PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

BEEF SUPREME said:
I'm happy the NTSB arrived at the assessment of heli ops so close to the final approach to 33 as an "intolerable risk."
Click to expand...

Am surprised there hadn’t been traffic conflict alerts with this until now. Unless there has and it’s just never been reported. Even if two aircraft on their exact altitudes when they cross this point, there’s only 100’ separation at best,
 
MikeD said:
Am surprised there hadn’t been traffic conflict alerts with this until now. Unless there has and it’s just never been reported. Even if two aircraft on their exact altitudes when they cross this point, there’s only 100’ separation at best,
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is only 75' and that is only if the arriving aircraft isn't below the glidepath and the heli is within the altitude constraint.
 
MikeD said:
That would be apparent on the helo CVR, as it should’ve kept running to impact.



Helo was probably under the right wing most of the time, until it likely suddenly bloomed out from u dear the wing at 1 second or so to impact.
Click to expand...

The CRJ was rolled out on final approach 7 seconds before impact.

And what would be apparent on the heli? Crush damage at impact for the cabin?
 
MikeD said:
Am surprised there hadn’t been traffic conflict alerts with this until now. Unless there has and it’s just never been reported. Even if two aircraft on their exact altitudes when they cross this point, there’s only 100’ separation at best,
Click to expand...

There have been hundreds (probably thousands) of TAs on that approach in the last 20 years. They just get ignored normally because you assume the guy who said he would maintain visual separation is going to actually maintain visual separation.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
The CRJ was rolled out on final approach 7 seconds before impact.

And what would be apparent on the heli? Crush damage at impact for the cabin?
Click to expand...

The RJ seemed to be still be somewhat wing up, in its turn about to roll out, or rolling out.

The helo would have damage to the blade and rotor system, and tailboom. But much of the fuselage crush damage of it would be post-impact when it hit the water inverted.
 
BobDDuck said:
There have been hundreds (probably thousands) of TAs on that approach in the last 20 years. They just get ignored normally because you assume the guy who said he would maintain visual separation is going to actually maintain visual separation.
Click to expand...

I think this gets back to is it really worth it to call XYZ in sight?

At night it is really easy to have the incorrect aircraft in sight. I just made this mistake in SLC. I thought I saw an aircraft that was moving right to left in sight but it was really just landing on the parallel runway. At night I mistook an airliner for a Cherokee. Which is why I never said I had the aircraft in sight to ATC.
 
MikeD said:
The RJ seemed to be still be somewhat wing up, in its turn about to roll out, or rolling out.

The helo would have damage to the blade and rotor system, and tailboom. But much of the fuselage crush damage of it would be post-impact when it hit the water inverted.
Click to expand...

I think that’s the angle of the video taken. The first video. The second video seems to show more clearly, that the CRJ is pretty much near wings level.


Is it your guess the 3 were alive then after impact? If so I wonder if there was any recognition of what happened. The CRJ crew knew 1 second before and tried to avoid it.
 
BobDDuck said:
There have been hundreds (probably thousands) of TAs on that approach in the last 20 years. They just get ignored normally because you assume the guy who said he would maintain visual separation is going to actually maintain visual separation.
Click to expand...

Agree. That’s not an unreasonable assumption either. For all we know, that was likely the thought in the RJ cockpit at the time, since they heard the tower side of the comms with the helo. I’ve thought the same thing before too, as 6 or so seconds from touchdown, I’m not scanning around for traffic, the attention is forward at the runway.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I think that’s the angle of the video taken. The first video. The second video seems to show more clearly, that the CRJ is pretty much near wings level.


Is it your guess the 3 were alive then after impact? If so I wonder if there was any recognition of what happened. The CRJ crew knew 1 second before and tried to avoid it.
Click to expand...

The helo CVR should be revealing on that. I don’t see why the helo crew wouldn’t have been alive, unless a main rotor blade came instantly out of track immediately post collision and came through the top of the cockpit.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
So would it be fair to say that the large explosion is the fuel in the left wing catching fire as it fails/disintegrates?


And what about the heli? I thought it was a body smash, meaning near instant death of those in the heli. But if only the rotors hit, then the cabin wasn’t compromised, and they were alive going down. :(
Click to expand...
The explosion and G forces from impact would have killed many of them instantly, right?
 
arkavgal said:
The explosion and G forces from impact would have killed many of them instantly, right?
Click to expand...

Instantaneous load of 10G (IE gettin t-boned) is briefed to cause immediate fatal damage to the body. It’s why all the survivability in helo’s is designed around keeping the load vertical and minimizing the impact forces through crash seats or landing gear. Vertical on the Apache which is our most survivable the instant load rating is 28G before becoming fatal by comparison.

It’s very likely dependent on load that even if they had been alive post immediate impact that fatal internal bleeding was occurring. We had pretty recent crash where a helicopter come down on its side where the crew sustained no real life threatening external injuries but the internal bleeding from the ruptured aorta led to it being by fatal for one of the crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Instantaneous load of 10G (IE gettin t-boned) is briefed to cause immediate fatal damage to the body. It’s why all the survivability in helo’s is designed around keeping the load vertical and minimizing the impact forces through crash seats or landing gear. Vertical on the Apache which is our most survivable the instant load rating is 28G before becoming fatal by comparison.

It’s very likely dependent on load that even if they had been alive post immediate impact that fatal internal bleeding was occurring. We had pretty recent crash where a helicopter come down on its side where the crew sustained no external injuries but the internal bleeding from the ruptured aorta led to it being by fatal for one of the crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The secondary and tertiary impacts within the body. Where the primary impact area looks generally fine at first glance.
 
It might also be likely that there were people who may have survived the surface impact on the RJ only to drown in the water unable to extricate themselves from the wreckage.
 
1741743674720.jpeg


The absence of an accident doesn't imply that what you're doing is safe. It means you haven't had an accident yet.
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
All the years I flew at PSA I never did the circle to land at night. It was always during the day.
Click to expand...

Thanks to having my logbook in Excel, and the joys of pivot tables...

Between September 2005 and May 2013 I have 672 landings on Runway 33, of which 244 of them are logged as a night landing. Figure I was only taking half the landings at any given time, I probably have about 500 night time approach and landings into 33.

Fun times but I can't say I miss it too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top