American Airlines collision with Blackhawk helicopter. Crashes into Potomac River

[BurnieM]

Around the world aviation safety authorities take a long time to confirm even the basic facts. Often this is over a year.

This is the main reason so much discussion and conjecture occur.

 

Some of this discussion is off or even completely wrong but some of it is not.

As long as we all operate with high level filters on, review the source of each piece of info and apply logic to how it all fits together I believe the benefit (safety lessons much earlier) is worth it.

 

Or offical safety bodys could release what they know much earlier.

 

[facthunter]

The more facts you have the better your OPINION will be,  and you do need "AVIATION expertise" to interpret the FACTS. in  aviation matters.  Nev

[red750]

MSN

WWW.MSN.COM

 

Typical Trump response above. 

 

I haven't been through all the detail reported here, but could it be as simple as the wrong QNH set on the helicopter that had it at the wrong altitude?

[facthunter]

I wouldn't think so.  Nev

[danny_galaga]

35 minutes ago, red750 said:

MSN

WWW.MSN.COM

 

Typical Trump response above. 

 

I haven't been through all the detail reported here, but could it be as simple as the wrong QNH set on the helicopter that had it at the wrong altitude?

Crossed my mind too. Not necessarily incorrectly set, but out of calibration. Cracked static line or something.

[onetrack]

I'll wager that NVG's played a large part in the crew errors leading to this disaster - and the investigators are almost certainly intent on trying to determine whether they were being worn or not.

The training was a simulated night "escape" for VIPS under a simulated major U.S. leadership attack, such as the 911 scenario.

 

Why Are D.C. Plane Crash Investigators Focused on Night-Vision Goggles? - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

Investigators have yet to determine whether the crew of an Army helicopter was wearing the devices when the Black Hawk crashed into a civilian airliner last week.

 

[red750]

Black Hawk helicopter's shocking aviation blunder moments before crashing into plane in DC is confirmed in new NTSB report | Daily Mail Online

WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK

---

Questions had been raised about how the collision - which killed all 67 people involved - occurred, given pilots follow strict protocol about the altitudes they can safely reach.

 

[aro]

This accident really has to be blamed on whoever decided that helicopters flying at 200' below aircraft at 300' on approach to land was OK. The second factor was whoever decided that visual separation at night between aircraft in that situation was OK.

 

With those factors in play it was just a matter of time and luck before this accident happened.

[red750]

https://nypost.com/2025/02/07/us-news/black-hawk-helicopter-had-important-safety-system-turned-off-during-collision-with-american-airlines-jet-senator-says/

 

[danny_galaga]

Just read that too. Why turn off ads-b on a training flight? Something you'd think you'd want in a crowded airspace.

[facthunter]

THAT Operation was NOT an Ordinary Training flight.   Nev

[IBob]

I think the ADS-B is a side issue: flying in that situation you would want your eyes mostly outside. And from what we have so far, it looks as though the helo may have transitioned fromapprox 200 to approx 300 late in the piece.
I have wondered whether flight training would benefit from some deliberate focus on potential high risk collision points, explaining them to the student.
For instance, some years ago I was almost taken out by someone wrongly located and a bit low while doing a standard overhead rejoin. I was taking off. So in that instance the risk was at the crossover point between traffic taking off and traffic crossing the strip. Had that risk been emphasised in training, we would all be aware of the need to cross with adequate height, and in an appropriate place.
Similarly, I have learnt to be wary of crossing the flight path of potential outgoing traffic for many miles out, where they may still be in a hard climb, in our case in line with the strip due to it's orientation.
And a third example: a very good look downwind on the base leg and before turning final. Twice I have seen aircraft coming straight in cross in front of traffic on late base leg, and both times in complete radio silence.
Eventually (hopefully) we may work all these things out for ourselves. But why not point them out during training?
And while it's easy to be smart after the event......if the standard helo briefing had included 'under no circumstances exceed the maximum height, doing so will bring you directly into the path of airport traffic'..........maybe all those folk would still be walking around today.

[aro]

29 minutes ago, IBob said:

And while it's easy to be smart after the event......if the standard helo briefing had included 'under no circumstances exceed the maximum height, doing so will bring you directly into the path of airport traffic'..........maybe all those folk would still be walking around today.

Do you really think they flew this flight without an adequate briefing?? 100+ knots, 200 feet, at night near a busy airport?

 

Military flying can be dangerous by necessity and people are killed in accidents occasionally. But it shouldn't be putting civilian traffic at risk. There's no justification for a route at 200' below landing civilian traffic.

[facthunter]

That training is no longer happening AND NEVER  should have been approved.  Nev

[IBob]

50 minutes ago, aro said:

Do you really think they flew this flight without an adequate briefing?? 100+ knots, 200 feet, at night near a busy airport?

 

Military flying can be dangerous by necessity and people are killed in accidents occasionally. But it shouldn't be putting civilian traffic at risk. There's no justification for a route at 200' below landing civilian traffic.

Aro, I can have no idea.
What I was trying to suggest, in a broader sense, is that there might be some benefit in stressing certain  parts of certain procedures.......and focusing on why.
For instance, the standard overhead rejoin, as taught here, is well documented with minimum heights and positions over the airfield. But so far as I know, the reasoning behind that is not explained.
Sure, most pilots will hopefully eventually figure out the why around all that........but why not tell them in the first place?

 

[onetrack]

The sheer idiocy is in the allowing of intersecting air traffic at low level, with only 100 feet clearance, where height measurement can only be done reliably by very precise instruments.

FFS, the NTSB is still struggling with altitude accuracy of the Blackhawk from its FDR, which wasn't even time-stamped. They're talking about trying to define to more accuracy, a 50 foot altitude variation at 300 feet! Even the ATC screens only report 100' variations.

And why did the Blackhawk pilot request "visual separation" when ATC were in a far better position to advise track and altitude? The U.S. military has to wear a lot of blame for this crash, with procedures that act as if they're the only ones in the sky.

 

NTSB Delayed In Altitude Verification Of Collision Aircraft

WWW.AVWEB.COM

---

Blackhawk’s FDR data was missing time stamps.