Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Mentioned previously there was potential issues with the visual traffic warning given by ATC and whether it had the required specifity to ensure the helo pilot did have visual confirmation on the correct plane - given 3 planes would be visible to the helo pilot all at similar levels but at different points going different directions.

Not saying you're wrong overall, just that dismissing ATC seems premature.

---

Helo should have been able to distinguish the difference between a departing plane and a plane descending for landing.

Helo asked for VFR and was granted it.

Flyboy didn't say ATC was perfect in the situation but for the folks who want this first to be blamed on them or a lack or staff, etc...what should they have done differently?

They told the helo exactly what was going on. The helo acknowledged then asked for VFR and was granted it.

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

---

Based on the near miss from the day prior, change their procedure for allowing helos visual separation. The crash's particular controller didn't do anything wrong as it was their procedure to allow it.

Inclined to reject any suggestion that this was an intentional act on the basis that the skill required for the Blackhawk pilot to intercept vector and successfully hit a landing aircraft would rival the skill of the pilots on 9-11.

That fact alone imo, would stretch the bonds of credulity.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

titan said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

Fascinating. You can even hear the PAT helo's rotors beating whenever he comes online.

---

Yep whatever sounds are in the cockpit are transmitted over the radio

---

Yes. And it becomes very clear why are not transmitting except on que. In that sense, not unlike some decades ago. Same limitations of communication overload and this avoids it.

What I see is the weak link was the moment of controller change over --- do they look over the shoulder of the one relieving before they physically switch out --- the continuity was clear enough if you didn't have that pause and interruption. The first operator sounded very relaxed and a pro, so wondering if they look over shoulder as they switch out. Doubtful he is handing over a mistake forming up.

The other think noticed is `Brickyard' the airliner making the turn did it on their own hook an initiative. Something the crashed crj didn't have the option to do because hadn't seen the helo. Fascinating and scary both.

aTmAg said:

---

I do think it's stupid that we still use voice commands for this crap in 2025. It should all be computerized by now. At worst, commands should be sent with millisecond packets of data and displayed for the pilot to read and acknowledge with a button press. Ideally, PVIs and maps would would update with symbology on what the pilot is instructed to do. Voice should be reserved special circumstances like emergencies or weird requests that are hard to express with a few button presses.

---

Are you just assuming a capability into existence, or is the alternative you mentioned all ready to go at once?

Quote:

---

F4GIB71 said:
I had a thought that I've not seen addressed. If you see another aircraft, and it is moving on the canopy (up/down/left/right), you are not on a collision course. If it is not moving, you are on a collision course. Flying over an area with so many lights, it is possible that they saw the lights of the other aircraft but, since it was not moving, it blended in to all the other lights.

---

Very good point on changing/not changing aspect and getting lost in the light clutter. Then the PIC potentially getting "target fixation" on the wrong a/c.

titan said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

titan said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

Fascinating. You can even hear the PAT helo's rotors beating whenever he comes online.

---

Yep whatever sounds are in the cockpit are transmitted over the radio

---

Yes. And it becomes very clear why are not transmitting except on que. In that sense, not unlike some decades ago. Same limitations of communication overload and this avoids it.

What I see is the weak link was the moment of controller change over --- do they look over the shoulder of the one relieving before they physically switch out --- the continuity was clear enough if you didn't have that pause and interruption. The first operator sounded very relaxed and a pro, so wondering if they look over shoulder as they switch out. Doubtful he is handing over a mistake forming up.

The other think noticed is `Brickyard' the airliner making the turn did it on their own hook an initiative. Something the crashed crj didn't have the option to do because hadn't seen the helo. Fascinating and scary both.

---

Yes, they get up to speed before handing over

Thanks. So that is not the weak link. The guy taking the firsts place was aware of the moving parts.
So that's not why the near-miss happens.

I will have to watch it again -- see if can pick up where it starts to go akimbo.

titan said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

titan said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Here is the near miss from the day before the accident.

---

Fascinating. You can even hear the PAT helo's rotors beating whenever he comes online.

---

Yep whatever sounds are in the cockpit are transmitted over the radio

---

Yes. And it becomes very clear why are not transmitting except on que. In that sense, not unlike some decades ago. Same limitations of communication overload and this avoids it.

What I see is the weak link was the moment of controller change over --- do they look over the shoulder of the one relieving before they physically switch out --- the continuity was clear enough if you didn't have that pause and interruption. The first operator sounded very relaxed and a pro, so wondering if they look over shoulder as they switch out. Doubtful he is handing over a mistake forming up.

The other think noticed is `Brickyard' the airliner making the turn did it on their own hook an initiative. Something the crashed crj didn't have the option to do because hadn't seen the helo. Fascinating and scary both.

---

Pre-9/11 -- early/mid 1990s
My Boy Scout troop got to tour Houston Center, Approach and Departure control at IAH, and go up in the tower. To answer your question, YES they do go over the shoulder of the person they're swapping. Each station has 2 receptacles where you plug in your headset. So the replacement controller is plugged in and coming up to speed with both the presentation on screen and the communications. Additionally they've got the paper printouts (not sure what those are called) on the desk in front of them.

