Let's have some real talk here.....this video was intended to dispel some of the myths that have been gaining popularity on the internet and also to give some pilot perspective on what unfolded here. In no way am I trying to suggest who is to blame. Trust me, the NTSB will surely do that in the coming weeks/months as the investigation unfolds. Real people died here. This was an incredibly tragic accident. How could it happen? We're trying to figure that out so that it doesn't happen again. I'm working on an update to this video to try and show you all what I mean about how difficult it is to see at night. I'll also discuss the exact routing used by both aircraft. This video is monetized. Please watch the ads and watch the videos in full if you have time. All the revenue this channel makes for the months of January and February will be donated to the Brotallion Blue Skies Foundation which provides relief to the families of fallen Army Aviators. Please donate to them if you have the means. There are also GoFundMe's set up for the passengers and crew of the PSA Airlines flight. If you have the means, give to these folks. I know a lot of people are out for blood and want to hear me place blame, but I won't do it. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists you can watch on this and other platforms.
That is true however, if you look at other flights, they start their climb back up to 1300 feet for their approach back into Davidson airfield. I agree the root does say at or below 200 feet.
@@dalewoodielthat is inaccurate. The Blackhawk was flying along ROUTE 1 with a maximum altitude of 200 feet. This 200 feet max altitude continues along the Potomac into ROUTE 4 until it crosses ROUTE 3 at the Wilson Bridge, about 2 miles S of the airport, where it increases to 300 feet maximum altitude.
Surprised that you didn't touch on the uh-60 flying at 350 ft when he should have been under 200 ft. Aircraft should have been elevation deconflicted. Listen to longer controller tape. Controller checked in twice with copter pilot about visual separation. This was 100% on the Blackhawk pilot.
The ATC had his system flashing a visual Conflict Alert warning and giving the audio Conflict Alert warning. Regulation requires the ATC to announce a Conflict Alert to both aircraft and instruct them to "Turn left immediately!". The CRJ was diverted from the primary runway to 33 at the last possible moment because the ATC had allowed the larger airliner behind it to get too close so it would have overrun the CRJ if they both landed on the Primary. That last moment diversion to runway 33 created the conflict, which would not have existed had the CRJ remained on approach to the Primary. This was 100% controller error by a DEI hired controller.
@ ahhhh yes let’s mix actually facts with distortion, nice play! Separation conflicts happen a lot with tight spacing, a circle to land on 33 is a very common approach and is completely acceptable. It’s a shorter runway so many reject it, but that procedure is fine. This one is much simpler. They asked for and were granted visual separation, and misidentified the jet they were separating from. Simple as that, and if you have ever flown in an environment with city lights and cars approaching at this angle it’s difficult to see, and the copter cockpit I’m hoping they have a cvr for because I bet there is ample distraction. That’s the reason for the 200 ft ceiling on that part of the copter chart.
@@eeroala5132 all the statistical evidence suggest that female pilots are at least as safe as male pilots. There is some evidence to suggest that female pilots might even be slightly less likely to be involved in fatal accidents, but in any case the difference is very small.
Just for clarification, the plane did NOT collide with the helicopter, at least that is the preliminary information we have at this time! Please watch your words and description analysis.
Correction: The PSA aircraft didn't hit the Blackhawk. The Blackhawk hit the airliner, literally T-boning it. The Blackhawk was 100 feet higher than its mandated altitude. Lack of separation. What you avoid talking about, is the craziness of allowing helicopter traffic in the airspace of a busy commercial airport's take off and landing zone. Bluestreak was on final to land on runway 33. It was a stabilized approach, following the ILS glideslope. All normal and correct. PAT25 was higher than it should have been, and failed to identify the jetliner in its path.
We don't know the exact altitude yet. If the RJ had overflown the. 60 by 100', that still would have been a near miss and reported. They were way too close to each other in general
" if you were below 200 feet, then no airplanes would be a threat" - who says? What if a CRJ, on visual, was below glideslope? It's up to the controller to maintain separation within his airspace. Period. The idea that a controller who gets a CA alert at night with two targets head-to-head, less than a mile, and only does a traffic call to one of the aircraft .. is nuts. I'm guessing the guy was overworked, tired, or new.
I would have hoped you would have given a balanced view. Sadly this didn't happen. The Black Hawk was required to not go above 200, they hit when they were at 400 approximately.
Completely agree. And in replies to people in the comments bringing this up, he claims 'we don't really know what elevation the Blackhawk was at...' Well to have collided with a plane at 400 ft, I think we DO know the Blackhawk was above 200 ft. 🙄
@@ashleypg1708 Correct. Altitudes are clearly displayed on the ATC screen of the ATC comms recording (courtesy of VASAviation) which everyone has seen. We can see the altitude separation for both aircraft narrowing as they got closer to each other and becoming identical at point of collision. It is horrifying to watch. To say "we don't really know..." does not help uncover the truth of what happened and smacks of a possible cover-up.
I'm a light jet charter driver and CFII that has flown into DCA on numerous occasions. You have explained the situation these crews encountered pretty well. Flying at night is a whole different world from daytime. IMO, PAT25 was looking at the wrong target. Which target he was looking at I do not know. But since he replied twice to ATC that he had the CRJ in sight , yet still collided with them , leads me to believe this. The investigation will tell us in the end what exactly happened and what changes we can make to ensure it doesn't happen again.
ATC passed off control to the helo for visual inspection, the helo was most likely tracking the 3130 behind the CRJ and not the CRJ itself. With that said, ATC should not be passing off control to any aircraft within direct or direct adjacent airspace of the airport.
I see your point but I wonder how common it is to alert one aircraft that another aircraft is departing in the same direction as your going? It doesn't seem like a common ATC thing to say. Wouldn't it be more relevant to say this if incoming aircraft as supposed to outgoing and taking off in the same direction as you which means that the plane is going to elevate quickly and substantially at a higher altitude then the helicopter was allowed to be at. If the place is taking off ahead of you and elevating quickly why does the tower really need to warn the helicopter. You'd think the warning would most definitely come if another aircraft was fast approaching you and similar attitudes. My guess
@@Iamuprise74 In fact, ATC DID warn the helo that there was "traffic, a CRJ, at 1200ft, setting up for runway 33". That was in the ATC comms. ATC alerted the helo to this CRJ because this was the ONLY plane approaching to land on 33, which would bring it in close proximity to the helo. Helo requests visual separation and permission was given by ATC. ATC noticed the helo was still flying straight on towards the CRJ and not taking evasive action. ATC asks the helo if they had the CRJ in sight, to which the helo replied they had. A few seconds later, ATC, again noticing the helo was closing in on the CRJ, i.e., there was no separation, repeats the same question and receives the same answer. ATC still notices no change in the helo's flight path and quickly orders the helo to "pass behind the CRJ". This was about 10 seconds before collision. The correct action at this point would be for the helo to turn to the LEFT (east) and away from the CRJ and the airport on the helo's right. Instead, it swerved RIGHT (west), which sent it headlong into the CRJ.
I think it's also possible they were looking at the CRJ that was landing. They were told to pass behind. Why turn inbound then if they were looking at the A319?
My question is , when did the chopper begin its ascent from 200 ft to 400 ft which is 100 ft higher than the max altitude and that's only after you've flown out just a little click.
We don't really know exactly how high it got. I saw 300' according to the radar screen, but those radars don't work particularly well at low altitudes. And it looks like they didn't have ADSB reporting on. We will know their exact altitude once the black box is analyzed.
@@SnakPakFlightblack box on a UH60L, which you alluded to was the model based on after accident videos/pics? Unless there are mods that I am unaware of, L models don’t have FDR or CVR.
I was based in dca for over 6 years. Not only is a very congested airspace, there’s also little space available for everyone. Probably the airport with the least separation(civilian) between aircrafts. The approach to Rwy 33 is a complex one, and even though we were very familiar with it, it still was a hair raising approach. Short runway with a tight left turn at low altitude and at slow speed. Not to mention that you must also begin vigilant about halo traffic over the water. Complex to say the least. Flying low,over water at night with little visual reference for the for the halo pilots, and most likely, the PSA pilots were focus on staying on the visual approach to rwy33, therefore the attention and line of sight was probably to the left. Great video!
@ your explanation was great, I really enjoyed your video. I usually don’t comment on videos, but yours was more of an “educational” video, helping people understand, and providing them with an “insight” view than an opinion video.
This is an excellent presentation, thank you. I am an Australian former flight instructor. One thing Snak Pak did not explain was the difficulty of seeing an aircraft that is on a collision course at night. When you are sighting aircraft most of them will be moving against the background lights, they are the ones that will NOT hit you. The one that WILL hit you is stationary among the background lights and so is VERY difficult to see until you are really close!
not sure i agree because the BH had to climb 35ft in the last 24sec to hit perfectly the CRJ this means for the last 24sec the CRJ was huge in the front window of the BH and the lights of the windows of the passengers on the CRJ cannot be missed in clear weather especially at that distance and especially at night and I'm not even mentioning the landing light of the CRJ which makes the "target" impossible to miss visually.
@@SnakPakFlight I agree, that's a great point especially in this case since the BH and CRJ were running in opposite directions as if they were on a head on collision course for a portion of the final segment (I think the landing head light would generally appear stationary. One thing I'm thinking though is that head light is huge in your window and you keep coming at it - but if you lack experience I guess you could be more easily falling for that light being stationary and not being a threat. On the flip side of all this the BH T-boned the CRJ and the video footage shows the BH on a straight course as if it was going for the CRJ with very little corrections (I will say something like 5 seconds or more). Is 5 seconds enough to change course radically and avoid the target by climbing abruptly or doing any other maneuver (I'm not a pilot) ?
This is the first of your videos I've seen, and I really appreciate that you're going out of your way to push back against the nonsense and conspiracy stuff that's being pushed.
In a video from VASAviation they seem to have the initial comms from ATC to PAT25 about the CRJ. ATC says: “PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it’s 1200 feet setting up for runway 33”. PAT25 confirms they have it in sight and requests visual separation which is then approved. If the information in that video is correct, at that point PAT25 was at 200ft and the CRJ would have been at PAT25’s 3 o’clock. AAL3130 was behind and slightly to the right of 5342. Then just before the crash was the second exchange about whether PAT25 had the CRJ in sight, the one you included in your video.
