Well “I” would not want to fly into the downwash just under and behind a landing jetliner, even if cleared to do so.
3 replies
Bravo Sierra.
Listen to any preliminary NTSB press briefing and there are loads of questions they don’t answer. Why?
Because they don’t have the facts yet.
The NTSB is silent here for an obvious reason - they haven’t looked at the helicopter wreckage yet.
The helo was just pulled from the water and is still dripping wet. The NTSB likely has the following questions:
The NTSB deals in facts. Unlike the general public and other “officials”, they don’t fill in the blanks with pet theories and political prejudices. Until they have thoroughly examined the pieces all they have is speculation. Let’s wait for the NTSB to give us the facts.
3 replies
Since there was seemingly no ADSB information broadcasting at least one valid statement is that the Blackhawk helicopter was no broadcasting ADSB.
Now, it could be it was
1 - Not installed
2 - Not turned on
3 - Turned on and not working
4 - Jammed by aliens
But since we cannot know the exact altitude of the helo a moment before it hit a plane at 325 in thre air, I guess we’ll need the NTSB to confirm that the helicopter was at @ 325 ft when it hit the plane.
I’m cool with the NTSB saying no comment till they can examine the helicopter to determine 1 or 2 or 3, but it has been close to eye rolling that there is some “question” (mainly by the media) as to the height of the Blackhawk just before it hit…physics answered that one. it would certainly also determine it was at least 100 ft above it’s proscribed ceiling…but sure, let’s get a possible box to confirm it.
(yres, I’m cynical, because this has gone beyond just an aviation accident).
2 replies
I’m sure at least some of them are asking the question naively, but from an investigation point of view, I would want to determine what altitude it was reporting (both to the crew and the transponder output). If the answer to that is other than at the collision altitude, that says something different than if it did report the collision altitude.
My profuse thanks for this educational excursion.
I clearly had nooooo idea! 36 years in aviation and without this explanation, I’d have probably died dumb like a brick.
I know sarcasm and cynisism doesn’t come across in comments, but I wish to make perfectly clear, that NTSB protocol not to speculate or engage in storytelling after accidents was (and always has been) is - and will always be clearly understood.
My hope was that someone would send Musk in to end this longstanding tradition and satisfy the masses unlimited need to know everything yesterday.
Surely, Elon Musk is well qualified and able to fix it, quickly investigate the accident himself and then brief the President on who’s heads need to roll…
What extreme times we live in - when attacking and blaming someone becomes more important, than a minimum of human decency and style.
Just like the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, dealt with facts. If you look at the web page today though you see the note “CDC’s website is being modified to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders.”
I am afraid, kind sir, you are coming across as a naive innocent.
Radio silence is crucial to any aircraft investigation.
Rest assured, the NTSB never has and does not now “make” up facts.
It depends on why you’re turning off ADS-B. They’ll let it go if you have a reasonable explanation.
I fly that airspace, FRZ and SFRA, out of VKX and you rarely see any military Helos, fast jets, or small aircraft on the screen, and you never see any aircraft from HMX -1.
What you will see are C-130s, C-17s, E-4s, VC-25s (AF-0ne when the boss on board) and a variety of other transport aircraft.
I think after this ADS-B on within any Mode-C vale will be manditory.
When the military is operating in joint use airspace they need to be operating with transponders on, ADSB out on, be on VHF comms, and adhere to Part 91 speed limits below 10,000’. All of this doesn’t guarantee that there won’t be another collision. However it is the accepted standard and gives everyone in the playing field an equal opportunity at safety. The military will fight the ADSB Out because they don’t want you to see their waste. Safety is somewhere around 5th on their priority list.
I’m not sure in this case, but in general it seems modern button-driven avionics controls that have replaced physical toggle switches have made post crash investigations harder. You can’t just look at position switches as much.
1 reply
NTSB also needs to verify that the altitude recorded on the CRJ FDR was correct. If the was an altimetry problem on the CRJ it could’ve been at the wrong altitude, but this wrong altitude would also be recorded on the FDR.
I’m in no way suggesting that this is the case in this accident. I’m just pointing out something that the NTSB will be checking.
It is all recorded. That’s what black boxes do.
If no results of the investigation were released, then Cruz is a liar. But on what planet would that be a first?
DC tower fixed wing frequency is 119.1. Helo frequency 134.35. Because of high volume of traffic this is necessary during busy periods. However it significantly degrades situational awareness.
Ever heard of Bob Hoover?? There are sub humans in the FSDO Offices that spend way too much of their time “getting even” with people they don’t like. That was was the case with Hoover and Lunken. I experienced that with a certain FSDO in the NE just before Washington cleaned out the entire office for corruption.
The FSDO that “got” Bob Hoover simply hated him. They publicly bragged about their intentions before they grounded him.
In Marthas case the FSDO that she retired from hated her and got even. There was absolutely no justification for revocation. 90 day suspension would have sufficed.
