There's absolutely nothing suspicious about a family that doesn't want to be confronted by all the garbage the internet will associate with her name in the aftermath of this high profile crash.
When your direftly involved in the deaths of 67 people, you dont just get to choose anonymity. Those familys that lost loves ones and the traveling public deserve all the details and total transparency. Especially about the person that was at the controls who caused the accident. No matter what, the information will come out eventually. This is the worst aviation accident in the US since 2001. I dont see any version of this where this persons identity stays a secret.
You just confirmed the very reason why a family would request anonymity with your statement “Especially about the person that was at the controls who caused the accident.”
The probable cause and findings which contributed to this accident hasn’t been stated or published by the authorities delegated(NTSB)to investigate this crash and won’t be for awhile longer. You have an opinion but it isn’t factual as of yet.
The helicopter was hundreds of feet off altitude and veered directly into a jet that had right of way and was on final, that it had reported it had in sight multiple times. I dont need to wait a year for the ntsb to state the helicopter was at fault. That is extreamly evident. Now obviously there are still more things that need to be assessed, eg atc staffing, and a review of these helicopter lanes, and a Review of overall traffic levels in that airspace aswell, and why the crj crew werent more cautious when thier tcas advised them of traffic (i know RAs are disabled below 1000, but the tcas still shows traffic and altitudes aswell as provides TAs). But regardless, we know the final failure in the systen that lead to this accident was the helicopter and pilot error.
And id just like to point out the other two flight crew were reported right away, and it is the STANDARD operating procedure of the military to disclose the names of lost military lives in peace time within 24 hours. As in the case of the other two pilots. Not disclosing this pilots identity is suspicious because it is counter to extablished military procedure. And you are using my suspicion of this pilot as a way of justifying the decision to hide her identity. When in reality the ENTIRE reason i am so suspicious is exactly because of their decision to hide her identity. If shes innocent and everything is above the board then there is nothing to be concerned about, give tranpacency to people! Conspiracy theories and misinformation spawn when the truth is covered up and accounabitly is not taken.
Tolip wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:48 pm
Not disclosing this pilots identity is suspicious because it is counter to extablished military procedure. And you are using my suspicion of this pilot as a way of justifying the decision to hide her identity. When in reality the ENTIRE reason i am so suspicious is exactly because of their decision to hide her identity.
There's nothing suspicious about this case, at all. The family of the deceased has requested that her identify not be made public, which is well within their right to do so.
Consider the batshit crazy political nature of the discussion of this accident (and yes, it was an accident) as a perfectly valid reason to request privacy from the family. It has nothing to do with "fault" - and everything to do with the fact that the President of the United States has claimed, without any shred of proof, that this crash was caused by so-called "diversity and inclusion" policies. Not to mention the fact that certain segments are absolutely out of line salivating at the fact that this was a "woman at the controls" - as though sex somehow played a role. It's about as ridiculous as the unhinged rant about the mentally disabled, drug addicts or dwarves, being handed the reigns at control towers across the US.
This was a tragic accident, likely caused by the Blackhawk crew being off route and above published altitude - the contributing factors may have something to do with loss of situational awareness in a night VFR environment due to NVG use, or some other combination of factors in a high density traffic environment.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:13 am
The thing about the US ATC is that they tend to simplify things a lot. How could they instruct the helicopter to pass behind AA at night, the helicopter crew could've thought that the traffic in question has passed already, it's quite a busy airspace.
Huh? Canadian ATC will also tell you to pass behind aircraft all the time. There’s nothing vague about it.
They point out the traffic twice, you confirm you see them twice, so they tell you to pass behind them
If that’s not clear enough? What else do you want them to do?
It’s also much easier to see traffic at night. They have colour coded nav lights, beacon, landing lights. on a dark background.
Try spotting a white airplane with bright clouds and sunlight behind them on a clear day.
Tolip wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:48 pm
The helicopter was hundreds of feet off altitude
If it was hundreds of feet off altitude there would have been no collision...since the helicopter was supposed to be at 200' and the last data point from the CRJ was 350' ie less than 'hundreds of feet'.
I saw an article today that had the tracks from ADS-B Exchange mapped on Google Earth or similar - the helicopter went from 200' to 300', but was back down at 200' at the last data point. The CRJ's last data point was 350'. Neither data point was where their tracks converged. So maybe the helicopter had gone back up, but at the time of the collision it may have also been back where it was supposed to be at 200'. Hopefully they recover the recorder from the Black Hawk.
