[talonip]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

A few assumptions there that have yet to be proven.

In the end, it is almost always human error. The “system” is there to try to remove as many chances for human error as possible and to reduce their impact if they do occur. If parts of the system are removed then more errors can occur with serious effects.

The second controller, fewer flights to reduce workload, and more of a buffer between allowed airspace would all have helped.

I wonder if the collision avoidance mentioned is effective or even active on final approach and under 500 feet.

They did get a “traffic traffic” warning on TCAS. Almost too late to respond. Below 1000 ft the RA feature is inhibited. I am a retired Blackhawk pilot and 33 year airline pilot and have done that approach many times.

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by mraines

What is your source that the crew was not experienced?

I said they were not HIGHLY experienced. 1000 flight hours as an instructor pilot (IP) is just an average or maybe less than average point and the 450 flight hours the co-pilot (PI) had is a fairly low experience point, especially when one considers that the co-pilot had been rated for a few years. I'm not saying they were not qualified - just that they were not a "been there done that" crew.

BTW, some on this thread have referred to a third pilot in the cabin. That is incorrect. The third crewmember was a crew chief, a non-rated crewmember. He would have been listening to the comms and had a primary duty to observe the environment and alert the pilots of any traffic and potential hazards. That is, of course, a shared responsibility with the pilots.

To expand on other points. As another poster stated, it is easy to lose a specific light source - the airliner - when there are many light sources in the area (light saturation). This is especially true when wearing NVGs and is why experienced goggle pilots sometimes look under the NVGs to get better situational awareness by looking for the red and green lights associated with aircraft.

Secondly, standard equipped Army helos do not have collision avoidance systems. IF this Blackhawk had TCAS or ADS B it would have been an addition made by that specific unit. I have not seen anything reported to indicate it was so equipped.

[nn0wheremann]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

How could it not happen? Air Controller overload, Interlapping military and commercial flights at nearby airports, military night training flights in overloaded commercial airport landing paths. Government, congressional, executive desire for easy transport from midtown DC. Time for some intelligent decisions. Eliminate overlapping flightpath air facilities. It will not get better unless a major shift is made. Don't allow congress or executive civilians to influence decisions for convenience

The airspace is three dimensional. The approach to runway 33 is VFR. Using the VASI the aircraft is at 400 to 500 feet agl over the river. The rotorcraft flyway is below 200 agl. No conflicts if everyone follows the rules. Someone did not follow the rules. At a descent rate of 700 feet per minute the airplane was about 43 seconds from a perfect happy landing. When time is up, it’s up.

[DonnaNi4os]

Everyone can speculate all they want. It will likely take the NTSB a good year to have any definitive answers as to what caused the accident. Please remember to pray for the families that have lost their loved ones. In an accident like this they will likely not be able see their loved one again on this side of Heaven. I have been there. My husband was killed in a fiery plane crash 32 years ago. Not being able to physically see him made believing he was really dead very difficult and especially difficult for our four children. It makes “closure” pretty much impossible. So while you are speculating please remember to pray for all of the people who have completely lost life as they knew it in a blink of an eye.

[Gettingoutofdodge]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

There is no "overlapping flight paths" or "interlapping flights". What's an "executive civilian" ?

The airspace in that area is well known and specific. This crash will mostly likely end up being attributed to simple human error. Based on the current information, the Blackhawk was in the wrong place and erroneously informed ATC that they had the CRJ in view.

That BH was manned by 3 professionals, at least 2 of which were qualified pilots. To mis-identify a commercial aircraft under those circumstances, is inexcusable. ATC and both aircraft should have received a CA warning (Collision Avoidance) and both ATC & the BH should have taken immediate action. It appears the CRJ was exactly where it was supposed to be and not in a position to take evasive action. Also, with a Separation Error of that magnitude, there was likely a audible warning in the tower (at least that's how it used to work.)

In my opinion, all this noise about the "system", is simply that ... noise. The system usually works perfectly fine, it's the people who fail. ATC for assuming the BH pilots actually had the CRJ in view (even though he had a CA warning) and the BH pilots for not being vigilant.

It’s not noise, people are tired of the Airline industry’s poor performance. This time people died.