Good thought but if made me think how common I'd it to warm one of a outgoing place departing quickly and elevating quickly that's ahead of you? If think to planned on a similar attitude approaching each other would be a more common use of the ATC warning as opposed to a plane in front of you departing
The CRJ, as it was doing a left bank to set up for 33, was more like at the helo's 12 oc'clock, 1 o'clock at most, not 3 o'clock. All it had to do, if it was doing visual separation, was to turn 10-20 degrees to its LEFT (east). Inexplicably, it turned RIGHT (west) *and* CLIMBED as well, which sent it into the CRJ. Weird.
@ in the moments before impact, yes it was at 12-1 o’clock but I was referring specifically to the moment of the first exchange I described (0:26 in VASAviation’s ‘Last radio from Army Helicopter…’ video). As ATC describes the location of the traffic, PAT25 seems to be travelling east while CRJ is coming in from the south. At that point it’s at 3 o’clock. I’m not inferring anything from this and we don’t know how well synchronised the graphics and audio, I just found it interesting.
@@istudios225 On the VAS audio, PAT requested visual separation but the tower approval response was garbled. I did not hear approved. I'm going under the assumption that unless visual separation is clearly approved, SOP is stay on course. Think the comm glitch made it unclear whether separation was approved or not. Assuming if message was clear PAT would have avoided. Especially since they went through a successful separation procedure with the earlier CRJ5307.
CA is Conflict Alert. Controller never gave bearing and distance of the RJ to the Blackhawk, and didn't give the same with a traffic alert to the RJ. I believe that video came from a camera at the Kennedy Center which is way up river from the airport. It was windy out, I wonder how much turbulence was in the area. Rough ride while looking outside could result in altitude deviations.
I am a retired pilot with numerous landings at Reagan. It appears the impact was approx .1/2 mile from the runway as the Jet was executing a visual 33 I cannot believe that a VFR corridor southbound along the river was allowed below Northbound landing traffic on final approach....aL
I'm just an electrical engineer but I have more than 30yrs of experience analyzing issues from a true factual standpoint and looking for root cause (you can't cram in my field, you can't just wing it, you need to put in the work when you go for root cause in electrical systems, you need be very hard headed and be hard to convince to make sure you are truly after root cause, and yes a lot of people get emotional in the room sometimes, usually only true nerds like me keep their calm and comb every aspect of it again and again, others in the room are either fed up or bored with replaying the same scenarios again and again by me and my peers). When analyzing root cause sometimes you need to dwell on a plausible scenario and play it out until you're satisfied that it's actually not plausible and you can dismiss it. I'm kind of locked on the fact that the accident happened at 400ft altitude, even though the Black Hawk had to respect a ceiling of 200ft. This is a bit of a red flag from the get go, but not enough to jump to conclusions but it deserve some attention, why did the Black Hawk fail to respect the ceiling. The black hawk ran into the incoming CRJ, this means for the last several seconds the black hawk had perfect visual of the CRJ especially at 400ft looking straight ahead almost boresight, you cannot miss all the light that comes out through dozens of windows on the side of the airplane. The Black Hawk could not miss this by being confused from other lights because it was high enough at 400ft that there is no other either tower lights or street lights or any other lights from any structure on the ground that is tall enough to offer confusion at 400ft when looking at an other airplane at your eye level that is only a few hundred feet from you as you are dashing into it's direction - when you look at it boresight and your head is looking straight you cannot miss the lights from the passenger windows off the side of the airplane, not to mention the powerful landing light as the Black Hawk was close to head on course between the 2 aircrafts for a good portion of the trajectory (i.e. no need to look down or up as the Black Hawk was at the exact same altitude +/= 5ft max which is an absolute fact since it actually hit the plane). I'm just trying to move away from that hypothesis in my mind so if anyone wants to jump in and slowly analyze this please do so. I've seen a lot of army personal in the past commit acts where they deliberately turn against other innocent people one day out of either depression or other things going through their mind when they commit this act. Again, I'm just trying to exhaust that option so I can move on to consider the other options and analyze them as thoroughly in my mind. If someone wants to help with this conversation, please do not bring the fact that the Black Hawk replied they have a visual of the CRJ and they were looking at another airplane, this is a good piece of information for other scenarios though, but not for the scenario where this would be a deliberate act (i.e. in the deliberate act scenario, the Black Hawk would simply reply they have visual on the airplane as they are seeking to run into it to not alarm the tower).
@carlyellison8498: In the context of the "intentional" scenario, this confirms the Black Hawk pilot made the exact perfect small corrections necessary to hit his target. Thanks for the precisions.
1) ATC does not inform the pilot where to look for the jet that is landing. 2) ATC does not verify the altitude of the helicopter. 3) The helicopter is flying carelessly across the landing path for jets. 4) The helicopter is not following the correct flight path. 5) The helicopter is flying at 400 ft when it should be below 200 ft.
Thank you, Snak Pak, for posting this video. Your expertise is appreciated. One thing people are failing to perceive is that the Blackhawk hit the SIDE of the jet. This wasn't head-on. Picture a speeding car hitting a bus in an intersection. Neither driver might see the other vehicle until the very last second. In the case of the Blackhawk, the PSA jet was descending from left to right across their path. The copilot (left seat) in the helicopter would have had to look up and left to see the jet before the collision. The jet was probably moving at around 130 kts. They did not see it directly in front of them until they hit it. I agree with the other posters here in that the helicopter likely broke altitude restrictions on this VR route. Everything indicates the helicopter was too high and would not have collided if it was at or below 200 feet. Even so, VFR requires a 500' altitude separation which means that VR-4 route should have been CLOSED while Runway 33 was in use for landings. Communications, lack of proper direction from the ATC, and pilot error in the Blackhawk were probably all contributing factors to the accident. Several mistakes added up here to produce the fatal result.
Well, the tower just said "CRJ." At night, it would be very difficult to differentiate a CRJ from an A319 or another CRJ. Maybe some clock direction would have helped.
Nice try to deflect attention from the Blackhawk crew. PAT25 was 100+ feet above the max altitude for that corridor and had requested and been granted visual separation which means they had accepted responsibility to "see and avoid." This terrible tragedy is 100 percent on them.
I'm glad you explained the 2 different frequencies of the tower, some recordings did not show the PAT25 responding, others did. Is there an established altitude where the helis are supposed to cross the approach path?
Important to note is landing and departing traffic was using runway 01. I'm sure PAT25 was aware of this since both A/C were listening to Reagan tower, albeit on different frequencies. Perceiving tight spacing ATC asked Bluestreak if they could accept runway 33 instead of 01. Bluestreak advised they could accept 33 and ATC cleared them to land on 33. In order to land on runway 33 Bluestreak had to make a small turn to the right followed by a small turn to the left to get lined up on runway 33. This put them directly over the route PAT25 was using. Since they were cleared to land, they were focused on landing on a shorter runway and correctly assumed the airspace they were flying in was safe. They actually were within about 15 seconds from touching down. Pat 25 would have been able to hear ATC asking Bluestreak if they could accept runway 33 but would not have heard their response since they were on a different frequency. At this point PAT25 had the opportunity to anticipate Bluestreak's flightpath and take appropriate measures. Pilots don't typically pay attention to their radios until they hear their callsign. At this point it appears PAT25 assumed all traffic ahead was in front of them and to their right and mistakenly advised ATC they had Bluestreak insight when in fact it was another CRJ. They had no idea Bluestreak was descending and approaching from their left to land on runway 33. In a perfect world ATC should have advised a left turn vector to PAT25 to ensure separation. But it appears he was busy handling 2 positions at the time of the midair. Another issue is PAT25 appears higher than the 200-foot restriction for their position in their route. That is a pretty narrow gap to fly in especially if it is windy which I understand it was that night. Honestly, I put the overall blame on the FAA for this. Their role is to provide leadership in planning and developing a safe and efficient national airport system to satisfy the needs of aviation interests of the United States. Like most government organizations they lack the ability to manage and efficiently maintain ATC system. They are like a large corporation where no one is responsible or accountable. Shame on them!
you keep saying the jet that collided with the helicopter, when in fact the helicopter collided with the jet based on who has responsibility for separation. showing some bias in your framing.
Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias on the part of the Blackhawk crew. And just saying, it's more a case of the Blackhawk flying into the plane, rather than the other way around - the plane was in the right place at the right altitude, the helo on the other hand was flying too high, and sadly it looks like he or she was looking at the wrong aircraft.
He ALSO appears to have violated the corridor for helos which hugs the DC side of the Potomac. He was too far SOUTH and was above the proscribed ceiling for helos as well.
I love how you talked about perspective while in the sky. It reminds me of how I can’t stand to be on a one story roof, but I have no problem jumping out of a plane. I just try to explain to people, that when you are high up with nothing near you, there really is no height perception… so I don’t have that fear of falling. I believe this was a total accident 😢 My sincere condolences to everyone affected.
The Blackhawk was reportedly at the wrong altitude and had climbed into a descending CRJ on final. It also appears that they spotted the wrong traffic. The Blackhawk was flying a published helicopter route along ROUTE 1 with a maximum altitude of 200 feet. This 200 feet max altitude continues along the Potomac into ROUTE 4 until it crosses ROUTE 3 at the Wilson Bridge, about 2 miles S of the airport, where it increases to 300 feet maximum altitude. We will learn a lot more after the cockpit voice recorders are examined. Radar and ADSB does not provide enough resolution to determine exactly what happened.
