At least he was there and not on maternity leave.
regional jet crash? (American Airlines) at Reagan (DCA)
189,982 Views |
1557 Replies |
Last: 18 hrs ago by titan
I'm not a pilot, but I know a little bit about "but for" causation, and it seems to me that the collision occurred at 350', and the helicopter wasn't supposed to be above 200', so the "who's to blame" analysis is complete at that point. If the helicopter hadn't been 150' above where it was supposed to be, no collision.
Just my two cents...
Just my two cents...
I think it is very normal for those flight paths to cross. I don't know all of the specific rules for that crossing though. Blancolirio says the CRJ was flying the ILS for Runway 1 then doing a visual left base dogleg entry to 33, which is very common and considered "normal." PAT25 took off from Joint Base Boling and was operating under a procedure they use to cross the Potomac.TheCurl84 said:Anonymous Source said:
Man...thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid this was the start of a new normal.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that." pic.twitter.com/MtVrku3GAL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2025
IMO Duffy messed up in his first big test. Saying that both flight paths were "normal" is not reassuring, at all. It makes me wonder why we haven't seen more of this happen. Surely it isn't "normal" to have helicopters crossing the take-off and landing paths of flights at DCA.
The helicopter was cleared to cross the path maintaining visual separation. PAT25 reported having the traffic in sight. The question now is what traffic was he looking at, as it obviously was not the correct traffic. There was another plane that took off from Reagan and another behind the CRJ.
TheCurl84 said:Anonymous Source said:
Man...thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid this was the start of a new normal.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that." pic.twitter.com/MtVrku3GAL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2025
IMO Duffy messed up in his first big test. Saying that both flight paths were "normal" is not reassuring, at all. It makes me wonder why we haven't seen more of this happen. Surely it isn't "normal" to have helicopters crossing the take-off and landing paths of flights at DCA.
As ETFan posted earlier in this thread, here is the published "standard" helicopter routes chart for the area.
Notice the DCA airport and the close proximity of routes 1 and 4 crossing departure/approach traffic patterns of runways 1/28 and 33/15.
Also notice the altitude restriction is at or below 200'.
All this to say, the heli route is standard.
Catag94 said:TheCurl84 said:Anonymous Source said:
Man...thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid this was the start of a new normal.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that." pic.twitter.com/MtVrku3GAL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2025
IMO Duffy messed up in his first big test. Saying that both flight paths were "normal" is not reassuring, at all. It makes me wonder why we haven't seen more of this happen. Surely it isn't "normal" to have helicopters crossing the take-off and landing paths of flights at DCA.
As ETFan posted earlier in this thread, here is the published "standard" helicopter routes chart for the area.
Notice the DCA airport and the close proximity of routes 1 and 4 crossing departure/approach traffic patterns of runways 1/28 and 33/15.
Also notice the altitude restriction is at or below 200'.
All this to say, the heli route is standard.
Did collision occur at or below 200 ft ?
Broooooo.. 100 % speculation like everyone on this board at this point.. some of you are insufferable on this… it's 100% opinion and it's my opinion brooooBunk Moreland said:fullback44 said:That's cool and all but why did they deviate ? Seems some dummy wasn't paying attention, doesn't matter how much experience you have when you aren't paying attention or better yet do stupid stuffbobbranco said:
Supposedly an experienced Officer and CWO flying.
Why are you taking a random tweet as if it's verified fact? Helicopters that fly around on training missions and just in/around DC in general aren't following pre-scheduled flight paths often times like commercial airlines are.
Emotional Support Cobra
Joined:
Feb 5, 2003
Posts:
38,119
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
Our next door neighbor's son passed in American Eagle crash in 1994 due to de icing issues.
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
ETA: I'm not saying the UH60 was properly executing the route. Just that the route is standard.
ETA: I'm not saying the UH60 was properly executing the route. Just that the route is standard.
