Plane crash At Reagan National

[jmp1]

Unless she is the reason the other 66 are dead.

The question I have is this....she may have been on the stick but the DPE should have been able to assume control before this happened....correct?? DPE'S have a way of telling you your about to screw the pooch before it happens....my experience anyway.
(non mil)
And since the Blackhawk is a crewed aircraft she isn't the only one that fucked up.
Not really sticking up for her....just posing the question.
Busting an airspace limit is a
big deal in my little sliver of aviation .....check pilot should have seen it coming.

ETA: DPE is designated pilot examiner....not sure what the mil version is called.

 

[kl3309]

The question I have is this....she may have been on the stick but the DPE should have been able to assume control before this happened....correct?? DPE'S have a way of telling you your about to screw the pooch before it happens....my experience anyway.
(non mil)
And since the Blackhawk is a crewed aircraft she isn't the only one that fucked up.
Not really sticking up for her....just posing the question.
Busting an airspace limit is a
big deal in my little sliver of aviation .....check pilot should have seen it coming.

ETA: DPE is designated pilot examiner....not sure what the mil version is called.

Maybe the 2nd pilot (a CWO2) wasn't feeling the blacklisting he was going to get for "instructing" the (apparently) experienced ranking-officer lesbian female pilot. Yeah, military be that way sometimes.

 

[jimsair]

So, all ye who are real pilots here. Dumb questions:

1) So they "cannot figure the altitude discrepancy" is part of the issue. The radar showing the altitude at 200 I guess could be in error, but what's the cycle time for that radar? Does it go around @ 1Hz, faster? Or is it an omni-directional antenna?

2) Could this be a problem with the pilots in the helo not setting the proper Kollsman? Or, they set it but their barometric pressure was way off due to faulty equipment at the post from where the departed? If it's either one of these two, these are serious issues in training and maintenance. Fault baro at post COULD also explain why there were other flights that week where their was apparent encroachment in the flight path of a landing A/C.

Educate me here....

I don’t think it was an incorrect altimeter setting by the Blackhawk. They were at the correct altitude 20seconds before the collision.

The Blackhawk being high was a factor, but even if they were <200 feet on ROUTE 4 they still would have conflicted with the CRJ landing on RWY 33. This is why DCA Twr instructed the Blackhawk to “maintain visual seperation”. Why the Blackhawk did not is the million dollar question. My guess is the traffic that PAT25 was referencing was not the CRJ, but another aircraft on final for Rwy 1.

Pilots mistaking the wrong aircraft for the correct aircraft is the cause of scores of collisions every year. Generally they are small general aviation accidents that don’t get much press. Seeing other airplanes is harder than you think. Add to that , it was night time and low level. Like I said before…. Shit works until it doesn’t.

 

[BytorJr]

He points out the thing I was pretty sure they must have is the RALT….that would definitely have told them they had broken altitude assuming it wasn’t malfunctioning. Between GPS/INS, Baro, and RALT this seems again, to be a complete cluster of how to train in one of the tightest air corridors in the country.

 

[UKDslayer]

The question I have is this....she may have been on the stick but the DPE should have been able to assume control before this happened....correct?? DPE'S have a way of telling you your about to screw the pooch before it happens....my experience anyway.
(non mil)
And since the Blackhawk is a crewed aircraft she isn't the only one that fucked up.
Not really sticking up for her....just posing the question.
Busting an airspace limit is a
big deal in my little sliver of aviation .....check pilot should have seen it coming.

ETA: DPE is designated pilot examiner....not sure what the mil version is called.

Not only the DPE but the ATC could have recognized the hesitation in ID of craft, could have denied VFR or forced a different route.

 

[jmp1]

Maybe the 2nd pilot (a CWO2) wasn't feeling the blacklisting he was going to get for "instructing" the (apparently) experienced ranking-officer lesbian female pilot. Yeah, military be that way sometimes.