Alt 300? Maximum was 200ft. Go behind the Aircraft on Final. You're only 300 ft AGL headed toward oncoming traffic and the airstrip. Wow, don't cross the flight path for RWY 33 check your barometer and get below 200ft and turn away
The Black Hawk was at 400ft altitude and was supposed to respect a 200ft ceiling which is a bit of a red flag, not enough to confirm a deliberate act, but certainly something to consider. Next thing is you cannot miss an airplane coming at you almost head on with it's landing light and with all the passenger windows that are lit, and we know the CRJ was at eye level because they actually hit it. Also at 400ft when you're looking at another plane that is only a few hundred feet from you, you cannot be confused by a another light because it is so prominent and also at 400ft no other tower light or street light or any other structure from the ground is not confusing your sight at eye level boresight. We need to dismiss the portion about the verbal exchange between the Black Hawk and the tower confirming the Black Hawk has a visual on the CRJ and it's confused with another airplane in the case where we consider the scenario where this is a deliberate act because he/they would simply say they have a good visual to not alert the tower.
@@jfgrivard2 You've got your head wrapped around the intention here. It was not intentional. We don't know their exact altitudes yet. And the CRJ was not heading straight for them. Imagine whatever you want, but until you get into a cockpit at night and look around, you will never know how disorienting it can be. Also, they may have had their heads inside looking at instrumentation or ipads or tuning radios, etc. There may have been task saturation. Miles turn to meters and to inches very quickly when aircraft are traveling toward each other in the hundreds of knots.
@@jfgrivard2--- the Black Hawk pilots were wearing phosphorous night vision goggles which restricted their peripheral vision. The ascent to 400 feet was likely unintentional since they were likely hand flying and not on autopilot. There is NOTHING about this collision that says it was intentional. It has alk the earmarks of a little bit of sloppy flying by the helo pilot and poor separation management by ATC.
@@jfgrivard2 I'm going to preface this with I'm not a pilot, I only have the priveledge to know a couple. While I haven't talked to them about this, they have explained that when you're flying, things that you are not going to hit will be moving, the thing/spot that you are going to hit won't be moving. They could have mistaken the white landing lights as a star or something in space since to my understanding to them the plane would've appeared stationary while seeing the plane behind it was moving and thus mistaking it for the CRJ, which in my opinion is just as if not more likely than the theory you proposed. Maybe @SnakPakFlight can correct me if I misunderstood them. I do agree however that Snak should've touched on the fact that the radar station was reading PAT 25 at 100-150FT above ceiling, which I saw your post, Snak about those stations not being accurate at low level, it does not matter the opinion on the functionality of the sensor the fact is he was being tracked at higher than allowed elevation by the ATC. He also would've been assigned route 4 along the east bank of the Potomac under 200FT until they reached the Woodrow Wilson bridge in which they then would've been cleared to climb to 300FT while it appears the tragedy took place over the middle of the river.
Back in 1988, when I was a new pilot undergoing RL progression training in Korea, we were a flight of two UH60s. We took off trom 2 separate confined areas and were going to link up in flight. It appeared to me that the other acft took off and headed north, so I flew toward it to fall in staggered left. It actually turned back south west toward me, so I was heading on a collision course. I was experiencing the reversible perspective illusion. You had the description of that up on your slide. The IP realized it and took the contrils. I believe they experienced that and thought they were going to pass behind it. It's just a possibility.
@@srstacy Awesome! Flew limas for a few years with 101. Now back to Mikes. Thanks for serving. Crazy to think we flew the same model aircraft but I was crapping my diaper when you were in flight school!
If the AA plane was larger do you think there'd be a better chance of survivors? Or do you think it would've been even more catastrophic? I know nothing about aviation (other than the fact I graduated from Wright State) so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.
It's hard to say. Mid-air collisions are so rare but they are usually devastating. If this helicopter were to crash into a wing on a giant 747, there's not much hope it would be able to continue flying. Also, the bigger the plane, the faster it needs to go to generate lift (generally speaking). So even on final approach, it's going really fast. Can't really maintain control at those speeds without the critical components of the airframe.
Highly doubtful, aircrafts are tin cans when subject to loads they aren’t designed for. Falling 400’ after a collision which causes an explosion and the aircraft to break up is not survivable.
Why is the military aircraft flying into a clear landing path of commercial aircraft? Supposedly these were very experienced military pilots. One a typical night, you can see the commercial aircraft lined up preparing to land. it was a very clear night, and vision was not an issue. Why were they at the same altitude at point of the collision. Is this just an approved diversion video?
I stated at the beginning of the video that this was to dispel some myths. I'm holding my own theory on what the cause was until more data is released. You are free to jump to whichever conclusions you would like.
@@SnakPakFlight What myths were dispelled? Your information is nothing but speculation and simply your opinion. Do you think this was simply an accident? Incorrect altitude by Blackhawk. Blackhawk did not seem to avoid the landing plane. It made a straight line into the landing plane. How does this even make sense for an "accident"? I also understand that you are not providing official answers.
Two questions - I've been watching ADS-B exchange for the past three days. When I choose the "U" option I don't see any (as in zero) PAT flights. I already know about the generalized exemptions for military and law enforcement so let's move past that. Is the threat environment for VIPs in the DC area so high that ADS-B is turned off in every one of those PAT aircraft? Or is it that the ADS-B equipment simply was never installed because theres never any intent to ever use it? Second Question - SecDef Hegseth mentions NVGs in the news blurb in the beginning. In the 80s the modified googles we had didn't have a lot of dynamic range and only a 40 degree field of view. What is the FOV on the stuff they're using now and are they actually flying near a busy airport with these on? EDIT TO ADD - So....watching what you said Snak Pak - I can understand some not being equipped with ADS-B. I don't get why there isn't a single PAT helicopter track with it on at all. None. Not one. I'm watching it now.
You are confused about the location of FT Belvoir. FT Belvoir is south of Alexandria, VA. The helicopter was flying south along the Potomac along Helicopter route1 which changes to helicopter route 4 at the mouth of the Anacostia River returning back to Davidson AAF, FT Belvoir. Actually you are speculating about whether the Blackhawk saw the CRJ, but I agree with your speculation. I don’t think he ever saw the CRJ. One thing that would have helped would be the map with helicopter routes published on it. They are online. But your discussion concerning the lights is on point. The real question is this: why did the controller who was watching the two aircraft allow the two to run together? Yes, the Blackhawk pilot stated he would provide his own separation but if the controller continues toward the CRJ, then he should have issued a vector.
Good question. Things become routine when the same players are working on a regular basis. You get to know the controllers and other aircraft that operate in the area. I think the controller thought they had the situation in the bag and moved on to other priorities. The questions that need to be answered are: Was it smart to allow the CRJ to amend it's landing clearance to circle for RWY33 when that would have put it on a path close to the inbound H-60? Did the CRJ see the H-60? Which aircraft was the H-60 looking at when it confirmed visual tower? If the H-60 saw the CRJ it eventually collided with, did the pilots experience an illusion which made it seem further away or moving in a different direction? Were any of the crews task saturated and not paying enough attention to the outside surroundings? What impact did ADS-B technology have on the crews' situational awareness? Until we answer these questions, we won't have a clear answer to what happened.
So, I guess the part I'm a little surprised by is a Blackhawk doesn't have like a radar that can show all these nearby planes to the pilots? Like you said you use foreflight-I know many commercial and private pilots have tablets with them running foreflight, flightaware or similar. Just seems backwards that some private pilot in a Cessna can see what planes are around them, but a Blackhawk pilot doesn't have that technology available to them.
@@chris-hayes The black hawk was designed to fly in combat. The navigation systems were designed as such and not to operate in civilian airspace although they are fully capable of doing so. Decisions had to be made in design of these systems and sacrifices had to be made. Also, decisions take forever in the DOD so even the newer blackhawks don’t have ADS-B In. I always fly with a stratus that gives me live Ads-b traffic advisories on foreflight, but not everyone does.
What I think happened is tower was lining up airplanes on 01 and since blue streak is a smaller plane to land on 33 now there is 2 different frequencies 1 for helicopters and 1 for planes also there were about 3 planes lined up for landing the #2 plane flying to close to blue streak and I think that the black hawk pilot had a visual on the wrong aircraft the #2 aircraft instead of the aircraft next to him
Thank you. This whole thing is so tragic and I’m so EMBARRASSED by IDIOTS and what they’re saying. Me and my husband LOVE a good conspiracy theory, but this is just ridiculous. It was an ACCIDENT. A horrible horrible accident…
Snak Pak, provided that the helo followed the path of Route 1/4 AND had stayed below 200 ft as the route instructs, can you tell if that vertical separation would have been enough at the point of impact?
Well, I wouldn't trust that MLAT data 100%. From the low-res video, it looks like they are maintaining altitude. But we just don't know yet. IF the airplane was on the right glide slope and the helo was below 200', then in theory they shouldn't have collided. But still would have been a near miss and would have to be reported.
The pace of these airports need to slow down. They are moving at a break neck speed and it bit this time hard. They don't ask to change the runway thus probably doesn't happen. I bet they changed the runway because they needed a little time for a departing aircraft to clear out.
I just don’t understand how a helicopter can fly into the landing path of these jets without being absolutely certain there’s no jet in the way. Did the Helicopter slow down as it gets close to the area the airplanes approach to land is?
It's a group effort. I've had at least 3 instances where a tower put me on a collision course with another aircraft. We are all human and have to work together.
I'm wondering if the helicopter had trouble seeing the plane as it appears to be coming out of the city lights. How bright are those planes landing front lights? At what distance does a pilot actually recognize that those are airplane lights coming at me and not an illusion or possibly something else. I know at night your not suppose to look at lights directly but to the side of the object. I read it somewhere in a pilots handbook
Yes, that's because of the night blind spot. Off-center viewing in required. There's also an illusion called autokinesis which can fool our eyes into thinking lights are moving when they are not.
Great video explaining what could have happened from the helicopter's point of view. The focus of other videos I've watched is the plane probably because they're airplane pilots. I am interested in what happened, not in blaming someone.
Actually AA 3130 was the flight followed AA5342. AA3130 was on final approach to Runway 01. There was an AA flight taking off on Runway 01 but it wasn't 3130.
My theory is the helicopter was watching the plane taking off and the tower told them to go behind it. So that's what I think happened. Once the departing plane was clear, the helicopter made the turn right into the plane coming in to land. It was a blender.
Oh, we do know what happened. UH60 busted max altitude of 200 feet. No other details really matter. This was pilot error on the chopper. They were too high. There's a reason why they were restricted to 200 feet or lower, and this collision is the reason. It wasn't an accident.