In the 60’s the majority of the FSDO people were great to work with. That has slowly declined to the point where the outstanding people are a very small percentage.
The ignorance here is appalling.
The CRJ was not “at an altitude”. It was descending on a visual 3 degree glide path called a VASI.
How many of you fools know how to create a glidepath with just a basic GPS and an altimeter??. How many understand the basic differences between a circling approach and a visual approach??
“Bigish” helo, “smallish” jet… but still…? I’m with you on this one.
First, your altitude you speak of was at a moment in space/time, whether level, descending, climbing or riding a roller coaster. No one…yes, NO ONE will be able to determine if the CRJ had visually acquired the runway 33 PAPI glide path, without a confirmation on the CVR. There is not an electronic signal. It is for visual guidance only. Having watched thousands of visual airline approaches over my career, hundreds of them circling, as this was, pilots may be above, below, or right on the PAPI glide path as they make the turn to line up with the runway centerline. It is nearly impossible to be perfect until you can clearly see all four lights.
Let’s hope there is a good reason for the NTSB to keep quiet, and that they are maintaining their independence from any political pressures.
The helicopter crew said they had the airliner “in sight” and was instructed to pass “behind”, not underneath (i.e., separate laterally). There is no such thing as 100-feet vertical separation in controlled airspace between IFR and VFR traffic (even at Oshkosh).
This ongoing altitude discussion is a distraction unless the helicopter was operated by AI instead of people. The real question is why the helicopter reported the airliner in sight and then proceeded to fly straight into it. Of course, from private pilot ground school, we all know (at least I hope we do) that an aircraft on a collision course remains visually small and motionless making it nearly impossible to spot until it “blossom” at the last moment.
At the end of the day, there are only two potential explanations. Either the helicopter spotted the wrong aircraft or it intentionally flew into the airliner. The NTSB will tell us which it is in time.
What a ridiculous statement. The NTSB is arguably the most respected aviation accident investigation organization in the world. Take you unfounded conspiracy theories elsewhere.
See & Avoid carries more weight and usefulness in daylight.
At night above black river and city lights, coupled with numerous aircraft in the area, and diminished depth of perception… “see & avoid” at night is as good as “feeling around in the dark”.
You depend on instruments and ATC to be your eyes.
We’re spending so much time on determining who was at fault, who had their ADS-B on or off and if ATC dropped the ball monitoring the two aircraft… we can jump right to a solution that has been a long time in coming.
Aircraft should Never be allowed to operate with areas of separation vertically & horizontally as slim as these were at.
Even if the helo was at the assigned 200 ft you are begging for disaster having another aircraft descending through 350 ft on landing approach.
This is ludicrous and a death sentence.
You can’t believe that 150 - 200ft vertical separation is adequate for aircraft, especially at night!
STOP this insanity.
As far as the helicopter having their ADS-B turned off… thank the FAA for this.
The FAA approved the waiver that military has the option to switch off ADS-B when operationally or security is needed.
This helo was on a routine training mission in heavily congested airspace that is full of non-military commercial aircraft.
There was No security reason to have it switched off. The military abused this security waiver and should be investigated how often this occurs when they are not in secure operations.
Agreed military aircraft shouldn’t be publicly monitored by everyone with a receiver while on sensitive missions.
But operating in an area with so much civilian traffic and at night should not occur.
For those who receive unsolicited/ insulting or berating e-mail messages from die-hard political propaganda- spreaders, our amazing forum affords a quickfix, allowing everyone to mute certain commenters.
Excellent point in general.
(Risk is wingtip vortices.)
What they know is that the CRJ’s flight data recorder had it at 325 feet - but was the FDR input stream correct?
Bullshit. They don’t “make up” facts. Sometimes it takes a while to find them, but many accidents where they didn’t find them all have had reports which said exactly that.
The FAA and Army approved Letter of Agreement to place a helicopter corridor at 200’ and below, through short finals for Runways 1 and 33, is completely insane and is the primary culprit in this tragedy. The CRJ was 175’ high on a 3-degree glidepath and would’ve been at 150’ on 1/2 a mile final.
No place on the river, south bank, “behind” or “under” a jet would’ve been safe, no how, no way.
1 reply
For a standard 3-degree glidepath, beginning with 1,500’ at five miles out, it is approximately 300’ per mile. This would put the CRJ at 300’ at the South bank of the Potomac which is a one mile final and at 150’ mid river, which was the point of impact. That jet was high and especially for a short runway.
My point is that nowhere over the river would it be safe for a Black Hawk to pass “200’ or below.”
Yes, the CRJ was approximately at 325’ at point of impact. But IF the CRJ would’ve been on a stable 3-degree glide path angle in order to make a nice landing on a short runway, he WOULD’VE been around 150’ on a 1/2-mile final. 325-150=175’ high.
So how could any traffic cross under a jet on final anywhere along the river?
Very strange situation I hope they can release more facts soon, the practices may need to be reviewed if this was the cause.
