LMCane said:

---

annie88 said:

---

That's scary. I flew internationally into that airport last year and then down to Houston. I fly a lot and I never really think about the dangers. They're still way less than cars, but it can be scary when they happen.

Actually, no I didn't, sorry I went through Dulles.

But this is horrible.

---

Correct- Washington Dulles IAD is for international flights.

Washington Reagan National for domestic.

I have flown in and out of there a dozen times over the years and used to live right across the Potomac from the airport in Southwest Marina DC (back when it was crappy)

there was a crash into the Potomac back during Reagan during the winter which was even more awful.

---

That was a an improper/insufficient de icing, yes?

Psycho Bunny said:

---

MarkTwain said:

---

Being reported that multiple members of the US figure skating team were onboard the plane.

---

Wife sent me this, she's a big figure skating fan and is following the news.

Russian figure skaters Evgenia Shishkova and Vadim Naumov were on board the passenger plane that crashed in Washington the United States.

The couple were flying from the championship, which was held in the city of Wichita.

Preliminary, Inna Volyanskaya could also have been on board. She coached the Ashburn Ice House team from Virginia. The plane split into two parts when it fell. Bad weather is complicating the search operation.

Evgenia Shishkova and Vadim Naumov were born in Leningrad, competed as a pair in the USSR and Russian national teams, and won the World Championship in 1994.


[url=https://x.com/MaimunkaNews/status/1884875970613559330/photo/1][/url]

---

Their son placed 7th at nationals last week. He's an international competitor. All the deaths are incredibly sad for the community.

infinity ag said:

---

"No survivors expected".

I thought 4 people were saved yesterday according to news reports.

---

Fog of war…

The Blackhawk pilots the news programs have been interviewing are hinting at something and stopping short of saying it…

Biggest thing they say (and then stop there) is that the helo pilot had time to turn…so why didn't he turn?

I think that's the $64,000 question…

BassCowboy33 said:

---

jopatura said:

---

The other flight was coming at them almost straight on. 5342 was behind them and the eventual strike path was < shaped. I could easily see the helo getting visual on the wrong plane, assumed the plane was descending for the announced landing, helo pilots gaining altitude to eventually clear them thus smacking into 5342.

Others have said the culture in the area is military helo's do whatever they want within some parameters, so if flying at 350' was the easiest decision, even though it was supposed to be capped at 200', that's what they are going to do.

---

I have no experience flying, but I will say this to your point about military logistics:

When I was in the Merchant Marine, Navy ships didn't give an eff about the navigation rules of the road. They constantly broke rules, threatened vessels that wouldn't move for them, and generally caused mayhem in tight spaces. While I don't know if that's the case here, the "do whatever they want" attitude has led to a lot of problems over the years.

---

There was an episode of Air Disasters that covered a collision between a Navy or Marine fighter and a civilian passenger jet (if memory recalls) in Southern California. The military pilots were following their rules and the civilians were following their rules. As I recall the FAA yanked DoD pretty hard after that, saying you have restricted airspace that we don't play in where you can do your thing. When you're outside of those areas you follow ALL civilian rules and regs.

I appreciated what many of the military contributors said on FOX this morning. That it's rarely "one thing", but " a compilation of events".

FireAg said:

---

The Blackhawk pilots the news programs have been interviewing are hinting at something and stopping short of saying it…

Biggest thing they say (and then stop there) is that the helo pilot had time to turn…so why didn't he turn?

I think that's the $64,000 question…

---

I'm catching up... Was there another plane behind the CRJ? The one I heard also asked, why didn't they turn, but also said that it's very easy for airplanes to blend into the background city lights. Was also curious if the BH crew were wearing NVG which cut field of view down by ~40%

FireAg said:

---

The Blackhawk pilots the news programs have been interviewing are hinting at something and stopping short of saying it…

Biggest thing they say (and then stop there) is that the helo pilot had time to turn…so why didn't he turn?

I think that's the $64,000 question…

---

I don't know...it seems most likely that the simplest answer is the correct one. It sounds like the helo pilots simply did not see this jet in time...that the jet they had the visual on was the other one on final approach further back.

And if their vision was adversely affected by night vision goggles, that just makes this even more plausible.

