That's him. I watched his live stream yesterday and he covered DC, Philly and that Cali light plane mishap from Jan 2. The DC mishap had him shook.HollywoodBQ said:
That Pilot Debrief "Hoover" guy is great.
His videos are very informative and unfortunately - always tragic.
HowdyTAMU said:Gordo14 said:The Kraken said:HowdyTAMU said:
TCAS should have been screaming at both pilots telling them how to maneuver and avoid. I fear the worst as the helo should have been able to take evasive measures.
Do military helicopters have TCAS?
Even if they did that's not really a place where TCAS would work. There was no room for both aircraft to maneuver at that altitude.
100% this is ATC or the helicopter. We will probably know the answet by tomorrow as someone is already breaking down the ATC trnasmissions.
Do you think TCAS was made for jet routes??
TCASJB!98 said:
Does TCAS not work in the approach or take off due to the proximity to so many other aircraft? Does it only read transponders, which I assume the Blackhawk did not have on?
NVM I type too slow. Saw the question above.
Catag94 said:
Another good video that probably fills in lots of gaps for non aviators.
Seems like they should just close runway 15/33.
sts7049 said:Catag94 said:
Another good video that probably fills in lots of gaps for non aviators.
Seems like they should just close runway 15/33.
either that or eliminating the heli route makes this whole sequence almost impossible
I thought in the NTSB interview they stated the CRJ did receive a TCAS alert below 500'.74OA said:TCASJB!98 said:
Does TCAS not work in the approach or take off due to the proximity to so many other aircraft? Does it only read transponders, which I assume the Blackhawk did not have on?
NVM I type too slow. Saw the question above.
JFABNRGR said:I thought in the NTSB interview they stated the CRJ did receive a TCAS alert below 500'.74OA said:TCASJB!98 said:
Does TCAS not work in the approach or take off due to the proximity to so many other aircraft? Does it only read transponders, which I assume the Blackhawk did not have on?
NVM I type too slow. Saw the question above.
I could be wrong too much other stuff happening right now.
JFABNRGR said:I thought in the NTSB interview they stated the CRJ did receive a TCAS alert below 500'.74OA said:TCASJB!98 said:
Does TCAS not work in the approach or take off due to the proximity to so many other aircraft? Does it only read transponders, which I assume the Blackhawk did not have on?
NVM I type too slow. Saw the question above.
I could be wrong too much other stuff happening right now.
I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
txags92 said:Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
"After there was action taken to make a correction from the close call, we were then informed by DCA tower of close traffic," a pilot wrote after a near miss in July 2015, "although at that point it would have been too late." pic.twitter.com/OfMBFNGr2w
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) February 11, 2025
It was also not uncommon, pilots noted in the reports, for helicopters in the area to be flying well above altitude limits. This is believed to have contributed to the crash two weeks ago. pic.twitter.com/cQ4KJwY5Yx
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) February 11, 2025
Read the full story via @DailyCaller:https://t.co/V14aVRvw0w
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) February 11, 2025
Yeah, seems like allowing them to proceed on visual separation, particularly at night, is prone to allowing aircraft to get way too close to each other.Jetpilot86 said:
The answer will be restricted helo ops as visual landings are happening on that runway.
See Nortex's post above. There have been numerous close calls in the past and lots of people already viewed it as unsafe prior to this accident. It appears nothing was changed to address them. If you accept a routing pattern where close calls are a normal part of the operation, you will eventually get a collision, and we did. Yes, the helo pilot was above their ceiling, but was likely within the acceptable limit for +/- or only a few feet beyond it. Any routing pattern that allows aircraft to be crossing paths with vertical separation that is less than the acceptable margin of altitude error for the two aircraft is inherently unsafe and should have been changed or garnered more attention from ATC than it received. Air traffic safety relies on redundant steps to keep people safe even when somebody makes an error. One error, like flying slightly too high or not identifying the proper traffic to avoid should not be enough to result in a crash. If it only takes 1-2 fairly routine errors to cause a crash, the pattern was being allowed to fly to close to the edge of safety.chickencoupe16 said:txags92 said:Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
It means that doing so safely is possible, even if it's not the best idea. There's no way the route deserves 50% of the blame but the Blackhawk pilots who requested visual separation only get half that.
ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation.txags92 said:See Nortex's post above. There have been numerous close calls in the past and lots of people already viewed it as unsafe prior to this accident. It appears nothing was changed to address them. If you accept a routing pattern where close calls are a normal part of the operation, you will eventually get a collision, and we did. Yes, the helo pilot was above their ceiling, but was likely within the acceptable limit for +/- or only a few feet beyond it. Any routing pattern that allows aircraft to be crossing paths with vertical separation that is less than the acceptable margin of altitude error for the two aircraft is inherently unsafe and should have been changed or garnered more attention from ATC than it received. Air traffic safety relies on redundant steps to keep people safe even when somebody makes an error. One error, like flying slightly too high or not identifying the proper traffic to avoid should not be enough to result in a crash. If it only takes 1-2 fairly routine errors to cause a crash, the pattern was being allowed to fly to close to the edge of safety.chickencoupe16 said:txags92 said:Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
It means that doing so safely is possible, even if it's not the best idea. There's no way the route deserves 50% of the blame but the Blackhawk pilots who requested visual separation only get half that.
I know noise abatement, blah blah blah, but create a Helo Route 4A half a mile or so to the east over land. Raise the minimum elevation to 500 or 750ft provided that fits within ALL published approaches to 33.Jetpilot86 said:
The answer will be restricted helo ops as visual landings are happening on that runway.
I am not sure that we have seen that the CRJ ever received a traffic notice. They were apparently able to hear ATC notifying PAT25 of the CRJ, but it is not clear whether they knew they were the traffic being referenced, and they were not able to hear PAT25's replies. I would agree that hold points and restrictions on use of visual separation clearances should be part of the discussion of how to make the pattern safer.agAngeldad said:ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation.txags92 said:See Nortex's post above. There have been numerous close calls in the past and lots of people already viewed it as unsafe prior to this accident. It appears nothing was changed to address them. If you accept a routing pattern where close calls are a normal part of the operation, you will eventually get a collision, and we did. Yes, the helo pilot was above their ceiling, but was likely within the acceptable limit for +/- or only a few feet beyond it. Any routing pattern that allows aircraft to be crossing paths with vertical separation that is less than the acceptable margin of altitude error for the two aircraft is inherently unsafe and should have been changed or garnered more attention from ATC than it received. Air traffic safety relies on redundant steps to keep people safe even when somebody makes an error. One error, like flying slightly too high or not identifying the proper traffic to avoid should not be enough to result in a crash. If it only takes 1-2 fairly routine errors to cause a crash, the pattern was being allowed to fly to close to the edge of safety.chickencoupe16 said:txags92 said:Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
It means that doing so safely is possible, even if it's not the best idea. There's no way the route deserves 50% of the blame but the Blackhawk pilots who requested visual separation only get half that.
Not exactly how ATC works. We dont "wave people off". Both parties received alerts and responded. The question is why didn't it work this time. I will concede that ATC did not use proper phraseology; however, in an "aw sheT" moment, ATC did call traffic, and the pilot confirmed visual. Again, not exactly to the book. ATC should have probably instructed the pilot to turn away or hold, however, when pilots report in sight.........
The route is a problem, and hold/reporting points should probably be added and perhaps no night gogles used. If the HC had been on the exact route, with no intervention, they would still have been to close.
As mentioned before, aviation rules are often written with blood.
Kenneth_2003 said:I know noise abatement, blah blah blah, but create a Helo Route 4A half a mile or so to the east over land. Raise the minimum elevation to 500 or 750ft provided that fits within ALL published approaches to 33.Jetpilot86 said:
The answer will be restricted helo ops as visual landings are happening on that runway.
