You mean it won't be confirmed. The FAA and DOD already know.Won't know exactly on their thoughts on visual, altitude and such until black box is reviewed.
You mean it won't be confirmed. The FAA and DOD already know.Won't know exactly on their thoughts on visual, altitude and such until black box is reviewed.
training is a broad term in the military. it doesn’t always mean instructional. i would say it’s more in line with the word practice
I was listening to the report yesterday from a retired pilot that had flow that (helicopter flight) many times and he made an interesting comment. He said the flight was labeled as not just training but the pilot was being tested. And during the tests, the instructors will make the pilots do things to create weird conditions and stress, just to see how they react. If true, this could have been part of the instructors test and the pilot reacted incorrectly.
if they have voice recordings from the Blackhawk cockpit it will be interesting to hear the interaction between the pilot and the instructor.
Quite literally the only explanation is they were wearing night vision and the field of vision was obscured. The other tough thing to understand, is even if the helo was 100 feet lower as required, that would still be wayyyyyy too close for comfort.That is absolutely amazing,.. How does this Blackhawk pilot not have a visual on the incoming jet?
Quite literally the only explanation is they were wearing night vision and the field of vision was obscured. The other tough thing to understand, is even if the helo was 100 feet lower as required, that would still be wayyyyyy too close for comfort.
This video reinforces my thought the final report will show something like: helo pilot in "training" wearing night vision obscuring vision, which contributed to not seeing the CRJ at his 12 and also misidentifying the aircraft identified by ATC, along with an altimeter that had not been adjusted for the current conditions so altitude slightly off, and finally add in the "understaffed" ATC (who possibly would have done a better job of confirming the helo's visual via heading/vector and would have also been more assertive with instructions when the "CA" was indicated on radar).
Just a series of unfortunate events/circumstances.
But, like Wade said, reports are the plane was at 375-400 feet. I don’t think there’s any safe distance below that - meaning, seems to me helicopters shouldn’t be anywhere near a landing plane or flight path regardless of altitude.there's gotta be warning systems on the helicopter, right?
note that 200 is the MAXIMUM altitude; from reports, the helicopter was well over 300 feet
They could have their altimeter on the wrong setting, or the pressure changed a lot from when they initially set it. So they'd think they were at 200ft, but in reality were higher up.there's gotta be warning systems on the helicopter, right?
note that 200 is the MAXIMUM altitude; from reports, the helicopter was well over 300 feet
They already have the radar and the coms between ATC and the bird, but the flight recorder box should have additional recordings between those inside the bird too.You mean it won't be confirmed. The FAA and DOD already know.
Yeah, they have warning systems, but you have to assume they are adjusted/reduced/maybe even subconsciously ignored when they are flying (1) at that low altitude, (2) that close to the airfield, and (3) in very congested airspace. Otherwise you'd have alarms going at all times when flying that corridor.there's gotta be warning systems on the helicopter, right?
note that 200 is the MAXIMUM altitude; from reports, the helicopter was well over 300 feet
If night vision was being used it can be like having blinders on. You do not have much peripheral vision. If they were looking strait ahead at the plane in the distance and ready to maneuver based on its position they likely did not see the other plane to their left (east) coming in to land and flew right into the side of the CRJ.That is absolutely amazing,.. How does this Blackhawk pilot not have a visual on the incoming jet?
Yeah, the frustrating part is that is a known risk of night vision, so if the helo and ATC are relying on visual to navigate such a congested airspace and cross a flight/landing path, that's just not good enough. You can't have "blind spots" in that scenario.If night vision was being used it can be like having blinders on. You do not have much peripheral vision. If they were looking strait ahead at the plane in the distance and ready to maneuver based on its position they likely did not see the other plane to their left (east) coming in to land and flew right into the side of the CRJ.
If night vision was being used it can be like having blinders on. You do not have much peripheral vision. If they were looking strait ahead at the plane in the distance and ready to maneuver based on its position they likely did not see the other plane to their left (east) coming in to land and flew right into the side of the CRJ.
The flight recorder from the copter will give the details. It's clear that they flew into the landing jet. The coms between the pilot and trainer will be interesting.I can see that,.. But everything I've heard indicates that it would not be normal military procedure for night vision to be deployed while still in the vicinity of the airport and downtown DC...
But, like Wade said, reports are the plane was at 375-400 feet. I don’t think there’s any safe distance below that - meaning, seems to me helicopters shouldn’t be anywhere near a landing plane or flight path regardless of altitude.
Wearing night vision goggles and background city building lights blending in with the plane lights.That is absolutely amazing,.. How does this Blackhawk pilot not have a visual on the incoming jet?
You mean it won't be confirmed. The FAA and DOD already know.
There’s no ATC .error. His instructions were clear. The copter is at fault. Leave your TDS out of this factual conversation…
‘Black’ box. I knew it!1!
Okay. Too soon, but kind of funny.
Putting a pilot through a stress test as they pass through the landing path of incoming planes would be very poor judgment on the part of the instructor IMO.
That redundancy is by design and not simply old fashioned. If there is ever a catastrophic failure of the air traffic network every plane is accounted for and under the control of whoever is in physical possession of that flight strip.Our system is 100 percent at fault. I had no idea that ATC still uses cardboard pieces to track flights.
Yes, but we are really lacking in technology. When the controller said something like, Do YOU SEE IT (not exact), it was a disaster waiting to happen. As I menioned, my Mavic 3M warns me and shows me where nearby aircraft are and when objects are close.That redundancy is by design and not simply old fashioned. If there is ever a catastrophic failure of the air traffic network every plane is accounted for and under the control of whoever is in physical possession of that flight strip.
Tell that to the idiot President.There’s no ATC .error. His instructions were clear. The copter is at fault. Leave your TDS out of this factual conversation…
IronyDon't take this wrong, but you're a fvcking idiot!
From tonight's 5:30 pm CT NBC News broadcast:
Preliminary analysis shows that the helicopter was at 300 feet or more at the time of the crash (there is a mandated 200 foot ceiling for helicopters in that area)
That is absolutely amazing,.. How does this Blackhawk pilot not have a visual on the incoming jet?
Another contributing factor could be that when a helicopter is moving forward the nose pitches slightly down. If the plane is coming from a position above the helicopter it might not have entered their field of vision.If night vision was being used it can be like having blinders on. You do not have much peripheral vision. If they were looking strait ahead at the plane in the distance and ready to maneuver based on its position they likely did not see the other plane to their left (east) coming in to land and flew right into the side of the CRJ.