Crash at Reagan National Airport, DC. Small aircraft down in the Potomac.

[Larry in TN]

Have you got a reference for naming conventions that backs that up? I've looked and didn't find one, but I'm not the best at it.

Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-9.

Approach Chart Naming Conventions
Individual FAA charts are identified on both the top and
bottom of the page by their procedure name (based on the
NAVAIDs required for the final approach), runway served,
and airport location.

 

[Roller]

This attitude has always rubbed me the wrong way. You realize *they* (the service members) pay those salaries too, in taxes, don't you? It is just richly entitled to believe "I pay mah taxes so I own them and I should get to see/do/read anything of theirs I want" That isn't how this works

This is like sitting in church, the plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 and put in a $5 and claim we both gave.

Nah it’s not classified or anything but traditionally the Army has been reluctant to release results of their accident information and PII if they don’t believe it’s a benefit to the civilian public. Perfect example of this was the TNNG crash a couple years back (below). That’s typical of what I’ve see in the past.

Now this is an obviously a huge deal because it involves a civilian aircraft and the Army Safety Center is working jointly with the NTSB. I’d be willing to bet some entity is going to file a FOIA for it. Ultimately release of the safety investigation is through CG of (USAACE) Ft Novosel, AL. I’m sure they’ll be pressure on him to release training records. If it happens I think it’ll be like the fiasco in 94 when Kara Hultgreen’s records were released. Any black mark on their records will be scrutinized by the media.

Investigation report released on fatal helicopter crash

A UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter was making its final approach to Huntsville International Airport Feb. 15 when the crew transitioned from visual flight co...

www.army.mil

It is amazing its even allowed to be their choice, when their helicopter with their staff that they trained nails a airliner killing everyone they don’t get to decide what to share anymore, or at least that’s how it should be

Also somewhat funny they are worried about the enemy knowing some secret when we have multiple full color public videos irrefutably showing that they can’t even evade a lit up ADSB transmitting huge jet on a known flight plan

 

[Lindberg]

This is like sitting in church, the plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 and put in a $5 and claim we both gave.

And now you're on to accusing POA servicemembers of thievery. What exactly is your problem?

 

[dtuuri]

Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-9.

Note that within the procedure the text specifies which runway, as in the example of the Roaring Fork Visual at Aspen on page 4-59. Same as the ones at BOS, LGA and JFK. But at DCA, they just state "Airport" not runway "1".

In this Order: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.61A.pdf
it states this:

p. Name the CVFP for a primary landmark used in the procedure. The name should also contain the runway number(s). Examples of names include “River Visual Runway 18,” “Stadium Visual Runway 25,” etc.​

​

You might consider that the "s" in parentheses means more than one runway, whereas others might conclude it covers the case when a single number would identify a runway grammatically, i.e., the reciprocal of runway 25 is "7" — a single number.

Have you ever seen more than one runway number in the title where they refer to two separate runways?

 

[Roller]

And now you're on to accusing POA servicemembers of thievery. What exactly is your problem?

I didn't do anything of the sort, and I don’t have any “problem.” Those are just the facts, though I understand they might sting. The analogy may not be the most polished, but it’s accurate.

Now, working for the government means you do pay taxes, but you’re also drawing more from the coffers than you contribute, it’s called “military spending” right? And remember, the role is to serve the public, not the other way around.

 

[Lindberg]

I didn't do anything of the sort, and I don’t have any “problem.”

Yes, you literally did.

"[T]he plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 . . . ."

That's stealing. And that's what you accuse our servicemembers of.

You've clearly got a chip on your shoulder about the military, politicians, Washington, and anyone who thinks they're important. You've clearly got a problem with all of this that has nothing to do with flying.

 

[Roller]

Yes, you literally did.

"[T]he plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 . . . ."

That's stealing. And that's what you accuse our servicemembers of.

You've clearly got a cup on your shoulder about the military, politicians, Washington, and anyone who thinks they're important. You've clearly got a problem with all of this that has nothing to do with flying.

Now, I kindly ask that you don’t try to gaslight me here.

This is about both the military and aviation, which should be obvious to anyone.

My post was simply a response to another discussion on military spending and the role of the military and government in serving the people.

It’s clear that government workers pay taxes, as does everyone—unfortunately. But considering their savings and lives outside of work, it’s obvious they take more from the treasury than they contribute. That’s just common sense and basic math, nothing controversial there.

