Mid-Air Collision in DC

[HeyEng]

I hope that one outcome of this accident is that we start installing more VHF radios in military aviation. I don’t expect every helicopter or fighter to have a VHF radio but certainly this helicopter flying and training in a dense civilian airspace environment should be a priority!

[HeloDude]

25 minutes ago, HeyEng said:

I hope that one outcome of this accident is that we start installing more VHF radios in military aviation. I don’t expect every helicopter or fighter to have a VHF radio but certainly this helicopter flying and training in a dense civilian airspace environment should be a priority!

Did they not have a VHF radio?

[HeyEng]

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Did they not have a VHF radio?

From what I have heard they were on UHF and ATC were dual transmitting on UHF/VHF so you can hear ATC talking to the -60 but any civilian traffic could not hear the -60.

Also I still have not heard if this was an older -60 with legacy avionics or a more modern one with glass.

If it was legacy it probably had the small “fish finder” type of TCAS whereas glass typically overlays the TCAS on the HSI display. 
TCAS is probably moot anyhow since the TA/RA is disabled below 1000’

[FourFans]

20 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Anyone wanna take a swing at WTF Trump is talking about in his private jet lol?

Most likely GLS.  Pretty cool and virtually transparent to the operating pilots.  We're encountering more and more in the international realm.  Uses a highly accurate GPS ground station at the airport to tell the airplane exactly where it is.  Same freqs as ILS without the transmitter sidelobes, so no false glideslopes.  RUMINT has it that Russia started using a several of these because they are easier to install and maintain in remote locations...but long-haul pilot RUMINT worth the price you pay to get it.

As to Trump's comment, it seems like he doesn't make stuff up completely out of thin air.  He simply overhears a conversation that he knows nothing about, then turns around and talks like he knows everything on the topic.  So basically the same 10% rule surrounding every pilot story ever told.

Edited February 8 by FourFans

[Biff_T]

Im not sure about Army Helos but most USAF helos have VHF.   VHF wouldn't have helped in this accident. If they had the 33 traffic in sight, they should have turned or hovered.  The lack of SA (from all involved) plus an altitude deviation at a critical moment caused this.  It's nearly impossible and dumb (in my opinion) to try and fly under landing traffic to 33.  I know from experience.   

Edit: @tac airlifter makes a good point in a future post regarding this accident.  The CRJ shouldn't be faulted for this.   The lack of SA (from Pat and tower) plus the altitude error caused this.   

Edited February 9 by Biff_T
Edited for clarification

[HeyEng]

1 hour ago, Biff_T said:

Im not sure about Army Helos but most USAF helos have VHF.   VHF wouldn't have helped in this accident. If they had the 33 traffic in sight, they should have turned or hovered.  The lack of SA (from all involved) plus an altitude deviation at a critical moment caused this.  It's nearly impossible and dumb (in my opinion) to try and fly under landing traffic to 33.  I know from experience.   

I came from the AF AMC community so VHF is our goto radios since we operate in ICAO airspace around the world.

I do not think we are going to find any single fix for this accident but hopefully some changes come about.

[Biff_T]

3 minutes ago, HeyEng said:

do not think we are going to find any single fix for this accident but hopefully some changes come about.

I agree.  

[KWings06j]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Did they not have a VHF radio?

Fairly certain they have VHF. Every Blackhawk variant I've been in had it. Not uncommon for busy airspace to have a dedicated helicopter frequency regardless. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, HeyEng said:

From what I have heard they were on UHF and ATC were dual transmitting on UHF/VHF so you can hear ATC talking to the -60 but any civilian traffic could not hear the -60.

Also I still have not heard if this was an older -60 with legacy avionics or a more modern one with glass.

If it was legacy it probably had the small “fish finder” type of TCAS whereas glass typically overlays the TCAS on the HSI display. 
TCAS is probably moot anyhow since the TA/RA is disabled below 1000’

You said they need to have VHF…I am willing to bet they most definitely had VHF. As for what frequencies/radios they were using, that could be a procedural question/issue.  The H-60s flying around Iraq in 2008 (most likely Lima models as the Mike models were still pretty new then) had VHF radios, and from what I can tell, the one involved in this crash was a Lima model.

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, KWings06j said:

Fairly certain they have VHF. Every Blackhawk variant I've been in had it. Not uncommon for busy airspace to have a dedicated helicopter frequency regardless. 

Yep…(checks own username)—I agree.

[Standby]

2 hours ago, HeyEng said:

I do not think we are going to find any single fix for this accident but hopefully some changes come about.

