PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

[ppragman]

Maybe, maybe not, it depends if both pilots were on NVGs or not. One can still see aircraft fine with NVGs on, and can see easily out the sides and above/below the NVGs when worn at the proper distance from the eyes. But, they do require some more head scan due to their limited field of view. It’s still not clear why the landing lights of the CRJ weren’t seen by the Blackhawk crew, as the CRJ was close and was pointing its landing light in their direction as it made its turn to final for RW 33, and that large bloom of light should’ve easily been seen, whether on NVGs or not. Even taking into consideration the cockpit structure of the Blackhawk. Again, the cockpit recorder of the Blackhawk should make this part more clear.




The Blackhawk was still squawking a code, and tower had them visually. Nothing more would’ve helped if the Blackhawk thought they had the right traffic in sight that they were visually separating from, and even reiterated that when tower queried them a second time to confirm.

I was responding to CC's ChatGPT comments.

 

[MikeD]

I was responding to CC's ChatGPT comments.

Ah. My mistake then.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Ummmm:

View attachment 82898

I didn’t fake mine. I typed in what you see in my pic, and the result that came out. Stop falling for AI as if it’s some fool-proof thing. It says it right there on their site, that chatGPT can make mistakes.

 

[KLB]

The Bravo around here goes down to 1200'. And, in theory, we aren't supposed to be below 1000' where those sectional charts are yellow, so... yeah.

Making the airspace more restrictive would be fine in theory, but approach doesn't have the staffing to deal with the traffic that's currently using the Bravo around here as it is. And as much as AOPA might complain, the Coast Guard and Air Force would probably be even less happy here.

I get an RA one in three times flying into OPF from all the flights operating just underneath the Class B. I typically respond with "negative contacf" to traffic callouts because it is so saturated with trainers that it one can easily be confused with another.

 

[arkavgal]

My understanding of the helo's mission was evacuation of higher ups from the capital, potentially at night. I'd like to be in the group that say's "just go do it somewhere else". But their specific mission is to get people out, at night, and that's the way the have to go, then I'm a bit more understanding. Probably if there was a national emergency and evacuation the airport would be shut down.

You make good points. A training mission could have been done much later at night when air traffic was minimal.

 

[BobDDuck]

You make good points. A training mission could have been done much later at night when air traffic was minimal.

Fight how your train/train how you fight.

If they need to launch to move somebody for real, it's not going to wait until there isn't traffic running around.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Fight how your train/train how you fight.

If they need to launch to move somebody for real, it's not going to wait until there isn't traffic running around.

But you also don’t need NVG goggles in that particular area, seeing how extremely well lit the entire area is there.

 

[BobDDuck]

But you also don’t need NVG goggles in that particular area, seeing how extremely well lit the entire area is there.

I'll let somebody who has more rotor experience than me explain how you are wrong.

 

[derg]

But you also don’t need NVG goggles in that particular area, seeing how extremely well lit the entire area is there.

Dude.

Why do you do this?

 

[nc1982]

Dude.

Why do you do this?

JetU. He knows everything.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Dude.

Why do you do this?

You know. You KNOW. We ALL know.

 

[arkavgal]

Fight how your train/train how you fight.

If they need to launch to move somebody for real, it's not going to wait until there isn't traffic running around.

Fair point

 

[MikeD]

You make good points. A training mission could have been done much later at night when air traffic was minimal.

What was also said about training, but also, unless everyone was making approaches to RW 1 and then circling to RW 33, the helo wouldn’t know when would be busy or not, as traffic landing on 1 wouldn’t be an issue. This doesn’t infer the CRJ crew did anything wrong by accepting the circling offer, or that the tower did anything wrong for offering it up. The CRJ was just one of the planes that happened to accept the circle. Other aircraft may or may not have. It was unfortunate timing that the helo and the CRJ were in those exact locations when they were.

 

[MikeD]

But you also don’t need NVG goggles in that particular area, seeing how extremely well lit the entire area is there.

