Comment on Plane carrying 64 collides with helicopter, crashes in Washington
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days agoI’d guess the military helicopter didn’t have a TCAS transmitter on
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?