Looks like that may have been part of the story but even if they were lower, this would have been very close. They should never have been so close to each other.
A guestimation from me. Maybe the crew of the BH did see the "correct" CRJ in the last second and tried to decelerate fast, but the helo pops up quite a bit when hauling 100+ kts and pulling on the stick in a hasty manner. Does this make any sense? I think the airliner was totally not aware of the helicopter and was hit from the right while turning left. So the helo was "under" their belly and popped right into them from down and right.
Let's say the chopper was at 200 feet, and the plane went over it, wouldn't the rotor wash have a huge impact at that point especially considering the plane is lined up for landing?
They won't tell us. First, they said they were. Then they said they weren't. We probably won't know this, along with a bunch of other stuff about the accident.
Just a suggestion: move the cursor and then take your hand off the mouse. Your moving that cursor all over the screen and it's very distracting. Aside from that, a good analysis.
Um - the Blackhawk hit the CRJ, not the other way around. The CRJ was and had been established on final for minutes. The Blackhawk said it had the traffic in sight, when it did not, and it flew into the path of the CRJ. Those are facts that you cannot spin. Helicopters do no belong in that airspace, period.
Nice try. But your content is more BS than anything else I have seen. You aren’t going to be able to excuse away this deal. On the altitude bust alone. That doesn’t even get to the altitude combined with crossing an approach path. If ATC had Ben speaking Chinese, it would t be near as big a factor as ass hats off altitude.
I see your point, Raper, but the intent of this video was not to assign blame or give my theory on what happened. Rather to dispel some myths and provide some insight.
the commercial plane did not hit the blackhawk. The blackhawk rammed into the commercial plane. Everyone reporting on this consistently express that the plane hit the helicopter. Why?
I agree that there seems to be a lot of superfluous information here. At this time we need to stick to the facts, I.E. heading, altitude etc. Continually saying the jet hit the helicopter to me indicates bias in this event.
We don't have all the facts yet. Many people are pretty adamant about the issue of tower clearing the CRJ for a circle to land approach to RWY33 when the H60 was already established on its flight path down the river. That could have been the first hole in the swiss cheese.
Why didn't the controller notice the CA prox going off on the radar and immediately tell one of them to turn? that's what don't make sense to me. im gonna put it on the controller for not lookin at the screen he had plenty of time to call one of them off
If you listen to the audio, when the ATC starts double checking if the Blackhawk pilot has the CRJ in sight, you can hear the collision alarm in the background. In hindsight the ATC should've done more and maybe should've guessed that the Blackhawk was looking at the wrong plane. But, the tower might get these kinds of collision alerts pretty often considering the air space. There might've been a false sense of security with the ATC thinking helicopters should always be below the approach glide slope at that point.
I'm just curious. Does the Blackhawks have Black boxes or not? You're right, I only listen to actual pilots instead of armchair quarterbacks. So many people are saying DEI was to blame or whatever.
No one knows yet whether DEI was a factor or not, but the very nature of DEI suggests that it could be and that's why people say it. I mean you're hiring people NOT based on their skill with DEI.
Thanks for this man. It’s been terrible seeing the things you’re pointing out and seeing media take liberties with the story. Also whenever tower calls out an aircraft especially in a busy area is it standard practice to give a clock position and est alt? IE do you have the CRJ 10oclock same level?
@ Crew chiefs #1 assignment (especially in low altitude close quarters flight) is to have his head out the door of the Aircraft being eyes for the pilot. Another pair of eyes out the port side would’ve made a difference I think.
Fort Belvoir is no where near the origin of the helo flight as shown on numerous flight trackers. The flight appears to originate in the extremely upscale neighborhood of McLean, near Langley. If you've seen Jack Ryan, it's the same area a mil helo picks up Jack in the first episode at the house party. The Belvoir base is a 30 minute drive south following the river, turning, then up the old Jeff Davis Parkway. I understand you don't I've there. Confused.
I didn't say it originated from Belvoir. The unit was based in Belvoir. The data on ADSB exchange is not perfect which is why I'm not making any assumptions about what happened yet.
@@SnakPakFlight Yes, several reports say the unit was based at Belvoir. You use the curser over the map showing where the helo flight begins, at 7:40 you motion at what you guess is Belvoir, but it's the Mclean residential area. Then show the helo beggining to fly around 9:33. Was the helo taking off for in the middle of a longer flight?
@@TheAcerbicTraveller Yeah I don't really know. Like I said, the data from that site is unrealiable. We don't know yet where the flight originated from. They didn't have ADSB (I think) so we can't really track their flight with too much certainty. We'll know more when the black box data emerges.
@@TheAcerbicTraveller At the beginning of the video, I explain that the purpose of this video is to clear up some myths and provide some perspective from a pilot on the situation. I'm not trying to push my theory of what happened but there are a lot of those videos out now.
@@SnakPakFlight I've no weird theories, and trust, don't seek any. Was just wondering if it was a longer flight and we just see a part of it, or they left from a government area near the houses, dropped someone off, or near Langley to refuel. Obv don't know how to read flight apps. Your video is quite informative. Thanks for answering my badly worded questions.
CFI/II MEI ATP flown out and into DCA many times. This is obviously the fault of the helicopter pilot! He was too high for the corridor. In addition he accepted he had the visual on the AA flight. All responsibility is now on the helicopter. Pretty clear cut. However, who setup the corridor altitude. That needs to be looked at.
I agree with you. The hawk was looking at the other acft further south. Ive flown that route at night under goggles. The lights make it really hard to see other acft.
Glad you're debunking the lies just wish someone would debunk the DEI lies too. I do have a question; Is there recording of what the pilot and co-pilot says during the flight? Would that be on the "black box"?
Yes that's on the black box. If they find it, it will surely be analyzed. Whether it's released to the public or not we will find out later. The pilots in the Army will likely hear it. We do regular training where we watch mishap investigations and look at the cause and how to avoid in the future.
Even if the helicopter had been at 200ft, the minimum vertical separation for vfr is 500ft. The controller should have never allowed these aircraft to get this close. ATC is the boss and needs to take responsibility.
Let's have some real talk here.....this video was intended to dispel some of the myths that have been gaining popularity on the internet and also to give some pilot perspective on what unfolded here. In no way am I trying to suggest who is to blame. Trust me, the NTSB will surely do that in the coming weeks/months as the investigation unfolds. Real people died here. This was an incredibly tragic accident. How could it happen? We're trying to figure that out so that it doesn't happen again.
I'm working on an update to this video to try and show you all what I mean about how difficult it is to see at night. I'll also discuss the exact routing used by both aircraft.
This video is monetized. Please watch the ads and watch the videos in full if you have time. All the revenue this channel makes for the months of January and February will be donated to the Brotallion Blue Skies Foundation which provides relief to the families of fallen Army Aviators. Please donate to them if you have the means. There are also GoFundMe's set up for the passengers and crew of the PSA Airlines flight. If you have the means, give to these folks.
I know a lot of people are out for blood and want to hear me place blame, but I won't do it. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists you can watch on this and other platforms.
Helicopter climbed to 350feet in a zone where they were limited to 200ft max. This was their key fault, the rest of the discussion is noise.
Right. Without the helicopter being too high, this accident doesn't happen.
Somebody's head should roll. Because this shouldn't happen.....
That is true however, if you look at other flights, they start their climb back up to 1300 feet for their approach back into Davidson airfield. I agree the root does say at or below 200 feet.
@@dalewoodielthat is inaccurate. The Blackhawk was flying along ROUTE 1 with a maximum altitude of 200 feet. This 200 feet max altitude continues along the Potomac into ROUTE 4 until it crosses ROUTE 3 at the Wilson Bridge, about 2 miles S of the airport, where it increases to 300 feet maximum altitude.
@@SilentThundersnow The crew already paid the price for their mistake, don't you think? Saying heads will roll is really dumb.
I think the helicopter pilots head already rolled.
Surprised that you didn't touch on the uh-60 flying at 350 ft when he should have been under 200 ft. Aircraft should have been elevation deconflicted. Listen to longer controller tape. Controller checked in twice with copter pilot about visual separation. This was 100% on the Blackhawk pilot.
Why would he mention that?
Then military pilots wouldn’t be preferentially hired for all kinds of jobs if their flaws weee known.
The pilot of the UH 60 was not a he it was she.
@@eeroala5132irrelevant, and instructor was male.
The ATC had his system flashing a visual Conflict Alert warning and giving the audio Conflict Alert warning. Regulation requires the ATC to announce a Conflict Alert to both aircraft and instruct them to "Turn left immediately!". The CRJ was diverted from the primary runway to 33 at the last possible moment because the ATC had allowed the larger airliner behind it to get too close so it would have overrun the CRJ if they both landed on the Primary. That last moment diversion to runway 33 created the conflict, which would not have existed had the CRJ remained on approach to the Primary.
This was 100% controller error by a DEI hired controller.
@ ahhhh yes let’s mix actually facts with distortion, nice play! Separation conflicts happen a lot with tight spacing, a circle to land on 33 is a very common approach and is completely acceptable. It’s a shorter runway so many reject it, but that procedure is fine. This one is much simpler. They asked for and were granted visual separation, and misidentified the jet they were separating from. Simple as that, and if you have ever flown in an environment with city lights and cars approaching at this angle it’s difficult to see, and the copter cockpit I’m hoping they have a cvr for because I bet there is ample distraction. That’s the reason for the 200 ft ceiling on that part of the copter chart.
The choppers are suppose to stay below 200 feet in this area. He was at 300 to 350 feet.
The pilot of the UH 60 was a female with very low hours.
@ it does not matter if it was a female or not. And 500 h is not a bloody rookie.
@@eeroala5132 all the statistical evidence suggest that female pilots are at least as safe as male pilots. There is some evidence to suggest that female pilots might even be slightly less likely to be involved in fatal accidents, but in any case the difference is very small.
The Blackhawk had the wrong aircraft insight they was looking at the Airbus behind the RJ
@@AlienGamer38what does that have to do with the fact that the Blackhawk was above 200 ft and shouldn't have been-?
