AA5342 Collides with Helicopter

[OATEK]

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.

 

[Quickstatus]

Or FAA policies,
Or FAA governance
Or Government budgets
Or commercial imperatives
Or the demands of the travelling public

 

[Brissy1]

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.

 

[moa999]

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.

 

[Quickstatus]

I think we can agree on:
A midair collision BETWEEN a helicopter and an airplane

 

[DejaBrew]

I think we can agree on:
A midair collision BETWEEN a helicopter and an airplane

Beyond this, I would suggest that the phrasing discussion likely belongs in the grammar thread. It's devolving rapidly into a debate over semantics.

 

[Quickstatus]

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'

 

[RSD]

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.

 

[marki]

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.

Yeah, there are interesting human factors to study. Nobody has mentioned colour vision as a possible issue. Medical side has to be looked at and as well as the fatigue level of the pilots involved.

 

[marki]

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'

Yes, I agree, plus the medical side of things. It has to be added. Fatigue levels and the prior 24-48 hours etc and color vision.

 

[jb747]

As soon as fault becomes the main aim of any investigation, it loses any relevance with regard to safety.

Who came up with the procedures they were using? Why were the army using NVGs, and how did they mitigate the field of view issues that they give you. All of the people involved on the night may be blameless, with the real cause going back to a procedure written years ago.

 

[jb747]

Yes, I agree, plus the medical side of things. It has to be added. Fatigue levels and the prior 24-48 hours etc and color vision.

NVGs don’t give any colour vision. The CRJ pilots were in the very late stage of a turning approach. Their attention would have been on the runway, and nothing else. That’s normal. I suspect the the army were using the third person in the aircraft as a spotter, to help offset the limitations of the NVGs. Depending upon exactly where he was sitting, his field of view could have been quite restricted. Also a good chance that he wasn’t a pilot, and that could place a question mark over the validity of his observations. It’s the poor frog again. It works until it doesn’t.

 

[jb747]

Whilst I don't normally recommend pprune, the discussion about this subject seems to have remained on the rails, and has lots of commentary from people who know the aircraft, airport and the procedures. To be honest, it's terrifying.

 

[Quickstatus]

NVGs don’t give any colour vision

Does it affect peripheral vision

 

[jb747]

Does it affect peripheral vision

Yes. It removes it.

 

[tgh]

Our "sixth sense" has arguably been a/the primary factor in the success of the species.
Swap it for a tv screen and …..