Sabena Flight 548CanyonAg77 said:
Back to the figure skaters
In 1961, the US Figure Skating Team lost 18 skaters and coaches in a plane crash. I believe they were traveling to Prague for a competition
One of the few modern accidents in which the cause has never been officially determined.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Catag94 said:
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
So the proximate cause of the collision was the helicopter's deviation from the altitude restriction.
He had AAL3130 in sight. The aircraft behind the one he crashed into.Quote:
PAT25 reported having the traffic in sight. The question now is what traffic was he looking at, as it obviously was not the correct traffic.
That's much of it right there. Duffy was a victim of a semantics argument. Like the shipping example, it apparently WAS the normal set up. What wasn't allowed for is that one of the aircraft had ceased to follow that normal set up and he should have used more open to new data words like "as far as known thus far the paths were the correct ones" or somesuch.Kenneth_2003 said:I think it is very normal for those flight paths to cross. I don't know all of the specific rules for that crossing though. Blancolirio says the CRJ was flying the ILS for Runway 1 then doing a visual left base dogleg entry to 33, which is very common and considered "normal." PAT25 took off from Joint Base Boling and was operating under a procedure they use to cross the Potomac.TheCurl84 said:Anonymous Source said:
Man...thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid this was the start of a new normal.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that." pic.twitter.com/MtVrku3GAL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2025
IMO Duffy messed up in his first big test. Saying that both flight paths were "normal" is not reassuring, at all. It makes me wonder why we haven't seen more of this happen. Surely it isn't "normal" to have helicopters crossing the take-off and landing paths of flights at DCA.
The helicopter was cleared to cross the path maintaining visual separation. PAT25 reported having the traffic in sight. The question now is what traffic was he looking at, as it obviously was not the correct traffic. There was another plane that took off from Ragan and another behind the CRJ.
What is clearly at fault here and part of the key to it being "an accident waiting to happen" is not just the congestion risk (which had been accepted) but I am not seeing a way by which ATC makes sure they are on the same page as a plane when they say "do you have Y in sight"?? Because the theory helo was looking at the even more prominently visible other plane sounds very likely -- but its also a not unlikely error so what is in place to make sure you are "talking about the same thing" ??
Man…the helo pilot says he sees the plane twice…and he asks for (and gets permission for) visual separation…
That leads on to think he was looking at the wrong aircraft…
That leads on to think he was looking at the wrong aircraft…
Yes, AAL3130.FireAg said:
Man…the helo pilot says he sees the plane twice…and he asks for (and gets permission for) visual separation…
That leads on to think he was looking at the wrong aircraft…
jacketman03 said:Catag94 said:
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
So the proximate cause of the collision was the helicopter's deviation from the altitude restriction.
I think that has to be sited as a contributing factor. I doubt that's the only one.
It seems to me the separation in this area is already extremely tight making it quite risky. If runway 33 is seldom used, I would think the tower controller would have made a more concerted effort to ensure good separation in this situation. I suspect the ambient light will be a factor, the city lights combined with latitudes creating a visibility challenge, ATC's lack of vectoring to maintain separation (trusting the UH60 pilots a little too much) will all be factors. It's incredibly sad and was truly avoidable.
Among all the early speculation, this seems the most plausible.Martin Q. Blank said:He had AAL3130 in sight. The aircraft behind the one he crashed into.Quote:
PAT25 reported having the traffic in sight. The question now is what traffic was he looking at, as it obviously was not the correct traffic.
Martin Q. Blank said:Yes, AAL3130.FireAg said:
Man…the helo pilot says he sees the plane twice…and he asks for (and gets permission for) visual separation…
That leads on to think he was looking at the wrong aircraft…
This would also show ATC that the UH 60 is already 100' above the route altitude limit. ATC should have been more aggressive at creating separation.
Do blackhawks have ADSB?
