Mid-Air Collision in DC

[uhhello]

16 minutes ago, busdriver said:

And flying without NVGs at <200' over a river would be a good idea?

Not many un-charted obstacles in that area I'm guessing.  Whats the greater threat?  In my experience, one off one on is probably a better option.  I don't have any personal experience in that airspace so I'm spitballing.  

[busdriver]

150' over water is essentially IMC.

I'd rather fly with goggles and look under as required in a city.  Did it all the time in Vegas.

 

This is all intellectual masturbation.  The procedures are stupid, and purely a result of not wanting to tell people they can't have everything they want.

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

150' over water is essentially IMC.

I'd rather fly with goggles and look under as required in a city.  Did it all the time in Vegas.

 

This is all intellectual masturbation.  The procedures are stupid, and purely a result of not wanting to tell people they can't have everything they want.

We have the benefit of knowing they collided with an airliner so it kind of taints the discussion.  Talking to a bunch of the 1st heli alumni they said 50' over the river was pretty common.  Crazy procedural setup.  

[Vito]

5 hours ago, nunya said:

Helo dudes, NTSB dude said the helo crew would have used their baro altimeter as their primary reference instead of radalt. Is that true? Radio was always my primary on Herk low levels. But I guess the charted ceiling of 200' was baro, not radio, so maybe baro was primary?

 I would like to get an answer from Biff or any other hello  pilots about this. Anytime we (C-141/C-17) flew a low level, the Rad alt was our primary altitude instrument, I never flew a 300 ft LL using the baro altimeter. Do Blackhawks use the baro altimeter as their primary altitude instrument on a low level route that’s suppossed to be flown at 200 AGL? The reason I ask this, is because the NTSB spokeswoman seemed to be alluding there may be an issue with the barometric altimeter of the Blackhawk.
thanks for the answer in advance.

Edited Saturday at 03:31 AM by Vito

[uhhello]

Just now, Vito said:

 I would like to get an answer from Biff or any other he’ll pilots about this. Anytime we (C-141/C-17) flew a low level the Rad alt was our primary altitude instrument, I never flew a 300 ft LL using the baro altimeter. Do Blackhawks use the baro altimeter as their primary altitude instrument on a low level route that’s suppossed to be flown at 200 AGL? 
thanks for the answer in advance.

No

[Beaker16]

11 minutes ago, Vito said:

 I would like to get an answer from Biff or any other hello  pilots...

Flying HC-130s LL is always off RADALTs for LAAs. Looking back I've never had a altitude top block restriction based on AGL, apart from turns during a departure. 

When conducting HAAR LL (>1000A in training, down to >500A at night) we (as the tanker) do route study and rndz off an MSA altitude and pass a local WX station altimeter or EGI derived altimeter setting to the '60s. Once everyone is together we can fly MODCON at an AGL altitude...I've only done that a handful of times in Iraq, and a decent amount of area study was done prior. 

The entire NVG discussion from non-mil aviators and the general public is wild to me...I would much rather fly on NVGs at night, regardless of flight rules I'm on. Other traffic calls, terrain and weather avoidance are all easier, assuming you understand the their inherent sight limitations.

[uhhello]

8 minutes ago, Beaker16 said:

Flying HC-130s LL is always off RADALTs for LAAs. Looking back I've never had a altitude top block restriction based on AGL, apart from turns during a departure. 

When conducting HAAR LL (>1000A in training, down to >500A at night) we (as the tanker) do route study and rndz off an MSA altitude and pass a local WX station altimeter or EGI derived altimeter setting to the '60s. Once everyone is together we can fly MODCON at an AGL altitude...I've only done that a handful of times in Iraq, and a decent amount of area study was done prior. 

The entire NVG discussion from non-mil aviators and the general public is wild to me...I would much rather fly on NVGs at night, regardless of flight rules I'm on. Other traffic calls, terrain and weather avoidance are all easier, assuming you understand the their inherent sight limitations.

There is a very different viewpoint difference between 200' in the city versus fixed wing in the pattern over the city though. 

[Swizzle]

5 hours ago, BFM this said:

At what point would the army decide to sequester all of their data under privilege?  Could they, given a civil aircraft was involved?

It's too high in the public interest to keep quietly stuffed into military flight safety privilege-'drawer' in the interest of national security. Also, it is too hard to justify national security interest when 64 non-military died by, what readily appears to be, 3 military people.

NTSB will release their report version. Army will probably have their own too. Yay big gov't. They'll probably have differences in reporting strangely.

[busdriver]

44 minutes ago, uhhello said:

 Crazy procedural setup.  

Which is my point.

43 minutes ago, Vito said:

 a low level route that’s suppossed to be flown at 200 AGL? 