Just for clarification, the plane did NOT collide with the helicopter, at least that is the preliminary information we have at this time! Please watch your words and description analysis.
Thanks
Correction: The PSA aircraft didn't hit the Blackhawk. The Blackhawk hit the airliner, literally
T-boning it. The Blackhawk was 100 feet higher than its mandated altitude. Lack of separation.
What you avoid talking about, is the craziness of allowing helicopter traffic in the airspace of a busy commercial airport's take off and landing zone. Bluestreak was on final to land on runway 33. It was a stabilized approach, following the ILS glideslope. All normal and correct. PAT25 was higher than it should have been, and failed to identify the jetliner in its path.
Were they following the ILS glideslope? I thought they were cleared for the visual.
@@SnakPakFlight Visual 1 Approach - as published, 'circling to land' (actually more of a sidestep to 33).
Not only that, the Blackhawk was machine active corrections to ram the airplane. Clearly seen on the closer video
To me the biggest clue is altitude. Helicopter tracks through there are height restricted to
Exactly. Why aren't people addressing this part??
We don't know the exact altitude yet. If the RJ had overflown the. 60 by 100', that still would have been a near miss and reported. They were way too close to each other in general
" if you were below 200 feet, then no airplanes would be a threat" - who says? What if a CRJ, on visual, was below glideslope? It's up to the controller to maintain separation within his airspace. Period. The idea that a controller who gets a CA alert at night with two targets head-to-head, less than a mile, and only does a traffic call to one of the aircraft .. is nuts. I'm guessing the guy was overworked, tired, or new.
I would have hoped you would have given a balanced view. Sadly this didn't happen. The Black Hawk was required to not go above 200, they hit when they were at 400 approximately.
True. Military people have a tunnel vision and of course they are brothers in arms and blame all others.
They had very close call day before where A American Airlines had to go around cause of a helicopter it was bound to happened
Completely agree. And in replies to people in the comments bringing this up, he claims 'we don't really know what elevation the Blackhawk was at...' Well to have collided with a plane at 400 ft, I think we DO know the Blackhawk was above 200 ft. 🙄
@@ashleypg1708 Correct. Altitudes are clearly displayed on the ATC screen of the ATC comms recording (courtesy of VASAviation) which everyone has seen. We can see the altitude separation for both aircraft narrowing as they got closer to each other and becoming identical at point of collision. It is horrifying to watch. To say "we don't really know..." does not help uncover the truth of what happened and smacks of a possible cover-up.
I'm a light jet charter driver and CFII that has flown into DCA on numerous occasions. You have explained the situation these crews encountered pretty well. Flying at night is a whole different world from daytime. IMO, PAT25 was looking at the wrong target. Which target he was looking at I do not know. But since he replied twice to ATC that he had the CRJ in sight , yet still collided with them , leads me to believe this. The investigation will tell us in the end what exactly happened and what changes we can make to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Pilot mixed up bridges... WILSON IS SOUTH....can climb to 300 ft there.
ATC passed off control to the helo for visual inspection, the helo was most likely tracking the 3130 behind the CRJ and not the CRJ itself. With that said, ATC should not be passing off control to any aircraft within direct or direct adjacent airspace of the airport.
I see your point but I wonder how common it is to alert one aircraft that another aircraft is departing in the same direction as your going? It doesn't seem like a common ATC thing to say. Wouldn't it be more relevant to say this if incoming aircraft as supposed to outgoing and taking off in the same direction as you which means that the plane is going to elevate quickly and substantially at a higher altitude then the helicopter was allowed to be at. If the place is taking off ahead of you and elevating quickly why does the tower really need to warn the helicopter. You'd think the warning would most definitely come if another aircraft was fast approaching you and similar attitudes. My guess
@@Iamuprise74 In fact, ATC DID warn the helo that there was "traffic, a CRJ, at 1200ft, setting up for runway 33". That was in the ATC comms. ATC alerted the helo to this CRJ because this was the ONLY plane approaching to land on 33, which would bring it in close proximity to the helo. Helo requests visual separation and permission was given by ATC. ATC noticed the helo was still flying straight on towards the CRJ and not taking evasive action. ATC asks the helo if they had the CRJ in sight, to which the helo replied they had. A few seconds later, ATC, again noticing the helo was closing in on the CRJ, i.e., there was no separation, repeats the same question and receives the same answer. ATC still notices no change in the helo's flight path and quickly orders the helo to "pass behind the CRJ". This was about 10 seconds before collision. The correct action at this point would be for the helo to turn to the LEFT (east) and away from the CRJ and the airport on the helo's right. Instead, it swerved RIGHT (west), which sent it headlong into the CRJ.
I think it's also possible they were looking at the CRJ that was landing. They were told to pass behind. Why turn inbound then if they were looking at the A319?
My question is , when did the chopper begin its ascent from 200 ft to 400 ft which is 100 ft higher than the max altitude and that's only after you've flown out just a little click.
We don't really know exactly how high it got. I saw 300' according to the radar screen, but those radars don't work particularly well at low altitudes. And it looks like they didn't have ADSB reporting on. We will know their exact altitude once the black box is analyzed.
In the final 24 seconds prior to collision the helicopter changed course ~35 degrees, climbed at least 50 ft, and accelerated from 104 to 113 knots.
@@SnakPakFlight--- the helicopter and CRJ collided at 350 feet. This means the helicopter was too high on Route 1/4.
@@SnakPakFlightblack box on a UH60L, which you alluded to was the model based on after accident videos/pics? Unless there are mods that I am unaware of, L models don’t have FDR or CVR.
@@SnakPakFlightfor the helicopter to have collided with AA 5432, it would have HAD to be at least 150 ft above 200 ft elevation. Come on...
I was based in dca for over 6 years. Not only is a very congested airspace, there’s also little space available for everyone. Probably the airport with the least separation(civilian) between aircrafts. The approach to Rwy 33 is a complex one, and even though we were very familiar with it, it still was a hair raising approach. Short runway with a tight left turn at low altitude and at slow speed. Not to mention that you must also begin vigilant about halo traffic over the water. Complex to say the least.
Flying low,over water at night with little visual reference for the for the halo pilots, and most likely, the PSA pilots were focus on staying on the visual approach to rwy33, therefore the attention and line of sight was probably to the left.
Great video!
Appreciate the input! Yeah it looks sketchy there...
@ your explanation was great, I really enjoyed your video. I usually don’t comment on videos, but yours was more of an “educational” video, helping people understand, and providing them with an “insight” view than an opinion video.
This is an excellent presentation, thank you.
I am an Australian former flight instructor.
One thing Snak Pak did not explain was the difficulty of seeing an aircraft that is on a collision course at night.
When you are sighting aircraft most of them will be moving against the background lights, they are the ones that will NOT hit you.
The one that WILL hit you is stationary among the background lights and so is VERY difficult to see until you are really close!
That’s a great point about the stationary aircraft being so difficult to see.
not sure i agree because the BH had to climb 35ft in the last 24sec to hit perfectly the CRJ this means for the last 24sec the CRJ was huge in the front window of the BH and the lights of the windows of the passengers on the CRJ cannot be missed in clear weather especially at that distance and especially at night and I'm not even mentioning the landing light of the CRJ which makes the "target" impossible to miss visually.
@@SnakPakFlight I agree, that's a great point especially in this case since the BH and CRJ were running in opposite directions as if they were on a head on collision course for a portion of the final segment (I think the landing head light would generally appear stationary. One thing I'm thinking though is that head light is huge in your window and you keep coming at it - but if you lack experience I guess you could be more easily falling for that light being stationary and not being a threat. On the flip side of all this the BH T-boned the CRJ and the video footage shows the BH on a straight course as if it was going for the CRJ with very little corrections (I will say something like 5 seconds or more). Is 5 seconds enough to change course radically and avoid the target by climbing abruptly or doing any other maneuver (I'm not a pilot) ?
This is the first of your videos I've seen, and I really appreciate that you're going out of your way to push back against the nonsense and conspiracy stuff that's being pushed.
In a video from VASAviation they seem to have the initial comms from ATC to PAT25 about the CRJ.
ATC says: “PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it’s 1200 feet setting up for runway 33”. PAT25 confirms they have it in sight and requests visual separation which is then approved.
If the information in that video is correct, at that point PAT25 was at 200ft and the CRJ would have been at PAT25’s 3 o’clock. AAL3130 was behind and slightly to the right of 5342.
Then just before the crash was the second exchange about whether PAT25 had the CRJ in sight, the one you included in your video.
Good thought but if made me think how common I'd it to warm one of a outgoing place departing quickly and elevating quickly that's ahead of you? If think to planned on a similar attitude approaching each other would be a more common use of the ATC warning as opposed to a plane in front of you departing
The CRJ, as it was doing a left bank to set up for 33, was more like at the helo's 12 oc'clock, 1 o'clock at most, not 3 o'clock. All it had to do, if it was doing visual separation, was to turn 10-20 degrees to its LEFT (east). Inexplicably, it turned RIGHT (west) *and* CLIMBED as well, which sent it into the CRJ. Weird.
@ in the moments before impact, yes it was at 12-1 o’clock but I was referring specifically to the moment of the first exchange I described (0:26 in VASAviation’s ‘Last radio from Army Helicopter…’ video). As ATC describes the location of the traffic, PAT25 seems to be travelling east while CRJ is coming in from the south. At that point it’s at 3 o’clock.
I’m not inferring anything from this and we don’t know how well synchronised the graphics and audio, I just found it interesting.
@@istudios225 On the VAS audio, PAT requested visual separation but the tower approval response was garbled. I did not hear approved. I'm going under the assumption that unless visual separation is clearly approved, SOP is stay on course. Think the comm glitch made it unclear whether separation was approved or not. Assuming if message was clear PAT would have avoided. Especially since they went through a successful separation procedure with the earlier CRJ5307.
CA is Conflict Alert. Controller never gave bearing and distance of the RJ to the Blackhawk, and didn't give the same with a traffic alert to the RJ. I believe that video came from a camera at the Kennedy Center which is way up river from the airport. It was windy out, I wonder how much turbulence was in the area. Rough ride while looking outside could result in altitude deviations.