I could see that happening....but at some point, self preservation comes in. It's been pointed out before but the altitude bust wasn't the only f'up. If they'd been on the east bank of the river as the route is published they would have had more separation to play with based on the rwy 33 approach. Seems that way in my head anyway. I follow this crash stuff pretty closely. Being a fairly new pilot, I think there's lots of learning to be had from dissecting these events.

 

[Detroit_1]

 

[BScore]

Could someone that is a current or past military helicopter pilot talk about how much average annual flight time pilots should be logging?
She had less than 500 hrs in almost 6 years. Thats not much time.

Figured somebody else would get this one but whatever, here goes. Assuming she graduated flight school in 2019, probably left there with 130-140 hours (I think, its been a couple decades for me). Usually, newly graduated warrant and commissioned officers go to flight companies where they are flight activity category (FAC) 1 aviators, line pilots. This means (for her as a Blackhawk pilot) that she would be required to fly 96 hours a year as a minimum to remain qualified. There are a lot of things I’m leaving out that don’t really pertain to your question so please don’t throw any APART bs at me in the comments. The real question is her “assignment” as a white house aide. I think she spent 4 years there. I don’t have any idea what that all entails for commissioned officers, how they get that gig or what it does to their flight status. As pilots (mostly O-types) move on to other jobs, they become FAC 2 or FAC 3 aviators and have much reduced flight hour minimums. So, I heard she had 450ish total hours, kinda low assuming 6 years in a flight company. What flight status was she in as a white house aid…. No idea. All that said, the Hawk was off course (middle of the river, not hugging the east bank - never been to DC, don’t know how wide that river is), it was between 100 - 150 feet higher than the highest allowed altitude for that section of the helo route and the Pilot in Command (performing Instructor Pilot duties I think) told the tower controller that they (the Blackhawk) would maintain visual separation twice.

 

[beetroot]

It’s hilarious we can’t have an obvious fuck up without some grand conspiracy anymore. The ones really in charge are doing a great job.

Some people wouldn't know Swiss Cheese if it slapped them in the face.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Is target fixation a thing in aviaton like it is in driving a car or riding a motorcycle?

Look at something and you drift towards it. Panic and look at it and you go right into it?

Just wondering…. Seems like a human nature thing that you would want to somehow train out of pilots.

It’s a big thing in motorcycle instructing… or used to be. Look where you want to go, because if you look elsewhere it target fixate… that’s where you will end up. And it’s bad when it’s a ditch or bridge abutment.

Sirhr

 

[BytorJr]

Is target fixation a thing in aviaton like it is in driving a car or riding a motorcycle?

Look at something and you drift towards it. Panic and look at it and you go right into it?

Just wondering…. Seems like a human nature thing that you would want to somehow train out of pilots.

It’s a big thing in motorcycle instructing… or used to be. Look where you want to go, because if you look elsewhere it target fixate… that’s where you will end up. And it’s bad when it’s a ditch or bridge abutment.

Sirhr

Big thing teaching automobile students on the race track as well. First thing I was taught (by Dad) when I was learning to drive and really hammered in when I started driving on the track before becoming an instructor. One of tricks was for students who look down is to get some white shoe polish (liquid stuff) and put a line on their windshield to make them conscious. One should be looking to the next turn or the turn after...if you're looking at the turn your in (as in fixated) you're going to crash or get passed. Sure, you look at your points but always focus uproad.

I would imagine if one is on instruments the head is down a lot more than normal which really means the instructor pilot and the chief should have been scanning the sky. Devoid of a second chief in this case, if both pilots had head in instruments, the chief may have been looking out the wrong window.

The video link above also mentions that because it was a proficiency exam, the instructor may have let her make the error to see if she could correct it. That's fine and dandy as long as one is in airspace with no traffic and not close to the ground. Seems like a case at this point of multiple problems all combined at once point in time which is seems generally how these things happen.

