So the identity of the pilot flying the Helicopter has been revealed...and we see why Trump went so hard on the DEI diatribe....
What a despicable man he is!
US Army helicopter / American Airlines Crash in DC | Medical plane crash in Philly
- Thread starter Sir Matt
- Start date
What a despicable man he is!
Despicable he certainly is but his DEI diatribe was directed at the FAA not the military, and I doubt he even knew it was a female chopper pilot at the time
Get your point but Id be very very surprised if POTUS wouldn't almost immediately know who was on that chopper.
Trump doesn't do details
If they benefit him is all about details
You said there is data but don't provide any. Most European carriers, Chinese and Australian carriers have cadet programs where you can sit right seat in an airliner after getting your commercial license (about 250 hours). You are then paired with training pilots or high time pilots until you meet certain thresholds.
But, it seems like you made up the unsafe bit. There is certainly context needed with your claim as well. Airlines are not inherently unsafe and even low time pilots in the flight deck doesnt change that.
Because it's as universally accepted as saying the team with more goals wins.
https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/safer-by-the-hour/
And here:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/57187 Page 2 for the proper graph.
Last edited:
Ironically too there is an argument to be made that having more experience could be of even greater benefit to flying the likes of CRJs, RJs, Embraers, MD-90s, 717s and other small or older jets that lack the technical abilities of the newer and larger planes out there. An A380 or 787 can just about fly itself, not so much with the other planes. Those are also often flights that get prioritized in more than one way and tend to be under a lot less stress for extremely short turnaround etc. Somewhat ironic the most experienced pilots tend to be assigned to the more advanced equipment if you take away the added responsibility of having a lot more lives in your hands.
Having said that - even more ironic of course is putting a military helicopter in the hands of an even less experienced pilot. An aircraft that has even less ability to rely on technology to get itself out of trouble. Still - I'm not one to jump on blaming the Blackhawk crew for the full 100% until we have all the information. Also don't forget the pilot had more senior crew right with her so CRM failures may be a big focus of this as well - as so often in the past has led to aviation incidents. As was pointed out already - questioning senior officers in military environment is likely far less encouraged than it is with airlines these days.
Last edited:
So general aviation is inherently more unsafe (which I tend to agree with) than professional airline pilots considering 96% of those accidents were GA. Also, 2010 so we're talking 15 years ago.
A person who has 250 hours who is constantly training, constantly practicing their trade, operates under the companies Ops Manual and is monitored and data tracked is a far safer far more accomplished pilot than Joe down the local grass strip who flys for fun but, has 2000 hours doing it.
Obviously. There might be newer data but I won't spend any more time proving that the sun goes up in the east.
Yeah and any non pilot is safer than a experienced pilot after a stroke...
Flying experience is always a factor, and hardly ever the only one.
The Embraer 175 is newer and has "advanced" tech in it than an Airbus or 737. But, because it's smaller and is an RJ, only the smaller regional airlines fly them.
This fallacy that because it's a CRJ or EMBRAER means it's a less capable airplane is a load of bollocks.
The 737 was conceived and built in the 1960's and we're still building them to that same standard today (the cockpit hasn't changed a single bit since then). It's way more mechanical than any Embraer (a lot more digital and automated) or any CRJ that you'll see out flying.
This is very much not the case. There have been four generarions of 737 and to say they have all been identical is nonsense. For example, to directly counter your statement there,it got a glass cockpit in 97 with the NG variant.
That being said, I do agree that labelling a modern jet like CRJ as unsafe is ridiculous, however I am not sure, where did that claim come from in the first place?
Fair...and have since been upgraded to LCD screens as well. But, it still doesn't have an EICAS system which pretty much every other airliner has. But, that would require a new type rating and ton of training for airlines.
My guess is because it's an RJ which is typically flown by newer airline pilots at smaller airlines is the reason. The whole "experience" thing then becomes a factor. "A less experienced pilot flies less capable equipment." It's an argument I've heard many times in my career.
To be fair every moron pilot I met in my aviation training (I didn't go the pilot track myself) still flies commuter jets so there must be something to it.
The E175 made its first flight in 2003. The 737 Max is more than a decade newer. The A320 Neo is almost a decade newer. The A350 is newer. The A220. The A330 Neo. Even the A380. And it's definitely not more advanced than all of those, even if it is a great plane.