Edit: I have since seen photos of the radar feed in a couple articles. It appears the helicopter was at 200' four seconds before the collision then climbed to 300' two seconds before the collision as the CRJ descended to 300'. A commenter suggested it may have been an attempt to avoid collision that late, and had some prior collisions cited where pilots thought they were going to collide but the collision avoidance maneuver resulted in a collision that otherwise would have just been a very close call.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by TailwheelPilot on Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:13 am
The thing about the US ATC is that they tend to simplify things a lot. How could they instruct the helicopter to pass behind AA at night, the helicopter crew could've thought that the traffic in question has passed already, it's quite a busy airspace.
Huh? Canadian ATC will also tell you to pass behind aircraft all the time. There’s nothing vague about it.
They point out the traffic twice, you confirm you see them twice, so they tell you to pass behind them
If that’s not clear enough? What else do you want them to do?
It’s also much easier to see traffic at night. They have colour coded nav lights, beacon, landing lights. on a dark background.
Try spotting a white airplane with bright clouds and sunlight behind them on a clear day.
((Point out traffic twice)) what is this, unheard of!!!
It's easier to spot a landing light at night, YES, But are you looking at the right one??? There could be 3,4,5,or more landing lights shining at you out there!
What i'm getting at is that in the US ATC throws the caution message at you to deal with it, they don't have a choice because it's so busy, in other parts of the world both traffic have to confirm seing each other for this plan to take place.
Have you even flown in a straight and level path at 200ft AGL at night? I have not but i'm pretty sure it's pretty drainig on your concentration, i can only imagine the tunnel effect.
Sadely, most aviation regulations are written in blood.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
((Point out traffic twice)) what is this, unheard of!!!
I'm not saying it's procedure. It's the scenario that happened. If you listen to the audio, the traffic was pointed out in 2 instances.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
It's easier to spot a landing light at night, YES, But are you looking at the right one??? There could be 3,4,5,or more landing lights shining at you out there!
And?
The point is, you see all traffic better at night. You could just as easily make the mistake of looking at the wrong plane during the day.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
What i'm getting at is that in the US ATC throws the caution message at you to deal with it, they don't have a choice because it's so busy, in other parts of the world both traffic have to confirm seing each other for this plan to take place.
What are you talking about? ATC in Canada will also just ask you if you see the traffic, and then instruct you to go pass behind.
Heli PIC already accepted responsibility for visual separation and he received evasive instructions when he got close. What else are you asking ATC to do on top of that? Magically remote control your plane or something?
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
Have you even flown in a straight and level path at 200ft AGL at night? I have not but i'm pretty sure it's pretty drainig on your concentration, i can only imagine the tunnel effect.
These are normal heli altitudes. But why they would be flying anywhere near the short final of the active...that's concerning. You just can't blame the traffic controllers if there are these questionable heli VFR procedures around that busy airport.
An accident shouldn’t ever happen because someone was off by 100 feet in their altitude. Tells me something much bigger is very wrong.
WSJ
More than 700 planes had already taken off and landed at Reagan National Airport on Wednesday when American Airlines flight 5342 approached it through one of the nation’s most congested air corridors.
Shortly before 9 p.m., the passenger jet collided in a fireball with an Army Black Hawk helicopter on a routine training mission, leaving no survivors.
As officials scramble to determine the cause of the crash, the catastrophe is drawing new attention to longstanding safety warnings about the increasingly busy airspace above the nation’s capital.
Reagan sits on just 733 acres of land along the Potomac River, across from downtown Washington and the military’s Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. Space is so tight that federal regulators dole out takeoff and landing rights.
The airport’s convenience and close proximity to the Capitol have made it irresistible to Washington’s politicians. Over the years, lawmakers have lobbied to open access and add more flights, often to make quick jaunts to their home states easier. Last year, after a fierce debate over whether the airport could absorb more flights, Congress authorized more, which were awarded to five airlines proposing to fly to San Antonio, San Diego, Seattle, Las Vegas and San Francisco.
Adding to the crowded airspace are helicopters that crisscross the Potomac every day, many of them military flights from the Pentagon and other government agencies ferrying officials or other passengers and cargo around Washington.
Officials and commercial and military pilots have warned that the airspace leaves little margin for error.
“We’re dealing with an extraordinarily complex airspace system that has been complicated even worse by the addition of flights to National Airport,” said Keith Meurlin, a retired Air Force major general and head of the Washington Airports Task Force. “At what point is enough enough?”
