ETFan said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Why do we even have training flight routes that intersect takeoff/landing flights paths at public airports?

---

It's not a training route, it's a just a route. The approach to 33 has a final fix/turn at 490' that descends to the runway at ~13'.


Someone with access to foreflight give me the profile from IDTEK to the TDZE at 13'. Wondering what the clearance is there with an aircraft on approach and heli at the 200' max on route 4.

EDIT: Not that it matters. These clearances have been approved by the FAA and it's not some willy nilly thing. I'm just curious. Obviously the heli was out of place according to the charts.

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Lotta shade being thrown at ATC by the helo pilots while it seems pretty evident the helo pilot f'd up by flying at the wrong altitude.

---

Agree but does ATC not know the HC altitude? Should ATC not have told HC to descend below 200 ft?

---

Actually, no, they generally only have the unadjusted encoded altitude.

---

Not sure I know about that but if some unadjusted altitude disagrees with the HC crew's reported altitude should they not question? Should HC not be giving their altitude to ATC when they are near runy with AC approaching?

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Was the helicopter cleared to fly up to that altitude or do we know?

---

annie88 said:

---

I still don't understand why the helicopters were flying so close to where planes were landing in the dark with certain equipment. Something is very strange about that. Just does not seem like a good idea.

---

torrid said:

---

LMCane said:

---

has anyone explained exactly WHY a dangerous Army training mission (Hegseth's words)

has to be conducted on a CIVILIAN AIRPORT?

when there is Fort McNair, Joint Base Bolling and Fort Myer they could use within 10 minutes flight time?!

---

Again, this is the nature of DC airspace with a busy, close-in airport and military helicopters frequently shuttling government VIPs around. This was probably training to operate specifically in DC airspace. And yes, they may need to re-think their training.

---

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"

---

Pinochet said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Lotta shade being thrown at ATC by the helo pilots while it seems pretty evident the helo pilot f'd up by flying at the wrong altitude.

---

Agree but does ATC not know the HC altitude? Should ATC not have told HC to descend below 200 ft?

---

Actually, no, they generally only have the unadjusted encoded altitude.

---

Not sure I know about that but if some unadjusted altitude disagrees with the HC crew's reported altitude should they not question? Should HC not be giving their altitude to ATC when they are near runy with AC approaching?

---

No, ATC works on the unadjusted altimeter readings. The mode c encoder broadcasts the altitude without adjustment. That way they know that everyone is broadcasting the same thing relative to everyone else (as though the Kollsman window says 29.92). They provide a local altimeter setting so that in the cockpit, you can set your altimeter and get the actual altitude. If your encoding altimeter allowed you to change the altitude you broadcast, that would cause more issues because there would be absolutely no way to tell if you were at the same altitude as another target.

---

eric76 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"

---

Exactly.

When I was a kid, we got to see B-52 training flights very frequently. They were flying over the farm at about 300 to 600 feet and this was 100 miles from the nearest SAC base. Those weren't low time pilots.

---

Rockdoc said:

---

A military helicopter pilot just said on Buck and Clay that the helicopter should have been denied to cross that flight path with traffic in the pattern.

---

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

annie88 said:

---

I still don't understand why the helicopters were flying so close to where planes were landing in the dark with certain equipment. Something is very strange about that. Just does not seem like a good idea.

---

BBRex said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

A military helicopter pilot just said on Buck and Clay that the helicopter should have been denied to cross that flight path with traffic in the pattern.

---

A page or two back someone posted that the helicopter had clearance to go behind the aircraft they had visual on, and that no matter what else about altitude or whatnot, the path of the helicopter was decidedly not behind either the aircraft they collided with or the one we assume they had visual on.

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I believe the helicopter was just below and the rotor clipped the bottom of the plane

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I believe the helicopter was just below and the rotor clipped the bottom of the plane

---

There's a vid showing that?

---

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.

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I believe the helicopter was just below and the rotor clipped the bottom of the plane

---

There's a vid showing that?

---

In 2023, there were 503 air traffic control lapses categorized as “significant” – up 65% (!) from last year.

Something has clearly gone wrong. But what?

Allow me to explain.

🧵🧵🧵 https://t.co/iKzDJoQ1FA pic.twitter.com/WC3O6G7Fbb

— Patrick Casey (@restoreorderusa) January 30, 2025

Rockdoc said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I believe the helicopter was just below and the rotor clipped the bottom of the plane

---

There's a vid showing that?

---

Rockdoc said:

---

A military helicopter pilot just said on Buck and Clay that the helicopter should have been denied to cross that flight path with traffic in the pattern.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is a tragedy as ALL accidents are. Helicopter traffic up and down the Potomac has been part of daily operations and the procedures and airspace design include those operations as factors.

---

From my understanding thus far, Reagan's location is rimmed by other sensitive locations such as the WH, Pentagon, military bases, etc. Thus the airspace design and procedures are far more complicated due to that. Additionally, volume of traffic at Reagan has greatly increased since 9/11. Same with military training flights, post 9/11.

Part of the increase in traffic at Reagan is due to members of Congress (House and Senate) want direct flights back home at Reagan because it is much more convenient for them in terms of time saved instead of full commercial flights which use their hub systems for multiple stops, maybe plane changes, etc.

So at what volume level do the procedures and airspace design become impossible given that location in DC?

---

HtownAg19 said:

---

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 flight was not on the charted GPS approach to 33 they were on a visual approach to 1, circle to land on 33. The helicopter was told to maintain visual separation. As soon as they accept that (which they had requested) all responsibility is on them to avoid traffic

---

fullback44 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Supposedly an experienced Officer and CWO flying.

---

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 stuff

---