I dunno…not permitting 100’ of procedural control deconfliction as the norm would have made all of this irrelevant. TCAS, ADS-B, visual separation, etc are moot if you delete the ability to put aircraft this close. When it comes to commercial aviation, we should never rely on decisions made with only seconds to spare…that’s unnecessary risk. Let’s assume everybody on that fateful night did everything right: the allowable error in altimeter equipment may very well have still resulted in a collision. It is shitty airspace deconfliction.

It seems like every time I fly I’m getting traffic callouts, and my clearance to continue climbing or descending (while IFR) is always contingent on being well clear on radar. My call to the controller with “traffic in sight” is never trusted and these examples highlight why. While it might give them respite from seeing two targets merging on the scope, it doesn’t absolve them of their shared responsibility. 

[tac airlifter]

12 hours ago, Biff_T said:

VHF wouldn't have helped in this accident. If they had the 33 traffic in sight, they should have turned or hovered.  The lack of SA (from all involved) plus an altitude deviation at a critical moment caused this.  

What lack of SA is the CRJ guilty of?  The RW was on a different frequency, invisible via cockpit tools and they weren’t alerted to their presence.  I’m seeing RW causal and ATC contributing but pretty tough to fault the dudes kept in the dark about conflicts while flying a night circle to short runway.

Edited February 9 by tac airlifter

[Biff_T]

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

What lack of SA is the CRJ guilty of?

Nothing. I made too general of a statement by typing the words  "everyone involved".   

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m seeing RW causal and ATC contributing but pretty tough to fault the dudes kept in the dark about conflicts while flying a night circle to short runway.

I agree.  

[BFM this]

20 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

What lack of SA is the CRJ guilty of?  

Waiting for the final report to come out, but it appears that the CRJ crew had one, possibly two nuggets of radio SA that they didn't cue in on.  

While PAT was on another freq, the controller was simulcasting, so the RJ crew at least had one side of the conversation.  Ideally, their ears should have perked up at the controller granting visual separation to PAT, then the controller confirming visual/pass behind deconfliction.  Again, ideally, those two nuggets should have at least cued their eyeballs down to the ND to get a rough BRA on the traffic, then outside for vis pickup.  But what I'm gathering from the NTSB briefings thus far (as well as the final outcome), is that they didn't initiate a scan in the direction of PAT until the TCAS "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" alert, by which time the die was cast.  Their eyeballs were focused (appropriately) on R33 for the visual curve approach.

DISCLAIMER: this is 100% armchair QB, 20/20 hindsight, from the comfort of my keyboard.  I will admit that I would have to be on my very best game, in that moment, to be able to pick up and cue off of the SA nuggets described.  There but for the grace of God go I...

Edited February 9 by BFM this
thoughts, speling

[Smokin]

Maybe.  But the regional pilots likely heard one side of the radio traffic that would have lead them to believe that the military traffic had them in sight and was deconflicting from them.  Before this accident, I'm betting the vast majority (like 95% or more) of pilots would hear that and move on to focusing 100% on flying the non-standard night visual approach they likely hadn't expected or briefed.  Also, if the FO was flying, that would only make it less likely that he would time share looking for the helo while on short final.  And that's if they even had an idea of where to look for it.

[ClearedHot]

On 2/8/2025 at 12:37 PM, HeyEng said:

I do not think we are going to find any single fix for this accident but hopefully some changes come about.

I can think of a place they might start.

28 agencies were authorized to fly helicopters near Reagan Airport before deadly crash

[Biff_T]

Easiest fix (besides meeting altitude requirements while flying in B): Tower shouldn't let helos maintain visual separation with an aircraft circling to land 33 at night.   

Also tower, should have pinged Pat about their altitude.  You can easily see with your eyeballs that Pat was too high.   That was the first thing I noticed watching the video of the collision.  

Edit: I used to teach dudes to hover or do 180 when traffic was landing to 33.   It happened enough that I made it a point to tell the new guys I flew with about it, as my instructors did for me.  It's generally a bad idea to fly under landing traffic on short final.

Edited February 10 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[Biff_T]

18 hours ago, BFM this said:

so the RJ crew at least had one side of the conversation.  Ideally, their ears should have perked up at the controller granting visual separation

I agree that they (CRJ) should have cleared final prior to landing but I wouldn't label this as causal.  There's a certain amount of trust I'd have on the tower not clearing me to land with potential conflict on final.  They weren't landing to an uncontrolled airfield.   