As for the crash, when you collide with an airliner, there’s no room for ambiguity or secrecy. That ship has sailed.

 

[dmspilot]

If they went ifr only, traffic would crawl. They let pilots do visual so they can decrease spacing and move more aircraft.

Perhaps but how typical is it to be given visual separation with traffic converging almost head-on?

 

[wanttaja]

Maybe put the red light on a tower and have it flash?

It's been done....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Lindberg]

Now, I kindly ask that you don’t try to gaslight me here.

This is about both the military and aviation, which should be obvious to anyone.

My post was simply a response to another discussion on military spending and the role of the military and government in serving the people.

It’s clear that government workers pay taxes, as does everyone—unfortunately. But considering their savings and lives outside of work, it’s obvious they take more from the treasury than they contribute. That’s just common sense and basic math, nothing controversial there.

As for the crash, when you collide with an airliner, there’s no room for ambiguity or secrecy. That ship has sailed.

No one's gaslighting you. You accused servicemen of theft. Perhaps all government workers. You've somehow conveniently forgotten that what they "take" from the Treasury is their pay for services rendered. And your suggestion that men and women serving in our armed forces take more than they contribute is beyond offensive.

Nevermind that you've already solved this crash, assigned blame, and determined the solution, all based on the same prejudices.

 

[Roller]

No one's gaslighting you. You accused servicemen of theft. Perhaps all government workers. You've somehow conveniently forgotten that what they "take" from the Treasury is their pay for services rendered. And your suggestion that men and women serving in our armed forces take more than they contribute is beyond offensive.

Nevermind that you've already solved this crash, assigned blame, and determined the solution, all based on the same prejudices.

Well, the crash was as clear as day long before I showed up.

I never accused anyone of theft—let’s get that straight, that was an analogy.

An analogy, if you will: a job or career takes more than it gives. If it didn’t, it’d be charity, not a profession.

As for flying “VIP” politicians around? That ain't serving the people. It’s just the state serving itself.

These flights never should’ve happened in the first place—ask any experienced jet pilot. That route was a fool’s errand from the start.

Now, the crew—training to get politicians out in the event of an attack—taken out by a scheduled, unarmed airliner, full of lights and transponders. That whole plan, that whole idea, was a failure from the get-go.

And as for ATC, they let those PATs run wild. They weren’t controlling the airspace. When it came to those PATs, they were as much passengers as the poor souls in the back of that plane

 

[luvflyin]

I’m beginning to think @Roller and @Lindberg are a married couple

 

[Daleandee]

Or?

Perhaps:

 

[Daleandee]

I’m beginning to think @Roller and @Lindberg are a married couple

The time has come:

 

[AV8R_87]

I thought those little rubber duckie antennas had a 2ft long coil (or whatever the length) inside them for a net result of a 1/2 wavelength or 1/4 wavelength or whatever...

Yes, but it's not the same thing. Electrically you have a longer piece of wire, but the performance will still be significantly less.
Think of it, in very simplified terms, like a high aspect ratio glider wing vs a low aspect ratio aerobatic wing. They both have the same lifting area, but one of them will generate more lift and have less drag.

But as a general rule, isn’t the UHF band better at navigating or “bouncing” between structures vs VHF?

UHF will bounce more, but that could end up causing more issues than benefits, because you'll have multiple reflections on different paths out of phase canceling each other. You fix that with multiple antennas, switching between them to find a spot where the signals aren't out of phase. That's why your WiFi router has two or more antennas. But that's not common on aviation radio installs.
Your gains are still going to be mostly from better antenna installations, and also less interference and radio noise. The VHF band is pretty crowded.

 

[Bacho]

No one's gaslighting you. You accused servicemen of theft. Perhaps all government workers. You've somehow conveniently forgotten that what they "take" from the Treasury is their pay for services rendered. And your suggestion that men and women serving in our armed forces take more than they contribute is beyond offensive.

Nevermind that you've already solved this crash, assigned blame, and determined the solution, all based on the same prejudices.

That’s kind of a stretch, but so is his oversimplification of all of this.

 

[TCABM]

Breathlessly waiting on Gryder’s take of this event.

 

[bonefishpete]

Sam Lilley engaged to marry, Supposed to move to the Captains seat in a month.
It sucks.

 

[Larry in TN]

Have you ever seen more than one runway number in the title where they refer to two separate runways?

If they refer to additional runways there will be some mention of the additional runways or circling.