Pilots have been complaining for decades about the presence of military and other aircraft around Reagan.
I cannot imagine what business is so pressing that these helicopters are allowed to cross the path of airliners carrying hundreds of people!” one pilot wrote in a 2013 report filed to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, or ASRS, after a near-collision with a helicopter. “What would normally be alarming at any other airport in the country has become commonplace at DCA.”
In his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday, Army secretary nominee Daniel Driscoll referred to the disaster as “an accident that seems to be preventable,” adding that the Pentagon may need to rethink its training flights around an “airport like Reagan.”
A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found that 88,000 helicopter flights took place within 50 miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport from 2017 through 2019. About 37% of those flights were conducted by the military, the report said.
The Black Hawk involved in the midair collision was carrying three Army aviators on a training mission, according to Pentagon officials. The pilot and instructor had a combined 1,500 hours of flight time between them, earning many of those hours in the very corridor they were flying on Wednesday night.
A third Army pilot on board was getting an annual check ride to determine whether he or she could keep flying the aircraft, according to the Army, which hasn’t identified the service members.
Doug Rice, a former American Airlines captain who landed many times at Reagan National, said helicopters in that airspace are restricted to flying 200 feet above the ground. On Wednesday, the plane and the military helicopter collided about 400 feet in the air.
The helicopter “was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said Rice. “The regional jet was doing what it was supposed to do.”
Rice said he believed the flight from Wichita was correct on its landing approach. The pilots of the regional jet, he said, might not have seen the helicopter due to backlighting, and the aircraft’s collision-avoidance system would have less functionality under 700 feet. The soldiers flying the Black Hawk might have spotted the wrong plane, Rice continued, or there may have been some mechanical error with the helicopter.
Whatever the reason, Rice said, the passengers, crew and pilots on the American Airlines flight “got put in a box, and it wasn’t their fault.”
Over the years, the number of such flights has grown. The helicopter involved in the crash belonged to the 12th Aviation Battalion out of Fort Belvoir in Virginia, which is responsible for flying generals, cabinet secretaries, congressmen and VIP visitors to Washington at least once a day.
Army pilots have been involved in a number of air mishaps over the past year, including some involving Black Hawks. In fiscal year 2024, at least nine troops, one contractor and one civilian died in collisions involving Army aircraft, according to a January 2025 report.
Last April, one pilot reported coming dangerously close to a military helicopter while coming in to land. “Suggestion: Need to have better separation for DCA traffic on the river visual to the helicopter traffic that is flying up and down the river,” the pilot wrote.
Such warnings are nothing new. “Why does the tower allow such nonsense by the military in such a critical area?” wrote another pilot in 2006, according to records reviewed by the Journal. “This is a safety issue, and needs to be fixed.”
But Washington power brokers clamored to add routes. Some cities far from Washington were largely shut out, following a 1960s-era rule that limited how far planes could travel from then-National Airport. In turn, long-haul flights were shifted to newly built Dulles International Airport farther from the city, although exceptions have been made over the years.
The late Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), for instance, pushed for a nonstop flight from Reagan to Phoenix, though he personally avoided flying it to avoid the appearance he had pursued the flight for his own convenience.
Reagan National was designed for about 15 million passengers a year, but by 2023 its volume has grown to more than 25 million a year, and a daily average of 820 takeoffs and landings. To increase the number of flights, there was a steady “chipping away” at a Transportation Department rule that prohibited airlines from flying from Reagan to destinations beyond 1,250 miles, said Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.).
While this led to complaints about the increasing number of flight delays, there were underlying safety concerns. “I’m thankful that there’s no loss of life, but it’s just plain unacceptable,” Warner said on the Senate floor in April, one day after a near miss between two flights when the Southwest and JetBlue planes nearly ran into each other as they crossed over the same runway.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) beseeched his colleagues last April to stop adding more flights to the area.
“Some members of Congress view this package as an opportunity to jam even more planes for their own personal convenience into a runway at DCA that is already overburdened and can’t handle extra planes,” Kaine said, referring to Reagan National by its airport code. “The gamble is exactly the opposite of improving public safety.”
Despite the pleas of Kaine and Warner, the Senate authorized the FAA to increase flights by as many as 10 per day.
Reinhard wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 4:51 pm
The vast majority of crashes had male pilots but it's the women who can't fly am I right?
Bit of a logical fallacy since the pilot profession is male dominated, it stands to reason the majority of the crashes would involve male pilots!