The heli charts list the routes in MSL.

 

[norskman]

10 hours ago, uhhello said:

No

Are you a pilot or SMA? 

[Biff_T]

@Vito

10 hours ago, busdriver said:

The heli charts list the routes in MSL.

This. Sometimes you'd be 20 feet above of the water, depending on the altimeter setting.  

Also, we'd typically use the radar altimeter as a warning that you're too low and stay above that setting.   

13 hours ago, busdriver said:

I'd rather fly with goggles and look under as required in a city.  Did it all the time in Vegas.

 

The same technique I used in DC.   

 

Edited Saturday at 02:57 PM by Biff_T
Afterthought

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, norskman said:

Are you a pilot or SMA? 

When we flew in DC at the 1st HS, about half of the time we flew single pilot with a SMA in the left seat.  They knew they maps as good and sometimes better than us pilots.   

[uhhello]

2 hours ago, norskman said:

Are you a pilot or SMA? 

You a cop?

[Vetter]

15 hours ago, busdriver said:

150' over water is essentially IMC.

I'd rather fly with goggles and look under as required in a city.  Did it all the time in Vegas.

Maybe it’s a bad technique.

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, Vetter said:

Maybe it’s a bad technique.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[disgruntledemployee]

On 2/12/2025 at 6:58 PM, Vetter said:

See and Avoid

1. Pilot. When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacle.

I guess the pilot is never absolved of see and avoid unless popeye.  But I would say that avoiding hitting the earth would be a higher priority than avoiding an aircraft that shouldn’t be there. But you raise a good point.  That’s why a lot of us shy away from anything visual in Part 121, esp at night.

Remember, a visual approach is still a ATC cleared approach and does not relieve ATC of traffic separation duties.

[raimius]

On 2/15/2025 at 11:25 AM, Vetter said:

Maybe it’s a bad technique.

Nope.  Composite aided/unaided cross-check is preferable to not seeing things...

All it takes is one burnt out street light on a bridge to make NVGs worth it in the city.

The helicopter route is MSL, so baro-alt restriction.  AGL off the river is usually 70-200, depending on altimeter setting and baro altimeter errors.

Edited Sunday at 09:44 PM by raimius

[Standby]

On 2/15/2025 at 12:25 PM, Vetter said:

Maybe it’s a bad technique.

Go with quals. 

[stract]

On 2/11/2025 at 7:50 AM, Vetter said:

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.

there's a concept for that: normalized deviance.

[Vetter]

7 hours ago, stract said:

there's a concept for that: normalized deviance.

lol.

[Vetter]

10 hours ago, stract said:

there's a concept for that: normalized deviance.

The only normalized deviance would be the helo flying high.  That would be the case if it was a trend item in the unit that wasn’t properly addressed.
 

You need deviance to have normalized deviance.

 

[busdriver]

6 hours ago, Vetter said:

The only normalized deviance would be .......

 

Everyone's acceptance of ops at DCA.  The FAA approved stupid procedures, and everyone else accepted and flew them for decades.  

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Vetter said:

You need deviance to have normalized deviance.

Turning with an engine out for non-terrain considerations.

Aircraft with less than 500' vertical separation on final.

Modified landing data for the shorter runway.

That shit doesn't fly at other airfields. That's the deviance. Only a few select "special" places is it allowed. That's the normalization.

 

The helo flying high is just "deviance." 

Edited Monday at 03:24 PM by Lord Ratner

[Lawman]

At what point would the army decide to sequester all of their data under privilege?  Could they, given a civil aircraft was involved?

That’s not what will cause a delay in release by the Safety Center.

If (and this is currently happening with a couple incidents) there is an attempt at legal action by families naming the Army crew at fault then the tapes will go to a special withholding where they can only be used in evidence of the legal proceeding. The Army safety center will cooperate through the investigation but now have the added issue of releasing delayed for however long those legal proceedings go on.

Theres a current tape that’s been held for years now because of a suit against the manufacturer for a fault in design and the associated crew recording and flight recorder data is held as part of the suit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disgruntledemployee]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

That’s not what will cause a delay in release by the Safety Center.

If (and this is currently happening with a couple incidents) there is an attempt at legal action by families naming the Army crew at fault then the tapes will go to a special withholding where they can only be used in evidence of the legal proceeding. The Army safety center will cooperate through the investigation but now have the added issue of releasing delayed for however long those legal proceedings go on.

Theres a current tape that’s been held for years now because of a suit against the manufacturer for a fault in design and the associated crew recording and flight recorder data is held as part of the suit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I haven't seen anything legal yet, there is probably enough info available for families to believe this was the Army/ATCs fault and start lining up lawsuits.