Plane Crash In DC

jt512 said:
I listed what I think the primary cause was and the contributing factors. There are an infinite number of things I didn't list as contributing factors. A 6-year-old would understand why.

Maybe it has something to do with your condescension.

Nope. Check your reading comprehension.

How would I (or anyone, for that matter) even know that?

It has been been credibly alleged that ATC is still suffering staffing shortages as the result of an Obama-era program to increase the number of minority air traffic controllers. I don't know whether that it true or not.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. What "credible evidence" that you can't even vouch for?

Trump read president after Obama. Why didn't Trump fix the problem then.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well then, do you think as I do that Trump blaming DEI for the crash is breathtakingly stupid?
Click to expand...
I don't know exactly what Trump said, but if as the Times of London says, "President Trump claimed diversity initiatives under previous Democratic presidents were a factor in the Washington air collision," is true, that is not something I would call "breathtakingly stupid."
 
jt512 said:
I don't know exactly what Trump said, but if as the Times of London says, "President Trump claimed diversity initiatives under previous Democratic presidents were a factor in the Washington air collision," is true, that is not something I would call "breathtakingly stupid."
Click to expand...
You haven't any curiosity to look up his full statement about one of your favourite topics?

Trump said that right after he said they don't know what caused the crash.
 
Trump went from saying they don't know why the crash occurred to then blaming it on his DEI "opinions" and flat out lying about how and when DEI policies were implemented. Bear in mind, all ATC have to pass rigorous tests and training.

(17:05)
That icy, icy Potomac. It was a cold, cold night, cold water. We're all overcome with the grief. For many who have so tragically perished, who will no longer be with us. Together, we take solace in the knowledge that their journey ended not in the cold waters of the Potomac, but in the warm embrace of a loving God. We do not know what led to this crash, but we have some very strong opinions and ideas, and I think we'll probably state those opinions now because over the years I've watched as things like this happen and they say, "Well, we're always investigating." And then the investigation, three years later, they announce it. "We think we have some pretty good ideas." But we'll find out how this disaster occurred and will ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

(17:55)
The FAA and the NTSB and the US military will be carrying out a systematic and comprehensive investigation. Our new Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, his second day on the job when that happened, it's a rough one, will be working tirelessly. He's a great gentleman. The whole group is. These are great people and they are working tirelessly to figure out exactly what happened. We will state certain opinions, however. I'm also immediately appointing an acting Commissioner to the FAA, Christopher Rochelieu, a twenty-two-year veteran of the agency, highly respected. Christopher, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

(18:42)
We must have only the highest standards for those who work in our aviation system. I changed the Obama standards from very mediocre at best to extraordinary. You remember that. Only the highest aptitude, they have to be the highest intellect and psychologically superior people were allowed to qualify for air traffic controllers. That was not so prior to getting there. When I arrived in 2016, I made that change very early on because I always felt this was a job that -- and other jobs too- but this was a job that had to be superior intelligence and we didn't really have that and we had it.

(19:27)
And then when I left office and Biden took over, he changed them back to lower than ever before.
Click to expand...

Those hiring policy changes between Obama, Trump and Biden? Never happened. Trump lied, like he always lies.

www.rev.com

Donald Trump D.C. Plane Helicopter Crash | Rev

President Trump holds a press briefing on the D.C. aviation disaster. Read the transcript here.
www.rev.com www.rev.com
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I don't know exactly what Trump said, but if as the Times of London says, "President Trump claimed diversity initiatives under previous Democratic presidents were a factor in the Washington air collision," is true, that is not something I would call "breathtakingly stupid."
Click to expand...
Here we go. I think this is where Trump's ramblings went way off the rails from offering condolences (good) to pointless speculation (bad) in the aid of politicizing the crash (very bad)...

We do not know what led to this crash, but we have some very strong opinions and ideas, and I think we'll probably state those opinions now because over the years I've watched as things like this happen and they say, "Well, we're always investigating." And then the investigation, three years later, they announce it. "We think we have some pretty good ideas." But we'll find out how this disaster occurred and will ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
Click to expand...

It was "breathtakingly stupid" to pull this stuff from his arse when he himself admits he does not know what caused the crash. Why offer "very strong opinions"? Who benefits from these "very strong opinions"?
 
jt512 said:
I don't know exactly what Trump said, but if as the Times of London says, "President Trump claimed diversity initiatives under previous Democratic presidents were a factor in the Washington air collision," is true, that is not something I would call "breathtakingly stupid."
Click to expand...
Do you think it is true?

You're doing an awful lot of squirming to avoid giving me the answer to the question we both know I'm asking.
 
Below is a quote from a New York Tines news story published yesterday.
Investigators said the two aircraft collided at 300 feet — a detail that has raised questions about how the helicopter got off course, given that it was not authorized to fly higher than 200 feet above ground. New York Times article link
Click to expand...

