AA5342 Collides with Helicopter

CNN/MSNBC/FOX have run a lot of commentary around key questions, including:
  • Helo higher than the route allowed
  • How Helo had greater visibility through front/sides yet didn't seem to see AA flight
  • How Helo pilots could/should have been wearing NVGs and whether that was good/bad
  • How landing lights get lost in the city lights at night
  • ATC over worked
  • etc
However few if any questions have centred on the CRJ.
 
Whoever made the colliding action doesn’t mean they’re at fault. If the CRJ struck the Blackhawk from above while on descent the Blackhawk can still be the one at fault.

This is all semantics and not important.
Maybe not important to some who see through the words, to others sets a scenario.
If "Mountain collides with aircraft" sounds odd then that shows the implication of word placement.
 
Offer expires: 18 Mar 2025

- Earn up to 100,000 bonus Qantas Points*
- Enjoy an annual $450 Qantas travel credit
- Don't forget the two complimentary Qantas Club lounge invitations and two visits to the Amex Centurion Lounges in Melbourne and Sydney.

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

that if the CRJ pilots are not at fault, the Helicopter pilots must therefore at fault
Don't think many will take that read.

At a minimum you've got ATC, and it's already been suggested they were understaffed, and possibly could have seen the incident unfolding if they were looking at the monitors.

And then you've got policies and procedures.
The helo is on VFR but guided by the ATC.
From the transcripts I've seen the helo is simply asked can they see the CRJ, and to pass behind it.
No directional indication of where they should be looking, and remember it's night so an aircraft is just some blinking lights.
From some of the airport CCTV there is another aircraft in the area, either taking off or overflying.
 
Don't think many will take that read.
I hope so but it seems that way.

The "can you see X... yes" scenario is fraught with potential failure when there is no verification and especially when the perspective of the ATC and the Heli pilots are completely different.

The safety threats IMO so far:

No air disaster since 2009 - yes this is a safety threat .
Busy airport
Less than optimal ATC complement
Competing utilisation of the same space by different aircraft on intersecting paths
Communication on different channels
Operation at night - ?same tempo as daytime
Night visibility on the background of other lights
what are we looking at?
Verification of what we are looking at?
Inactivation of TCAS resolution advisory below 1000'
 
At this stage what is known so far would suggest that -

The CRJ was at an approved -
- position (longitude & latitude)
- altitude
- timing

The Blackhawk was at an approved -
- position (longitude & latitude)
- timing
- but approximately 150 feet above it maximum altitude of 200 feet

and that the whole idea of having an approved day and night helicopter route that passes just 150 feet / 45 metres below a passenger jet on short final is so incredibly stupid that you have to wonder how the hell that idea even made it out of the creator's brain let alone got approved by someone.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top