In order to determine if woman can’t fly as you say, you would need to determine the ratio of female to male pilots and then the ratio of accidents with female pilots versus male pilots!
Since the amount of female pilots entering the industry has been increasing over the years, you would need to do the complete breakdown on an annual basis, seems like a big task to me.
As for the female pilots who has now been identified, she seemed to be a highly competent pilot by any measure, top 20% of all her colleagues is something I read. They did not say, top 20% of her female colleagues and is how all pilots should be measured, you’re either a good pilot or not regardless of gender, etc.
One would think that they could have a procedure for a helicopter to hover briefly when an aircraft is on final and then pass behind it(although there are wake turbulence issues - not sure how that affects helicopters).
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Sat Feb 01, 2025 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I deleted some off-topic posts. All three of the helicopter crew have been officially identified. This thread is about the accident, so let's try to keep it on topic.
Sulako wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 7:20 pm
I deleted some off-topic posts. All three of the helicopter crew have been officially identified. This thread is about the accident, so let's try to keep it on topic.
Nothing i posted was off topic offensive or against community guidlines. You personally didnt like my posts and chose to remove them. Your a rotten moderater that is misusing your authority and purposfully censoring this thread, youve removed other comments for no reason either, just because they were critical of the experience of tbe military aircraft.
You can talk about the accident. Just don't mention anything about the crew's experience, skill, level of currency, or other possible contributing factors. That's off topic and will result in your post being deleted by a moderator.
atc_is_god wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:21 pm
Nothing wrong with ATC‘s actions and execution here, from one who knows.
Routing en route aircraft at glideslope height within the last mile of approach to a runway is an insane airspace structure approach though.
What's the minimum required distance if an aircraft says they'll maintain visual separation? And if there is such a minimum distance and it's getting busted, is ATC not supposed to intervene in class B airspace?
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
((Point out traffic twice)) what is this, unheard of!!!
I'm not saying it's procedure. It's the scenario that happened. If you listen to the audio, the traffic was pointed out in 2 instances.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
It's easier to spot a landing light at night, YES, But are you looking at the right one??? There could be 3,4,5,or more landing lights shining at you out there!
And?
The point is, you see all traffic better at night. You could just as easily make the mistake of looking at the wrong plane during the day.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
What i'm getting at is that in the US ATC throws the caution message at you to deal with it, they don't have a choice because it's so busy, in other parts of the world both traffic have to confirm seing each other for this plan to take place.
What are you talking about? ATC in Canada will also just ask you if you see the traffic, and then instruct you to go pass behind.
Heli PIC already accepted responsibility for visual separation and he received evasive instructions when he got close. What else are you asking ATC to do on top of that? Magically remote control your plane or something?
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
Have you even flown in a straight and level path at 200ft AGL at night? I have not but i'm pretty sure it's pretty drainig on your concentration, i can only imagine the tunnel effect.
These are normal heli altitudes. But why they would be flying anywhere near the short final of the active...that's concerning. You just can't blame the traffic controllers if there are these questionable heli VFR procedures around that busy airport.
Hey OneYonge, If my comments looked like i'm pointing fingers at someone then i apologize, i would never be judgemental towards anyone from the confort of my desk.
My point is that US ATC are pretty relaxed in some instances which is not bad and i do like it actually, They do it coz it's the only way to get all that traffic across, but you can only strech it to a certain limit.
Hope that clarifies things.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
((Point out traffic twice)) what is this, unheard of!!!
I'm not saying it's procedure. It's the scenario that happened. If you listen to the audio, the traffic was pointed out in 2 instances.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
It's easier to spot a landing light at night, YES, But are you looking at the right one??? There could be 3,4,5,or more landing lights shining at you out there!
And?
The point is, you see all traffic better at night. You could just as easily make the mistake of looking at the wrong plane during the day.
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
What i'm getting at is that in the US ATC throws the caution message at you to deal with it, they don't have a choice because it's so busy, in other parts of the world both traffic have to confirm seing each other for this plan to take place.
What are you talking about? ATC in Canada will also just ask you if you see the traffic, and then instruct you to go pass behind.
Heli PIC already accepted responsibility for visual separation and he received evasive instructions when he got close. What else are you asking ATC to do on top of that? Magically remote control your plane or something?
canadianfly wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:29 am
Have you even flown in a straight and level path at 200ft AGL at night? I have not but i'm pretty sure it's pretty drainig on your concentration, i can only imagine the tunnel effect.
These are normal heli altitudes. But why they would be flying anywhere near the short final of the active...that's concerning. You just can't blame the traffic controllers if there are these questionable heli VFR procedures around that busy airport.