My question is, I thought it was reported the airliner was supposed to be at 400 feet? (I looked for that information in a Google news search but couldn't find confirmation.) I found references to the plane being at 400 feet -- "Flight 5342 was inbound to Reagan National at an altitude of about 400 feet (122 meters)" -- but nothing about its assigned altitude. It looks to me like both aircraft were 100 feet off where they were supposed to be. The Black Hawk at 300 feet (not 200 feet) and the CRJ-700 jet at 300 feet (not 400).

What am I missing? Was the jet supposed to maintain 400 feet? It was approaching a runway. Was it descending?
 
newyorkguy said:
I found references to the plane being at 400 feet -- "Flight 5342 was inbound to Reagan National at an altitude of about 400 feet (122 meters)"
Click to expand...
That is almost certainly an estimate made from preliminary radar and/or ADS-B. It would be somewhat inaccurate as it lags behind the onboard recording. It's quite likely that the last ADS-B transmission received reported an altitude higher than the airplane's actual altitude. The DFDR data is dispositive.

newyorkguy said:
...but nothing about its assigned altitude. It looks to me like both aircraft were 100 feet off where they were supposed to be. The Black Hawk at 300 feet (not 200 feet) and the CRJ-700 jet at 300 feet (not 400).
Click to expand...
There is no canonical assigned altitude for an approach, although the expectation is that an approach to landing will follow a nominal glide slope assisted by various electronic and visual references. There is generally no required to maintain vertical separation or clearance, however the charts for each individual airport avise pilots of terrain and obstacles to be avoided. The charts being used by the airliner pilot will indicate the helicopter route and its ceiling.

ATC guidance for traffic deconfliction is primarily based on horizontal separation when vertical separation of at least 1000 feet cannot be guaranteed. This is why the helicopter pilot was instructed to pass behind the airliner. There was no presumption that the airliner would maintain an altitude consistent with avoiding a helicopter that was presumed to be flying at or below 200 feet. The airliner had no obligation to remain at 400 feet or higher. Its obligation is to remain on course and on the glide slope.
 
newyorkguy said:
Below is a quote from a New York Tines news story published yesterday.


My question is, I thought it was reported the airliner was supposed to be at 400 feet? (I looked for that information in a Google news search but couldn't find confirmation.) I found references to the plane being at 400 feet -- "Flight 5342 was inbound to Reagan National at an altitude of about 400 feet (122 meters)" -- but nothing about its assigned altitude. It looks to me like both aircraft were 100 feet off where they were supposed to be. The Black Hawk at 300 feet (not 200 feet) and the CRJ-700 jet at 300 feet (not 400).

What am I missing? Was the jet supposed to maintain 400 feet? It was approaching a runway. Was it descending?
Click to expand...
It was on landing approach and therefore descending.
 
newyorkguy said:
Below is a quote from a New York Tines news story published yesterday.


My question is, I thought it was reported the airliner was supposed to be at 400 feet? (I looked for that information in a Google news search but couldn't find confirmation.) I found references to the plane being at 400 feet -- "Flight 5342 was inbound to Reagan National at an altitude of about 400 feet (122 meters)" -- but nothing about its assigned altitude. It looks to me like both aircraft were 100 feet off where they were supposed to be. The Black Hawk at 300 feet (not 200 feet) and the CRJ-700 jet at 300 feet (not 400).

What am I missing? Was the jet supposed to maintain 400 feet? It was approaching a runway. Was it descending?
Click to expand...
You don't maintain an altitude on short final. It's all down, down, down unless you do a go around
 
Also 100 feet up or down is still pretty much the correct altitude. 50 feet error is considered normal. ATC doesn't even see altitude in tens of feet on their screens. From what I could find, 200ft error is still allowed.

Airplanes near ground can rely on radar altimeters, they usually start to work at 500ft, and are way more precise. The helicopter for sure was following radar altitude, and the airplane was about to switch to it (it's not like there's a switch, it's just pilot paying attention to it). Automatic audio altitude warnings also follow radar altitude.

TCAS (collision avoidance system) system gives it's final warning, called resolution advisory (RA), with altitude difference of 600 ft. It recommends a menuver to the pilot, and the pilot typically has to obey RA immidiately.
It wouldn't be given here, as at approach it would report airplanes on ground, and it can't give recommended maneuver reliably so close to the ground. But it shows that 600ft separation during flight is considered unsafe enough to require immediate correction.

Also flying helicopter at high speed (some claim it was over 100kts) in busy environment, at night, having to visually follow terrain, with NV goggles .. 100ft excursion is nothing.

200ft vertical separation is not safe in the first place. The idea was there will be enough horizontal separation.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Also 100 feet up or down is still pretty much the correct altitude.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, especially when the recommended maximum altitude is only 200 feet MSL, which along that helicopter's route is 100 feet (if not less) AGL. A 100-foot negative altitude excursion would put you into the ground.
Dr.Sid said:
Also flying helicopter at high speed (some claim it was over 100kts) in busy environment, at night, having to visually follow terrain, with NV goggles .. 100ft excursion is nothing.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
jt512 said:
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, especially when the recommended maximum altitude is only 200 feet MSL, which along that helicopter's route is 100 feet (if not less) AGL. A 100-foot negative altitude excursion would put you into the ground.

Ditto.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was talking in context of collision avoidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom