Deadly plane crash

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

A New York Times report saying the air control tower at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has been understaffed for years came amid a lawsuit claiming the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discriminated against air traffic controller applicants based on their race.

The Times report said the tower at the airport was nearly a third below targeted staff levels, with 19 fully certified controllers as of September 2023, citing the most recent Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, an annual report to Congress that contains target and actual staffing levels.

The targets set by the F.A.A. and the controllers union call for 30.

The lawsuit represents nearly 1,000 individuals who went to school to become air traffic controllers . They passed the normal test to obtain the position right before the Obama administration said the class was too white and threw out the tests with the applicants, the suit alleges.

[Reagan]

Ex-Black Hawk helicopter pilot believes 3 things went wrong!

[baddog]

They say they come in 3s. Here’s #2.

 

[Reagan]

Just adding more opinions!  But this individual is right about one thing:  The traffic controller (only one) did not specify which CRJ to look at.  It appears the chopper saw the one leaving but not the other one.  This individual would/should have had both planes on the ATC screen.   But still, since the chopper went to "visual separation", meaning they took control of their watch and away from the ATC, it's hard for me to believe they couldn't see this jet.  Especially how lit up jets are.   

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, Reagan said:

Just adding more opinions!  But this individual is right about one thing:  The traffic controller (only one) did not specify which CRJ to look at.  It appears the chopper saw the one leaving but not the other one.  This individual would/should have had both planes on the ATC screen.   But still, since the chopper went to "visual separation", meaning they took control of their watch and away from the ATC, it's hard for me to believe they couldn't see this jet.  Especially how lit up jets are.   

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I have thought this premise was nonsensical from the beginning. Maybe it’s true but it seems illogical.

It’s kind of hard to explain on in words but here goes.

I believe the jet was going to land on runway 1 but ATC asked if he could divert to runway 33 or was it vice versa? Either way…. both runways go only north. Runway 33 goes northwest and 1 goes almost due north.

 The helicopter is south of the runways which are 1 mile and 1.5 miles long and going away from the helicopter. 

The helicopter pilot is looking for any conflict at his location. It is extremely unlikely that he’s looking for a possible dangerous situation from an aircraft that’s a mile away and flying away at approximately 200 miles an hour. The pilot’s concern is with a conflict avoidance at the south end of the field from other aircraft landing.

If the helicopter pilot heard the landing instructions for the jet on 33 or 1, the attention would have been toward the south which is the only place that the jet could be located for landing on for 33 or 1.

Inside of the Class B airspace around the airport movement of aircraft is strictly controlled by ATC. It is like comparing it to flying in the fog where the pilots cannot see. It is the ATC responsibility to keep the aircraft separated. In this case it was a perfectly clear night and the helicopter pilot requested from ATC to fly visual separation meaning that the pilot can clearly see surroundings and will be responsible for safe travel. That request was granted. 

Again, the helicopter was south of both runways and looking for any dangers coming from that direction. Why would the helicopter pilot be told to look out for a landing aircraft and yet be looking a mile away to the north for an aircraft flying away at 200mph?

Let’s say you are driving. You are coming up to an intersection for a one-way highway with traffic coming from your left and you have a yield sign. You don’t have to stop but you obviously have to give right away to anyone else who gets there first from the left to avoid a collision. Your passenger says, look out to the left, there is a vehicle coming up to the intersection! So you look to the right and a mile away you see a vehicle and say, yes I can see it. That is basically what ATC told the helicopter. 

Okay…….

Runways 33 and 1 are one-way traffic coming from the left and the helicopter pilot knows it. How does the pilot confuse aircraft landing from the left with an aircraft a mile away and flying away (remember it’s a one way traffic lane) to the right? 

[mat]

On 1/31/2025 at 8:34 PM, baddog said:

They say they come in 3s. Here’s #2.

 

 

Don’t forget about this one

 

[Reagan]

Female Pilot Rebecca Lobach’s Entire Social Media Scrubbed before Army Released Her Name – So What Are They Hiding?

On a Youtube clip, they also mentioned the scrubbing of her social media.  If I remember right, it was also stated that her entire family's social media was scrubbed.  

This make me wanna go, Hummmm...      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SmashMouth]

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

Female Pilot Rebecca Lobach’s Entire Social Media Scrubbed before Army Released Her Name – So What Are They Hiding?

On a Youtube clip, they also mentioned the scrubbing of her social media.  If I remember right, it was also stated that her entire family's social media was scrubbed.  

This make me wanna go, Hummmm...      

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the illustrious, all truthful, all trustworthy Gateway Pundit:

"1. It took the US Army and Rebecca’s family three days to scrub her social media accounts. 2. They really don’t want the public to know anything about this female pilot."

1. How do they know who "scrubbed" her social media accounts? Or when they were "scrubbed"? Or why they were "scrubbed"?

2. Pure conjecture - nothing factual to support this claim - and who are "they"?

This kind of crap makes me sick. Before posting a bunch of total bulls_it, why don't you wait to see what happened? Please don't forget the dozens of people who were innocently killed before spreading malicious conjecture. Have a little sympathy & sensibility...

[Reagan]

What I've seen so far:  At the beginning, my first thought was that this was intentional.  Listening to a lot of stuff the jury is still out on this.  Don't know, at this, what the truth is.  But, this is what we know.  I have heard the audio between the ATC and Helo.  I've seen the computer screen of what the ATC was seeing concerning the paths of the two involved.  They refer to the Helo as PAT.  

OK, 5 miles out, they request "visual separation" from the ATC and are granted this.  There's been talk about the PAT not being able to see. There's been questions: did they, are did they not, have their night goggles on.  Seems to me, without any expertise, that if you request visual separation, then that means you are able to see what's going on.  They never requested to stop visual separation.  Now, at that 5 mile mark the ATC asks if they see the CRJ.  They responded in the affirmative.  Now, there are pilots and military pilots I've listen to state they think PAT was seeing the wrong CRJ.  Whether this is the case or not, the ATC should have specified which CRJ they were talking about.  If done, this would have left no questions. 

OK, PAT was supposed to hug the left shore of the Potomac at only 200 ft.   They were off course and at between 300 and 400 feet altitude.  My question:  Does the FAA know military requirements? I ask this because if they do, why didn't the tower inquire why they were off course?   Anyway, being 5 miles away from impact is between 50 and 60 seconds.  So, they were taking a pretty good right turn.  At about 7 seconds the tower radioed "crash alert."  Now that's not a lot of time.  But, two things:  How can you not see a jet that's all lite up?  Two, after the alert, seems to me that there would have been some sort of evasive maneuver.  I watched a better video and PAT never made an evasive move.  

So, 1)  Was it on purpose?

      2)  Did they just not see it the jet?

      3)  When they got the crash alert, did they panic and freeze?  

[SmashMouth]

21 minutes ago, Reagan said:

What I've seen so far:  At the beginning, my first thought was that this was intentional.  Listening to a lot of stuff the jury is still out on this.  Don't know, at this, what the truth is.  But, this is what we know.  I have heard the audio between the ATC and Helo.  I've seen the computer screen of what the ATC was seeing concerning the paths of the two involved.  They refer to the Helo as PAT.  

OK, 5 miles out, they request "visual separation" from the ATC and are granted this.  There's been talk about the PAT not being able to see. There's been questions: did they, are did they not, have their night goggles on.  Seems to me, without any expertise, that if you request visual separation, then that means you are able to see what's going on.  They never requested to stop visual separation.  Now, at that 5 mile mark the ATC asks if they see the CRJ.  They responded in the affirmative.  Now, there are pilots and military pilots I've listen to state they think PAT was seeing the wrong CRJ.  Whether this is the case or not, the ATC should have specified which CRJ they were talking about.  If done, this would have left no questions. 

OK, PAT was supposed to hug the left shore of the Potomac at only 200 ft.   They were off course and at between 300 and 400 feet altitude.  My question:  Does the FAA know military requirements? I ask this because if they do, why didn't the tower inquire why they were off course?   Anyway, being 5 miles away from impact is between 50 and 60 seconds.  So, they were taking a pretty good right turn.  At about 7 seconds the tower radioed "crash alert."  Now that's not a lot of time.  But, two things:  How can you not see a jet that's all lite up?  Two, after the alert, seems to me that there would have been some sort of evasive maneuver.  I watched a better video and PAT never made an evasive move.  

So, 1)  Was it on purpose?

      2)  Did they just not see it the jet?

      3)  When they got the crash alert, did they panic and freeze?  

Ask the Gateway Pundit. I'm sure they have a reasonable answer undeterred by speculation and conspiracy theory...

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

What I've seen so far:  At the beginning, my first thought was that this was intentional.  Listening to a lot of stuff the jury is still out on this.  Don't know, at this, what the truth is.  But, this is what we know.  I have heard the audio between the ATC and Helo.  I've seen the computer screen of what the ATC was seeing concerning the paths of the two involved.  They refer to the Helo as PAT.  

OK, 5 miles out, they request "visual separation" from the ATC and are granted this.  There's been talk about the PAT not being able to see. There's been questions: did they, are did they not, have their night goggles on.  Seems to me, without any expertise, that if you request visual separation, then that means you are able to see what's going on.  They never requested to stop visual separation.  Now, at that 5 mile mark the ATC asks if they see the CRJ.  They responded in the affirmative.  Now, there are pilots and military pilots I've listen to state they think PAT was seeing the wrong CRJ.  Whether this is the case or not, the ATC should have specified which CRJ they were talking about.  If done, this would have left no questions. 