txags92 said:I am not sure that we have seen that the CRJ ever received a traffic notice. They were apparently able to hear ATC notifying PAT25 of the CRJ, but it is not clear whether they knew they were the traffic being referenced, and they were not able to hear PAT25's replies. I would agree that hold points and restrictions on use of visual separation clearances should be part of the discussion of how to make the pattern safer.agAngeldad said:ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation.txags92 said:See Nortex's post above. There have been numerous close calls in the past and lots of people already viewed it as unsafe prior to this accident. It appears nothing was changed to address them. If you accept a routing pattern where close calls are a normal part of the operation, you will eventually get a collision, and we did. Yes, the helo pilot was above their ceiling, but was likely within the acceptable limit for +/- or only a few feet beyond it. Any routing pattern that allows aircraft to be crossing paths with vertical separation that is less than the acceptable margin of altitude error for the two aircraft is inherently unsafe and should have been changed or garnered more attention from ATC than it received. Air traffic safety relies on redundant steps to keep people safe even when somebody makes an error. One error, like flying slightly too high or not identifying the proper traffic to avoid should not be enough to result in a crash. If it only takes 1-2 fairly routine errors to cause a crash, the pattern was being allowed to fly to close to the edge of safety.chickencoupe16 said:txags92 said:Doing it safely thousands of times previously means very little if it is inherently unsafe. It just means it hasn't happened yet. If you want to blame the BH for not having visual on the correct aircraft, you should also blame ATC for not giving them a better description of where they should be looking. And ATC should have waved somebody off when it was apparent their positions were going to merge with less than 100' of separation. Having only 1 controller instead of 2 handling that is likely to be a significant contributing factor.chickencoupe16 said:I'd probably amend that to 25% Blackhawk for being too high and 40% Blackhawk not having a visual of the plane. The route sucks but it's been flown for years and years with no previous mid-airs and while that doesn't make it a good idea, it was a workable setup.txags92 said:
His assessment was that fault was about 25% blackhawk pilot for being too high, 25% atc for allowing the two aircraft to get that close with such a small vertical separation without waving off one or the other, and the remaining 50% was one whoever set up that routing that allowed crossing traffic with such a small vertical separation.
It means that doing so safely is possible, even if it's not the best idea. There's no way the route deserves 50% of the blame but the Blackhawk pilots who requested visual separation only get half that.
Not exactly how ATC works. We dont "wave people off". Both parties received alerts and responded. The question is why didn't it work this time. I will concede that ATC did not use proper phraseology; however, in an "aw sheT" moment, ATC did call traffic, and the pilot confirmed visual. Again, not exactly to the book. ATC should have probably instructed the pilot to turn away or hold, however, when pilots report in sight.........
The route is a problem, and hold/reporting points should probably be added and perhaps no night gogles used. If the HC had been on the exact route, with no intervention, they would still have been to close.
As mentioned before, aviation rules are often written with blood.
JUST IN: Radio transmission to the Black Hawk helicopter may have been "interrupted" moments before it collided with the American Airlines flight carrying over 60 people.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 15, 2025
NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy says there is conflicting information regarding the Black Hawk's altitude.
The… pic.twitter.com/kJ1yd7Hlm3
Let's talk about the "culture" of this command.
— TimOnPoint (@TimOnPoint) February 19, 2025
1) The fact that both altimeters were not calibrated AND the pilot's and instructor's altimeters were even different from each other indicates that they were aware of the miscalibration - they were eyeballing it.
2) If a crew makes… https://t.co/RmN9P2BLtd
No idea who any of the above posters/youtube people are.Quote:
BREAKING: The NTSB just dropped the Blackhawk helicopter's black box recordings from the deadly Washington, DC crash with a commercial jetand it's a jaw-dropper. Here's what it tells us:
Altitude Chaos: The chopper's altimeter was offway off. Pilot read 300 feet, instructor saw 400, but the real number? 278 feetwell above the 200-foot ceiling. They were flying blind on bad data.
Missed Calls: Air traffic control screamed "pass behind the jet"but the pilots didn't hear it. The mic was keyed at the worst moment, drowning out the warning. Seconds later? Boom.
Last-Second Panic: The jet's pilots tried to pull upnose pitched up just before impact. Too late. The Blackhawk crew? No clue what hit them 'til it did.
Night Vision Goggles: They were wearing them, but did they obscure the jet's lights? Experts say it's possible they locked onto the wrong target in DC's crowded skies.
This wasn't just one mistakeit was a cascade of failures. 67 lives gone. NTSB says a prelim report's coming soon, but this black box is already screaming: something was seriously broken that night. Share thispeople need to know.
Check out @Brian.Murray on Youtube for more great insight like this.
