This was my conclusion as well after simply seeing the picture. No way that heli should have been that close to a civilian airport. There’s zero reason. That airspace looks like standard approach space for runway 43 I think it was?
Comment on Plane carrying 64 collides with helicopter, crashes in Washington
SirSamuel@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I know nothing about military aircraft, and next to nothing about civilian aircraft, beyond what I’ve learned from Mayday! episodes and write-ups by Admiral Cloudberg. So I’m forming some strong and unjustified opinions with no actual information
I’d guess the military helicopter didn’t have a TCAS transmitter on, and ATC made some small but vital error, like vectoring the helicopter at a set altitude through the approach path of the landing airplane
I suppose we’ll learn more later, but i suspect the civilian aircraft followed direction correctly, did everything right, and still crashed due to ATC and Helicopter pilot error
Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
Runways are numbered by their magnetic compass orientation. Runway 33 is a runway oriented on a 330 heading (325 to 335 magnetic). Runway 1 is a runway oriented on a 10 degree heading (5 to 15 magnetic)
Based on the ADS-B track and the tower comms, the CRJ in question was on final approach to runway 33. Another aircraft in the distance was on a long final to runway 1. I think the helicopter pilot saw the distant aircraft on approach to runway 1, and didn’t see the CRJ on approach for runway 33.
Night vision goggles might narrow the pilot’s field of view, which might have kept them from seeing the aircraft high and to their left. They probably stopped looking for traffic once they saw the distant aircraft they thought that ATC was talking about.
The CRJ probably wouldn’t have been able to see the helicopter low and to their right.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I wonder if this will wind up being similar to the Überlingen midair collision. An overworked ATC worker making a simple mistake with no other fail-safes in place
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
I have spent about 45 seconds studying the Uberlingen case, so I don’t know much about it at all. From what I quickly gathered, the ATC cleared both aircraft to the same altitude and an intersecting course, and didn’t realize their mistake. That didn’t happen here.
I did not hear communication from the helicopter, but that’s not unusual: LiveATC recordings often miss traffic from aircraft in certain situations. Based on the controller’s transmissions, I have every reason to believe the controller was in 2-way communication with the helicopter.
The controller asked if the helicopter had the CRJ in sight. The next transmission asked the helicopter to maintain visual separation. This command would only be given if the helicopter had reported the CRJ in sight.
This wasn’t an oversight; the ATC’s statements indicate they were aware of the conflict and were taking steps to remediate it. That doesn’t mean their steps were right; that doesn’t mean their steps were wrong. It only means that the radio transmissions indicate the controller was aware of the situation prior to the collision.
Mac@mander.xyz 5 days ago
“Heli shouldnt have been there, there’s no reason”
oh? so it shouldn’t fly in the dedicated lane it was in?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
TCAS warnings are inhibited below 1000AGL. This collision occurred between 200 and 300’ AGL.
Based on the tower communication I listened to, it seemed most traffic was landing on runway 1 (A runway running south to north, oriented along a bearing of 10 degrees). The CRJ was instructed to land on runway 33 (A runway running from southeast to northwest, oriented along a bearing of 330 degrees). The winds favored runway 33, but runway 1 was longer.
The tower controller asked if the helicopter had the CRJ in sight. ATC subsequently instructed the helicopter pilot to maintain visual separation with, and to turn behind the CRJ. ATC knew they were getting close to eachother, but this isn’t necessarily a problem if the pilots are capable of maintaining their own separation.
I believe what happened is that the helicopter pilot saw a distant aircraft far ahead of their flight path, lined up for runway 1, and assumed that was the aircraft the controller was talking about. The CRJ was off to the left and well above the helicopter, lined up with runway 33. The pilot was maintaining separation with the distant aircraft, and did not see the nearby aircraft.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world 5 days ago
That’s a pretty good guess. I now believe this 100%. Everything i said before was bullshit
I did not know that was the collision altitude, nor did I know TCAS was inhibited below 1000’.
See, i told you i know next to nothing about this. But that’s the advantage of spouting off. The quickest way to get the right info is to say something incorrect first.
It’s called Ohm’s Law
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
I’m quite certain that is the Pareto Principle.
trolololol@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Nope that’s the Heisenberg hypothesis, the Party Principle says you never have enough popcorn. Or was it strippers and blackjack?