Hey OneYonge, If my comments looked like i'm pointing fingers at someone then i apologize, i would never be judgemental towards anyone from the confort of my desk.
My point is that US ATC are pretty relaxed in some instances which is not bad and i do like it actually, They do it coz it's the only way to get all that traffic across, but you can only strech it to a certain limit.
Hope that clarifies things.
It’s not the only way to get the traffic in. I’ve been to plenty of busy airports in Europe and they aren’t constantly changing runways and giving everyone night visual approaches. From an outsiders view, the issue with the American ATC system is there is no system. They rely 100% on the talent of their controllers.
atc_is_god wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:21 pm
Nothing wrong with ATC‘s actions and execution here, from one who knows.
Routing en route aircraft at glideslope height within the last mile of approach to a runway is an insane airspace structure approach though.
ATC is certainly culpable here.
You can’t have a system which pushes pilots to accept minimal visual separation at night — and only one of the 2 aircraft involved— and then virtually ignore the situation as it starts going wrong. No corrective action or even a specific location callout of the target given by ATC. Brutal.
Its Class B airspace less than 1 mile from the threshold and ATC doesn’t maintain positive control?
Insanity. But its all about shedding liability.
I can see the investigation interview now: “the helicopter accepted visual separation. Not my problem as controller anymore. Interview over”.
I’ll now await the peanut gallery to tell me I don’t understand , as a weekend warrior.
atc_is_god wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:21 pm
Nothing wrong with ATC‘s actions and execution here, from one who knows.
Routing en route aircraft at glideslope height within the last mile of approach to a runway is an insane airspace structure approach though.
ATC is certainly culpable here.
You can’t have a system which pushes pilots to accept minimal visual separation at night — and only one of the 2 aircraft involved— and then virtually ignore the situation as it starts going wrong. No corrective action or even a specific location callout of the target given by ATC. Brutal.
Its Class B airspace less than 1 mile from the threshold and ATC doesn’t maintain positive control?
Insanity. But its all about shedding liability.
I can see the investigation interview now: “the helicopter accepted visual separation. Not my problem as controller anymore. Interview over”.
I’ll now await the peanut gallery to tell me I don’t understand , as a weekend warrior.
How about this rookie, you’re NOT wrong! How was the RJ crew not told to look for this helicopter traffic(details to be confirmed, as I haven’t listened to any audio)
They are saying this morning the altitude readout(assuming from ADS-B) of the RJ was 325’ and the Blackhawk was 200’ at the time of the collision.
I wonder if it ever became apparent to the controller that the Blackhawk was looking at the wrong aircraft, obviously we need to wait for the report as many details are missing!
atc_is_god wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:21 pm
Nothing wrong with ATC‘s actions and execution here, from one who knows.
Routing en route aircraft at glideslope height within the last mile of approach to a runway is an insane airspace structure approach though.
ATC is certainly culpable here.
You can’t have a system which pushes pilots to accept minimal visual separation at night — and only one of the 2 aircraft involved— and then virtually ignore the situation as it starts going wrong. No corrective action or even a specific location callout of the target given by ATC. Brutal.
Its Class B airspace less than 1 mile from the threshold and ATC doesn’t maintain positive control?
Insanity. But its all about shedding liability.
I can see the investigation interview now: “the helicopter accepted visual separation. Not my problem as controller anymore. Interview over”.
I’ll now await the peanut gallery to tell me I don’t understand , as a weekend warrior.
How about this rookie, you’re NOT wrong! How was the RJ crew not told to look for this helicopter traffic(details to be confirmed, as I haven’t listened to any audio)
They are saying this morning the altitude readout(assuming from ADS-B) of the RJ was 325’ and the Blackhawk was 200’ at the time of the collision.
I wonder if it ever became apparent to the controller that the Blackhawk was looking at the wrong aircraft, obviously we need to wait for the report as many details are missing!
They were on 2 different frequencies. Total shitshow.
And everyone is blaming the blackhawk pilot for deviating by 100 feet! — right on the deck at night — while staring at the wrong aircraft. I’ve never flown at 200 feet at night. Sounds kinda demanding by itself.
You all probably have 10,000 times my TT. And you’re all wrong.
Did even once ATC point out exact bearing and altitude of the RJ to the Blackhawk?
Twice he says “do you see the RJ”. There are multiple planes in trail. WTF?
What is this, my uncontrolled field in Burlington?