 

[Velocity173]

Sam Lilley engaged to marry, Supposed to move to the Captains seat in a month.
It sucks.
View attachment 137826

His dad is a retired H-60 pilot from the Army.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

His dad is a retired H-60 pilot from the Army.

If I’m not mistaken his dad is active on the RTAG group.

So much loss in this event.

 

[Velocity173]

If I’m not mistaken his dad is active on the RTAG group.

So much loss in this event.

He probably is. He retired from my old unit prior to me getting there. Went EMS in the local area and is now corporate fixedwing guy. Never met him but heard he’s a super cool guy. Tragic.

 

[Flymy47]

Now, I kindly ask that you don’t try to gaslight me here.

This is about both the military and aviation, which should be obvious to anyone.

My post was simply a response to another discussion on military spending and the role of the military and government in serving the people.

It’s clear that government workers pay taxes, as does everyone—unfortunately. But considering their savings and lives outside of work, it’s obvious they take more from the treasury than they contribute. That’s just common sense and basic math, nothing controversial there.

I'd love to see the long division on this one...

 

[Ed Haywood]

He probably is. He retired from my old unit prior to me getting there. Went EMS in the local area and is now corporate fixedwing guy. Never met him but heard he’s a super cool guy. Tragic.

He'll need a lot of support from his friends. A lot of my old Army brothers reached out to me when I lost my son. It really helps. People think you need "space" but you really need people to tell you they know what you are going through.

 

[Velocity173]

This is like sitting in church, the plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 and put in a $5 and claim we both gave.




It is amazing its even allowed to be their choice, when their helicopter with their staff that they trained nails a airliner killing everyone they don’t get to decide what to share anymore, or at least that’s how it should be

Also somewhat funny they are worried about the enemy knowing some secret when we have multiple full color public videos irrefutably showing that they can’t even evade a lit up ADSB transmitting huge jet on a known flight plan

Well they have rights as well. Their PII is governed under the Privacy Act. Both my Army flight records state “The information in this folder is personal in nature and should be safeguarded at all times.” If their records are to be released, then is a process to release that information. It shouldn’t be an automatic based on a FOIA request.

He’s the problem with releasing records info to the public. Right now their basic hours (500 / 1000) have been released and I’m sure their individual breakdown in hours will eventually be released. 99% of the American public have no clue about what experience is in this particular airframe. Comments about 500 hrs isn’t enough for this aircraft or that the Captain was possibly rushed through training is absolutely absurd. She was in an aircraft with two other crew members with more time than her that have shared responsibilities. Heck, you've got guys like @35 AoA that was probably flying a tactical jet by himself at maybe 250 hrs. Where do you draw the line on what’s enough time?

The second part is their individual training records. Again, the vast majority of the public won’t have a clue about any red flags that might be indicated in training. What they will do is make ridiculous statements like “they failed an instrument eval in an H-72 five years prior in flight school…see, they were pushed through training.” When I see their hour breakdowns and recency of flight, yeah I’ll form an educated opinion on proficiency but until I see that, I assume that this was a proficient crew.

I’m also a believer in courtesy to the families of the deceased. Release of CVR transcripts should be released with possible redaction but I’ve heard Army CVR audio of pilots I knew personally about to die, that no family should hear. I get it, we live in a world where no tact is used in protecting privacy but that doesn’t make it right either.

So, if it benefits the general public or if we as pilots can learn from it, by all means the Army should release applicable information. But it should be well thought out response.

 

[Salty]

I don't agree with everything roller is saying, or at least not with the attitude, but it's obvious what he meant with his offering plate analogy and it's disingenuous to pretend he was accusing someone of stealing.

 

[Bob Noel]

I don't agree with everything roller is saying, or at least not with the attitude, but it's obvious what he meant with his offering plate analogy and it's disingenuous to pretend he was accusing someone of stealing.

take $20 out, put in $5.

How could anyone call that ANYTHING but stealing from the offering plate?

(or did I misread his post?)

 

[Salty]

take $20 out, put in $5.

How could anyone call that ANYTHING but stealing from the offering plate?

(or did I misread his post?)

You clearly misunderstood the point he was trying to make.

 

[Roller]

I'd love to see the long division on this one...

You honestly don’t think the military’s an expense?

Now, I reckon we’re all adults and airmen here, so let’s not insult each other’s intelligence. This ain’t some complex math problem, it’s just basic addition and subtraction.

