“Heli shouldnt have been there, there’s no reason”
oh? so it shouldn’t fly in the dedicated lane it was in?
Comment on Plane carrying 64 collides with helicopter, crashes in Washington
Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoThis 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?
Mac@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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.