And as @The Firestarter said, the part about the cockpit being the same as the original 737s is utter bollocks. Do those side-by-side comparisons of a -100 and a Max8 look identical to you?
The E-series, especially the E2s, are great planes, and anybody thinking them inherently inferior is an idiot who has never looked at one. But it's also not the advanced super-plane that you pretend it is.
EICAS and the 737 is a special topic. It's not that Boeing doesn't know how to do it, all of their aircraft since the 767 have one, except for their new 737s. Nah, the reason is the same crap as why they did MCAS - they did not want to break continuity with older 737s, wanted to avoid any and all additional crew training for the airlines as that might have meant less sales. They've even gotten an exception by the FAA *coughcoughfavouritismcough* for not having to install them despite them mandatory for new aircraft now. So being worse is actually intentional in that case.
It's got a crew alerting system that works perfectly fine. And Airbus has moved a step beyond EICAS so should that render everything else unsafe now too?
RJs have a poor reputation for safety because they do the dangerous bit most often; takeoff and landing. You're also getting the new and inexperienced pilots left to choose from the stupid rotas by low cost carriers that push the rules to the limit.
But it's not an accurate statement though, you're just as likely to have an accident in a B737 or an A320
Ryanair has a poor reputation for saftey despite never having had a fatal accident, it's a perception not based on reality
I didn't realize I called it an "advanced super plane."The E175 made its first flight in 2003. The 737 Max is more than a decade newer. The A320 Neo is almost a decade newer. The A350 is newer. The A220. The A330 Neo. Even the A380. And it's definitely not more advanced than all of those, even if it is a great plane.
And as @The Firestarter said, the part about the cockpit being the same as the original 737s is utter bollocks. Do those side-by-side comparisons of a -100 and a Max8 look identical to you?
The E-series, especially the E2s, are great planes, and anybody thinking them inherently inferior is an idiot who has never looked at one. But it's also not the advanced super-plane that you pretend it is.
EICAS and the 737 is a special topic. It's not that Boeing doesn't know how to do it, all of their aircraft since the 767 have one, except for their new 737s. Nah, the reason is the same crap as why they did MCAS - they did not want to break continuity with older 737s, wanted to avoid any and all additional crew training for the airlines as that might have meant less sales. They've even gotten an exception by the FAA *coughcoughfavouritismcough* for not having to install them despite them mandatory for new aircraft now. So being worse is actually intentional in that case.
Like I said, changing the mechanics in the cockpit (like adding an EICAS) requires a new type rating which will cost the airlines and manufacturer a lot of money. We're saying the same thing here. I dont disagree the the airplane has gone through a couple of revolutions and been updated for modernization. (I apologize for my "hasn't changed a single bit" quote. I was trying to make a point and it came off wrong).
You literally claimed that "The Embraer 175 is newer and has "advanced" tech in it than an Airbus or 737", come on now.
I also very much doubt that simply adding an EICAS would result in an entirely new type rating for the aircraft. Pretty sure they'd only get some difference and familiarization training, and that'd be that. Possibly even just some interactive lessons on the tablet. Still, every bit of expense is too much for Boeing and the airlines, so that did not happen.
We are kinda getting off topic though, so maybe we should stop that train of thought.
In more pertinent news:
The NTSB has released a picture of the Cockpit Voice Recorder from the crashed Learjet:
Luckily the old jet had been outfitted with one, hopefully they can get some info on what caused this crash from it. Despite how it looks after this extremely violent crash it is apparently very likely that they can still pull the data from it. They've dug it up from the impact crater, where it was buried around 7ft below street level.
I am still amazed that there was only one ground fatality. The very steep crash angle kept the damage relatively contained.
Meanwhile in Washington DC, two airport workers have been arrested for having made copies of the aircraft security camera recordings that they then gave to the press.
The last 24hrs have also seen large parts of the CRJ's wreck being salvaged from the river.
Furthermore, the NTSB has released a statement that the CRJ's crew had actually gotten an audible traffic warning eighteen seconds before the collision. I can only guess that they disregarded it, thinking that the helicopter would steer clear enough of them. The pitch angle of the aircraft also changed just prior to impact, so it is well possible that they spotted the helicopter at the last second and attempted to evade, yet were too late.