Well they have rights as well. Their PII is governed under the Privacy Act. Both my Army flight records state “The information in this folder is personal in nature and should be safeguarded at all times.” If their records are to be released, then is a process to release that information. It shouldn’t be an automatic based on a FOIA request.

He’s the problem with releasing records info to the public. Right now their basic hours (500 / 1000) have been released and I’m sure their individual breakdown in hours will eventually be released. 99% of the American public have no clue about what experience is in this particular airframe. Comments about 500 hrs isn’t enough for this aircraft or that the Captain was possibly rushed through training is absolutely absurd. She was in an aircraft with two other crew members with more time than her that have shared responsibilities. Heck, you've got guys like @35 AoA that was probably flying a tactical jet at maybe 250 hrs. Where do you draw the line on what’s enough time?

The second part is their individual training records. Again, the vast majority of the public won’t have a clue about any red flags that might be indicated in training. What they will do is make ridiculous statements like “they failed an instrument eval in an H-72 five years prior in flight school…see, they were pushed through training.” When I see their hour breakdowns and recent of flight, yeah I’ll form an educated opinion on proficiency but until I see that, I assume that this was a proficient crew.

I’m also a believer in courtesy to the families of the deceased. Release of CVR transcripts should be released with possible redaction but I’ve heard Army CVR audio of friends dying that no family should hear. I get it, we live in a world where no tact is used in protecting privacy but that doesn’t make it right either.

So, if it benefits the general public or if we as pilots can learn from it, by all means the Army should release applicable information. But it should be well thought out response.

Well now, let me tell ya, it’s downright bafflin' that anyone would question the qualifications of a low-time pilot who couldn't keep their altitude in VFR conditions, didn’t keep their situational awareness in check, and claimed to have traffic in sight before they crashed right into it. That’s no small mistake, my friend.

For a private pilot flyin' under VFR rules, maintainin' altitude within a hundred feet is not just a guideline, it’s a standard. A hundred feet, mind you. That's about as clear a measure as you can get. So, for someone to fail at that and then blame anything other than their own lack of skill or focus is absurd.

The airline, by the way, already had the decency to release the names of their crew. They were the victims here, no question. But holdin' back on the details of the PAT crew who crashed their chopper into a passenger jet? Well, that sure don’t look good. You can try to cover it up all you want, but the truth always comes out, one way or another. Congress or the Commander-in-Chief will force that information out if needed, or it’ll leak. And once that happens, it won’t just be the story of the folks who caused a crash and took 64 lives, it’ll be the story of people who tried to hide the truth after the fact. That’s a reputation you don't want, trust me.

The right thing to do here is simple: own up to what happened. Tell the American people the whole truth, EVERYTHING, they owe it to the families of the victims. Apologize, beg for forgiveness if necessary, but show some honor. That's what the job requires, and that’s what the public and victims deserve.

I’ll tell ya, though, I’ve got a feelin' that if this had been a rich business owner flyin' his own R66 into that airliner, the whole tone of this conversation here would be a lot different.

 

[TCABM]

…
He’s the problem with releasing records info to the public. Right now their basic hours (500 / 1000) have been released and I’m sure their individual breakdown in hours will eventually be released. 99% of the American public have no clue about what experience is in this particular airframe. ….

Unfortunately the hours ≠ experience/quality baby got thrown out with Colgan bathwater.

 

[dtuuri]

If they refer to additional runways there will be some mention of the additional runways or circling.

Yes, like at JFK with the lead-in light arrays. But in this case (DCA), I think the exception proves the rule: Where specific runways are mentioned the approach applies to them alone. If the "airport" is mentioned, any runway is covered.

 

[Bob Noel]

You clearly misunderstood the point he was trying to make.

nope, no misunderstanding on my part. whatever point he was "trying" to make wasn't made by equating that with stealing.

 

[Larry in TN]

Yes, like at JFK with the lead-in light arrays. But in this case (DCA), I think the exception proves the rule: Where specific runways are mentioned the approach applies to them alone. If the "airport" is mentioned, any runway is covered.

Then why do approach plates list any runway at all?

A couple of examples of charted visual approaches that serve multiple runways can be found at SFO.

QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL Rwys 28L/R
TIPP TOW VISUAL Rwy 28L/R (Published as two separate charts, one for 28L and one for 28R by Jepps)

Then there is one that serves only one runway.

FMS BRIDGE VISUAL Rwy 28R

 

[Velocity173]

You honestly don’t think the military’s an expense?

