Jon Scott, Fox anchor who also is a pilot (I believe) confirmed the last minute switch for the CRJ to use 33 not 1 - possibly due to the departing RJ being a bit delayed taking off (doesn't make total sense to me as I understand 33 crosses 1, but I am not a pilot).

ATC told helo to lookout for the CRJ but they do not appear to have clarified where to look for the CRJ - so the departing one may have been mistaken for the arriving one. ATC should have said more to the effect "confirm CRJ on approach at your 11 o'clock". Again, this per Jon Scott.

Another guy discussed how your eyes can be tricked particularly at night and with multiple moving objects on multiple planes (altitude plane not plane with wings).

Body of female co-pilot of chopper has been identified recovered, per Fox

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jon Scott, Fox anchor who also is a pilot (I believe) confirmed the last minute switch for the CRJ to use 33 not 1 - possibly due to the departing RJ being a bit delayed taking off (doesn't make total sense to me as I understand 33 crosses 1, but I am not a pilot).

ATC told helo to lookout for the CRJ but they do not appear to have clarified where to look for the CRJ - so the departing one may have been mistaken for the arriving one. ATC should have said more to the effect "confirm CRJ on approach at your 11 o'clock". Again, this per Jon Scott.

Another guy discussed how your eyes can be tricked particularly at night and with multiple moving objects on multiple planes (altitude plane not plane with wings).

---

ATC: PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1200 feet setting up for runway 33.

PAT25: PAT25 has the traffic in sight, request visual separation.

ATC: Visual separation approved.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jon Scott, Fox anchor who also is a pilot (I believe) confirmed the last minute switch for the CRJ to use 33 not 1 - possibly due to the departing RJ being a bit delayed taking off (doesn't make total sense to me as I understand 33 crosses 1, but I am not a pilot).

ATC told helo to lookout for the CRJ but they do not appear to have clarified where to look for the CRJ - so the departing one may have been mistaken for the arriving one. ATC should have said more to the effect "confirm CRJ on approach at your 11 o'clock". Again, this per Jon Scott.

Another guy discussed how your eyes can be tricked particularly at night and with multiple moving objects on multiple planes (altitude plane not plane with wings).

---

ATC: PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1200 feet setting up for runway 33.

PAT25: PAT25 has the traffic in sight, request visual separation.

ATC: Visual separation approved.

---

This is a good clearance by ATC, one which should be understood by the helicopter

---

Absolutely. The onus was on the 60 to remain clear and not deviate from the established altitude for transiting the airspace.

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly. The Mode C transmits system altitude which is based off the altimeter. That's how airplanes can safely fly with a 1000 foot vertical separation all around the US…above 18000 feet, you use "standard" which is 29.92. Below 18000, you use local (which matters in mountainous areas).

Olag00 said:

---

Body of female co-pilot of chopper has been identified recovered, per Fox

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly

---

How wrong does the setting have to be, to be off by that much?

Yes, I understand all that.
I guess I'm saying that FNC is showing this "last reported" info from UH60 that includes 200' altitude. And the radar captures were not showing 200. So, what was the mode of the "last reported transmission".

If ATC knows the HC need to be at 200' or whatever altitude it assigned the HC, and sees a radar captures indicating 300+, normally, the ATC would contact the craft and say something like "PAT25 state altitude". Then give an altimeter setting.
I know tower had just giving a commercial flight the current altimeter setting, but the UH60 was on a different frequency so wouldn't have necessarily heard that.

Anyway, the radar captures and the ATS-B share data don't agree with what FBC is showing today. It strikes me as convenient that suddenly the IH60's last reported transmission altitude (according to FNC) was precisely the max altitude for the section of route 4 it was flying.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly. The Mode C transmits system altitude which is based off the altimeter. That's how airplanes can safely fly with a 1000 foot vertical separation all around the US…above 18000 feet, you use "standard" which is 29.92. Below 18000, you use local (which matters in mountainous areas).

---

Wasn't a 60 driver but I have to assume it is equipped with a radar altimeter which will give an absolute altitude AGL making an incorrect altimeter setting a moot point if the pilot is cross-checking. But if indeed this was a check flight, I guarantee everything was meticulously planned and procedurally adhered to, except the apparent non-compliance with the established altitude for the transit. With the information we have at this point, the investigation will almost certainly find pilot error as the primary assignable cause.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly

---

How wrong does the setting have to be, to be off by that much?

---

With these tight tolerances, I'd argue 100'+ is enough for ATC to ask them to check their altimeter setting.

this angle shows even less than the first circulated video

SirDippinDots said:

---

v1rotate92 said:

---

Don't misinterpret "training mission"
Does not mean low qualified or inexperienced. Training mission means not on an operational mission and most military flights are training. Even our military flyover flights at sporting events are often under "training"

---

Hegsworth said experienced HC crew.

---

To say the least with some of them. So there is more to this yet to be revealed.

The first video I saw was definitely from a lot farther away. There's a good chance I haven't seen them all.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly. The Mode C transmits system altitude which is based off the altimeter. That's how airplanes can safely fly with a 1000 foot vertical separation all around the US…above 18000 feet, you use "standard" which is 29.92. Below 18000, you use local (which matters in mountainous areas).

---

Disregard, I was looking at the wrong entry.

Local altimeter setting at time of accident was 29.90

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

The GPS approach into RWY 33 has a 3.1 degree glide slope, which means at the 3300 feet from the runway they would be at about 175-200'. That's the same altitude reported by the helicopter. pic.twitter.com/Qk4PCPT6vk

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) January 30, 2025

I don't have the knowledge to verify if this is correct, but if so, it changes the narrative on the HC being clearly at fault. I don't mean to imply it makes it the airplane pilot at fault, or ATC, but if that approach and the HC route are both around 200' at the point they cross, that seems like a really bad plan.