I flew to MCO from Newark on 12/28 and it was the strangest of all my past experiences. I have been delayed many times, rerouted to different cities, like Buffalo and held over. This time we were told to keep all the shades down for the entire flight. The flight was delayed 40 minutes to put needed supplies through the back of the plane. The flight could not take off without these “supplies”. We were asked to check our carry ons. Then the flight was delayed on the runways because there was too much traffic. The shades were not allowed to be opened at any time. Airline delays and cancellations are the normal now.
This was not the case 3 years ago when I moved to The Villages. Next rime I go to NY I’m taking a roomette on Amtrak. I am about done with flying.
I don’t know what the problems are, but there are problems. Time for the airline industry to make changes because what is happening now is inexcusable.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by npwalters

Actually the Newsweek article said exactly what I said. The third person was a non-rated crewmember (crew chief). That same article said the female pilot was the Pilot in Command. That COULD be true but is very unlikely. It is definitely NOT true if the instructor pilot (IP) was functioning as an IP. A person functioning as an instructor (IP) is always the pilot in command for that flight. Unlike most commercial flights - Army pilots can be qualified as a pilot in command but function as the co-pilot (PI) on a specific flight. Each flight has a PC designated by the approving authority.

If the pilots had on NVGs the crew chief also was wearing NVGs. All crewmembers wear NVGs on a flight so designated. We (the pilots) want the crew chief to see all that we do. NVGs allow the crew to see MUCH more than the unaided eye. That is critical and allows us to fly low in tactical environments. Unfortunately, NVGs can get light saturated where there are many light sources. It takes some experience to learn how to cope with this.

The article didn't say the 3rd crew-member wasn't Rated. The Chief of Staff for Army Aviation said he had "100's of hours of flight time".

The Chief of Staff of Army Aviation apparently disagrees with your contention that the Instructor was the PIC. He specifically said that the "Evaluated Pilot" was PIC (according to the press reports).

Also, there was no directive to wear NVG's. According to Retired CWO Jonathan Koziol who's been attached to the Unified Command Post to coordinate the investigation, the Army doesn't know if they were in use for the flight, but they were available in the aircraft.

https://6abc.com/post/army-black-haw...ence/15849913/

Accuracy matters and we all know the press accurately reports the facts.

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The article didn't say the 3rd crew-member wasn't Rated. The Chief of Staff for Army Aviation said he had "100's of hours of flight time".

The Chief of Staff of Army Aviation apparently disagrees with your contention that the Instructor was the PIC. He specifically said that the "Evaluated Pilot" was PIC (according to the press reports).

Also, there was no directive to wear NVG's. According to Retired CWO Jonathan Koziol who's been attached to the Unified Command Post to coordinate the investigation, the Army doesn't know if they were in use for the flight, but they were available in the aircraft.

https://6abc.com/post/army-black-haw...ence/15849913/

Accuracy matters and we all know the press accurately reports the facts.

Wow, I get the feeling you just scanned what I wrote so that you can disagree. The third crewmember WAS identified as the crew chief (non-rated crewmember), as would be normal.

"In a briefing with reporters on Thursday, Jonathan Koziol, chief of staff for Army aviation, said that the pilot commanding the flight was female with more than 500 hours of flight time. The male instructor pilot had over 1,000 hours of flight time, and the crew chief also had hundreds of hours of flight time."

That report of that briefing did say the female pilot was the PC. I'm curious if he said A PC or THE PC. As I carefully explained, one can be qualified as a PC but act as a PI on any particular flight. In any case, I was careful to say that IF the IP was INSTRUCTING then he was the PC. I stand by that comment. I can direct you to the paragraph in
AR 95-1 that directs this.

I can't imagine why a crew would have NVGs onboard and authorized and not use them but I suppose that is possible. I do not know if they were using them - nor do you.

One more thought. Kozoil's statements seem to me like he is polishing the turd. Spoken like a true desk jockey. I disagree with several of his statements but given his position he will be believed. Such is life.

From your post "Accuracy matters and we all know the press accurately reports the facts." Is that intended as sarcasm?

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

There is no "overlapping flight paths" or "interlapping flights". What's an "executive civilian" ?

The airspace in that area is well known and specific. This crash will mostly likely end up being attributed to simple human error. Based on the current information, the Blackhawk was in the wrong place and erroneously informed ATC that they had the CRJ in view.

That BH was manned by 3 professionals, at least 2 of which were qualified pilots. To mis-identify a commercial aircraft under those circumstances, is inexcusable. ATC and both aircraft should have received a CA warning (Collision Avoidance) and both ATC & the BH should have taken immediate action. It appears the CRJ was exactly where it was supposed to be and not in a position to take evasive action. Also, with a Separation Error of that magnitude, there was likely a audible warning in the tower (at least that's how it used to work.)

In my opinion, all this noise about the "system", is simply that ... noise. The system usually works perfectly fine, it's the people who fail. ATC for assuming the BH pilots actually had the CRJ in view (even though he had a CA warning) and the BH pilots for not being vigilant.

Agree that this is probably pilot error and can not disagree with the poster. No doubt that this is congested air space which makes the pilot error more likely to cause an accident.