I am a retired pilot with numerous landings at Reagan. It appears the impact was approx .1/2 mile from the runway as the Jet was executing a visual 33 I cannot believe that a VFR corridor southbound along the river was allowed below Northbound landing traffic on final approach....aL
Seems sketchy!
I'm just an electrical engineer but I have more than 30yrs of experience analyzing issues from a true factual standpoint and looking for root cause (you can't cram in my field, you can't just wing it, you need to put in the work when you go for root cause in electrical systems, you need be very hard headed and be hard to convince to make sure you are truly after root cause, and yes a lot of people get emotional in the room sometimes, usually only true nerds like me keep their calm and comb every aspect of it again and again, others in the room are either fed up or bored with replaying the same scenarios again and again by me and my peers). When analyzing root cause sometimes you need to dwell on a plausible scenario and play it out until you're satisfied that it's actually not plausible and you can dismiss it. I'm kind of locked on the fact that the accident happened at 400ft altitude, even though the Black Hawk had to respect a ceiling of 200ft. This is a bit of a red flag from the get go, but not enough to jump to conclusions but it deserve some attention, why did the Black Hawk fail to respect the ceiling. The black hawk ran into the incoming CRJ, this means for the last several seconds the black hawk had perfect visual of the CRJ especially at 400ft looking straight ahead almost boresight, you cannot miss all the light that comes out through dozens of windows on the side of the airplane. The Black Hawk could not miss this by being confused from other lights because it was high enough at 400ft that there is no other either tower lights or street lights or any other lights from any structure on the ground that is tall enough to offer confusion at 400ft when looking at an other airplane at your eye level that is only a few hundred feet from you as you are dashing into it's direction - when you look at it boresight and your head is looking straight you cannot miss the lights from the passenger windows off the side of the airplane, not to mention the powerful landing light as the Black Hawk was close to head on course between the 2 aircrafts for a good portion of the trajectory (i.e. no need to look down or up as the Black Hawk was at the exact same altitude +/= 5ft max which is an absolute fact since it actually hit the plane). I'm just trying to move away from that hypothesis in my mind so if anyone wants to jump in and slowly analyze this please do so. I've seen a lot of army personal in the past commit acts where they deliberately turn against other innocent people one day out of either depression or other things going through their mind when they commit this act. Again, I'm just trying to exhaust that option so I can move on to consider the other options and analyze them as thoroughly in my mind. If someone wants to help with this conversation, please do not bring the fact that the Black Hawk replied they have a visual of the CRJ and they were looking at another airplane, this is a good piece of information for other scenarios though, but not for the scenario where this would be a deliberate act (i.e. in the deliberate act scenario, the Black Hawk would simply reply they have visual on the airplane as they are seeking to run into it to not alarm the tower).
In the final 24 seconds prior to collision the helicopter changed course ~35 degrees, climbed at least 50 ft, and accelerated from 104 to 113 knots.
Paragraphs are your friend.
I'm with you. You are talking logic and common sense.
@carlyellison8498: In the context of the "intentional" scenario, this confirms the Black Hawk pilot made the exact perfect small corrections necessary to hit his target. Thanks for the precisions.
The female BH pilot was not named.
1) ATC does not inform the pilot where to look for the jet that is landing.
2) ATC does not verify the altitude of the helicopter.
3) The helicopter is flying carelessly across the landing path for jets.
4) The helicopter is not following the correct flight path.
5) The helicopter is flying at 400 ft when it should be below 200 ft.
Thank you, Snak Pak, for posting this video. Your expertise is appreciated.
One thing people are failing to perceive is that the Blackhawk hit the SIDE of the jet. This wasn't head-on. Picture a speeding car hitting a bus in an intersection. Neither driver might see the other vehicle until the very last second. In the case of the Blackhawk, the PSA jet was descending from left to right across their path. The copilot (left seat) in the helicopter would have had to look up and left to see the jet before the collision. The jet was probably moving at around 130 kts. They did not see it directly in front of them until they hit it.
I agree with the other posters here in that the helicopter likely broke altitude restrictions on this VR route. Everything indicates the helicopter was too high and would not have collided if it was at or below 200 feet. Even so, VFR requires a 500' altitude separation which means that VR-4 route should have been CLOSED while Runway 33 was in use for landings. Communications, lack of proper direction from the ATC, and pilot error in the Blackhawk were probably all contributing factors to the accident. Several mistakes added up here to produce the fatal result.
Agree!
What is the accepted method of a pilot to confirm with the tower that they are speaking about the same aircraft?
Well, the tower just said "CRJ." At night, it would be very difficult to differentiate a CRJ from an A319 or another CRJ. Maybe some clock direction would have helped.
@@SnakPakFlight either way the helo didn’t go behind the CRJ.
Nice try to deflect attention from the Blackhawk crew. PAT25 was 100+ feet above the max altitude for that corridor and had requested and been granted visual separation which means they had accepted responsibility to "see and avoid." This terrible tragedy is 100 percent on them.
We don't yet know exactly what altitude they were at. I wouldn't put too much faith in that MLAT data right now. Wait for the black box to confirm.
I'm glad you explained the 2 different frequencies of the tower, some recordings did not show the PAT25 responding, others did. Is there an established altitude where the helis are supposed to cross the approach path?
Important to note is landing and departing traffic was using runway 01. I'm sure PAT25 was aware of this since both A/C were listening to Reagan tower, albeit on different frequencies. Perceiving tight spacing ATC asked Bluestreak if they could accept runway 33 instead of 01. Bluestreak advised they could accept 33 and ATC cleared them to land on 33. In order to land on runway 33 Bluestreak had to make a small turn to the right followed by a small turn to the left to get lined up on runway 33. This put them directly over the route PAT25 was using. Since they were cleared to land, they were focused on landing on a shorter runway and correctly assumed the airspace they were flying in was safe. They actually were within about 15 seconds from touching down. Pat 25 would have been able to hear ATC asking Bluestreak if they could accept runway 33 but would not have heard their response since they were on a different frequency. At this point PAT25 had the opportunity to anticipate Bluestreak's flightpath and take appropriate measures. Pilots don't typically pay attention to their radios until they hear their callsign. At this point it appears PAT25 assumed all traffic ahead was in front of them and to their right and mistakenly advised ATC they had Bluestreak insight when in fact it was another CRJ. They had no idea Bluestreak was descending and approaching from their left to land on runway 33. In a perfect world ATC should have advised a left turn vector to PAT25 to ensure separation. But it appears he was busy handling 2 positions at the time of the midair. Another issue is PAT25 appears higher than the 200-foot restriction for their position in their route. That is a pretty narrow gap to fly in especially if it is windy which I understand it was that night. Honestly, I put the overall blame on the FAA for this. Their role is to provide leadership in planning and developing a safe and efficient national airport system to satisfy the needs of aviation interests of the United States. Like most government organizations they lack the ability to manage and efficiently maintain ATC system. They are like a large corporation where no one is responsible or accountable. Shame on them!
you keep saying the jet that collided with the helicopter, when in fact the helicopter collided with the jet based on who has responsibility for separation. showing some bias in your framing.
The best step by step explanation I've seen!
Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias on the part of the Blackhawk crew. And just saying, it's more a case of the Blackhawk flying into the plane, rather than the other way around - the plane was in the right place at the right altitude, the helo on the other hand was flying too high, and sadly it looks like he or she was looking at the wrong aircraft.
He ALSO appears to have violated the corridor for helos which hugs the DC side of the Potomac. He was too far SOUTH and was above the proscribed ceiling for helos as well.
He was told to follow the CRJ so would have had to proceed further south as I understand it.
I love how you talked about perspective while in the sky. It reminds me of how I can’t stand to be on a one story roof, but I have no problem jumping out of a plane. I just try to explain to people, that when you are high up with nothing near you, there really is no height perception… so I don’t have that fear of falling. I believe this was a total accident 😢 My sincere condolences to everyone affected.
A channel that immediately announces date and time has my immediate RESPECT. THANK YOU, from someone who may have said "stupid stuff".
I was hoping you'd post some info on this tragic accident. Thanks for straight facts.
Greeting from Australia. I always appreciate your “instructor” style with clear explanations and to the point commentary. Thanks mate.
Cheers!
We have some Aussies come to train with us from time to time and they are our favorite group. (sorry...favourite)
Great video appreciate your time and effort! Praying for everyone involved.
The Blackhawk was reportedly at the wrong altitude and had climbed into a descending CRJ on final. It also appears that they spotted the wrong traffic.
The Blackhawk was flying a published helicopter route along ROUTE 1 with a maximum altitude of 200 feet. This 200 feet max altitude continues along the Potomac into ROUTE 4 until it crosses ROUTE 3 at the Wilson Bridge, about 2 miles S of the airport, where it increases to 300 feet maximum altitude.
We will learn a lot more after the cockpit voice recorders are examined. Radar and ADSB does not provide enough resolution to determine exactly what happened.
Alt 300? Maximum was 200ft. Go behind the Aircraft on Final. You're only 300 ft AGL headed toward oncoming traffic and the airstrip. Wow, don't cross the flight path for RWY 33 check your barometer and get below 200ft and turn away
Definitely some factors at play here but I don't want to get too deep on the speculation until we have all the facts.
The Black Hawk was at 400ft altitude and was supposed to respect a 200ft ceiling which is a bit of a red flag, not enough to confirm a deliberate act, but certainly something to consider. Next thing is you cannot miss an airplane coming at you almost head on with it's landing light and with all the passenger windows that are lit, and we know the CRJ was at eye level because they actually hit it. Also at 400ft when you're looking at another plane that is only a few hundred feet from you, you cannot be confused by a another light because it is so prominent and also at 400ft no other tower light or street light or any other structure from the ground is not confusing your sight at eye level boresight. We need to dismiss the portion about the verbal exchange between the Black Hawk and the tower confirming the Black Hawk has a visual on the CRJ and it's confused with another airplane in the case where we consider the scenario where this is a deliberate act because he/they would simply say they have a good visual to not alert the tower.
