GAC06 said:
Yeah that's not how it works. They collided and it looks to me like the main rotor of the helo took the brunt of the impact
25 yrs ago last year I flew in and out of DCA frequently, the helicopter traffic was heavy and pilots I met said it was a wreck waiting to happen in 2000.Matt_ag98 said:fullback44 said:Most realistic version of what happened for people like me that are just the average person (not pilots) wondering what happened, seems a few mistakes here and there added up along with possible bad vision due to night time. They need to make changes to the rules where they let those Helos fly, get them away from that airport. Something tells me the Helos will begin to fly quite a bit east of the Patomic.MarkTwain said:
I go over the Potomac river twice a day for work(near DCA) and honestly don't ever remember seeing any regular helicopter traffic except the Marine Corps One (Squadron/Detachment?) flying back and forth. I mean Joint Base Anacostia Boling is right there also, but don't know how much helicopter traffic it gets honestly
bobbranco said:GAC06 said:
Yeah that's not how it works. They collided and it looks to me like the main rotor of the helo took the brunt of the impact
Explain how it works.
UH60 weighs about 20,000 lbs.
CRJ700 weighs about 70,000 lbs.
Show your work.
bobbranco said:GAC06 said:
Yeah that's not how it works. They collided and it looks to me like the main rotor of the helo took the brunt of the impact
Explain how it works.
UH60 weighs about 20,000 lbs.
CRJ700 weighs about 70,000 lbs.
Show your work.
It's not a homework assignment. All has been documented on this thread.GAC06 said:bobbranco said:GAC06 said:
Yeah that's not how it works. They collided and it looks to me like the main rotor of the helo took the brunt of the impact
Explain how it works.
UH60 weighs about 20,000 lbs.
CRJ700 weighs about 70,000 lbs.
Show your work.
I've seen nothing indicating that the CRJ broke apart before hitting the water. The fact that it's in multiple pieces whereas the helo fuselage is mostly intact doesn't mean anything as far as "who hit who". Thanks for the homework assignment though.
BREAKING: New, much more clear video of the American Airlines collision with the Black Hawk.
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) January 31, 2025
Thoughts from any Pilots? pic.twitter.com/s11IykHDPM
I agree with this wholeheartedly.AggieFlyboy said:fc2112 said:And yet she flew straight into an airliner right in front of her.AggieFlyboy said:
People don't understand military aviation. At 300 hrs total flight time, I was flying combat missions in Afghanistan. At 700 hrs I was sitting left seat. Military flight training is a crucible; there is a reason the FAA allows airlines to hire a military pilot at 750 hrs vs the 1500 required for non-military
Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of highly skilled aviators make stupid mistakes. Some costing them the aircraft or their lives. Sadly in this case, it cost 67 more
The way forward is to learn from those mistakes and take actions that help prevent those mistakes from happening again
UH60 had the right of way? You are making no sense. Who cares if the starboard wing hit a rotor?GAC06 said:
The 60 doesn't stop, it continues its momentum into the water. The jet was also moving faster than the helo, and to me it looks like the right wing of the CRJ hit the rotor of the helo from that dark, grainy video.
Quote:
UH60 had the right of way?
There have been reported near misses in the past. I wonder if standard procedure was to stop Route 4 traffic temporarily when aircraft are on approach and somehow the procedure was relaxed.fc2112 said:I agree with this wholeheartedly.AggieFlyboy said:fc2112 said:And yet she flew straight into an airliner right in front of her.AggieFlyboy said:
People don't understand military aviation. At 300 hrs total flight time, I was flying combat missions in Afghanistan. At 700 hrs I was sitting left seat. Military flight training is a crucible; there is a reason the FAA allows airlines to hire a military pilot at 750 hrs vs the 1500 required for non-military
Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of highly skilled aviators make stupid mistakes. Some costing them the aircraft or their lives. Sadly in this case, it cost 67 more
The way forward is to learn from those mistakes and take actions that help prevent those mistakes from happening again
I work in aircraft design, and we design to probabilities. I realize there there are "bad days" and sometimes all the swiss cheese holes line up.
that being said - if it's this easy for a helicopter with 3 highly trained individuals flying it to drift right up into the path of a commercial airliner, I'm gonna suggest Route 4 should not exist.
fixer said:ArmyAg2002 said:fc2112 said:I said nothing about intentionality. I think those suggesting this was insertional are insane.ArmyAg2002 said:fc2112 said:And yet she flew straight into an airliner right in front of her.AggieFlyboy said:
People don't understand military aviation. At 300 hrs total flight time, I was flying combat missions in Afghanistan. At 700 hrs I was sitting left seat. Military flight training is a crucible; there is a reason the FAA allows airlines to hire a military pilot at 750 hrs vs the 1500 required for non-military
No, SHE didn't. A Blackhawk had a mid-air collision. You don't know who was on the controls and neither do I. I do know there was a crew on board and two pilots that both had access to the controls were killed when their helicopter struck another aircraft. There is nothing to indicate, as you insinuate, that it was intentional.
