Libertarian airplanes
Um.
Now that he mentions it I remember flinching at that ATC hiring freeze. Really we’re gonna economize on that? Penny wise and pound foolish at all?
Tip Jar
Um.
Now that he mentions it I remember flinching at that ATC hiring freeze. Really we’re gonna economize on that? Penny wise and pound foolish at all?
The military is not subject to FAA regulations. Would the plane have landed safely were it not for the helicopter? It sure looks that way. If there is a military regulation that requires pilot evaluation, then why not have it somewhere safe, and not in FAA controlled civilian airspace? Highly populated, and busy civilian airspace with lots of air traffic. I’m not blaming the crew of the Black Hawk, they were following regulations. The problem is more fundamental than that.
Buttigieg asks how this can be prevented — I can think of one possibility.
There is a DEI scandal at the FAA, but it had nothing to do with this crash. They changed the hiring to increase diversity. It is quite a story. The Blocked and Reported podcast covered it. This is the research behind the podcast episode:
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview
twiliter, Yes, military flights operate to different rules than the FAA requires for everyone else. That does not mean they blunder about without reference to civilian air traffic control. The helicopter was in conversation with the Tower at the time of the accident and was ‘under control’. The airspace around DC is also incredibly complex. You’ve got Dulles to the northwest, Andrews AF Base to the southeast, Reagan National to the south, a congressional heliport to the east (which is where I understand the helicopter was tracking to). Around the WH and Congress there are no fly zones. There are other smaller airfields and helipads. Flightpaths are therefore constricted into narrow corridors shared by civilian and military aircraft using multiple takeoff and landing sites.
it’s a pointless truism to say that the flight would have landed safely if not for the accident. No shit. In all likelihood the helicopter pilot made an error, but we don’t yet know that. Accidents are complex things with nearly always layers of causes. That’s one reason why Trump et al blaming DEI is so wrong and harmful. Uninformed spouting about how training shouldn’t be allowed, or military flights shouldn’t be in civilian airspace is just as wrong and harmful.
Military flights can’t not *be in* civilian air space. I didn’t say that. I also didn’t say flight training shouldn’t be allowed. I did however question the location of such training. I also didn’t say they were blundering about without contact with all relevant authorities. I just didn’t say any of those things. I’m not a pilot, but I’ve known more than a few. They all know more than I do. All I’m saying is that the risk was higher because the helicopter was there, and why it was there is questionable. Sorry Rob, but I have a lot of “no shit” moments. No offense. I tend to learn a lot from “uninformed spouting” or as I call it, questioning why. Sometimes I find out, sometimes not. Cheers.
Also Rob, thank you for your replies, a valuable perspective.
Googling is probably more useful than just spouting off.
Yeah, spouting off. Thanks.
Maybe I can ask AI, it knows it all too.
Well you did spout off. It’s just silly to think nobody realized the skies around National are crowded.
twiliter, thanks for the comments above. While all of my personal flying is private (but of a very demanding type), I spent decades on not just flying, but instructing and administering safe operations of complex flying sites. I have friends and ‘colleagues’ who are senior air traffic controllers, commercial and military pilots. I also, very sadly, have lost count of the number of people I’ve personally known who have died flying. Aviation safety and accident investigation are something I have no sense of humour about. That has included taking a professional accident investigator to task for concluding pilot error, when there was also clear cut aircraft design and systemic factors present that they discounted.
I very much value your commentary on other topics BTW.
Which misses my point entirely. I think Rob did a better job of pointing out how crowded and complex the air traffic is in that area, but I wouldn’t call that spouting, or pointing out the obvious. My point was there are some activities conducted in that air space that could be changed, relocated, or eliminated in the interest of safety, without sacrificing anything or anyone. Characterizing that as “spouting” is condescending. Does my tone sound that trifling? I could characterize any comment made here, and I mean any single one, as “spouting off,” *particularly* my own. But why would I do such a thing?
Thanks Rob, I do value your opinion. I was definitely not making light of this tragedy, and I do question why some decisions are made in the military (and elsewhere when it comes to authority) when it could have been otherwise. Maybe I have an abrasive style, I don’t know… Anyway, cheers!
Sorry, my @11 was in reply to Ophelia @9. just to clarify.
Just a quick comment on the training flight designation: That the helicopter was on a training flight does not mean that there was some rookie helicopter pilot at the controls. Almost certainly he was a very experienced pilot. (I don’t think the military would allow anyone without years of experience flying in that area.) Also, it is my understanding that every military flight is labeled a training flight, unless it is to carry out a mission like transporting something or someone (or something more martial). For example, this might have been a check flight, just to ensure that the pilot knows his way around the area and what procedures to follow. If so, it would necessarily have to happen in the area of interest. And all pilots, civilian and military alike, have to go through regular check flights to ensure that they stay competent and to catch and correct bad habits that they might otherwise form. Such flights will all be labeled training flights.
One thing that occurs to me, regarding the helicopter pilot telling the controller that he saw the plane. The main runway at DCA runs from south to north, and the approach from the south goes along the river on the west (Virginia) side*. The river is fairly wide at that point; I’ve sat by it many times, watching the parade of planes coming in. You can see them from miles away, especially on a clear night.
The smaller runway runs from the southeast to the northwest and intersects the main runway; the approach crosses the river from the DC side. It’s not used as frequently (I don’t ever recall landing there).
The helicopter was flying south along the east side of the river. From there, the pilot would have a clear view of the planes approaching from the south, and the closest one would have been well distant, giving him plenty of time and space to maneuver around it. So it might never have occurred to him that a plane would be approaching from his side of the river.
*The approach from the north is a lot more complicated, as it follows the bends in the river, which entails a steep bank to the right just before landing.
A steep bank just before landing. I can see my white knuckles (as a passenger) from space.
The runways in question here are runway 01 (main runway) and 33 (shorter, compass heading 330 degrees). The accident flight was on an instrument approach to rwy 01 when the tower asked them to divert to 33 instead, which they accepted. This is apparently not unusual when traffic is high. But anyway, the helicopter pilot is plainly told there is incoming traffic for runway 33. He requests visual separation, which is immediately granted – meaning that the helicopter pilot now has to look for the incoming flight and stay out of its way without further input from the tower. Why he failed to do so, is not at all clear. But a possible explanation is that he wrongly identified some other traffic heading into runway 01 as the one he was supposed to look out for. It is very easy to get disoriented at night, after all. What seems clear is that relying on visual separation near a busy airport is a really bad idea, especially at night. It’s likely that this practice will be severely curtailed, if not banned altogether, after this accident.
Probably not that steep a bank, but yeah, when leaving the approach to 01 and diverting to 33 the plane does a right turn followed by a left turn, all while descending and all visually flown using landmarks in the terrain below. It does increase the work load in the cockpit, and will be quite noticable to the passengers. Possibly more to the point, while in the left bank to get onto final approach, the pilots will not be able to see another aircraft approaching below them from the right. And after coming out of that turn, they will be all focused on the runway just a short distance ahead, especially as it is a short runway and they need to touch down at the correct spot. So little chance at discovering a totally unexpected helicopter coming in from the right.
Thanks for the additional details, Harald.
The bank I was referring to is when the plane is approaching the main runway from the north. They follow the path of the river, which bends just a bit before the airport. That obviously wasn’t a factor here.