sherpa
-
Posts
3,662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
12 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
Didn't the controller tell the Helicopter pilot to maintain the separation by going behind the plane?
Yes he did, but it is not clear who the helo may have been looking at. He obvious never saw the Eagle flight.
I don't know the clearance parameters the helo was given, but it might have been wise to tell him to remain clear of the rwy 33 final approach path, no matter what his altitude restrictions were.
I have heard that directive issued to many helos operating at very low altitudes.
-
29 minutes ago, daz28 said:
IIRC they said 1 pilot had like 1000 hours, and the other like 500. Seems like a ton to me, so an "annual required evaluation" in the flight path of an airport, doesn't seem all that necessary.
There are specific mission requirements that involve currency, not total hours.
As I pointed out, you could have hundreds of carrier landings in your logbook, but if you haven't done so, and day is different than night, in a certain time, you are not qualified.
Still, the point is that no matter what each flight was doing, they should have been separated, as there is no surprise in this.
-
1
-
-
Just now, The Frankish Reich said:
Oh, I’ll agree with that. And I defer to your expertise here.
But back in my bailiwick: if this went to court, and the US Army and the FAA were both defendants in a civil suit brought by one of the victims, I think a judge or jury would probably apportion at least 90% - or even 100% - of the blame to the Army.
As far as avoiding this happening again? Yeah, we need to tighten it up on the FAA side too. No doubt about that. It’s just that the negligence - the failure to meet the established standard of care - appears to be overwhelmingly on the Blackhawk pilots at this time.Could be as you state.
But, being an ex military pilot, we operated with exclusions that were not applicable to civilian pilots.
As an example, the speed limit is 250 knots below 10,000'. We had an exemption that allowed us to operate at 350 knots, because that was the speed we needed to relight the engine if it failed.
My suggestion is what I have stated for years in the airline industry, having exposure to both.
This nonsense of operating a helo taxi capability for pols is ridiculously foolish and expensive.
There is simply no justifiable reason for an Army helo squadron operating with night vision goggles around Reagan National.
None.
I have never flown with night vision goggles, but I have operated, extensively, with FLIR, which is forward looking infra-red, including weapons delivery, and it is really different, and has no use in this environment.
-
3
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, daz28 said:
IIRC they said 1 pilot had like 1000 hours, and the other like 500. Seems like a ton to me, so an "annual required evaluation" in the flight path of an airport, doesn't seem all that necessary.
There are specific mission requirements that involve currency, not total hours.
As I pointed out, you could have hundreds of carrier landings in your logbook, but if you haven't done so, and day is different than night, in a certain time, you are not qualified.
-
13 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So what I'm hearing now:
- ABC reported that the Blackhawk was at about 350 ft elevation
- CNN had a former Blackhawk pilot on (they finally found a useful "expert") who said he'd flown over the Potomac hundreds of times and that the standard is that the chopper goes to 200 ft at the Key Bridge (probably about a few miles due north of DCA) and stays there until they've cleared the area.
So it sounds like a Blackhawk pilot error, plain and simple.
Not quite.
There are built in redundancies, and ultimately, in that airspace, it is the controller's responsibility to see that and ensure separation.
That is all they are responsible for, in this case, a very small amount of low altitude airspace.
-
6 minutes ago, daz28 said:
I was asking a question, and trying to clarify what you were saying, because yes I do lack any knowledge on what that may mean. To the average Joe, it seems that helo was not in the right place at all. If they really run helo's through that flight path like that all the time, then this was inevitable. I did look up currency requirements, but not sure how that applies if this wasn't a training flight.
I get it and apologize for being unclear.
You opined that they were "doing night flights all the time," and questioned that if so, why they might need this currency requirement.
I stated that those requirements are per individual.
A squadron may do things all the time, but there may be a need to get a person a certain sortie to satisfy their individual requirement.
Happens all the time.
The issue, in my view, will come down to this, and I have no doubt that I will regret this.
The transportation of political figures via helicopter in this congested airspace is idiotic, unnecessary and ridiculously expensive.
That may well be what this is ultimately about, as there is no military defense benefit to operating a helicopter unit in that area.
It is pointless and intrusive, and the capability isn't worth it.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, daz28 said:
HUH? I asked a question. It appears you don't have the answer to what a "required annual night evaluation"(for a Blackhawk pilot) is. I'll wait for the explanation, thanks. From what I've heard a transponder should have went off, but like police cams, they have an inexplicable ability to disarm.
What you stated was that "they were doing many night flights all the time..."
These are individual quals, so there is no info on whether or not this particular person needed an qual.
The rest of your post indicates a lack of knowledge.
No harm there, but I'm not going to spend more time on transponders or TCAS, when they are turned on and off and the algorithms involved.
Not hard to do, but not worth my time as it will all come out eventually.
-
1 minute ago, daz28 said:
So they're likely doing many night flights all the time, but kind of need to be 'certified' annually? Is that what you're saying?
What you have done is posted an opinion as fact.
Currency requirements apply to individuals.
