re: .

quote:

---

It would be almost impossible to identify the correct plane at night.

---

Nah. Foreflight, which is a general aviation app not used by airlines, has this capability. If Foreflight has it, I’d imagine it wouldn’t be difficult if they wanted to.

I’m not at all suggesting that’s what happened, just pointing out it wouldn’t be too hard. It’d be much more difficult to time that collision than it would be to ID the aircraft.

quote:

---

Of all the things I've seen so far, the theory of them looking at the wrong plane makes the most sense to me.

---

I think that’s the most plausible scenario, but the “wrong airplane” has frequently been referred to as a departing aircraft, which isn’t plausible. I think the consensus is if this theory is true, they were likely looking at AA3130, who was inbound to Rwy 1.

That still doesn’t explain their altitude deviations or relative position even to that other aircraft. Odd, either way.




Pilot on the radios was most likely the instructor pilot.

Doesn't it explain the relative position though? If AA3130 proceeds to land from that position the helo passes behind it tracking along east bank river. Add some spatial disorientation or.misjudging of visual cues and it's feasible helo thought they were laterally separated (which they were.from AA3130).

As in most mishaps several mistakes compound. There was presumably a mistaken visual on wrong a/c plus an altitude deviation. We don't know what CRM and/or equipment issues were at play. Hopefully data reveals if there was some task fixation, broken crew contracts/coordination, etc...

This is just my conjecture but it just came to mind.
Assuming helo crew has wrong a/c visual and thinks they are well clear. Their biggest concern is presumably avoiding water while proceeding low level. Is it conceivable that the landing lights of aircraft converging from above and off peripheral creates a sudden visual effect / distortion as it casts shadows off helo/rotor and glare off water. (Not to mention possible NVG) Since aircraft is turning and descending from above.and.at an angle it seems it might have created a sort of spotlighting effect on the helo.
If so, aircrew may have instinctively pulled up in final seconds to avoid perceived CFIT unaware of the converging aircraft?

(no message)

Anyone here w rotary wing experience that might be able to shed some light on typical/standard crew contracts? I've heard co-pilot usually manages comms w ATC (checks out w audio we've heard). But who usually has primary task to maintain airspace adhearance, nav routing, altitude monitoring etc? Which is primary for declaring/maintaining visual w traffic and avoidance?
(Think I have a good idea of typical crew responsibilities and task delegation but can anyone w experience confirm?)

I realize most of the pilots on here probably haven’t been close to a head on collision with a jet but from any of y’all’s experience would that be something that could potentially blind/disorient you? Kinda like turn your brights off bro I can’t see shite. Would not seeing their lights even be a possibility, assuming they were paying attention? Would there be an altitude/distance difference or lack thereof where a problem like that could occur? Just curious.

Eta: I guess that scenario would have yielded some radio traffic about it.

quote:

---

“Both pilots had flown this specific route before at night — this wasn’t something new to either one of them,” Koziol said.

---

This doesn’t mean one or both didn’t have issues with past flights that just didn’t result in similar tragedy or have an incoming flight have it’s runway changed from coming nearly straight up the western side of the river to making that wide turn over land to then cross their path almost perpendicularly from the east bank. It doesn’t seem to address if previous flights were under similar weather conditions, or if previous flights were exact same type of training scenario, using visual separation, and with same type of helicopter. Koziol might be assuming the public knows he also means those night flights were the same training scenario and under the same conditions, but if so he could have stated this with less ambiguity.

Also is Jonathan Koziol new to the job, or has he been around long enough to be part of decision making on these pilots being ready or not and their training which is likely to be reviewed? He may not be as objective as he should be.

He also either misstates what the issue with DEI really is, or was actually commenting on women being pilots and not on DEI initiatives and quotas with the press then turning it into being about DEI on their own. It’s not about hiring or promoting qualified women based on their merit when equally compared to all the other candidates (or whatever this pilot was), but instead of placing and promoting the best candidates based on merit DEI can focus on hitting quotas of political identity groups at the sake of hiring the best.

I also saw the below, but I don’t know if helicopter declared an emergency situation, but article seems ready to drop blame on the publicly named male soldier involved. If the unnamed pilot was solely hired or promoted based on merit than she be named like Eaves. The army is the one making it seem like there is something fishy about this unnamed pilot.

quote:

---

The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training flight for a female pilot who has not yet been identified. She was being overseen by Chief WO2 Eaves, who had more than 1,000 hours of flying experience and would have been expected to take over the controls in the event of an emergency.

---

quote:

---

VABuckeye

---

I notice you didn't address my point, but rather just insulted me.