AA jet and Military helicopter collide over Potomac 8

They must WAIT for the plane to crash. Call it whatever you want, but quit nitpicking my terminology, which I called HOLD, as in they can't go past a certain point until the plane passes. I guess I should have written a whole paragraph about how they were supposed to maneuver around as the plane passed to ensure they didn't have to actually stop and wait for it to placate the nitpicky people here.

I think I would call it clearance limit.

I would expect the tower to clear the rotary to a certain point which is the clearance limit.

Then " cleared to cross rwy finals"

But the American radio telephony standards are quite poor both pilots and controllers

LionelHutz said:

They must WAIT for the plane to crash. Call it whatever you want, but quit nitpicking my terminology, which I called HOLD, as in they can't go past a certain point until the plane passes. I guess I should have written a whole paragraph about how they were supposed to maneuver around as the plane passed to ensure they didn't have to actually stop and wait for it to placate the nitpicky people here.

Click to expand...

It's not "nit picking", it's taking your comment at face value when in post 201 and 221 you keep saying they must hold and wait (I'm assuming your post above is an unfortunate typo and you mean "cross" and not crash"??). That part, as far as I understand it, is simply not correct. The helicopter requested night visual flight rules and within a second the ATC controller said approved. This meant the responsibility for not crashing into anything, be it the ground, a tower or an aircraft, passed from the controller to the pilot(s) of the helicopter. All ATC did was give them the basic information about what was happening in front of them and left it up to them as to what to do. Even when ATC had collision warning alarms blaring at them, all they did was ask some wishy washy question to the helicopter pilot. There was NOTHING, anywhere in the documentation I've read that said the helicopter needed to hold or go past a certain point before the aircraft stopped crossing in front of them. There were two mandatory "reporting" positions where they needed to radio ATC and tell then what they wanted to do, but this was not a hold point.

The basic issue here was that I suspect both pilots thought they had right of way in the sky - the CRJ because the controller had cleared them to land on runway 33, the helicopter pilot because ATC had approved them flying night VFR.

I have been fairly shocked by recent US ATC transcripts on different incidents how vague and almost conversational they were. The door plug incident was on where the wording was dreadful from both pilot and ATC.

It is yet to be determined what the Helo Pilot's were thinking? Their actions indicate, whether they had the right of way or not, that they were going to do whatever they wanted to do, as they had been provided Card Blanche Authority from ATC tower, aka Visual Separation.......

What they were thinking is likely all going to be speculation, so I doubt much will be said on that subject officially.
The crew chief and IP had 22 years combined in the military with multiple combat and deployment metals.

The PIC was Army National Guard, never deployed, only received standard medals most Army members receive for non-combat related services, graduated ROTC 2 years early which earned her the 15A as a Leutenant(entry level pilot essentially) and spent most of her active career as a political Biden admin social media and event aid, durring which in 2023-2024 was promoted to captain. 6 years of "service", only one rank, and most work was political.

The lack of discussing alt errors on a check ride somewhat makes me think, that the rest of the crew was not thinking higly of whom they were evaluating.

LittleInch said:

All ATC did was give them the basic information about what was happening in front of them and left it up to them as to what to do.

Click to expand...

They were given instructions, not just information.

If you actually read my posts instead of trying to find ways to defend your crap, you'd see that I (me, myself) posted that they had to hold and that I NEVER posted anything saying ATC told them to hold. So, get over it. ATC told them to cross behind the plane. So yes, there was a point they should not have passed until it was clear otherwise they don't maintain the proper separation distance to the plane. If the distance got close enough, they'd actually need to fully stop as they waited for the plane to pass. Regardless, they needed to hold = slow down or stop or deviate or do whatever way was necessary from their current and present flight to NOT simply either crash their helicopter into the plane or get too close to the plane.

ATC may have told them to cross behind, but ATC never confirmed they received and understood instructions.

Had they heard to pass behind, or had they just been at the correct altitude, there would have been zero need for them to "hold" or slow anymore than the typical hugging the east bank. However had they been at the correct altitude...

Remember, this is a deviation from planned route directly into the runway approach path. The CRJ was where it needed to be. Even with a maximum of 70ft in alt dial errors, had they been on route, it'd just be another unreported near miss.
Be it bad data, a broken alt vibrator, loose or damaged hose, etc, something other than the CRJ went missed or ignored by the crew.

Military ops get special privilages depending on who they are.

There's no need for insults please.

If you actually read the NTSB report and transcripts rather than make up words like "hold" which basically means stop. You are saying they they "had to hold" - your words above - whereas I don't think they did. There was no magic point in the sky. Basically so long as the didn't hit the other plane they could more or less do what they wanted. The rules as such said don't be more than 200 ft altitude which they weren't, but other than that, they were not beholden to anyone. this IMHO, was a very bad state of affairs which ahs led almost inevitably toward a collision happening at some point in time.