[Lord Ratner]

There should not be circling at night at this point (for airlines). An rnav rnp approach can be built to any runway from any spot with all sorts of crazy turns. Both DC and LGA have them. But then you wouldn't be able to treat it like a visual maneuver and let helicopters fly right under the final approach course.

 

This was about packing as much traffic into a shitty airport that should have been closed or fixed decades ago. That's it. Everybody already knows all of the things that shouldn't have happened because they knew about them while they were happening. Yes, ultimately the helicopter crew is at fault in this specific case. But a whole lot of people higher ranking and with way more experience than them tolerated the absolute dumpster fire of DCA because it was easier than taking a stand. Just more "good dudes" who aren't willing to tell their bosses no. 

 

Maybe this changes with Trump. He's certainly putting people in power who didn't spend the first 40 years of their adult lives being Yes men and yes women. But at this point we probably need to immolate 75-90% of the managerial class in both corporate America and the government. Somehow while we were all fat dumb and happy the sociopaths took everything over. On the corporate side that's going to happen with a revival of labor unions. On the government side it'll be with elections obviously. But I'm not sure individual events like this are going to be enough to turn the tide. Probably going to take something bigger to really flip the table.

[BFM this]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yes, ultimately the helicopter crew is at fault in this specific case.

Agreed with all points except this one.  If the helo crew had been spot on their altitude, that would have not been anything close to comfortable separation.  Would their altitude error have garnered more than a downgrade on a checkride?

Unfortunate that these deaths are what it took to highlight that unsafe margin.  …but I guess that’s the nature of unsafe margins; it’s all well and good until it isn’t.

Edited February 10 by BFM this

[Vito]

 Why do you think the helo climbed from the 200 ft altitude required on that route. Once they accepted visual clearance, are they allowed to climb above 200 ft AGL on that route, or was it just lack of altitude control? Not trying to blame anyone, just curious why they climbed.

Edited February 10 by Vito

[busdriver]

40 minutes ago, Vito said:

 Why do you think the helo climbed from the 200 ft altitude required on that route. Once they accepted visual clearance, are they allowed to climb above 200 ft AGL on that route, or was it just lack of altitude control? Not trying to blame anyone, just curious why they climbed.

I don't think anyone knows, unless it's in the comm.  More than likely it's just an accidental altitude deviation.  Keep in mind, they're flying over a river at night (extremely limited visual reference for height), trying to shack an altitude with very little margin for error.  And then being asked to look for traffic and visually separate from it. 

These procedures are no-step stupid.

[Smokin]

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

There should not be circling at night at this point (for airlines). An rnav rnp approach can be built to any runway from any spot with all sorts of crazy turns. Both DC and LGA have them. But then you wouldn't be able to treat it like a visual maneuver and let helicopters fly right under the final approach course.

So far, this is about the only criticism of the RJ crew that I can think of: accepting a change to the approach and runway that close in.  In a fighter in VMC?  Absolutely, no problem.  But the latest that I've accepted a change to a landing runway in an airliner has been outside 10 miles and even that was pushing it.

You can hardly call that causal, but it is something to think about and learn from as an airline pilot.  Don't let ATC fly your plane.  Had a captain tell ATC no to keeping us high and fast on an approach (my airplane does not like to slow down in any decent).  He told them 'we can be high or fast, but not both'.  ATC tried to shame us by then slowing us to approach speed and vectoring another flight in front of us and even made a comment to the other airplane about them being able to do it.  Capt basically shrugged said 'whatever'.

[Vito]

Biff,

 or anyone else in the know, on another website someone mentioned these Helicopter routes don’t have any lateral confines. I find that hard to believe. Is there a hard number ? ie. 1 mile laterally etc 

[Vetter]

10 hours ago, Smokin said:

So far, this is about the only criticism of the RJ crew that I can think of: accepting a change to the approach and runway that close in.  In a fighter in VMC?  Absolutely, no problem.  But the latest that I've accepted a change to a landing runway in an airliner has been outside 10 miles and even that was pushing it.

You can hardly call that causal, but it is something to think about and learn from as an airline pilot.  Don't let ATC fly your plane.  Had a captain tell ATC no to keeping us high and fast on an approach (my airplane does not like to slow down in any decent).  He told them 'we can be high or fast, but not both'.  ATC tried to shame us by then slowing us to approach speed and vectoring another flight in front of us and even made a comment to the other airplane about them being able to do it.  Capt basically shrugged said 'whatever'.

Anywhere else, I would agree with you.  But it was common in DC, especially among RJs.  It’s a noted procedure in the company pages (at least in ours)and it’s really a non-event even at night…unless there’s a helicopter there that hits you.