Now, I reckon we’re all adults and airmen here, so let’s not insult each other’s intelligence. This ain’t some complex math problem, it’s just basic addition and subtraction.




Well now, let me tell ya, it’s downright bafflin' that anyone would question the qualifications of a low-time pilot who couldn't keep their altitude in VFR conditions, didn’t keep their situational awareness in check, and claimed to have traffic in sight before they crashed right into it. That’s no small mistake, my friend.

For a private pilot flyin' under VFR rules, maintainin' altitude within a hundred feet is not just a guideline, it’s a standard. A hundred feet, mind you. That's about as clear a measure as you can get. So, for someone to fail at that and then blame anything other than their own lack of skill or focus is absurd.

The airline, by the way, already had the decency to release the names of their crew. They were the victims here, no question. But holdin' back on the details of the PAT crew who crashed their chopper into a passenger jet? Well, that sure don’t look good. You can try to cover it up all you want, but the truth always comes out, one way or another. Congress or the Commander-in-Chief will force that information out if needed, or it’ll leak. And once that happens, it won’t just be the story of the folks who caused a crash and took 64 lives, it’ll be the story of people who tried to hide the truth after the fact. That’s a reputation you don't want, trust me.

The right thing to do here is simple: own up to what happened. Tell the American people the whole truth, EVERYTHING, they owe it to the families of the victims. Apologize, beg for forgiveness if necessary, but show some honor. That's what the job requires, and that’s what the public and victims deserve.

I’ll tell ya, though, I’ve got a feelin' that if this had been a rich business owner flyin' his own R66 into that airliner, the whole tone of this conversation here would be a lot different.

And your comments show how you don’t understand that challenges associated with flying an H-60 in this environment.

As far as the pilot maintaining standards. They’re not required to maintain standards in this case. Even if you’re IFR, if you’ve been given approval for visual separation, you can deviate as necessary in order to do that. How else ya gonna do it if adhering to a rigid course / altitude? For all we know, and probably never will, they were trying maintain visual sep from the wrong aircraft. If you can’t understand how that possibility could happen (Swiss cheese), then I don’t know what to tell ya.

You wanna know what educated opinions on the accident sound like? These guys. Former military aviators that know about the challenges that they encounter. They don’t spew conjuncture or tin foil nonsense.

 

[WBI Flyer]

I’m beginning to think @Roller and @Lindberg are a married couple

The mere sight of this notification makes me a better person.... I think.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You honestly don’t think the military’s an expense?

You honestly think servicemembers take more than they give?

Well now, let me tell ya, it’s downright bafflin' that anyone would question the qualifications of a low-time pilot who couldn't keep their altitude in VFR conditions, didn’t keep their situational awareness in check, and claimed to have traffic in sight before they crashed right into it. That’s no small mistake, my friend.

So how could a well-trained military pilot AND an instructor have made (and not caught) such a huge mistake? THAT is the question. You are making this look like a simple mistake by one person. It is anything but that.

For a private pilot flyin' under VFR rules, maintainin' altitude within a hundred feet is not just a guideline, it’s a standard. A hundred feet, mind you. That's about as clear a measure as you can get. So, for someone to fail at that and then blame anything other than their own lack of skill or focus is absurd.

The accident happened between 300-350 feet. Chopper could have been (barely) within ±100 and still hit the plane at 300 feet.

Now, what was the chopper's altimeter setting? Where did they get it from? Was it correctly entered? Was the altimeter properly adjusted? There are a number of different errors in altimetry, and if they all occur in the same direction you can be WELL over 100 feet off.

The airline, by the way, already had the decency to release the names of their crew. They were the victims here, no question. But holdin' back on the details of the PAT crew who crashed their chopper into a passenger jet?

Um... We already know who they were, and we have for days?

The right thing to do here is simple: own up to what happened. Tell the American people the whole truth, EVERYTHING, they owe it to the families of the victims. Apologize, beg for forgiveness if necessary, but show some honor. That's what the job requires, and that’s what the public and victims deserve.

That may be appropriate at some point, but the point here is, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED YET. Except for that two aircraft tried to occupy the same airspace at the same time and gravity won.

 

[KE5BM]

The difference is that they do not contribute to my salary but I do contribute to theirs and thus whatever they do , they do on my behalf and therefore I ( or frankly - we - ) are entitled to know a lot more about what goes on inside DOD then , say, Apple Inc. - that is all there is to it.