In more pertinent news:
The NTSB has released a picture of the Cockpit Voice Recorder from the crashed Learjet:
Luckily the old jet had been outfitted with one, hopefully they can get some info on what caused this crash from it. Despite how it looks after this extremely violent crash it is apparently very likely that they can still pull the data from it. They've dug it up from the impact crater, where it was buried around 7ft below street level.
I am still amazed that there was only one ground fatality. The very steep crash angle kept the damage relatively contained.
Meanwhile in Washington DC, two airport workers have been arrested for having made copies of the aircraft security camera recordings that they then gave to the press.
The last 24hrs have also seen large parts of the CRJ's wreck being salvaged from the river.
Furthermore, the NTSB has released a statement that the CRJ's crew had actually gotten an audible traffic warning eighteen seconds before the collision. I can only guess that they disregarded it, thinking that the helicopter would steer clear enough of them. The pitch angle of the aircraft also changed just prior to impact, so it is well possible that they spotted the helicopter at the last second and attempted to evade, yet were too late.
Last edited:
Wouldn't be that surprised if it turns out this was a common occurrence during visual separation by helicopter traffic. One layer of protection bypassed.
I had the same thought. Odds are that's an everyday occurence on that airport and the pilots have become entirely desensitized to seeing it on their approach.
I said reputation not record on purpose, people perceive small regional jets as being unsafe for various reasons some of which is down to that flight profile being inherently more unsafe than a long haul.
The lack of an EICAS on a 737 has zero bearing on it's safety. Having dual rated pilots flying around 737s with different systems in them certainly would be less safe.
Abit OOT but how comfortable and safe flying in a private jet? Relative to commercial airline
Turbulence wise? I'm not asking about the in flight service Oft course
Turbulence wise? I'm not asking about the in flight service Oft course
That entirely depends on what jet you fly on and who the pilot is. Private jets can be everything from the little VisionJet to the BBJ 747:
Depending on the jet your charter, you might not have access to a toilet, a galley, or even a coffee maker while sitting in a small cabin where you can't comfortable stand up and walk around, or you might be bathing in every luxury they could jam into the hull and be waited on by models in bunny costumes. That's the thing with private jets, what you get out of it depends entirely on what you're willing to pay. More comfort, a more modern aircraft with more safety features that are not inferior to any airliner with all the luxuries and two very experienced pilots in the cockpit, it all depends on your money. With an airline, you are always hardcapped by what they offer, and if it wasn't already booked out.
And you are of course always more flexible. A private jet flies when and where you want it, and unless you fly in one of the huge private jets you are also more flexible in your choice of airfields as you can land on smaller runways that might be closer to where you want to go. You're way less likely to experience significant delays or even entire flight cancellations. You're through the airport in a jiffy instead of waiting in lounges, going through lengthy security and immigration checks, your luggage doesn't get lost or held up for lengthy amounts of time, etc. Those are also all tangible comforts, it's not just all inside the jet.
As for turbulence, a smaller aircraft is of course generally more susceptible to winds and turbulence than a large one. At least in lower altitudes. At cruise altitude however it is generally a calmer flight than in an airliner, since private jets commonly fly at higher altitudes with calmer, more steady air than airliners.
I'll assume you're talking about a Gulfstream type rather than a Cessna or a private 747 at the other end of the scale.
Turbulence - likely to be less as they fly much higher and above weather patterns.
Safety - depends on who owns the aircraft and what its used for. A jet that's being used on a truly private basis doesn't need an AOC and standards for PJs are not as strict as those for commercial aircraft. However if you're the one flying in it you're not going to cut any corners are you? And most fly in places where the standards imposed on them are still very high and are managed by companies who maintain those standards, though the owners choose the pilots and can choose what work gets done beyond the minimums.
If you're talking about somebody like Netjets they have an AOC and must meet the exact same standards as American Airlines or Delta.
18 seconds prior + all the expected traffic coming into that area on a landing path + once they dropped below 1000 feet, TCAS would stop giving them verbal feedback since the messages become inhibited
Shit sandwich of a situation
That one is widely misreported. Below 1000ft, TCAS (at least in the version II) stops giving resolution advisories (RA). However, the audio callouts and display warning about traffic advisories (TA) stay active until 500ft (+-100ft) AGL, the system just doesn't tell you anymore how to avoid it.
See:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/acas-bulletin-20.pdf
Last edited:
I know bud, that’s what I mean about feedback being stopped.