I have no idea who was involved, but if an individual needed to satisfy a currency requirement, they would generate a sortie to accomplish that.
Total "all up rounds" are a required, reported performance stat in the military, including aircraft and personnel.
If you had an airwing on a carrier, and only 20% were qualified at night, you'd have a serious problem.
I have no idea about helo flying with night vision goggles, but I assume it is similar.
I just wonder how those two aircraft tried to occupy the same airspace at the same time, being under full ATC control and known flight paths.
-
Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:
I deleted it since we're all taking the high road here... I suggest you do the same.
I have no reason to delete anything.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
We are all just speculating...
Yeah... And the Bills didn't lose because of the Refs.
Not to cause a fork in the road, but you brought it up.
Simple question.
Are you in any way aware of who was running PATCO at that time, and what they we were offered and demanded?
That is beyond the issue of breaking the law.
-
2 minutes ago, daz28 said:
Hegseth said the Black Hawk chopper had "a fairly experienced crew that was doing a required annual night evaluation."
I would like to know more about what, "required annual night evaluation" is.
The military, and all aviation for that matter, has currency requirements.
As a carrier aviator, I had to have a certain number of carrier landings, both day and night, in a certain period.
The night vision thing is clearly similar.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
You seem well versed on flying thanks for you info today. I was wondering why the TCAS system didn't alert them but just had a expert say that it is shut off that low and that close to a landing because of all the traffic around
Great question.
TCAS runs by an algorithm that discounts/eliminates various modes at various altitudes near ground.
During flight, it provides a traffic advisory, which is informational, and if the situation isn't resolved, and is bad, a resolution advisory, which actually tells you what to do, and displays the suggested command on the vertical speed indicator.
Ten mins or so are spent on this issue and response in every simulator training period.
While you don't turn the transponder on takeoff until just prior, there would still be so many that it would alert to that it cancels them out.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
At 3om presser no recovery of black boxes yet.
Not going to be anything in that.
They got rammed.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, daz28 said:
You could honestly insert any person with ANY political powers name here, and pulling that crap with the loyalist nominees trump has put up is LAUGHABLE.
Have I ever claimed he was the only one?
Ever?
He is simply a useless pos that was inserted into a major Secretary job and failed miserably because he was worse than useless.
That is my claim.
Simple.
He now seems to be defending his uselessness by trying to jumpstart a moribund career by using this tragedy.
He disgusts me.
-
1
-
-
This is not a subject I am comfortable with, and quite reticent about, but I am absolutely knowledgeable about.
The FAA, especially during the last four years, and before, is an organization all about quota hiring and promotions.
It suffers morale problems from this, and Buttigieg was a disaster.
Got the job as payback from Biden for getting out of the primary system, back when the Dems used to allow one.
Simply horrible.
-
11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I won't jump to any conclusions but there are lots of questions such as why, and for what purpose, is a military helicopter operating inside the landing flight path of a commercial airport serving our nations Capitol. There's plenty of other less congested air space to conduct "training missions". How could the helicopter pilot and crew not be aware they were operating inside the air space of Regan National?
According to reports, the aircraft hit "head on". Why didn't the Heli pilot recognize the situation and alter his course either left or right or up or down? I expect an experienced military pilot, even at night, can recognize that another aircraft, with lights and transponder signals on, is coming right towards them. Some reports are saying they were "flying dark" which means the chopper was not broadcasting an ADSB signal. Why would they do this? If true this sounds like a critical disregard for safety at a minimum.
No offense, but you're way off target.
This is done every day.
10 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:
Pete Buttigieg
@PeteButtigieg
Despicable. As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying. We put safety first, drove down close calls, grew Air Traffic Control, and had zero commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch.
President Trump now oversees the military and the FAA. One of his first acts was to fire and suspend some of the key personnel who helped keep our skies safe. Time for the President to show actual leadership and explain what he will do to prevent this from happening again.This is the droppings of a despicable clown trying to fertilize a political career.
Hated by FAA employees.
Hated by the airlines.
Useless.
A self promotional, ignorant moron.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Got it. Thanks again. Better background information than I'm getting anywhere else.
Good.
I cannot believe the media/youtube/political vector nonsense about this.
I have been in and out or Reagan hundreds of times, initially as a narrow body captain, then as a commuter to NY, Miami and Chicago, to fly bigger airplanes, mostly in the jumpseats while hitching a ride on many carriers, and I am extremely familiar with the way it operates. It is disgusting to me how those "outlets" can put this crap out.
Purely commercial and horrible.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So when the helo guy said he had a visual track on the CRJ, is that typically sufficient? I mean, it obviously (in retrospect) was not, but was it standard practice to defer to what the helo pilot confirms?
Ya.
If they point out traffic and ask if you have it in site and you say yes, there is no way to determine if they mean the same traffic.
The point is that the helo was responsible to see and avoid, and the tower controller was responsible for allowing monitoring both in the same airspace, and relying on the helo to avoid.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So a helicopter pilot screw up, and a tower screw up too?