---

Aside from that being bad math and as someone else mentioned, they were on a visual approach, the approach plate tells you to maintain above 490 feet to IDTEK. That's below the MDA but tells you that you shouldn't be below that if you are on a 3.1 degree slope from the VDP. That plate is unique in that it's not an LPV and it tells you to fly visually from IDTEK to the runway. I suspect that has to do with the amount of traffic coming down the river.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly. The Mode C transmits system altitude which is based off the altimeter. That's how airplanes can safely fly with a 1000 foot vertical separation all around the US…above 18000 feet, you use "standard" which is 29.92. Below 18000, you use local (which matters in mountainous areas).

---

Mode C transmits 29.92 altitude all the time, regardless of your Kollsman setting.

fc2112 said:

---

That math is wrong it's more like 450 feet

---

Got it, thanks for the correction.

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

The GPS approach into RWY 33 has a 3.1 degree glide slope, which means at the 3300 feet from the runway they would be at about 175-200'. That's the same altitude reported by the helicopter. pic.twitter.com/Qk4PCPT6vk

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) January 30, 2025

I don't have the knowledge to verify if this is correct, but if so, it changes the narrative on the HC being clearly at fault. I don't mean to imply it makes it the airplane pilot at fault, or ATC, but if that approach and the HC route are both around 200' at the point they cross, that seems like a really bad plan.

---

The approach plate seems to indicate that coming in ILS on runway 1, then doing a dogleg to runway 33 is a standard procedure.

k20dub said:

---

Feel awful for those on that plane. I imagine they were feeling a sense of relief once they saw the runway that they were landing on - I know I always do when I fly. Then in a split second, their lives are over.

---

I hope these passengers were "killed"upon impact, and didn't have to drop into the freezing river strapped to their seats.

Me too. NTSB said in PC, that there was no indication that emergency evacuation equipment had been deployed.

Edit to add, black boxes have not been found.

NTSB Chairman Jennifer Homendy leading this press conference.

Brice Banning will be investigator in charge.

The entire NTSB board is at this press conference with J. Todd Inman as the spokesman for the investigation.

Homendy has to remind everyone that the NTSB will not get in the way of the rescue/recovery teams.

Roughly 50 people on this Go Team.

This press conference will not be about facts, but about how the investigation will be conducted. Facts will be released as they are learned and confirmed.

From J. Todd Inman:

The Transportation Board of Canada will be part of the investigation (CRJ is made in Canada) along with personnel from the successor to Bombardier.

The NTSB will meet and brief family members once they all arrive.

They will look at both aircraft, pilots, ATC, airport equipment, human factor/performance (this would be everything from training, sleep, medication, health, etc. of every single person involved), etc.

The FDR and CVR have not be recovered. They will be recovered as soon as possible.

CBS News wanted a cause right now, but the NTSB says they cannot and will not do that. They will take as much time as needed to figure it out.

NBC News asks if Trump's comments are going to hurt in investigation and if it will influence the NTSB's report.

Fox Business asks about the controllers/tower. Inman says they will all be interviewed and their actions analyzed.

If something of massive importance that needs to be fixed ASAP, the NTSB will put out an emergency report on it.

Two more questions about Trump, and again asking if Trump's comments will influence the investigation.

The Blackhawk usually does have its own version of flight data recorders. DOD and NTSB will work on those once recovered.

The FAA has turned over all of the radar and ATC data to the NTSB. Inman says the data in that is far beyond what people are posting online.

Someone asked about the NYT report on the control tower being undermanned. Said they do not go off media reports, but everything is looked into.

The DC medical examiner will put out all information on casualties. That is not the job of the NTSB, but there is no evidence anyone survived the impact.

The helicopter was transiting from one established path to another when the collision happened.

The NTSB will attempt to review data from the cell phones of the passengers if there is evidence it could be useful. They would work with the families if they want access to the data.

Staff, the comments about Trump are not meant to be "political." Just reporting everything from the press conference.

It's not an ILS approach. It's an RNAV approach. No ground based guidance.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly

---

How wrong does the setting have to be, to be off by that much?

---

setting 30.00 instead of 29.90 would be 100 feet off…would show inside the aircraft at 200 but in reality be at 300'

Pinochet said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I see on Fox NC that supposedly the last "transmitted" altitude of the UH60 was 200'. Have you seen this? Those radar captures I've seen show 300'+.

---

Wrong altimeter setting possibly. The Mode C transmits system altitude which is based off the altimeter. That's how airplanes can safely fly with a 1000 foot vertical separation all around the US…above 18000 feet, you use "standard" which is 29.92. Below 18000, you use local (which matters in mountainous areas).

---

Mode C transmits 29.92 altitude all the time, regardless of your Kollsman setting.

---

you are correct, my apologies…got my wires crossed as I was typing

Rapier108 said:

---

The helicopter was transiting from one established path to another when the collision happened.

---

Route 1 to Route 4

That's correct according to Juan Browne on the blancolirio channel.

Is the consensus right now that the air traffic controllers were at fault?

jt2hunt said:

---

Is the consensus right now that the air traffic controllers were at fault?

---

No

jt2hunt said:

---

Is the consensus right now that the air traffic controllers were at fault?

---

Nope.

jt2hunt said:

---

Is the consensus right now that the air traffic controllers were at fault?

---

Not at all

ETFan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

The helicopter was transiting from one established path to another when the collision happened.

---

Route 1 to Route 4

---

At the point of impact, the UH60 was well on route 4. Regardless in that section of either, the max altitude in the routes is 200'