@@jfgrivard2 You've got your head wrapped around the intention here. It was not intentional. We don't know their exact altitudes yet. And the CRJ was not heading straight for them. Imagine whatever you want, but until you get into a cockpit at night and look around, you will never know how disorienting it can be. Also, they may have had their heads inside looking at instrumentation or ipads or tuning radios, etc. There may have been task saturation. Miles turn to meters and to inches very quickly when aircraft are traveling toward each other in the hundreds of knots.
@@jfgrivard2--- the Black Hawk pilots were wearing phosphorous night vision goggles which restricted their peripheral vision. The ascent to 400 feet was likely unintentional since they were likely hand flying and not on autopilot.
There is NOTHING about this collision that says it was intentional. It has alk the earmarks of a little bit of sloppy flying by the helo pilot and poor separation management by ATC.
@@jfgrivard2 I'm going to preface this with I'm not a pilot, I only have the priveledge to know a couple. While I haven't talked to them about this, they have explained that when you're flying, things that you are not going to hit will be moving, the thing/spot that you are going to hit won't be moving. They could have mistaken the white landing lights as a star or something in space since to my understanding to them the plane would've appeared stationary while seeing the plane behind it was moving and thus mistaking it for the CRJ, which in my opinion is just as if not more likely than the theory you proposed. Maybe @SnakPakFlight can correct me if I misunderstood them. I do agree however that Snak should've touched on the fact that the radar station was reading PAT 25 at 100-150FT above ceiling, which I saw your post, Snak about those stations not being accurate at low level, it does not matter the opinion on the functionality of the sensor the fact is he was being tracked at higher than allowed elevation by the ATC. He also would've been assigned route 4 along the east bank of the Potomac under 200FT until they reached the Woodrow Wilson bridge in which they then would've been cleared to climb to 300FT while it appears the tragedy took place over the middle of the river.
You should’ve included the earlier ATC communication to PAT advising them of the CRJ location and altitude.
Back in 1988, when I was a new pilot undergoing RL progression training in Korea, we were a flight of two UH60s. We took off trom 2 separate confined areas and were going to link up in flight. It appeared to me that the other acft took off and headed north, so I flew toward it to fall in staggered left. It actually turned back south west toward me, so I was heading on a collision course. I was experiencing the reversible perspective illusion. You had the description of that up on your slide. The IP realized it and took the contrils. I believe they experienced that and thought they were going to pass behind it. It's just a possibility.
Hey man thanks for commenting! What did you fly?
@SnakPakFlight I flew the the UH-60 A/L. I retired just as the M models were getting fielded.
@@srstacy Awesome! Flew limas for a few years with 101. Now back to Mikes. Thanks for serving. Crazy to think we flew the same model aircraft but I was crapping my diaper when you were in flight school!
If the AA plane was larger do you think there'd be a better chance of survivors? Or do you think it would've been even more catastrophic? I know nothing about aviation (other than the fact I graduated from Wright State) so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.
It's hard to say. Mid-air collisions are so rare but they are usually devastating. If this helicopter were to crash into a wing on a giant 747, there's not much hope it would be able to continue flying. Also, the bigger the plane, the faster it needs to go to generate lift (generally speaking). So even on final approach, it's going really fast. Can't really maintain control at those speeds without the critical components of the airframe.
Also, there are no stupid questions. Only stupid people!
@@SnakPakFlightbut don't stupid people only ask stupid questions? HA just joking good job very entertaining video
Highly doubtful, aircrafts are tin cans when subject to loads they aren’t designed for.
Falling 400’ after a collision which causes an explosion and the aircraft to break up is not survivable.
Why is the military aircraft flying into a clear landing path of commercial aircraft? Supposedly these were very experienced military pilots. One a typical night, you can see the commercial aircraft lined up preparing to land. it was a very clear night, and vision was not an issue. Why were they at the same altitude at point of the collision. Is this just an approved diversion video?
I stated at the beginning of the video that this was to dispel some myths. I'm holding my own theory on what the cause was until more data is released. You are free to jump to whichever conclusions you would like.
@@SnakPakFlight What myths were dispelled? Your information is nothing but speculation and simply your opinion. Do you think this was simply an accident? Incorrect altitude by Blackhawk. Blackhawk did not seem to avoid the landing plane. It made a straight line into the landing plane. How does this even make sense for an "accident"? I also understand that you are not providing official answers.
@ did you watch the video?
why was the Blackhawk at the altitude when it struck the plane? Was this intentional?
Epstein
It's possible they lost track of their altitude while looking at something else.
@@SnakPakFlight Obviously, but it also did not seem like it tried to avoid it last second. It went straight into the landing plane.
Two questions - I've been watching ADS-B exchange for the past three days. When I choose the "U" option I don't see any (as in zero) PAT flights. I already know about the generalized exemptions for military and law enforcement so let's move past that.
Is the threat environment for VIPs in the DC area so high that ADS-B is turned off in every one of those PAT aircraft? Or is it that the ADS-B equipment simply was never installed because theres never any intent to ever use it?
Second Question - SecDef Hegseth mentions NVGs in the news blurb in the beginning. In the 80s the modified googles we had didn't have a lot of dynamic range and only a 40 degree field of view. What is the FOV on the stuff they're using now and are they actually flying near a busy airport with these on?
EDIT TO ADD - So....watching what you said Snak Pak - I can understand some not being equipped with ADS-B. I don't get why there isn't a single PAT helicopter track with it on at all. None. Not one. I'm watching it now.
Accidents like this make all pilots slow down and take another look!
You are confused about the location of FT Belvoir. FT Belvoir is south of Alexandria, VA. The helicopter was flying south along the Potomac along Helicopter route1 which changes to helicopter route 4 at the mouth of the Anacostia River returning back to Davidson AAF, FT Belvoir. Actually you are speculating about whether the Blackhawk saw the CRJ, but I agree with your speculation. I don’t think he ever saw the CRJ. One thing that would have helped would be the map with helicopter routes published on it. They are online. But your discussion concerning the lights is on point. The real question is this: why did the controller who was watching the two aircraft allow the two to run together? Yes, the Blackhawk pilot stated he would provide his own separation but if the controller continues toward the CRJ, then he should have issued a vector.
Why allow visual separation in such a congested area, especially at night, vs full radar control separation, if even possible?
Good question. Things become routine when the same players are working on a regular basis. You get to know the controllers and other aircraft that operate in the area. I think the controller thought they had the situation in the bag and moved on to other priorities. The questions that need to be answered are:
Was it smart to allow the CRJ to amend it's landing clearance to circle for RWY33 when that would have put it on a path close to the inbound H-60? Did the CRJ see the H-60? Which aircraft was the H-60 looking at when it confirmed visual tower? If the H-60 saw the CRJ it eventually collided with, did the pilots experience an illusion which made it seem further away or moving in a different direction? Were any of the crews task saturated and not paying enough attention to the outside surroundings? What impact did ADS-B technology have on the crews' situational awareness?
Until we answer these questions, we won't have a clear answer to what happened.
Imho, most ATCs need to speak a bit slower, clearer and using better/more ident…not incomplete sentences, but al least discernible.
You get used to it. They are as brief as possible because they have a lot of coordinating to do.
Just two stupid questions from SFI/,SFE: 1.What forced HELO to deviate from prescribed 200'? Why NVG don't have some kind of visual intruder warnings?
So, I guess the part I'm a little surprised by is a Blackhawk doesn't have like a radar that can show all these nearby planes to the pilots?
Like you said you use foreflight-I know many commercial and private pilots have tablets with them running foreflight, flightaware or similar. Just seems backwards that some private pilot in a Cessna can see what planes are around them, but a Blackhawk pilot doesn't have that technology available to them.
@@chris-hayes The black hawk was designed to fly in combat. The navigation systems were designed as such and not to operate in civilian airspace although they are fully capable of doing so. Decisions had to be made in design of these systems and sacrifices had to be made. Also, decisions take forever in the DOD so even the newer blackhawks don’t have ADS-B In. I always fly with a stratus that gives me live Ads-b traffic advisories on foreflight, but not everyone does.
@@chris-hayes And no radar. Fighters usually have a targeting radar. But we don’t.
What I think happened is tower was lining up airplanes on 01 and since blue streak is a smaller plane to land on 33 now there is 2 different frequencies 1 for helicopters and 1 for planes also there were about 3 planes lined up for landing the #2 plane flying to close to blue streak and I think that the black hawk pilot had a visual on the wrong aircraft the #2 aircraft instead of the aircraft next to him
This seems to be the predominant theory.
Thank you. This whole thing is so tragic and I’m so EMBARRASSED by IDIOTS and what they’re saying. Me and my husband LOVE a good conspiracy theory, but this is just ridiculous. It was an ACCIDENT. A horrible horrible accident…
Since the helicopter pilots were communicating with ATC on uhf, were they aware that the crj had been diverted to runway 33?
Snak Pak, provided that the helo followed the path of Route 1/4 AND had stayed below 200 ft as the route instructs, can you tell if that vertical separation would have been enough at the point of impact?
Well, I wouldn't trust that MLAT data 100%. From the low-res video, it looks like they are maintaining altitude. But we just don't know yet. IF the airplane was on the right glide slope and the helo was below 200', then in theory they shouldn't have collided. But still would have been a near miss and would have to be reported.
Thank you, a lot of info in this video!
Trump fired 400 FAA senior officials, the TSA head, and 3,000 air traffic controllers just 8 days ago. Policy choices consequences
Did he? I have seen this claim but no evidence to support.
That tower has 30 spots available. Only 19 are filled. But it's been that way since 2023
@SnakPakFlight Fox News doesn't cover facts about Trump
The pace of these airports need to slow down. They are moving at a break neck speed and it bit this time hard. They don't ask to change the runway thus probably doesn't happen. I bet they changed the runway because they needed a little time for a departing aircraft to clear out.
I just don’t understand how a helicopter can fly into the landing path of these jets without being absolutely certain there’s no jet in the way. Did the Helicopter slow down as it gets close to the area the airplanes approach to land is?
I work in aerospace so any accident hits hard. However, originally coming from Army Aviation, this seems to be hitting a lot harder than normal.