Not necessarily.
The helo guy could have been flying in a corridor and altitude profile that was standard, but if landing on 33, that corridor should have been shut down.
No matter what, unless there was intentional disregard, that is the tower's airspace, and should have been controlled to the point of deconfliction
3 minutes ago, boater said:Here is a good video analysis from a pilot, of what we know so far:
Did the helo do a right when he should have done a left?
This guy is a youtube geek who is a civilian pilot background and who specializes in being very fast with this stuff.
I watched this for 15 seconds, until he made his first mistake.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I get what you're saying, and thanks for clarifying the terminology.
From what we've heard, should the Tower have done anything differently? We're hearing that maybe the helicopter responded that they had the CRJ in sight, but that they were talking about the CRJ (if that's what it was) taking off, rather than the one landing.
Is there some better terminology to use that could have avoided this?
What specifically would you have wanted to hear from the Tower?
Good question.
What should have happened is that the tower controller should not have let the helo in the final approach airspace for runway 33.
That is a "circle to land" runway, which means that you start the approach to runway 1, and are sequenced in that traffic then do a quick dog leg to the right, and a left to align with the centerline of 33.
The helo was obviously in that airspace. That is OK as long as he is well below the flight path of a landing RJ.
When that happens, or there is other activity, the tower will clear you land with a caution; ie., "caution low level helo traffic," or "caution low level wind shear reports," or anything you need to know.
Either way, the two aircraft should have never been in that airspace at the same time, and I guarantee that the RJ was flying a standard profile to land.
To answer you question directly, what I would have wanted to hear is, "go around, helo traffic on final," or land on rwy 1, but I'm guessing they had somebody in the way for takeoff or inadequate separation for landing, so the main runway was not an option.
Either way, unless there was a direct violation by the helo guy, this is a tower screw up.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Apparently not. Trump at his self-aggrandizing, political score settling worst. I'll save the rest of that for PPP ...
@zow2 @sherpa - from what I've heard/read, no one has pointed to anything ATC did that was wrong? What is this about DEI? It seems utterly irrelevant if ATC did things correctly here.
Maybe we want to create a different Potomac corridor for military flights?
ATC is a complicated term for the non aware, but the "tower" is responsible for the immediate low altitude area.
At some distance, you are handed off from approach control, who sequences you with other traffic, to the tower, which controls takeoff and landing.
This airspace would have been in that purview.
Flying an airliner involves trust in these guys, and getting bopped within a few miles of the runway is completely unacceptable.
I'm not aware that the helo guy was disregarding ATC, but I am immediately reminded of something an instructor told me when going through basic Navy jet training.
He said that at one time or another, a controller will try to kill you, and that happened a few times over a 40 year career flying off carriers and doing the airline thing.
This Reagan thing is screwed up airspace, and if there is a systemic problem, it needs to fixed.
But, one way or another, those two aircraft should not have met, and that is an ATC thing, unless there was a direct disregard from whoever was flying them.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
My thoughts wander to why is the military conducting a "training exercise" in heavy trafficked civilian air space? And is "training mission" really the standard cover story for not revealing a sensitive operational mission?
This investigation is going to require cooperation from civilian aviation and military authorities and organizations so don't bet on getting 100% of the facts.
They weren't conducting a training exercise.
They call all standard flights "training missions, " because they are.
Nothing unusual about this.
Cooperation among military and civilian aviation folks is standard and thorough.
Nothing secret about any of this.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, IrishLass said:
I get my headlines there too! They're always on it. I had TONS of interesting info on this crash in the early morning hours.
Are you a pilot?
Si.
-
1
-
-
Ya, the Reagan area is really congested, but corridors are in place to prevent traffic conflicts.
I'm not familiar with what helo operations are in place to de-conflict, but having a helo operating at the same time on the approach path to runway 33 is nuts.
Helo ops from the Pentagon and other stuff up and down the river are very normal, but well below departures, .
The entire airport is a bit weird.
When the Pres leaves the WH on Marine 1 on his way to Andrews or back or wherever, they stop all takeoffs and landings at Reagan.
Takes about 20 mins.
Landing to the south, because you fly very close to the WH, (that area is called prohibited area 56), you have to do a series of turns over the river and only get the the runway centerline very close to touchdown. Quite sporty in a 757, which is the largest airplane allowed to land there.
Taking off to the north, you have to do an immediate left turn to avoid it.
The place has other quirks.
For instance, the employee parking lot is on the south end of the airport, on the river.
To scare away birds, they have an audio of predatory birds and distressed birds, along with shotgun sounds that plays in a loop all day from that parking lot.
Know what they have at the north end of the airport?
An area which is a bird sanctuary.
Does that make sense to anyone not in the Federal Gov?
-
1
-
2
-
Trump fires heads of TSA, Coast Guard and guts key aviation safety advisory committee
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
For those not familiar with this industry, this is quite misleading.
There are scores of safety groups in both the industry and the FAA, and constant contact between them.
Lots of them.