We also got to tour Continental (pre-United) Airlines pilot training facility and we each got a Takeoff and Landing in their 727 sims. Their brand new 757 sim could simulate dawn and dusk lighting. The 727 was only nighttime flying. I took off from Laguardia and the instructor in the right seat pointed out the two tall columns of lights at my 10 o'clock as I climbed and turned south. I told him I did see them. He says, "I've always wondered what the sim would do if someone were to fly through." So...

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

---

"TRAFFIC ALERT. Blue Streak 5342 Go Around, Go Around. BREAK. PAT 25 turn left immediately, do not increase altitude."

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

Was a simulated fireball the result?

coconutED said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

---

"TRAFFIC ALERT. Blue Streak 5342 Go Around, Go Around. BREAK. PAT 25 turn left immediately, do not increase altitude."

---

PAT 25 had VFR. Why would ATC still be directing them? Once VFR is requested and approved it's on PAT 25 to avoid any and all aircraft.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

---

"TRAFFIC ALERT. Blue Streak 5342 Go Around, Go Around. BREAK. PAT 25 turn left immediately, do not increase altitude."

---

PAT 25 had VFR. Why would ATC still be directing them?

---

Because they are in Class B airspace

(~36 hours post incident)

Quote:

---

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

---

Did they know each other? Could it be as absurd as arguing about something?

titan said:

---

Was a simulated fireball the result?

---

No... I flew right through. My friend went between on a wingtip. I recall at one point I was also flying straight and level just inverted. Lesson learned, a 14 year old with zero flight experience cannot reasonably solo a 727 at night.

Alternate views of the crash.

How is this possible!?!

pic.twitter.com/vahNzteaR7

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 31, 2025

Staff when you delete this can you leave an edit in the post so people stop reposting it because they haven't seen it??

[OK. The post that was removed above is a tweet about the pilot being a trans. People should not repost that tweet unless they want to incur our wrath -- Staff]

aTmAg said:

---

I do think it's stupid that we still use voice commands for this crap in 2025. It should all be computerized by now. At worst, commands should be sent with millisecond packets of data and displayed for the pilot to read and acknowledge with a button press. Ideally, PVIs and maps would would update with symbology on what the pilot is instructed to do. Voice should be reserved special circumstances like emergencies or weird requests that are hard to express with a few button presses.

---

The technology exists, but it takes time and money to retrofit the planes and reprogram software.

The technology is called CPDLC, and is being field tested right now.

However, any time new technology is implemented that reduces workload, it also runs the risk of introducing complacency bias and reducing proficiency…talking and listening on the radio is a perishable skill.

On top of that, if the inputs are automatically accepted without input in the cockpit, you've shifted the burden to the guy on the ground making the inputs, thus taking a safety cross-check out.

Having used CPDLC, it's a great technology for communication, but should not be used to remotely control the airplane

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Once VFR is requested and approved it's on PAT 25 to avoid any and all aircraft.

---

False. Approving "Visual Separation" is not a license for ATC to completely forget about the aircraft, nor does it negate the aircraft being under positive ATC control. If an imminent collision is detected it is the controllers obligation to issue decisive corrective action.

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

Have you spent time flying at night over a populated area with congested airspace and complex procedures? It's easy to see how this could happen

Also to Point Two, when you are on a converging vector, the aircraft doesn't move at all on your windscreen. It stays in the same spot, and at night can get lost in a visual blind spot

Bunk Moreland said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Let's hear what ATC should have done in the situation.

---

"TRAFFIC ALERT. Blue Streak 5342 Go Around, Go Around. BREAK. PAT 25 turn left immediately, do not increase altitude."

---

PAT 25 had VFR. Why would ATC still be directing them? Once VFR is requested and approved it's on PAT 25 to avoid any and all aircraft.

---

To save lives.

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

1) They were never at the same altitude for any stretch. The CRJ was flying the descent from before the time they broke off the ILS to RW1 and circled into a left base to intercept the visual for RW33. They may have briefly leveled off, but they were never at the same altitude as PAT25 until collision. Additionally there are a lot of city lights all around. They MIGHT get part of one landing light, they'll get a green wingtip light, the red flashing beacon on the belly, and a white light on the tail. This is not staring into the headlights of an oncoming car.

2) They had NVG's inside, I haven't seen confirmation one way or the other if they were wearing them. If they were wearing them, the NVG's constrict your field of vision by ~40%. No way they were distracted. This situation isn't one that setup over 10 minutes. The LONGEST YouTube videos of this incident that start well before and end well after are like 4 minutes long.

3) "Well above" isn't clearly defined. Radar indicated altitude was 300, but I've never seen anyone detail how the computers round that data off.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

Have you spent time flying at night over a populated area with congested airspace and complex procedures? It's easy to see how this could happen

---

Hell just as a passenger looking out the window at some night cityscape approaches there were times when did a double-take because realized one set of blinking lights was a two engine airliner passing under us at easily identifiable range and surprisingly close once you saw it but against the curve of city lights you didn't see it at once.

