- 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 4:19 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:19 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
The 1500 with two lines above and below (very near runway 33) I believe recommends an altitude of 1,500.
Can you confirm that?
Can you confirm that?
2
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:19 pm to baldona
It still blows my mind that any aircraft would be allowed in the approach or departure lanes for a runway. I never got confirmation from any of the gurus here, but it seems to me like both of them would be well defined wedges of space that close to the airport?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:19 pm to gaetti15
quote:
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"
That's fair. If that's the case, why was her trainer just letting her fly a couple hundred over allowed altitude and missing the visual? Hell, it was her trainer on the damn ATC call saying visual confirmed. He has controls right in front of him he could have taken over the moment he felt she was in over her head. Just doesn't add up, that's all.
When I taught my kids to drive and we were on a busy ATL interstate, I didn't just go to sleep. My arse was paying attention to their every move ready to grab the wheel when needed.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:27 pm to OMLandshark
Was there anyone on the plane that certain people wanted to eliminate is the question?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:27 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Yeah, I realize I know little about this but wouldn't the question be whether the instructor was a DEI hire not the pilot being graded/instructed?
Especially considering the instructor is the one talking to Air Traffic Control?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:31 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
That's fair. If that's the case, why was her trainer just letting her fly a couple hundred over allowed altitude and missing the visual? Hell, it was her trainer on the damn ATC call saying visual confirmed. He has controls right in front of him he could have taken over the moment he felt she was in over her head. Just doesn't add up, that's all.
A lot of this doesn’t make sense. But I’m not a pilot and don’t know anything about flying procedures around any airport, much less one in DC. One thing I do wonder is if the ATC had the ability to see the altitude of the helicopter on their radar? I mean, it’s seems to me that with all the advanced radar we have, the ATC could tell the chopper was flying at roughly the same altitude as the approaching civilian airliner and told them they need to descend to a lower altitude, change course, or something.
Between the two chopper pilots, one of them supposedly at least experienced enough to be an instructor, and ATC, who should have the most sophisticated air traffic control tools in the the world, how did none of them realize that chopper was somewhere it wasn’t supposed to be?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:32 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:33 pm to wm72
Posted this on the PB accidentally…
I mean, I get it. Easy to pin it on the gal. But dudes crash planes and choppers as well.
Anyone know if she was the O3 or the Warrant?
I mean, I get it. Easy to pin it on the gal. But dudes crash planes and choppers as well.
Anyone know if she was the O3 or the Warrant?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:33 pm to Vincenzo Pantangelli
quote:
Was there anyone on the plane that certain people wanted to eliminate is the question?
Vincenzo Pantangelli
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Guess we’ll have to wait for the NTSB report to find out more.
Yep, until then we are just spitballing
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:42 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Trainer is a misnomer here. It was an annual evaluation flight. The evaluator was assessing the other pilot and performing their own crew responsibilities. It's a matter of crew resource management. All too more experienced aircrew miss something and/or get complacent and the less experienced may not catch it or be proactive enough speaking up or taking action.
It's not like "When I taught my kids to drive." They all were executing as a crew with shared responsibilities.
It's not like "When I taught my kids to drive." They all were executing as a crew with shared responsibilities.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:42 pm to TorchtheFlyingTiger
It sounds to me that the IP in PAT25 is communicating with the ATC, not the PIC flying the UH-60. Not uncommon, especially in a check ride and/or training exercise.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:46 pm to baw ex machina
Has this been posted? 35 minutes ago update.
This post was edited on 1/30/25 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:48 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
The 1500 with two lines above and below (very near runway 33) I believe recommends an altitude of 1,500.
Can you confirm that?
I'm pretty sure that altitude is for the East/West route that transits directly over the top of the runway complex?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:53 pm to KosmoCramer
The helo was on reportedly on the Route 4 corridor sfc-200MSL. I think the 1500 recommended is for Route 6.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 4:54 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
It still blows my mind that any aircraft would be allowed in the approach or departure lanes for a runway. I never got confirmation from any of the gurus here, but it seems to me like both of them would be well defined wedges of space that close to the airport?
I am the opposite of guru but based on what has been posted here it sounds like the helicopter was supposed to be at 200 ft max, if it had stayed there it would have passed under the airplane, but it went from 200 ft > ~350 ft for some reason and hit the plane.
Why would they do that at the last minute?
Posted on 1/30/25 at 5:05 pm to Hodag
quote:
am the opposite of guru but based on what has been posted here it sounds like the helicopter was supposed to be at 200 ft max, if it had stayed there it would have passed under the airplane, but it went from 200 ft > ~350 ft for some reason and hit the plane.
Why would they do that at the last minute?
Yep, that looks like what happened. Will see if they determine why he went higher than he was supposed to. Appears he was looking at the following plane instead if the one in front of him.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 5:10 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Yep, that looks like what happened. Will see if they determine why he went higher than he was supposed to. Appears he was looking at the following plane instead if the one in front of him.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 5:10 pm to kywildcatfanone
Altitude wouldn’t have been relevant if PAT had passed behind the CRJ.
Posted on 1/30/25 at 5:14 pm to Roux22
I think the zig zag when they changed runways ends up shifting them from straight ahead in field of view with landing lights toward chopper to high and left, chopper pilot loses situational awareness at some point and now the CRJ is obscured by her overhead panel(she’s right seat). Next couple planes flying the approach are still dead ahead and right where she expects to see traffic. Also there is the altitude creep on the Blackhawk flight path, they appear to climb above their ceiling of 200ft.
Page 46 of 73
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News