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.
1 Like
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?
Good call. You’ve read at least one of the stories.
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
An ADS-B being on or off has what bearing on a pilot’s inability to see and avoid?
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.
1 Like
72% of AVweb readers agree! 
Armchair accident analysis is out of hand.
Excellent point in general.
(Risk is wingtip vortices.)
‘GPS’?
Whazzat?
Keith thinks North as he is g,d,r. 
They know the altitude of the RJ. Pretty sure the Helo was near that same altitude at the time?