I think the one head-scratching unanswered question is if there is a 100' ceiling for that particular stretch, why did they violate that? Is that 100' ceiling an "at all times" rule, or is that only a rule in certain situations?

Any survivors from the chopper?
Haven't heard anything about them.

infinity ag said:

---

"No survivors expected".

I thought 4 people were saved yesterday according to news reports.

---

Just from the video and being over the river, I wouldn't have expected any survivors. However with the Air Florida flight in 1982, it went down hittting a bridge but they still pulled five people out of the frozen Potomac.

But if there were any survivors, I'm sure we'd know all the details by now.

To answer your last question, it's a published maximum departure altitude for a certain area that, according to people familiar with the airspace, was routinely violated by military aircraft. Air traffic can operate outside of published procedures with the permission of ATC, which happens regularly.

Quote:

---

Officials are confident they will recover all bodies of those killed in the midair collision Wednesday night of an American Airlines passenger jet and a military helicopter, DC Fire and EMS Chief John Donnelly said.

Sixty-seven people are believed dead: 64 aboard the passenger jet and three on the US Army Black Hawk helicopter. Twenty-eight bodies had been recovered already, he said Thursday morning.

---

Tramp96 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

The Blackhawk pilots the news programs have been interviewing are hinting at something and stopping short of saying it…

Biggest thing they say (and then stop there) is that the helo pilot had time to turn…so why didn't he turn?

I think that's the $64,000 question…

---

I don't know...it seems most likely that the simplest answer is the correct one. It sounds like the helo pilots simply did not see this jet in time...that the jet they had the visual on was the other one on final approach further back.

And if their vision was adversely affected by night vision goggles, that just makes this even more plausible.

I think the one head-scratching unanswered question is if there is a 100' ceiling for that particular stretch, why did they violate that? Is that 100' ceiling an "at all times" rule, or is that only a rule in certain situations?

---

I think it's a 200' ceiling. The helicopter was reportedly close to 400'. That's well above the prescribed low ceiling

Sounds like they have flight recording 30 seconds before the crash of telling the Blackhawk pilot to get out of the way. That would seem like plenty of time to turn and go back, but I don't know Jack about flying.

Quote:

---

That would seem like plenty of time to turn and go back, but I don't know Jack about flying.

---

If you have misidentified what you are getting out of the way of the 30 seconds isn't any help.

Not a pilot either.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

jopatura said:

---

The other flight was coming at them almost straight on. 5342 was behind them and the eventual strike path was < shaped. I could easily see the helo getting visual on the wrong plane, assumed the plane was descending for the announced landing, helo pilots gaining altitude to eventually clear them thus smacking into 5342.

Others have said the culture in the area is military helo's do whatever they want within some parameters, so if flying at 350' was the easiest decision, even though it was supposed to be capped at 200', that's what they are going to do.

---

I have no experience flying, but I will say this to your point about military logistics:

When I was in the Merchant Marine, Navy ships didn't give an eff about the navigation rules of the road. They constantly broke rules, threatened vessels that wouldn't move for them, and generally caused mayhem in tight spaces. While I don't know if that's the case here, the "do whatever they want" attitude has led to a lot of problems over the years.

---

There was an episode of Air Disasters that covered a collision between a Navy or Marine fighter and a civilian passenger jet (if memory recalls) in Southern California. The military pilots were following their rules and the civilians were following their rules. As I recall the FAA yanked DoD pretty hard after that, saying you have restricted airspace that we don't play in where you can do your thing. When you're outside of those areas you follow ALL civilian rules and regs.

---

https://simpleflying.com/hughes-airwest-flight-706-mid-air-collision-story/

I remember. Had a co-worker on that one.

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

The UH60 was flying route 4 in the helicopter rout chart posted above. He was not on a departure but was transistioning the airspace on that route. That route has strict instruction published in that chart the maximum altitude in the stretch is 200' MSL. They were 175' above that.

Now, to me, separation that little is enough to ask the helo to reduce speed or to vector in order to increase separation given the inbound crj but ATC didn't do so that.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Using this for the included map….

Genuine question, did the Blackhawk know runway 33 was active? I thought someone mentioned traffic was generally on runway 1 and the AA flight received permission to use 33 instead.