If she was on the controls and as poor of a pilot as you believe, how was she skilled enough to hit another aircraft?
But she did fly directly into an airliner and kill 147 people.
I apologize if I misunderstood. There is so much poor conjecture and uniformed opinions that they start to rin together.
Again, how do you know which pilot was on the controls?
Multiple other sites are indicating the same:
https://www.army.mil/article/282772/army_identifies_third_soldier_involved_in_helicopter_crash
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/us-army-identifies-female-black-hawk-pilot-dc-jet-crash
GAC06 said:Quote:
UH60 had the right of way?
Did I say that?
Catag94 said:
Question:
Would it be a common practice for the BH crew to use radar altitude and in so doing, stay over the river to prevent terrain fluctuations?
Depends on the runway, is my understanding. No potential for conflict when commercial traffic is lining up for Runway 1. When the switch is made to Runway 33, there is a potential for conflict with that Route 4.Quote:
There have been reported near misses in the past. I wonder if standard procedure was to stop Route 4 traffic temporarily when aircraft are on approach and somehow the procedure was relaxed.
What are you guys even arguing about? Does it matter what part of the helicopter hit what part of the aircraft?GAC06 said:Did I say that?Quote:
UH60 had the right of way?
aTmAg said:What are you guys even arguing about? Does it matter what part of the helicopter hit what part of the aircraft?GAC06 said:Did I say that?Quote:
UH60 had the right of way?
Hey Nav said:
My eagle eye view (using google maps) is that it's about 2.5 nm from the Key Bridge (permission required to cross, by Tower) and hearing that the Blackhawk would be traveling at about 120 kts, so that's about 1+23 minutes, give or take, before they would intersect the rwy 33 approach course. I was surprised to hear they were moving that fast. I would have guessed maybe 70 to 90 knots, but I have only been a passenger on
Helicopters have been taking off and landing at the same airports with other aircraft forever. You want to ban that?annie88 said:
I don't care what they have or haven't done in the past helicopters do not need to be flying that closely to planes taking off and landing at airports. Period.
chickencoupe16 said:aTmAg said:What are you guys even arguing about? Does it matter what part of the helicopter hit what part of the aircraft?GAC06 said:Did I say that?Quote:
UH60 had the right of way?
GAC06 is right but the point is so far lost now that it all just seems stupid.
Quote:
GAC06 said:
That's not how the video looks to me
It is the realtiy of the wreckage. If the helo had been struck by the airliner, it would have been in multiple pieces. Instead, the helo struck the plane and sliced it into a couple of sections.
Quote:
Yeah that's not how it works. They collided and it looks to me like the main rotor of the helo took the brunt of the impact
There are 45,000 flights per day. And they all converge at airports. Geometrically it's pretty easy to imagine. We've been good at de-confliction to make colisions a rare event.boulderaggie said:
I'm still astonished at the astronomically horrible odds that these two aircraft traveling at the speeds they do, at dynamic altitudes, could occupy the same exact airspace at the same exact moment. Truly tragic.
That's correct because Route 4 only interferes with Runway 33. There is also a Route 6 that is east-west over the airport. I am unable to extract the image but interesting maps on the NYT website.aggiehawg said:Depends on the runway, is my understanding. No potential for conflict when commercial traffic is lining up for Runway 1. When the switch is made to Runway 33, there is a potential for conflict with that Route 4.Quote:
There have been reported near misses in the past. I wonder if standard procedure was to stop Route 4 traffic temporarily when aircraft are on approach and somehow the procedure was relaxed.
If I am incorrect on that, please correct me.
aTmAg said:
Why does any of this matter?
Brunt of impact on the rotor is a completely laughable statement. The statement in the context it was presented implies that such impact was the most important aspect of the crash. Ridiculous statement on so many levels.Bunk Moreland said:
Brother, you're arguing a made up topic against nobody. My advice would be to let it go. We don't understand what point you're trying to even come close to making.
If the rotor struck the aircraft first that means absolutely nothing. The massive impact force on the CRJ was the mass from UH. As a result the wing sheared from the fuselage. And that is why the UH rolled forward. Simple physics.GAC06 said:aTmAg said:
Why does any of this matter?
It doesn't.