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

Have you spent time flying at night over a populated area with congested airspace and complex procedures? It's easy to see how this could happen

---

I mean people keep saying this but if the stay under 200ft, it never happens. That "procedure" to me seems very black & white. Why does ATC/FAA, whoever keep letting them break the procedure? Same with the one the day before, and an I'm sure many before then.

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

Have you spent time flying at night over a populated area with congested airspace and complex procedures? It's easy to see how this could happen

---

I mean people keep saying this but if the stay under 200ft, it never happens. That "procedure" to me seems very black & white. Why does ATC/FAA, whoever keep letting them break the procedure? Same with the one the day before, and an I'm sure many before then.

---

Didn't the video that discussed tracking say the `bob' up to above 200 came later, not really the whole flight?

AggieFlyboy said:

---

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

it's extremely difficult to believe this helo:

1. Didn't visually see that plane. They are near the same altitude for a lone enough stretch.

2. Didn't have time to bank left, or descend or elevate. the heli, if an accident, I can only think were EXTREMELY DISCTRACTED. Even with night vision on, which I doubt, they should be able to see that plane as the lights on the plane would be distinctly moving across the helo's front windows.

3. Didn't know they were well above the 200ft threshold

Extreme failure by the helo crew if an accident, or it wasn't an accident.

---

Have you spent time flying at night over a populated area with congested airspace and complex procedures? It's easy to see how this could happen

Also to Point Two, when you are on a converging vector, the aircraft doesn't move at all on your windscreen. It stays in the same spot, and at night can get lost in a visual blind spot

---

Quote:

---

F4GIB71 said:
I had a thought that I've not seen addressed. If you see another aircraft, and it is moving on the canopy (up/down/left/right), you are not on a collision course. If it is not moving, you are on a collision course. Flying over an area with so many lights, it is possible that they saw the lights of the other aircraft but, since it was not moving, it blended in to all the other lights.

---

Very good point on changing/not changing aspect and getting lost in the light clutter. Then the PIC potentially getting "target fixation" on the wrong a/c.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

(~36 hours post incident)

---

Any conjecture as to the possible reason for not releasing the name / info helo pilot who was purportedly flying the helo at the time?

Not getting into conspiracy nonsense, but if this is primarily pilot error would they withhold her info until they were able to package an initial cause that blames the pilot and let her family prepare for the onslaught?

I know the other 2 were not officially released but confirmed by local news / friends / family.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Looking back at GWOT there were some old ass CWO pilots out there. I'll tell you that for a fact. Somehow in 03-04 when **** had to get done some old guys came out of the woodwork. Remember old CWO that people joked may have flown in Vietnam. He may well have, but people too afraid to ask. Wild to look back on now.

---

I have a friend who flew Chinooks in Viernam. He stayed in the reserves and flew Apaches because he wanted to hit CW5 nefore retiring. They called him up for Iraq, and he was there in 2005 when his daighter and my son graduated from high school. I remember that he watched it in Iraq on video feed. He was at Camp Spicher

He would have been about 62 at the time. Hes an Aggie, about 6 foot5. You would have remembered him if you had met

---

If this was the same guy he would have been involved delivering chinooks, apaches and koiwas that came off shrinkwrapped. Never had any interaction with the guy but would see him walking around from time to time as his age always caused people to do a wtf double-take. But would be wild if this was the same guy we are talking about.

correct, and it was mostly right before the crash...which is still why I think it being intentional is not off the table.

Did he have a very high `rating'?? by chance.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

2) They had NVG's inside, I haven't seen confirmation one way or the other if they were wearing them. If they were wearing them, the NVG's constrict your field of vision by ~40%. No way they were distracted. This situation isn't one that setup over 10 minutes. The LONGEST YouTube videos of this incident that start well before and end well after are like 4 minutes long.

---

Just read an article quoting Tammie Duckworth (fwiw former Blackhawk pilot turned Dem senator from IL) stating she had been told they were NOT wearing the NVGs.

That's a week confirmation FWIW, but first I had seen someone saying one way or another.

Kyle Field Shade Chaser said:

---

correct, and it was mostly right before the crash...which is still why I think it being intentional is not off the table.

---

IF, IF, that change in altitude really happened. That video description seemed unequivocal in his narrative, but it hinges on that. IF that did happen, yes, intentional is back on the table if you have an unstable person flying.

multiple military pilots have said it would NOT be normal to wear night vision in a city environment. not even when in a training flight. would be very unlikely they had the night vision on.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

(~36 hours post incident)

---

Any conjecture as to the possible reason for not releasing the name / info helo pilot who was purportedly flying the helo at the time?

Not getting into conspiracy nonsense, but if this is primarily pilot error would they withhold her info until they were able to package an initial cause that blames the pilot and let her family prepare for the onslaught?

I know the other 2 were not officially released but confirmed by local news / friends / family.

---

Will just have to let it play out. Was positing an update for informational purposes only.

But the delay might be filed as atypical under the circumstances.