Yeah, that's my uneducated guess…he thought he was supposed to avoid 3130, which was in the landing pattern behind 5342…
I'm still struggling with how he could miss 5342 which was so much closer…several experienced pilots on here have said that lights in the air at night can be confusing…so I guess that could be a likely explanation…
The other issue I'm having trouble squaring is whether or not the helo was above its flight ceiling…and if so…why?
I'm still struggling with how he could miss 5342 which was so much closer…several experienced pilots on here have said that lights in the air at night can be confusing…so I guess that could be a likely explanation…
The other issue I'm having trouble squaring is whether or not the helo was above its flight ceiling…and if so…why?
Catag94 said:jacketman03 said:Catag94 said:
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
So the proximate cause of the collision was the helicopter's deviation from the altitude restriction.
I think that had to be sited as a contributing factor. I doubt that's the only one.
It seems to me the separation in this area is already extremely tight making it quite risky. If runway 33 is seldom used, I would think the tower controller would have made a more concerted effort to ensure good separation in this situation. I suspect the ambient light will be a factor, the city lights combined with latitudes creating a visibility challenge, ATC's lack of vectoring to maintain separation (trusting the UH60 pilots a little too much) will all be factors. It's incredibly sad and was truly avoidable.
If everything else was the exact same, and the helicopter pilot hadn't disregarded the altitude restriction, the collision would not have happened. Everything else is a contributing factor, but had the heli pilot been where they were supposed to be, no collision.
CanyonAg77 said:
Back to the figure skaters
In 1961, the US Figure Skating Team lost 18 skaters and coaches in a plane crash. I believe they were traveling to Prague for a competition
That's right. The victims included several skaters from a team in Paramount Ca. that team rebuilt thru the sixties, and produced the likes of olympians JoJo Starbuck and Peggy Fleming…and non-Olympian, but excellent figure skater, Mrs Sid Farkas. Sid farkas' daughter also skated there in the 1990's.
Bit of trivia: the paramount skating rink was built by Frank Zamboni, the inventor of the eponymous ice grooming machine. An original version of which is kept beyond the far end of the rink.
…now, back to the thread…
33 is less used than 1, but I wouldn't say it's "seldom used".
Like the tour helicopter that hit the antenna in downtown Houston.FireAg said:
Yeah, that's my uneducated guess…he thought he was supposed to avoid 3130, which was in the landing pattern behind 5342…
I'm still struggling with how he could miss 5342 which was so much closer…several experienced pilots on here have said that lights in the air at night can be confusing…so I guess that could be a likely explanation…
The other issue I'm having trouble squaring is whether or not the helo was above its flight ceiling…and if so…why?
Good chance we may never know why.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Most accidents are.
fullback44 said:Broooooo.. 100 % speculation like everyone on this board at this point.. some of you are insufferable on this… it's 100% opinion and it's my opinion brooooBunk Moreland said:fullback44 said:That's cool and all but why did they deviate ? Seems some dummy wasn't paying attention, doesn't matter how much experience you have when you aren't paying attention or better yet do stupid stuffbobbranco said:
Supposedly an experienced Officer and CWO flying.
Why are you taking a random tweet as if it's verified fact? Helicopters that fly around on training missions and just in/around DC in general aren't following pre-scheduled flight paths often times like commercial airlines are.
"Why did they deviate" is not an opinion, bro.
right, from what i heard in blancolirio's video, it's not unusual to take the approach for 1 and dogleg into 33
The controller got a conflict alert and simply asked the helo if he had the traffic in sight (clearly not). He should have immediately told the helo about the conflict alert.Catag94 said:jacketman03 said:Catag94 said:
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
So the proximate cause of the collision was the helicopter's deviation from the altitude restriction.
I think that has to be sited as a contributing factor. I doubt that's the only one.
It seems to me the separation in this area is already extremely tight making it quite risky. If runway 33 is seldom used, I would think the tower controller would have made a more concerted effort to ensure good separation in this situation. I suspect the ambient light will be a factor, the city lights combined with latitudes creating a visibility challenge, ATC's lack of vectoring to maintain separation (trusting the UH60 pilots a little too much) will all be factors. It's incredibly sad and was truly avoidable.
