation out there in public to have open discussions about flight safety, and in the context of this totally preventable collision, it would be beneficial to all if every expert here and elsewhere on the interwebs participated in a similarly open and public debate in relation to this incident. If you disagree with him, message him and invite a public debate.

I've lurked and read this forum for a long time. Decades? I can't even remember how long. Much as I enjoy reading it when a major incident occurs, it frustrates me to no end how it is filled with so many examples of institutional inertia, acquiescence to mind-numbingly antiquated regulations, ridiculous politics, and endless excuses, all of which inhibit the progress of technology and safety...not to segue into a rant but the most obvious example being, and which 99% of the non-flying public would agree with, that there is almost zero reason at this point to not have cameras in the cockpit and perhaps even live transmission of video and/or audio feeds on every commercial aircraft at this point \x96 the power and data/bandwidth requirements being miniscule relative to the benefits, at this point it is simply absurd that such features do not exist; the Jeju incident's loss of CVR data being the best recent example of what a hindrance to technological progress aviation regulations have become, when for a few dollars a consumer can own a tiny little dashcam that records stunning 4K video and broadcast quality audio in near total darkness with 100mph wind noise running on a small and safe lithium batteries trickle charged from a 5 watt power supply for days on end, which can be broadcast via wifi link to Starlink-satellite based internet across the entire planet. We live in the Space Age, but the data storage and recovery procedures for commercial aircraft still hearkens back to WW2...

That rant aside, as the videos posted above by others demonstrate:

- A Blackhawk can in fact stop on a dime (so whatever you're suggesting Mike Blackstone was wrong about, it certainly wasn't that).

- Obviously that shouldn't be the plan , but it still a legitimate question to ask, in the context of an emergency, and when every other safety precaution has already failed, why couldn't it be done? Other poster's rationalize: at the low altitude, there's nowhere to go. The videos demonstrate otherwise. You can stop a Blackhawk 50 feet above the ground in seconds. If deviating in any direction is a risk, why didn't ATC just say " PAT25 slow to stop and hover!" \x96 as a Very. Last. Resort?

- I don't understand how we can have a system of "Air Traffic Control" that defers its control to aircraft at night around a busy airport with intersecting approaches. It's nonsensical. I honestly didn't know it was a thing. I thought all major airports had flight paths that kept inbound and outbound aircraft in separate non-conflicting lanes at all times. Obviously, I'm extremely naive. From my perspective, it seems as though the professionals involved are allowed no intuition to deviate when the procedures clearly compromise safety? Apparently they're all reduced to being bots who can only read checklists? If that's the case, then why not run the whole system on "AI"? I know I'm being spicy by saying that, given all the pilots on this forum who harp on about how stupid AI is (true for the moment, but not for much longer, rest assured), yet many consider it perfectly reasonable for ATC procedures being to read out the type of aircraft to a pilot who is flying in total darkness in order to fulfill delegation of its responsibility to control air traffic, as if that procedure actually helps? Are we through the looking glass? It doesn't take a three year NTSB investigation to infer how stupid that is. Yet some defend it. Why?