We havent heard what ATC said on initial contact to the helicopter. We shouldnt jump to conclusions However, I am sure ATC will be a contributing factor.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

Catag94 said:

---

The UH60 was flying route 4 in the helicopter rout chart posted above. He was not on a departure but was transistioning the airspace on that route. That route has strict instruction published in that chart the maximum altitude in the stretch is 200' MSL. They were 175' above that.

Now, to me, separation that little is enough to ask the helo to reduce speed or to vector in order to increase separation given the inbound crj but ATC didn't do so that.

---

It looks like the Helo also turns right deviating off the bank or posted route.

Other possibility is they missed the runway change of the CRJ from 1 to 33 communications.

Will be interesting to see the modeled cockpit view from the helo from about 2 min to impact. Maybe if ATC added clock direction to the CRJ for PAT25 the tragedy could have been avoided.

Tramp96 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

---

Is that throwing shade at ATC for messing up or what?

Tramp96 said:

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

---

I think he's wrong.

Muy said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

---

Is that throwing shade at ATC for messing up or what?

---

Don't know about throwing shade but if this is the currently acceptable procedure, it's why procedures get changed after a major disaster.

Patentmike said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Using this for the included map….

Genuine question, did the Blackhawk know runway 33 was active? I thought someone mentioned traffic was generally on runway 1 and the AA flight received permission to use 33 instead.

---

Juan Brown talked about it in the video. AA plane was following a standard approach to runway 1, but then directed to take a dogleg and curve around to land on runway 33. Again, this seems to be a standard practice at least with the regional jets as they can land on the shorter 33. I'm not sure why, maybe some scheme to handle the high frequency of flights.

Muy said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Army Blackhawk helicopter pilot should have flown the flight path seen in white but deviated from that approved flight plan near Reagan National Airport in DC.
Why? pic.twitter.com/878l5rZwHe

— JackReacher (@DCjusticeseeker) January 30, 2025

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

---

Is that throwing shade at ATC for messing up or what?

---

I don't think so. I think he was trying to get in front of any misinformation or possibly conspiracy theories that the setting for this collision was completely out of protocols or intentionally violated.

Granted, we are way, way too early into this at this point. I can see why airline pilots do not want the runway 33 approach. The final for that is a bit of a maneuver and it put them in that standard route for the helicopters.

I agree, Duffy and Hegseth shouldn't give any answers until they know all the answers.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

annie88 said:

---

That's scary. I flew internationally into that airport last year and then down to Houston. I fly a lot and I never really think about the dangers. They're still way less than cars, but it can be scary when they happen.

Actually, no I didn't, sorry I went through Dulles.

But this is horrible.

---

Correct- Washington Dulles IAD is for international flights.

Washington Reagan National for domestic.

I have flown in and out of there a dozen times over the years and used to live right across the Potomac from the airport in Southwest Marina DC (back when it was crappy)

there was a crash into the Potomac back during Reagan during the winter which was even more awful.

---

That was a an improper/insufficient de icing, yes?

---

Air Florida flight 90 in 1982. Barely got airborne and then crashed into a bridge just north of the airport. That one was a chain of really dumb mistakes (as is usually found in these events).

- Improper de-icing mixture used on aircraft before it left the gate
- Long ground hold / taxi time, making the de-icing even more ineffective
- Pilots had next to no experience flying in freezing conditions and got really close behind a DC-9 in front of them, thinking that the exhaust from the other plane's engines would melt the ice off of their wings (when in reality it just caused the snow to melt and then re-freeze even worse)
- Did not activate the engine anti-ice system, causing various sensors to freeze up and give incorrect readings (can even be heard on the CVR tape: "engine anti ice.... off")
- Failed to reject the takeoff even after at least one of them knew something was seriously wrong (not gaining enough speed and chewing up too much runway)

fc2112 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Sean Duffy says both aircraft were maintaining standard flight patterns.

---

I think he's wrong.

---

I think he was correct, in that helicopter rout 4 was in use by UH60 and the visual approach to rwy 33 was being used by the CRJ. However the UH60 had deviated off the standard pattern (both laterally and in altitude) for helicopter route 4.

Poor Sean is on Day 2 of the job. It's weird to see him in such a leadership role when I watched him on MTV Road Rules.