Yes, but to be fair…that helo pilot had significantly less flying experience…
It seems everything that was in motion last night was normal for the DC airspace. It's just a very crowded and busy airspace.sts7049 said:
right, from what i heard in blancolirio's video, it's not unusual to take the approach for 1 and dogleg into 33
torrid said:It seems everything that was in motion last night was normal for the DC airspace. It's just a very crowded and busy airspace.sts7049 said:
right, from what i heard in blancolirio's video, it's not unusual to take the approach for 1 and dogleg into 33
Everything except, it seems to appear, that the helo was flying at the wrong altitude…
GAC06 said:
33 is less used than 1, but I wouldn't say it's "seldom used".
Understood. I guess what I'm saying is since it's used less, has a heli route.8 miles from the threshold, when the CRJ switched to 33, and tower knew he had a UH60 on route 4, you'd think it would have occurred to ATC that 'Hey, it's rare we actually have a potential for aircraft to meet right here. I should really watch this one'.
THAT. Same for most channel collisions. Stay in lane. And at designated speed.jacketman03 said:Catag94 said:jacketman03 said:Catag94 said:
Negative. It was at 375 from what I've seen.
So the proximate cause of the collision was the helicopter's deviation from the altitude restriction.
I think that had to be sited as a contributing factor. I doubt that's the only one.
It seems to me the separation in this area is already extremely tight making it quite risky. If runway 33 is seldom used, I would think the tower controller would have made a more concerted effort to ensure good separation in this situation. I suspect the ambient light will be a factor, the city lights combined with latitudes creating a visibility challenge, ATC's lack of vectoring to maintain separation (trusting the UH60 pilots a little too much) will all be factors. It's incredibly sad and was truly avoidable.
If everything else was the exact same, and the helicopter pilot hadn't disregarded the altitude restriction, the collision would not have happened. Everything else is a contributing factor, but had the heli pilot been where they were supposed to be, no collision.
Its looking like any discussion of ATC practices and norms will be relevant only in what adjustments might prevent future hazards, but are not central to this one. Still wondering about how they make sure talking about another aircraft as that is very obviously what wasn't on the same page here between ground and helo.
375'AggieMD95 said:Catag94 said:TheCurl84 said:Anonymous Source said:
Man...thanks for clearing that up. I was afraid this was the start of a new normal.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: "Obviously, it is not standard to have aircraft collide. I want to be clear on that." pic.twitter.com/MtVrku3GAL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 30, 2025
IMO Duffy messed up in his first big test. Saying that both flight paths were "normal" is not reassuring, at all. It makes me wonder why we haven't seen more of this happen. Surely it isn't "normal" to have helicopters crossing the take-off and landing paths of flights at DCA.
As ETFan posted earlier in this thread, here is the published "standard" helicopter routes chart for the area.
Notice the DCA airport and the close proximity of routes 1 and 4 crossing departure/approach traffic patterns of runways 1/28 and 33/15.
Also notice the altitude restriction is at or below 200'.
All this to say, the heli route is standard.
Did collision occur at or below 200 ft ?
Featured Stories
See All
13:35
17h ago
4.2k
6:33
23h ago
839
FINAL from Reed Arena: No. 6 Tennessee 77, No. 7 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
dodger02
LIVE from Blue Bell Park: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. Cal Poly (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
25
HotardRat
LIVE from Reed Arena: No. 7 Texas A&M vs No. 6 Tennessee
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
23
StoneCold99
LIVE from Blue Bell Park: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. Cal Poly (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
22
LukeEvangelist
LIVE from Reed Arena: No. 7 Texas A&M vs No. 6 Tennessee
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
22
JohnnyTexAg1995
LIVE from Reed Arena: No. 7 Texas A&M vs No. 6 Tennessee
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21