PSA CRJ-700 AA midair collision

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because you come on here like you are some subject matter expert on everything. You make a statement knowing nothing about the subject. NVG ops specs?? Really dude.
 
nc1982 said:
Because you come on here like you are some subject matter expert on everything. You make a statement knowing nothing about the subject. NVG ops specs?? Really dude.
Click to expand...

What NVG op spec I write? All I said was they didn’t need googles in that particular area because of how well lit it is. It’s a training mission obviously, a night time google flight required for an annual check off. Could they have conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base? THAT’S the kind of input I’d be looking for. MikeD had a great post. The final report will tell us the configuration.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What NVG op spec I write? All I said was they didn’t need googles in that particular area because of how well lit it is. It’s a training mission obviously, a night time google flight required for an annual check off. Could they have conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base? THAT’S the kind of input I’d be looking for. MikeD had a great post. The final report will tell us the configuration.
Click to expand...
Right on dude. You’re the expert. My bad.
 
Guys. Military people of all different flavors share your national airspace system every day. Hundreds if not more. Many of those after dark are wearing NVGs. We dont crash into airliners with any regularity. I think you are focusing on a rabbit hole here.
 
At somepoint someone is going to have to decide between river visuals and Arlingon National Cemetery flyovers.

Close call at DCA between a Delta A319 and US Air Force T-38 | Flightradar24 Blog

DL2983_DO61-Flight-Paths-1024x608.jpg
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What NVG op spec I write? All I said was they didn’t need googles in that particular area because of how well lit it is. It’s a training mission obviously, a night time google flight required for an annual check off. Could they have conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base? THAT’S the kind of input I’d be looking for. MikeD had a great post. The final report will tell us the configuration.
Click to expand...

Google flight… love it.

In all seriousness though, they absolutely could’ve conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base. If they had done so, the checkride would’ve still been valid assuming all the mandatory task had been accomplished under NVGs. I seriously doubt that would’ve prevented the accident though. I don’t think you’re hearing from the others who’ve flown extensively with NVGs how they operate and how the military operates with them. It’s extraordinarily common, especially in a busy well-lit area to routinely and repeatedly look under the goggles as a part of your scan. You also don’t know how easy it is to find an aircraft while wearing goggles either.
 
Ian_J said:
Google flight… love it.

In all seriousness though, they absolutely could’ve conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base. If they had done so, the checkride would’ve still been valid assuming all the mandatory task had been accomplished under NVGs. I seriously doubt that would’ve prevented the accident though. I don’t think you’re hearing from the others who’ve flown extensively with NVGs how they operate and how the military operates with them. It’s extraordinarily common, especially in a busy well-lit area to routinely and repeatedly look under the goggles as a part of your scan. You also don’t know how easy it is to find an aircraft while wearing goggles either.
Click to expand...


Then if the peripheral vision isn’t blocked, how does one miss the big ass landing lights, strobes, beacon, the full deal, on a nice clear night. Those lights are BRIGHT.
 
Ian_J said:
. It’s extraordinarily common, especially in a busy well-lit area to routinely and repeatedly look under the goggles as a part of your scan. You also don’t know how easy it is to find an aircraft while wearing goggles either.
Click to expand...

The general public seems to think modern NVGs are just like the original PVS-5 full face goggles, which had no peripheral vision capability, at least not until the “cutaway” -5s.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Then if the peripheral vision isn’t blocked, how does one miss the big ass landing lights, strobes, beacon, the full deal, on a nice clear night. Those lights are BRIGHT.
Click to expand...
Now one has to look at background lighting, were there any bright ground lights that could have mistaken or hidden the other aircraft lights? Was there aircraft cockpit structure that due to the angle of approach of the CRJ and the helo, might have been in the way at least until just prior to impact? Were the crew watching another aircraft at a different clock position and not noticing the something approaching outside their field of view?

Again, the CVR should shed some light on these questions, on the SA level of the crew, on any distractions to the crew, or any unsurety of if the traffic being seen was the intended traffic, and on who was doing what in the cockpit.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Then if the peripheral vision isn’t blocked, how does one miss the big ass landing lights, strobes, beacon, the full deal, on a nice clear night. Those lights are BRIGHT.
Click to expand...

Everyone is aware those lights are bright.

Night vision goggles enhance and amplify light. If seen through night vision goggles, they would even be brighter and more noticeable.

Night vision goggles are worn away from the eyes. You can look under them and from side to side. While looking through the goggle tubes themselves, military pilots are trained to overcome the limited field of view with deliberate scanning. With that deliberate scanning and routinely looking around those goggles, you get a really good picture… A better picture really than with the naked eye.

My complete guess is that this crew was focused on something else they thought was the aircraft and because of that focus they were blind to the very obvious aircraft in front of them. I would also guess that night vision goggles will end up playing next to no part in the causation for this accident. I could be wrong… but after 1000s of hours of flying night vision goggles, often in some of the busiest air spaces in the world, I just don’t see it.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
What NVG op spec I write? All I said was they didn’t need googles in that particular area because of how well lit it is. It’s a training mission obviously, a night time google flight required for an annual check off. Could they have conducted the checkride with goggles all the way until approaching route 4, and then off, and then on again right before landing at their base? THAT’S the kind of input I’d be looking for. MikeD had a great post. The final report will tell us the configuration.
Click to expand...
Whyyyyyyyyy do you do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top