OK, PAT was supposed to hug the left shore of the Potomac at only 200 ft.   They were off course and at between 300 and 400 feet altitude.  My question:  Does the FAA know military requirements? I ask this because if they do, why didn't the tower inquire why they were off course?   Anyway, being 5 miles away from impact is between 50 and 60 seconds.  So, they were taking a pretty good right turn.  At about 7 seconds the tower radioed "crash alert."  Now that's not a lot of time.  But, two things:  How can you not see a jet that's all lite up?  Two, after the alert, seems to me that there would have been some sort of evasive maneuver.  I watched a better video and PAT never made an evasive move.  

So, 1)  Was it on purpose?

      2)  Did they just not see it the jet?

      3)  When they got the crash alert, did they panic and freeze?  

I just saw reports that the helicopter was actually at 200 feet as required and the jet was lower than optimal glide slope. 

A CRJ is a model of aircraft (Bombardier) and that generally cannot be distinguished at night. What they will see is the navigation lights. It would be like at nighttime trying to distinguish a Boeing 757 from a Boeing 767. Oh, you got the wrong Boeing!

It seems virtually impossible to mistake a landing aircraft for one taking off. The runway numbering system makes it impossible to mistake direction unless you just have no clue where you are at. 

If they couldn’t distinguish the navigation lights, they surely couldn’t see which model of aircraft it was.

With the latest report that I read showing that the plane might have been below glide-slope and the helicopter at the assigned altitude (unverified), I think that I will wait for further investigation.

Speculation is absolutely the name of the game in social media. Otherwise we mostly could not comment. As a pilot, I think some of the speculation borders on stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point.

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I just saw reports that the helicopter was actually at 200 feet as required and the jet was lower than optimal glide slope. 

A CRJ is a model of aircraft (Bombardier) and that generally cannot be distinguished at night. What they will see is the navigation lights. It would be like at nighttime trying to distinguish a Boeing 757 from a Boeing 767. Oh, you got the wrong Boeing!

It seems virtually impossible to mistake a landing aircraft for one taking off. The runway numbering system makes it impossible to mistake direction unless you just have no clue where you are at. 

If they couldn’t distinguish the navigation lights, they surely couldn’t see which model of aircraft it was.

With the latest report that I read showing that the plane might have been below glide-slope and the helicopter at the assigned altitude (unverified), I think that I will wait for further investigation.

Speculation is absolutely the name of the game in social media. Otherwise we mostly could not comment. As a pilot, I think some of the speculation borders on stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point.

Everything I've listened to (1st bold) this was never stated.  I'll see what I can find out.  2nd bold:  I've listened to many active commercial pilots and active and non-active military pilots concerning this.  What I've stated is gathered from this.  So -- it's not much of a stretch.  But, again, it's all speculation as of now. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

Everything I've listened to (1st bold) this was never stated.  I'll see what I can find out.  2nd bold:  I've listened to many active commercial pilots and active and non-active military pilots concerning this.  What I've stated is gathered from this.  So -- it's not much of a stretch.  But, again, it's all speculation as of now. 

Yes, it’s a stretch. The helicopter was flying towards the south end of runway 33. ATC told the pilots of the helicopter that a jet was at 1.200 feet on final to runway 33.

There is only one place in the sky that jet can be, and that is south of runway 33 which is coincidentally the same location of the helicopter.

The experienced pilots were warned about an aircraft south of the field landing but the two experienced pilots flying the helicopter, were according to the experts, both looked to the north and saw an aircraft a mile away and somehow mistook that for the landing aircraft?

 Then the helicopter pilot was told to “pass behind the CRJ”.

How do two experienced pilots (or even rookies) get told to pass behind an aircraft landing from the south yet mistake it for instructions to pass behind a jet a mile away to the north?

Wrong altitude? Switching between night vision and visual? Mistook the jet behind the CRJ to the south?

I have no clue but if they thought that a jet a mile away north, to their right, was the aircraft to watch south of the runway, that is the craziest thing I have heard about this tragedy. If the helicopter pilots were so lost that they didn’t know where they were in relation to the threshold of runway 33, maybe that was the cause but even that seems like a stretch.

And now they are saying the collision happened at 325 feet. 

[tvc184]

I asked a current Army Black Hawk pilot about the ground clutter of lights without determining anyone at fault.

 If the BH was at altitude (even if out of position at 400 feet) and told an aircraft was approaching at 1,200 feet for landing, wouldn’t they be looking up at the black sky and not toward the ground and the clutter of lights? Yes.

I have heard the speculation that the CRJ, because it was turning to the left, lightly exposed its belly to the helicopter, so the navigation lights could not be seen. 

So I ask the BH pilot what I already knew, aren’t the navigation light supposed to be seen from any angle including from underneath the aircraft? Yes.