It’s entirely possible that the checkee had NVGs down and the IP had them up. Only way to know would be the CVR. But aircraft show up under NVGs fine, especially like I mentioned with the CRJ landing lights shining at them. Hopefully the CVR has convo related to the traffic, in order to find out if the crew was looking or unsure of traffic, or if they verbally called out traffic to one another in the cockpit, which can then be time stamped and compared with the geographical positions of other aircraft at that moment, to get a good idea which traffic the helo crew was looking at.

 

[Minuteman]

If the mission being simulated is NVGs in crowded airspace for two crew, then have a non-participating spotter. Boxers still wear headgear.

The solution is not “what else’re ya gonna do? ”

Remember how insane it felt to learn this has been going on for how long?

 

[MikeD]

If the mission being simulated is NVGs in crowded airspace for two crew, then have a non-participating spotter. Boxers still wear headgear.

The solution is not “what else’re ya gonna do? ”

Remember how insane it felt to learn this has been going on for how long?

Again, if your NVGs are properly adjusted, you can see fine through them and have a good amount of unaided peripheral vision. It’s not like one puts NVGs on and aircraft instantly disappear. Depending on the angular relationship between the helo and the CRJ, its possible aircraft structure could have been in the way of the scan, and made them bite off on another aircraft. The CVR should tell. Until then, it’s all supposition. As far as a spotter, they’d have to be in one of the gunner windows, and I’m not sure if it’s been released which side the Crew Chief was sitting on. If he was on the right side, which I’m assuming, he wouldn’t have seen the CRJ.

 

[Lawman]

If the mission being simulated is NVGs in crowded airspace for two crew, then have a non-participating spotter. Boxers still wear headgear.

The solution is not “what else’re ya gonna do? ”

Remember how insane it felt to learn this has been going on for how long?

It’s amazing how the presence of NVGs is the problem for you guys. Not the long standing accepted course designs that are inside of both mechanical allowances and VFR standards isnt the problem but allowed to exist through how many years and how many unreported close calls.

Maybe if we actually started modeling out some of these corridors in a 3D digital environment and saw just how closely together we’ve been going along at that for however long it might force the old muppets at the FAA to evaluate this stuff to greater effect. How many more of these similar “it’s always been ok” until it isn’t situations do you guys think are out there? This is like the whole no radios required because that’s the way it’s always been. Embrace technology and let’s really evolve the airspace system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

It’s amazing how the presence of NVGs is the problem for you guys. Not the long standing accepted course designs that are inside of both mechanical allowances and VFR standards isnt the problem but allowed to exist through how many years and how many unreported close calls.

Maybe if we actually started modeling out some of these corridors in a 3D digital environment and saw just how closely together we’ve been going along at that for however long it might force the old muppets at the FAA to evaluate this stuff to greater effect. How many more of these similar “it’s always been ok” until it isn’t situations do you guys think are out there? This is like the whole no radios required because that’s the way it’s always been. Embrace technology and let’s really evolve the airspace system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously no one single thing. Just another link in the chain. Agreed, a 75 ft separation in Route 4 and final for Rwy 33 is insane.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I'll let somebody who has more rotor experience than me explain how you are wrong.

Dude.

Why do you do this?

JetU. He knows everything.

You know. You KNOW. We ALL know.

Why do you guys do this? Waste of posts. If you have a correction, add that and I’ll gladly read it.

It’s a training flight involving a night vision goggle checkout. If it was required the entire flight, then so be it. But if not, then yes one can question their choice of when to and not to engage the goggles.

The final report should tell all.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

It’s entirely possible that the checkee had NVGs down and the IP had them up. Only way to know would be the CVR. But aircraft show up under NVGs fine, especially like I mentioned with the CRJ landing lights shining at them. Hopefully the CVR has convo related to the traffic, in order to find out if the crew was looking or unsure of traffic, or if they verbally called out traffic to one another in the cockpit, which can then be time stamped and compared with the geographical positions of other aircraft at that moment, to get a good idea which traffic the helo crew was looking at.

I see, thank you. A great simple post. The final report will make for a very interesting and sobering read.