- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:33 pm to Dawgsontop34
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:33 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
Disqualifying a pilot because she’s female, when there have been thousands of women who have been in the Army way before the introduction of DEI is crazy. It could have been her fault. I don’t know. Blaming her before there’s proof of it is just entirely unnecessary. Who benefits by placing that blame early?
It’s reported that she had 500 flight hours.
200 is a good year for a average pilot. Inschool you get another 200 plus at your type of plane or help you get 100-150 more hours.
Either way this pilot way VERY GREEN at her job.
3
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:37 pm to Tuscaloosa
I hate to scapegoat ATC but seems a less ambiguous point out might have prevented this in final few seconds. Instead of asking "PAT25, do you have a CRJ in sight? PAT25, pass behind the CRJ," That could be any A/C in vicinity.
A precise point out w bearing and range altitude aspect (BRAA) and/or directive vector may have been enough to save the day.
Again, I've not been ATC but controlled tactical airspace and there are times when you see/sense something isnt right and it's best not to hesitate to provide as much situational awareness as possible.
It looks to me like controller had an oh shite moment as the airline track rolled.out on a converging vector and made a calm, cool collected call out that didnt adequately stimulate urgency or alert aircrew to the impending situation.
A precise point out w bearing and range altitude aspect (BRAA) and/or directive vector may have been enough to save the day.
Again, I've not been ATC but controlled tactical airspace and there are times when you see/sense something isnt right and it's best not to hesitate to provide as much situational awareness as possible.
It looks to me like controller had an oh shite moment as the airline track rolled.out on a converging vector and made a calm, cool collected call out that didnt adequately stimulate urgency or alert aircrew to the impending situation.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:37 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
If the helicopter was flying under visual flight rules(which based on the ATC comms, it was), it's 100% on the pilot in command of the heli.
the helo should have been 200ft and hugging the riverbank or 1000ft and staying clear of neighboring traffic
the question to be resolved is why did the helo cross the glide path in the glide path altitude window?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:40 pm to Roux22
All pilot hrs arent equal. 500 fighter hrs is much more than 500 heavy hours. Fighters and helos fly much shorter more tactically challenging sorties.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:40 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Just curious if there's a consensus about what caused this tragedy?
quote:
No. .my hunch is there will be a couple of contributing mistakes
Agreed. I suspect the final cause will be attributed to the Blackhawk flying at a higher altitude that it’s supposed to fly in that airspace. What I don’t know is if the crash was caused by pilot error, some sort of altimeter malfunction on the helicopter, or if ATC played any role or somehow caused, or at least failed to prevent, the crash due to some sort of error or equipment malfunction on their part. Guess we’ll have to wait for the NTSB report to find out more.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:41 pm to supatigah
This explanation sounds most plausible. IMO
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:41 pm to supatigah
quote:
the helo should have been 200ft and hugging the riverbank or 1000ft and staying clear of neighboring traffic
Do you have the aeronautical chart or link to the FAA text version that asserts this? I haven't seen that yet.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:42 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
quote:
I hate to scapegoat ATC but seems a less ambiguous point out might have prevented this in final few seconds. Instead of asking "PAT25, do you have a CRJ in sight? PAT25, pass behind the CRJ," That could be any A/C in vicinity.
In the full audio, he gives clear instructions - complete with a reference to a specific landmark. Here was his initial description:
quote:
PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it's 1200 feet setting up for runway 33.
This is about as standard as it gets.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:46 pm to AUriptide
quote:
This explanation sounds most plausible. IMO
Excellent breakdown, IMO.
Earlier in the thread and various media reports, there was conjecture that the helo was looking at a departing aircraft, which is simply not plausible.
I generally hate pilot “influencers,” but Steve does a really nice job with some informative videos.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:54 pm to Red Stick Tigress
quote:
Ambulances don't move dead people.
Are you sure about that hoss?...
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:54 pm to Roux22
quote:
It’s reported that she had 500 flight hours.
200 is a good year for a average pilot. Inschool you get another 200 plus at your type of plane or help you get 100-150 more hours.
Either way this pilot way VERY GREEN at her job.
So 2 years of experience is green? I mean, she's certainly newer, but she'd been flying for a while. Not to mention, she was a trainee on that particular route...what was the trainer doing through this whole thing? He's the one that's supposed to be in control of the situation if she's as "green" as you claim.
Blackhawk co-pilots have a complete set of controls, allowing either to take control during a flight.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:55 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
This is about as standard as it gets.
Standard calls, did the job. Then seconds before collision another routine call wasnt quite enough to avert disaster. Thats one of the tough aspects of tactical control, realizing when your SA may be higher than aircrew and knowing when to intervene. Do it too often and you're a bad controller inducing problems potentially getting ignored. But bite your tongue or hesitate once and it can be catastrophic.
Eta: it's easy to second guess when focusing one incident. Controller had multiple aircraft under control and helo accepted visual separation responsibility.
This post was edited on 1/30/25 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 1/30/25 at 3:58 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
I generally hate pilot “influencers,”
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:02 pm to KosmoCramer
just now on Fox there was a retired FAA accident investigator that explained the flight rules and conditions around this space
he said that norms for helo traffic are 200ft and hugging the riverbank or 1000ft and steering clear of traffic
he also said the helo flying through the DCA glide path window in the dark with active traffic in the area was inexplicable
he said that norms for helo traffic are 200ft and hugging the riverbank or 1000ft and steering clear of traffic
he also said the helo flying through the DCA glide path window in the dark with active traffic in the area was inexplicable
This post was edited on 1/30/25 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:10 pm to Tuscaloosa
The controller in communication with PAT 225 may not have done anything wrong, followed procedures in place.
Per a Helo pilot on Bongino today however the practice of allowing helos to be cleared for visual separation so close to commercial flights so frequently is inherently dangerous and may be the biggest contributing factor.
Who is responsible for putting that procedure into place to begin with is a question that needs to be asked.
Per a Helo pilot on Bongino today however the practice of allowing helos to be cleared for visual separation so close to commercial flights so frequently is inherently dangerous and may be the biggest contributing factor.
Who is responsible for putting that procedure into place to begin with is a question that needs to be asked.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:11 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
So 2 years of experience is green? I mean, she's certainly newer, but she'd been flying for a while. Not to mention, she was a trainee on that particular route...what was the trainer doing through this whole thing? He's the one that's supposed to be in control of the situation if she's as "green" as you claim.
She's green in the aviation world. Even for helicopters.
When you start getting into 1000s of hours that would be consider not green. However, this depends on the conditions she flew those hours in?
How many of them were at night, how long was it since her last instruments check ride, etc. All of that also goes into "experience"
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:12 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted the route depiction a few pages back LINK
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:13 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
Such an avoidable tragedy the more I read
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:13 pm to supatigah
Got it.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:14 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
Per a Helo pilot on Bongino today however the practice of allowing helos to be cleared for visual separation so close to commercial flights so frequently is inherently dangerous and may be the biggest contributing factor.
This seems crazy imo. To have anyone flying under XXX altitude that close to a major runway, then at night. Throw in 1000s and 1000s of repetitions and bad shits going to happen at some point.
Page 45 of 73
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News