Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,446
- Location
- Cheltenham
They were on Night Vision, yes. They’re not infra-red but that detail doesn’t really matter - it is a much smaller field of view as you say.
American Airlines CRJ700 crash in DC
- Thread starter imtoooldforthis
- Start date
They were on Night Vision, yes. They’re not infra-red but that detail doesn’t really matter - it is a much smaller field of view as you say.
Here's an interesting Advisory Circular published by the FAA in 2016 - https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/797.pdf
Extract
Extract
If there is a clear pattern, they clearly need to think about the flight rules helicopter vs planes around airports.
Most planes around the airports airspace will be incoming final approach glideslopes and take off/rotate outgoing traffic.
go arounds or people circling the airport waiting for a landing slot will generally be further out and higher up.
I still dont know what the helicopter was doing, where they trying to wait for a gap to pass?
surely this is like a car trying to wait for a gap in the traffic on a busy motorway and waiting to cut across it ?
pretty bad
Or was they waiting for a gap to land on a different runway ?
Last edited:
Was the pilot in the helicopter on a training session??
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
The madness is they allow visual flight rules when this situation should have been instrument only. All the Atc would have had to say to the helicopter is climb to 1500 feet on a bearing of 160 for example and none of this would have happened.
As has been alluded to a pilot confirming a visual at night isn't 100% guarantee (He can easily make a mistake) and if the helicopter never had the option of using VFR rules he would have just got a bearing and height/altitude of the dispatcher and been on his way.
Essentially the pilot said confirm visual which is increasing looking like he made the wrong thing his visual then he has taken all responsibility off the ATC which should have never been his decision to make.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,446
- Location
- Cheltenham
Anything non-operational is training. They were just transitting down the river.
I think I read it was recurrent training. The training could also have been focussing on this particular. So not necessarily a stupid place to be doing it.
It was only "training" in that it's not for a specific operation.
For military pilots most of their flight time outside of a combat zone, or doing specific missions is "training", it basically just means "flight time without a specific operational need". They're fully qualified, but for example (especially with units that aren't actively deployed) they need to do X number of hours a month/every six months doing various things in order to retain proficiency and certification for the aircraft.
By the sounds of it the pilots in this instance were part of the unit that ferries high ranking government/military officials around Washington and in the event of an emergency evacuates them, so they may not have a huge number of "mission" hours but a lot of "training" hours as they keep their flight time up when they're not needed to move people around.
There is an ex Airforce/Commercial pilot, who was head of the US pilots association and had a history in the engineering side of aviation on youtube who has some great stories about both the commercial side, and the military side, including as a relatively low level "check pilot" having to give his new commanding officer who had IIRC spent thousands of hours flying combat in Vietnam a certification flight so they could confirm he was up to date on his flight hours/in a specific aircraft.
Some posters on X saying the pilot in the Blackhawk had 'only' 500 hours. As if someone who flies doesn't need to work those hours up by, you guessed it, flying.
The commander of the helicopter supposedly had 1000 hours too.
The Helicopter pilot specifically requested 'visual separation' which basically absolves ATC of any responsibility for them and puts it fully on the helicopter crew, and although granted, as it likely usually, if not always is, can still be denied. It's highly likely that military flights routinely request this around DC and I'd imagine it's usually granted by ATC as a matter of course.
The commander of the helicopter supposedly had 1000 hours too.
The Helicopter pilot specifically requested 'visual separation' which basically absolves ATC of any responsibility for them and puts it fully on the helicopter crew, and although granted, as it likely usually, if not always is, can still be denied. It's highly likely that military flights routinely request this around DC and I'd imagine it's usually granted by ATC as a matter of course.
Last edited:
They are very different systems. TACAN provides range and bearing data between moving objects, and can be useful in formation flying or that sort of thing.
Tactical air navigation system - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
TCAS is a system on military and civilian aircraft which will monitor other TCAS equipped aircraft in the vicinity and give avoiding instructions if it calculates a ‘loss of separation’ issue is approaching. The boxes will talk to eachother and tell one aircraft to go right, and the other to go left, for example:
Traffic collision avoidance system - Wikipedia
Just to confirm, TCAS II v7.1 is simply the developed and spec's form of a generic ACAS type system. It also does not offer any protection or lateral plane resolutions, it is purely vertical in application.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,446
- Location
- Cheltenham
Yes, someone else with a lot more knowledge than me pointed this out earlier - I’ll stick to mechanics instead of avionics…
So without reading back the whole thread - has anyone suggested yet that this may have been a deliberate act by the helicopter pilot ??
The video of the incident seems to show the helicopter climbing and heading straight for the aircraft and also not replying to ATC - despite being told to drop and pass behind it.
The video of the incident seems to show the helicopter climbing and heading straight for the aircraft and also not replying to ATC - despite being told to drop and pass behind it.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,446
- Location
- Cheltenham
No. Not everyone in the aviation industry is trying to commit suicide.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,956
- Location
- Uranus
Yes I did. This could be a case of Tranikaze.
Not Easy, as I'm on the 73. I think an Airbus might be too much for my simple brain to handle. I do, of course, read the AIP every night - honest guv'nor, but the 8000fpm rings a bell now you mention it, as a 737-800 with 26K engines, no derate and a light fuel load on a ferry flight could easily exceed it after takeoff and I definitely remember a safety bulletin at one company I worked for telling us not to try it as a number of ATC units had complained.If like all good crew members and controllers you have read the UK AIP cover to cover (
IIRC you are an EZY skipper? I did quite an extensive piece of work with one of your colleagues some years back about the integration of IFR and VFR traffic in CTRs which led to significant changes in how we did it and trained it, and how your crews were trained for it. The Swiss noticed the problem about the same time we did after they had some very close calls. Do you notice a difference between how the various states do it?
Regarding the integration of VFR and IFR traffic, from my perspective I don't really see any difference (referring to UK/EASA airspace, in other parts of the world the quality of ATC can vary considerably) but it's relatively rare that I notice (or are informed of) VFR traffic in my vicinity so it difficult to form a picture. To be honest, I think the expectation is that it's just kept out of our way.
From my experience of the airline industry (i.e. the companies I've worked for) I've seen very little training or guidance where the integration of VFR traffic into the airspace I'm using is concerned, or at least we don't do anything different if we expect VFR traffic to be operating in the vicinity of the same field.
Obviously we maintain a good look out, sensible speeds (ie <250kts) and have our lights on but it quite difficult to visually acquire something as small as a helicopter or light aircraft, especially when configuring an aircraft and concentrating on landing.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,956
- Location
- Uranus
No one is suggesting every one in the aviation industry is suicidal. But pilots are human so could be depressed and have suicidal thoughts just like a bus driver could or a taxi driver or you or me. Didn't take much to tip someone over the edge.