Certainly when I was instructing on the track I'd let the studen know they were getting very close to the limit and of course, good students listened and the others well...spun and were written up for not listening and couldn't advance at all that weekend. I had one idiot spin on the warm up lap...despite me harping on him for the first 70% of the course to slow down and properly warm his tires. Missed the wall by about 1.5-2 feet. Of course, he could do nothing but tell me how I was wrong and his son was NASA racer and by inference he knew more about his car than I did...and about 6 seconds later...the spin. To say we clipped his wings after that was an understatement. I think he had to sit out for the rest of the morning and they put the chief instructor in with him.

 

[aviumvenator]

Can you post this video without having to go though X?

 

[jimsair]

I could see that happening....but at some point, self preservation comes in. It's been pointed out before but the altitude bust wasn't the only f'up. If they'd been on the east bank of the river as the route is published they would have had more separation to play with based on the rwy 33 approach. Seems that way in my head anyway. I follow this crash stuff pretty closely. Being a fairly new pilot, I think there's lots of learning to be had from dissecting these events.

ROUTE 4 is not necessarily "over the east bank of the river". It's over the river.

 

[hankpac]

Nothing being said about the “ Return To Base” call?
Only seen one video of that.

 

[pucker]

Because they do this everyday all day. 77k helo ops in the past few years. It’s no stranger.

“The workload of the controller is the only thing to lose which is easily addressed”?? By not approving visual separation Class B separation comes into play along with wake turb if it applies. We run Class B ops all the time with VFRs (whether it be military, FBI, DEA, Border, etc.) they do not want to be moved off station or off route every 3-4miles in trail of airliners blasting in.. they wouldn’t be able to get anything done. We call the traffic, they request visual, we say visual separation approved. “Quickly pass responsibility, particularly if they’re overwhelmed” ?? LOL!!

We can all sit here and Monday quarter back this thing from the cheap seats.. but the fact of the matter is 67 souls lost their life and the NTSB will come out with their preliminary sayings in 30 days or so.

My thoughts weren't intended as an assault on all ATC. Genuinely appreciate the (often) thankless work of your profession.

I think we agree that the reason visual sep is approved is to expedite the flight of the VFR traffic. We just disagree as to whether that's worth the risk AT NIGHT, at a busy airport / city, with aircraft that aren't talking to each other.

That doesn't mean human error wasn't undoubtedly a major contributing factor (which I already acknowledged)... and we all know that is a selection & training process that should be based purely on merit. But stopping there is short-sighted.

My opinion on night visual sep procedure legitimacy comes from seeing it go sideways more than once...and so it was the first thing that struck me when I saw this mishap. It's a known risk, but it's accepted for some reason(s). Questioning those reasons (especially after people die) is how procedures improve. "We do it all the time" and "it was purely human error" is counter to that improvement.

 

[pucker]

I could see that happening....but at some point, self preservation comes in. It's been pointed out before but the altitude bust wasn't the only f'up. If they'd been on the east bank of the river as the route is published they would have had more separation to play with based on the rwy 33 approach. Seems that way in my head anyway. I follow this crash stuff pretty closely. Being a fairly new pilot, I think there's lots of learning to be had from dissecting these events.

Yes, the CWO might give her some chance to correct herself (on the altitude...not flying head on into the wrong interval), but he would say something (or take the controls if heinous) before it became dangerous.

Again, once they're told to "fly behind", they're no longer flying the published VFR route per se...they're putting their helo in time/space behind their interval. Problem is, that only works if they’re looking at the correct set of lights. Multiple aircraft, stars, even ground lights (particularly for low-flying aircraft) can all be convincing... and there's no shortage of lights in that area.

As mentioned, BOTH pilots made the same error. They wouldn't purposely (or flippantly) bust the route ceiling. Bottom line, their scan broke down (not seeing the alt error) for some reason...and they were looking at the wrong aircraft.

 

[BScore]

I’m sure the investigators have the audio data from the Hawk. Minus the rotor, acft looked half intact in one picture I saw. That audio should paint a pretty good picture of what was going on in that cockpit.