AA jet and Military helicopter collide over Potomac 10

thebard3 said:

ATC might have responsibility to direct traffic, but can't do too much to prevent someone from running a red light.

Click to expand...

Agree, but the problem is Congress has pushed for more and more routes to and from DCA, for their benefit, and created the problem. FAA's management solution was to create routes that were unsafe, then grant visual approval to helicopters immediately to shift their responsibility to the helicopters. Then the Army does the Stupid thing of running difficult training missions on newbies where you have to thread a needle with night vision goggles in the presence of a long compressed line of planes are landing and taking off. And Army furnishes the pilot a barometric altimeter that is plus or minus 100', with no ADS-B out for BS called mission reasons....

thebard3 said:

ATC might have responsibility to direct traffic, but can't do too much to prevent someone from running a red light.

Click to expand...

No one ran a "red light".

The controller is the only person who can see both aircraft on the same screen and in this case the only person able to talk to both parties.

I went back to the NTSB presentation and the controller says to PAT 25 "Traffic just south of Wilson bridge is a C-R-J at 1,200 ft circling runway three three" What does "circling" mean?? Why didn't he say "descending to cross your route to land on runway 33"? Why not spell things out clearly??

If they see one aircraft not doing what's its told, not responding properly or is in very close proximity to other aircraft, it is their responsibility to at least try and move the other aircraft out of the way, especially civilian aircraft close to military ones not transmitting ADSB.

For me, given what the controller knew he should have either ensured horizontal separation by asking PAT25 to slow down to allow the crossing traffic or told the RJA to abort landing and climb. This wishy washy "can you pass behind" is not what I would call clear and concise instructions to avoid a mid air collision.

Simply relying and passing on responsibility to the helicopter pilot was , IMHO, a dereliction of duty and the controllers / FAA failed in their primary mission to protect the public from collisions.

Now as I've said, the individual may or may not take some of the heat, but the majority of the fault lies in those above him who allowed this system to develop and not take note of all the near misses being reported.

I do like the NTSB chairwoman though. Very impressive and I think very frustrated that so many of their recommendations get ignored or not acted on.

LittleInch said:

No one ran a "red light".

Click to expand...

I'm only pointing out my observation that the helicopter was not where it was supposed to be and did not follow the instructions from ATC. I think both were incidental and not because of negligence, incompetence, or on purpose. It's just what happened. Communication from the helicopter seemed to indicate that they had the jet in sight but obviously were either looking at something else or didn't have an accurate perspective. I don't know the inner workings of ATC, but from reviewing the sequence of events it seems clear to me that as the helicopter and the airplane closed on the same spot very quickly, the controller noticed what was happening and did the best they could to avert it in the short time available. One might make a knee-jerk reaction and tell the airplane to abort the landing. This could lead to preventing an accident (impossible to prove) or just being reprimanded for doing it 2 or 3 times in a day for doing the right thing.
Most accidents occur because of a convergence of several things going wrong. I agree with everyone else here that this was an inevitable event, just waiting on that perfect storm. The first thing to go wrong was to routinely allow that type of traffic to comingle in the first place.

thebard3.

I think we're in a similar place, but I also think you're letting the controller off too lightly. The helicopter was following route 4, though a little bit higher than they should have been, but even at 200ft, they would have crossed with only about 50ft to spare, if that. The "instructions" from ATC were vague to the point of negligence and I don't think anyone would or should get reprimanded for aborting a landing in that situation and if it started happening more often, then maybe some action would have occurred to stop these near misses. I think the controller had or should have had several seconds warning of this impending collision and basically didn't do everything they could have to prevent it.

As the chairwoman of the NTSB nearly shouted at the stony faced members of the FAA and army - 67 people died. For what and why did all of you not do something about it beforehand.

This was the look on their faces.

I am clearly in the camp that ATC controller did nothing to ensure a collision was avoided. I am of the opinion that his last minute message to pass behind the CRJ was just a CYA after he had not done his job in directing PAT25 away from CRJ and alerting PAT25 it was on collision course with CRJ coming from the left and landing on 33. Helo did not know 33 was being used, and CRJ did not know about PAT25.

The Army basically has been operating military helicopters in Civilian airspace without the required Civilian airspace required equipment. Such as ADSB, Radio on same frequency as Civilian aircraft so all parties in shared airspace can have full situational awareness. Army helo pilots are used to using Radar altimeter when at 200' and below of accuracy, so why would Army be using barometric altimeter in this situation? Is radar not precise enough over water?

Army Pilots know barometric altimeters are sketchy, so if they are uncomfortable trainee, the natural tendency is to climb when in doubt of elevation. Which is a sure killer when you are supposed to be flying between 100'-200' under aircraft in a landing zone, with a plus or minus 100' barometric altimeter.

The ATC tower with his non-cooperative target radar likely had the best altitude information on PAT25, yet ATC refused to do their main job of avoiding the collision.

I don't give the Army a pass on this one either, but ATC is the one that controls civilian airspace and ATC should not be just granting visual separation then totally ignoring the helo's after that. ATC is responsible to direct the whole air space around airports. Now if helo violates ATC orders then that is a different issue, but if so, ATC still responsible to tell other aircraft about objects heading their way.

We'll have to wait and see what comes out of this. Ultimately, $h!t runs downhill and the ATC and pilots are at the bottom. I expect one of the corrective actions to come from this would be to fix this ridiculous situation where aircraft are routinely passing within close proximity to each other. I might be inclined to identify that as the root cause of the accident. That leaves everybody else expected to react perfectly 100% of the time to deal with this difficult situation.
I wouldn't be one of those folks getting yelled at by the NTSB chair.

The helicopter was not only too high, it was also too far west, according to the IP ("...out towards the middle.").

The helicopter requested visual separation. That comes with obligations, including being able to avoid aircraft that you twice said you had in sight.

The PF was not handling the flight well. And there was a plane out there, in front. The IP should have taken over, though it does appear he did NOT really have the airplane in view.

I do wonder if there were many egos involved in this operation. I'd like to know how often those helicopters coming down the river were told to stay put. And how often the controllers got shit of they tried to do that. And how often a non-com regretted taking control of an army helicopter away from an officer.

Arrogance is one of the many ways to cause death.


spsalso

spsalso said:

Arrogance is one of the many ways to cause death.


spsalso

Click to expand...

or hubris, more likely

ar·ro·gant /ˈerəɡənt/
adjective: arrogant
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

hu·bris /ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs/
noun
excessive pride or self-confidence.

That's pretty horrendous for all involved.

Alistair_Heaton said:

That's pretty horrendous for all involved.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/us/ntsb-final-day-collision-hearing

Click to expand...

Agree, and the FAA put the ATC controller in a situation beyond their capabilities, and the Army put the Pilot in a training situation beyond their capabilities. Army calling it a check ride is just spinning the facts. 'Check Ride' is just the final phase of training a pilot in that situation. Until you pass the 'check ride' you are still a trainee for that skill.