What would you like to know?
Sincerely,
An Active Servicemember

Aside from that, I'm 100% certain that you hold (or once held and have now retired from) a job with some company/business...maybe even your own that produces a product or service that someone purchases. Or you wouldn't have a job. Therefore, by your logic I should know "a lot more about what goes on inside <insert your business here>" because I, as the customer contribute to your salary.

This is like sitting in church, the plate comes around, I put in a $20, you take out my $20 and put in a $5 and claim we both gave.

I'm guessing you've never worked in a job where you use the services or buy the product your outfit produces? Or a product that your outfit supports?

I'm really not understanding y'all's points. Fact of the matter is - planes gotta fly, pilots (especially military) gotta train. What we have here is a very unfortunate accident. Like nearly ALL accidents, it could probably have been avoided. Now we wait for the professionals to do what they do and make whatever changes may be necessary. Thousands die everyday from avoidable accidents.

This whole perspective of "what were they doing there, anyway" reminds me of an instance in the Coast Guard back in 2011. Station Washington, DC was conducting routine small boat tactics training on the Potomoc River. Some radio wizard heard the training callouts and freaked out thinking there was a real attack that the Coast Guard was defending us from. Called 911, called the media. For about 6 hours, all the news networks were freaking out "WHY WOULD THEY BE DOING THIS!?" Oh, did I mention it was September 11th of that year? It didn't matter to us. We train when/however we can to ensure we're ready for the worst day imaginable.

Those pilots don't just train for that particular mission they're assigned to today...they're training and honing their skills for any mission they will fly in that aircraft for the rest of their career.

 

[Roller]

And your comments show how you don’t understand that challenges associated with flying an H-60 in this environment.

As far as the pilot maintaining standards. They’re not required to maintain standards in this case. Even if you’re IFR, if you’ve been given approval for visual separation, you can deviate as necessary in order to do that. How else ya gonna do it if adhering to a rigid course / altitude? For all we know, and probably never will, they were trying maintain visual sep from the wrong aircraft. If you can’t understand how that possibility could happen (Swiss cheese), then I don’t know what to tell ya.

You wanna know what educated opinions on the accident sound like? These guys. Former military aviators that know about the challenges that they encounter. They don’t spew conjuncture or tin foil nonsense.

Listen up, folks. Not hitting airliner traffic ain't just a military thing, it's a basic rule.

The opinions of armchair generals or miltubers ain't gonna change the facts here.

If you’ve got more than a half inch of logbook, you’ve flown in "demanding conditions". They were flying in clear weather, with ATC support, and they still screwed up.

It’s a tragedy, but no amount of spin, even from the best of the best, is gonna change that. This wasn’t a rescue mission in Mogadishu; this was a botched politician transport training flight, involving an American airliner and a major American city.

Sometimes, it’s time to stop making excuses and own up to the mistakes with some damn honor. Honor ain't just a slogan, it’s for taking responsibility.

 

[Timbeck2]

And as for ATC, they let those PATs run wild. They weren’t controlling the airspace. When it came to those PATs, they were as much passengers

I’ll ignore the generalization of all PAT helicopters and focus on the one in question.

ATC: There’s an RJ over the Woodrow Wilson bridge at one thousand two hundred for runway three three.
PAT: Got him in sight can I maintain visual separation?
ATC: Approved
ATC: Hey PAT, you still have him in sight?
ATC: Hey PAT cross behind the RJ.

They saw it, they attempted to correct it and the helicopter still crashed into the RJ. What more could they have done? Imagine the bitching that would go on in this forum, myself included, if controllers second guessed pilots.

 

[bonefishpete]

You honestly think servicemembers take more than they give?

So how could a well-trained military pilot AND an instructor have made (and not caught) such a huge mistake? THAT is the question. You are making this look like a simple mistake by one person. It is anything but that.

The accident happened between 300-350 feet. Chopper could have been (barely) within ±100 and still hit the plane at 300 feet.

Now, what was the chopper's altimeter setting? Where did they get it from? Was it correctly entered? Was the altimeter properly adjusted? There are a number of different errors in altimetry, and if they all occur in the same direction you can be WELL over 100 feet off.

Um... We already know who they were, and we have for days?

That may be appropriate at some point, but the point here is, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED YET. Except for that two aircraft tried to occupy the same airsp

I don't think we'll ever find a definitive answer just like the Korean crash.