Why is GEORGETOWN IN RED SQUARE/LG RED FONT?
Thank you for the insight.
I blame the ATC.
He had eyes on the whole situation.
If you can't count on your Air Traffic Controller, who do you trust.
It's a group effort. I've had at least 3 instances where a tower put me on a collision course with another aircraft. We are all human and have to work together.
I'm wondering if the helicopter had trouble seeing the plane as it appears to be coming out of the city lights. How bright are those planes landing front lights? At what distance does a pilot actually recognize that those are airplane lights coming at me and not an illusion or possibly something else. I know at night your not suppose to look at lights directly but to the side of the object. I read it somewhere in a pilots handbook
Yes, that's because of the night blind spot. Off-center viewing in required. There's also an illusion called autokinesis which can fool our eyes into thinking lights are moving when they are not.
Great video explaining what could have happened from the helicopter's point of view. The focus of other videos I've watched is the plane probably because they're airplane pilots.
I am interested in what happened, not in blaming someone.
That was the goal. Thanks. I see many commenting are wanting to point fingers. I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days and weeks.
Actually AA 3130 was the flight followed AA5342. AA3130 was on final approach to Runway 01. There was an AA flight taking off on Runway 01 but it wasn't 3130.
My theory is the helicopter was watching the plane taking off and the tower told them to go behind it. So that's what I think happened. Once the departing plane was clear, the helicopter made the turn right into the plane coming in to land. It was a blender.
Oh, we do know what happened. UH60 busted max altitude of 200 feet. No other details really matter. This was pilot error on the chopper. They were too high. There's a reason why they were restricted to 200 feet or lower, and this collision is the reason. It wasn't an accident.
Looks like that may have been part of the story but even if they were lower, this would have been very close. They should never have been so close to each other.
A guestimation from me. Maybe the crew of the BH did see the "correct" CRJ in the last second and tried to decelerate fast, but the helo pops up quite a bit when hauling 100+ kts and pulling on the stick in a hasty manner.
Does this make any sense?
I think the airliner was totally not aware of the helicopter and was hit from the right while turning left. So the helo was "under" their belly and popped right into them from down and right.
This is possible. If they were doing 100kts and pulled a lot of aft cyclic, they would have climbed significantly in a short distance.
Let's say the chopper was at 200 feet, and the plane went over it, wouldn't the rotor wash have a huge impact at that point especially considering the plane is lined up for landing?
Not really. Plane would fly right over the rotor wash and go land.
I am neither a pilot or an air traffic controller, but my first thought was…Was the helicopter pilot wearing night vision googles?
Probably not. It would have been way too bright.
They won't tell us. First, they said they were. Then they said they weren't. We probably won't know this, along with a bunch of other stuff about the accident.
Just a suggestion: move the cursor and then take your hand off the mouse. Your moving that cursor all over the screen and it's very distracting. Aside from that, a good analysis.
My understanding - MLAT goes through ADS-B, TIS-B system from MLAT receivers on the ground to provide SA to others.
You could be right. It's a new system for me. I fly UH60M's now which have ADS-B out.
The helo had no idea what he was looking that’s why he changed heading and climbed right into jet. If he saw plane he flew directly into it.
was a 30 minute video really necessary? waste of time
Um - the Blackhawk hit the CRJ, not the other way around. The CRJ was and had been established on final for minutes. The Blackhawk said it had the traffic in sight, when it did not, and it flew into the path of the CRJ. Those are facts that you cannot spin. Helicopters do no belong in that airspace, period.
ATC directed the airliner right into the well established path of the helicopter just a few seconds before the tragic accident. All else is secondary.
Yes, but it's a group effort. Things like that get approved everyday. Everyone has to stay vigilant.
Nice try. But your content is more BS than anything else I have seen.
You aren’t going to be able to excuse away this deal.
On the altitude bust alone. That doesn’t even get to the altitude combined with crossing an approach path.
If ATC had Ben speaking Chinese, it would t be near as big a factor as ass hats off altitude.
I see your point, Raper, but the intent of this video was not to assign blame or give my theory on what happened. Rather to dispel some myths and provide some insight.
the commercial plane did not hit the blackhawk. The blackhawk rammed into the commercial plane. Everyone reporting on this consistently express that the plane hit the helicopter. Why?
I agree that there seems to be a lot of superfluous information here. At this time we need to stick to the facts, I.E. heading, altitude etc. Continually saying the jet hit the helicopter to me indicates bias in this event.
Terrible accident!
Do you normally certify folks in high traffic areas? Who has left seat.
Definitely not ATC fault! This is the helicopter crews fault! Call it what it is!
We don't have all the facts yet. Many people are pretty adamant about the issue of tower clearing the CRJ for a circle to land approach to RWY33 when the H60 was already established on its flight path down the river. That could have been the first hole in the swiss cheese.
Why didn't the controller notice the CA prox going off on the radar and immediately tell one of them to turn? that's what don't make sense to me. im gonna put it on the controller for not lookin at the screen he had plenty of time to call one of them off
@@jjstevenz shrug emoji
Were they too low for the warning to go off?
If you listen to the audio, when the ATC starts double checking if the Blackhawk pilot has the CRJ in sight, you can hear the collision alarm in the background.
In hindsight the ATC should've done more and maybe should've guessed that the Blackhawk was looking at the wrong plane. But, the tower might get these kinds of collision alerts pretty often considering the air space. There might've been a false sense of security with the ATC thinking helicopters should always be below the approach glide slope at that point.
@@chris-hayes all good points
Stupid civilians
They was looking at the Airbus behind the RJ
Possibly!
Why was PAT25 approved for visual separation?
That’s standard procedure. It’s typically more effective than radar separation and it relieves load on the controller.
Good information! Thank you, sir! Glad I found your channel.
I'm just curious. Does the Blackhawks have Black boxes or not? You're right, I only listen to actual pilots instead of armchair quarterbacks. So many people are saying DEI was to blame or whatever.
No one knows yet whether DEI was a factor or not, but the very nature of DEI suggests that it could be and that's why people say it. I mean you're hiring people NOT based on their skill with DEI.
pat25 do you see the crj? horrible traffic,, pat25 do you see the aircraft at your 12 o clock
Thanks for this man. It’s been terrible seeing the things you’re pointing out and seeing media take liberties with the story. Also whenever tower calls out an aircraft especially in a busy area is it standard practice to give a clock position and est alt? IE do you have the CRJ 10oclock same level?
Depends on how busy they are. The controllers are trying to be as brief as possible.
Should’ve had 2 crew chiefs for a night flight in congested airspace.
You think two guys sitting in the back would be better than one guy sitting in the back? What’s the guy in the back going to do?
@ Crew chiefs #1 assignment (especially in low altitude close quarters flight) is to have his head out the door of the Aircraft being eyes for the pilot. Another pair of eyes out the port side would’ve made a difference I think.
Fort Belvoir is no where near the origin of the helo flight as shown on numerous flight trackers. The flight appears to originate in the extremely upscale neighborhood of McLean, near Langley. If you've seen Jack Ryan, it's the same area a mil helo picks up Jack in the first episode at the house party.
The Belvoir base is a 30 minute drive south following the river, turning, then up the old Jeff Davis Parkway. I understand you don't I've there. Confused.
I didn't say it originated from Belvoir. The unit was based in Belvoir. The data on ADSB exchange is not perfect which is why I'm not making any assumptions about what happened yet.
@@SnakPakFlight Yes, several reports say the unit was based at Belvoir.
You use the curser over the map showing where the helo flight begins, at 7:40 you motion at what you guess is Belvoir, but it's the Mclean residential area.
Then show the helo beggining to fly around 9:33. Was the helo taking off for in the middle of a longer flight?
@@TheAcerbicTraveller Yeah I don't really know. Like I said, the data from that site is unrealiable. We don't know yet where the flight originated from. They didn't have ADSB (I think) so we can't really track their flight with too much certainty. We'll know more when the black box data emerges.
@@TheAcerbicTraveller At the beginning of the video, I explain that the purpose of this video is to clear up some myths and provide some perspective from a pilot on the situation. I'm not trying to push my theory of what happened but there are a lot of those videos out now.
@@SnakPakFlight I've no weird theories, and trust, don't seek any. Was just wondering if it was a longer flight and we just see a part of it, or they left from a government area near the houses, dropped someone off, or near Langley to refuel. Obv don't know how to read flight apps. Your video is quite informative. Thanks for answering my badly worded questions.
CFI/II MEI ATP flown out and into DCA many times. This is obviously the fault of the helicopter pilot! He was too high for the corridor. In addition he accepted he had the visual on the AA flight. All responsibility is now on the helicopter. Pretty clear cut. However, who setup the corridor altitude. That needs to be looked at.
33. JS
Stupid should stay at 200 feet, not 300 feet in front of a JET !
Thanks.
Fairly experienced?
500 and 1000 hours is not fairly experienced imo.
We have billions for ukraine but cant have enough atc in the towers of our airports.
great video, it also pissed me off all the stupid conspiracy theories, rest in peace
I agree with you. The hawk was looking at the other acft further south. Ive flown that route at night under goggles. The lights make it really hard to see other acft.
Conflict Alert
Heli was too high. Case closed
Great video on the incident. Its a shame social media jumped to warp speed conspiracy theory
Not sure what else we should expect at this point.
@@SnakPakFlight Its unfortunately the default at this point,
Glad you're debunking the lies just wish someone would debunk the DEI lies too. I do have a question; Is there recording of what the pilot and co-pilot says during the flight? Would that be on the "black box"?
Yes that's on the black box. If they find it, it will surely be analyzed. Whether it's released to the public or not we will find out later. The pilots in the Army will likely hear it. We do regular training where we watch mishap investigations and look at the cause and how to avoid in the future.
Even if the helicopter had been at 200ft, the minimum vertical separation for vfr is 500ft. The controller should have never allowed these aircraft to get this close. ATC is the boss and needs to take responsibility.
Chopper was almost double the ceiling. It's on the Blackhawk.
Thank you from New Zealand, I only fly my computer but this is the best report I found yet, and my heart goes out to all affected.