Feedback doesn't stop, how to save your ass is the crucial bit that disappears
That entirely depends on what jet you fly on and who the pilot is. Private jets can be everything from the little VisionJet to the BBJ 747:
Depending on the jet your charter, you might not have access to a toilet, a galley, or even a coffee maker while sitting in a small cabin where you can't comfortable stand up and walk around, or you might be bathing in every luxury they could jam into the hull and be waited on by models in bunny costumes. That's the thing with private jets, what you get out of it depends entirely on what you're willing to pay. More comfort, a more modern aircraft with more safety features that are not inferior to any airliner with all the luxuries and two very experienced pilots in the cockpit, it all depends on your money. With an airline, you are always hardcapped by what they offer, and if it wasn't already booked out.
And you are of course always more flexible. A private jet flies when and where you want it, and unless you fly in one of the huge private jets you are also more flexible in your choice of airfields as you can land on smaller runways that might be closer to where you want to go. You're way less likely to experience significant delays or even entire flight cancellations. You're through the airport in a jiffy instead of waiting in lounges, going through lengthy security and immigration checks, your luggage doesn't get lost or held up for lengthy amounts of time, etc. Those are also all tangible comforts, it's not just all inside the jet.
As for turbulence, a smaller aircraft is of course generally more susceptible to winds and turbulence than a large one. At least in lower altitudes. At cruise altitude however it is generally a calmer flight than in an airliner, since private jets commonly fly at higher altitudes with calmer, more steady air than airliners.
Thank you for the explanations. I hope one day I'll fly in one.
This is purely speculation. You're diminishing the crew's safety standards here and being unfair. Maybe let the investigation happen and they can conclude what happened. You did a nice job reporting the facts up until this point though.We are kinda getting off topic though, so maybe we should stop that train of thought.
In more pertinent news:
The NTSB has released a picture of the Cockpit Voice Recorder from the crashed Learjet:
Luckily the old jet had been outfitted with one, hopefully they can get some info on what caused this crash from it. Despite how it looks after this extremely violent crash it is apparently very likely that they can still pull the data from it. They've dug it up from the impact crater, where it was buried around 7ft below street level.
I am still amazed that there was only one ground fatality. The very steep crash angle kept the damage relatively contained.
Meanwhile in Washington DC, two airport workers have been arrested for having made copies of the aircraft security camera recordings that they then gave to the press.
The last 24hrs have also seen large parts of the CRJ's wreck being salvaged from the river.
Furthermore, the NTSB has released a statement that the CRJ's crew had actually gotten an audible traffic warning eighteen seconds before the collision. I can only guess that they disregarded it, thinking that the helicopter would steer clear enough of them. The pitch angle of the aircraft also changed just prior to impact, so it is well possible that they spotted the helicopter at the last second and attempted to evade, yet were too late.
Hence why I lead that first sentence it with "I guess". I'm not a press agency, I can speculate all the hell I want why the pilots disregarded the TCAS warning.
The pitch change, which you also highlighted, was not a guess however, that was in the NTSB press briefing: "At one point, very close to the impact, there was a slight change in pitch, an increase in pitch".
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying there.
The computer system isn't giving them the normal amount of info it would give them when they are descending below 1000ft into their landing because it's designed not to in order to decrease their distractions from the landing procedures and tower instructions that they're needing to follow.
How do you know they disregarded it? Has the NTSB released that information?
Regarding the above, as I said earlier in the thread, my uncle is one of the people on the investigation team for American Airlines. He actually helped train the crew that died. So what I'm posting to you in my posts is stuff from conversations I'm having with him.
I understand what you meant, feedback on it's own is probably not the right word to use as it implies they get nothing, which isn't strictly true, reduced feedback might be a better description perhaps?
I mean, "Inhibited" is the technical term.
You're the teacher, I'll take your word for it - to me that's a teenage boy on his first date
Don't take my word on it. Here's the section from the TCAS II v7.1 manual:You're the teacher, I'll take your word for it - to me that's a teenage boy on his first date
"When the pilot has selected the TA-RA mode on the Control Panel, the operating SL is automatically selected via inputs from the aircraft’s radar or pressure altimeter. SL2 will be selected when the TCAS aircraft is below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) (±100 feet) as determined by the radar altimeter input. As previously stated, when in SL2, RAs are inhibited and only TAs will be issued."
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/tcas%20ii%20v7.1%20intro%20booklet.pdf