Hold is a common well used word in aviation.

Hold can mean flying race tracks in the sky over a point every time and a known inbound bearing.

Or a do not cross line on the ground taxing.

Military ops get special privilages depending on who they are

Click to expand...

Indeed they do, hence why I think the ATC could be criticised here for not prioritising civilian passenger safety by telling the CRJ to go around / immediately climb when it was very clear for 15 to 20 seconds that the two aircraft were on a collision course with the CRJ descending right into the over height helicopter track.

The NTSB report also doesn't say what the CRJ flight crew said or discussed when they had a traffic alert. At low altitude the traffic system doesn't say climb or descend as there isn't enough altitude. But you would think it would have made them do something.

In the week the Swiss cheese man died, it's clear there were many holes aligned pretty permanently and it finally aligned.

I think we'll find out ATC had become complacent with the CAs due to how often they occured with no incidents. Just another day in the office with PAT crossing under and dangerously close to airliners. The system had probably become an annoyance to them. Did not help that ATC was understaffed at the time. The CRJ or some of the other traffic near the CRJ should have been given a go around much sooner rather than trying to decongest the arrival airspace by using 33 in an attempt to create more separation and ease the workload.

LittleInch said:

There's no need for insults please.

If you actually read the NTSB report and transcripts rather than make up words like "hold" which basically means stop. You are saying they they "had to hold" - your words above - whereas I don't think they did. There was no magic point in the sky. Basically so long as the didn't hit the other plane they could more or less do what they wanted. The rules as such said don't be more than 200 ft altitude which they weren't, but other than that, they were not beholden to anyone. this IMHO, was a very bad state of affairs which ahs led almost inevitably toward a collision happening at some point in time.

Click to expand...

There's no need for insults please. I second that.

I am told by mates that are ATCOs that education level isn't really indicative of capacity for them.

It's the same with pilots.

It's more about 4D visualization and spacial awareness with a third sense when something ain't right.

And the training for an atco is way longer and a higher failure rate than for pilots

So I'm wondering who's the person who could have decided and enforced that helicopters would NOT be allowed to pass near the airport flight path during its use.

Someone could and should have said "No, it's too dangerous."

And didn't.

(And I'm not talking about the ATC. Or either pilot. None of them should have had any choice in that.)



spsalso

FAA

Most large airports in Europe have had this system for decades.

Also in the aircraft we also have surface management system which makes sure we don't take off from the wrong place or wrong runway.

LittleInch said:

There was no magic point in the sky.

Click to expand...

The minimum separation distance sets where they were not supposed to go.

They were not able to simply stay below 200' and do as they please. If they were, then they could have just dropped lower and buzzed the landing gear of the plane without a care in the world.

LionelHutz said:

The minimum separation distance sets where they were not supposed to go.

Your post is idiotic. They were not able to simply stay below 200' and do as they please. If they were, then they could have just dropped lower and buzzed the landing gear of the plane without a care in the world.

Click to expand...

It would be helpful if you quoted and linked the FAA Rules supporting your assertions. I cannot find anything on miniumum separation distances between helo's crossing under the final approach/departure paths at airports other than stay below maximum altitude helo route altitudes, and a geberal requirement to stay above 100' minimum. Visual flight rules place collision avoidance on helo, which includes avoiding other helo's operating in same helo flight routes around airports with planes. Recommended minimum general altitude is 1000' for helos. I do find information on helo landing/departing and taxi separation distances. I find rules on planes and helo's individually, but I have not yet seen much on shared airspace rules. I also find nothing on helo holding patterns in the sky. Planes do doughnuts in sky at directed altitudes. Again FAA ATC appears to give specific instructions to planes, but just lets helo's take full reaponsibilty for collision avoidance by granting visual seperation. Too much leap of faith trust in heli pilots as mentioned by littleinch earlier.

To my knowledge there are no rules. Visually sperate

LionelHutz said:

The minimum separation distance sets where they were not supposed to go.

Your post is idiotic. They were not able to simply stay below 200' and do as they please. If they were, then they could have just dropped lower and buzzed the landing gear of the plane without a care in the world.

Click to expand...

Like I said, please refrain from the insults and snide language. It gets us no where and no one wants ET to descend into the pit of X.

We can differ in our views, and in this case I believe that's exactly what they were allowed to do. That's what VFR means. Especially for military helicopters. It does seem, as far as I can tell, that it was all a bit uncontrolled on that particular intersection between a helicopter route and the approach into runway 33. Also that there was a certain disregard for passenger safety and a passing over of responsibility from ATC to the helo pilots.

And if indeed they had dropped lower and "buzzed the wheels", I don't think this was without a care in the world as any damage to the rotors or gearbox or tail rotor and down they go. The plane might have survived but had to crash land. Who knows.