I know the previous topic was locked for various reasons. But here's an official video on it. I don't know if the old topic can be reopened. Or this one gets locked too? But the video is interesting.
NTSB animation on DCA midair collision
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
That narrator was s l o w……….
Playback speed at 1.5x fixes the s l o w, imo
Wow. That narrator speaks so slow. I set it to 1.25x speed and it was still a bit slow.
I believe he was pilot in command and rank didn't matter. He was the instructor and the one in charge. I'm pretty sure that's common in US Army aviation.
I've heard of transfers where a higher officer might be trained by a lower ranking instructor on new (to the student) equipment.
The pilot in command is not determined by rank.
The most important part. They tested 3 other UH-60Ls from the 12th battalion.
All 3 test choppers showed the same 80-130’ lower indicated altitude (once airborne) than actual MSL altitude. It’s quite possible the crash chopper was flying exactly the indicated altitude they were supposed to be.
All 3 test choppers showed the same 80-130’ lower indicated altitude (once airborne) than actual MSL altitude. It’s quite possible the crash chopper was flying exactly the indicated altitude they were supposed to be.
Last edited:
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Does this change anything from what was suspected early on? Is there something about the operation of a helicopter and an analog barometer that causes faulty readings?
I never relied on the barometric altimeter when flying low level - it was always RADALT. Set the bug at 80’ and if it chirped, tweak the pitch just a hair. Got pretty good at telling exactly how high I was without the RADALT - but I would never have used baro.
Baro doesn't compensate for height above terrain, and baro gets wonky at very high speed. Admittedly, that latter point isn’t an issue in a rotorcraft, but the rotor downwash and pressure changes could be causing errors - I still am shocked if they followed baro thinking it was accurate.
Baro doesn't compensate for height above terrain, and baro gets wonky at very high speed. Admittedly, that latter point isn’t an issue in a rotorcraft, but the rotor downwash and pressure changes could be causing errors - I still am shocked if they followed baro thinking it was accurate.
Last edited:
Yes it should have been his aircraft but he suggested that she turn left, then used the word "Mam" as in acquiescing. She said yes I got it. But she didn't. She should have been on the opposite side of the river from Reagan.
He was an IP (instructor pilot) she just an ordinary pilot. She out ranked him in grade only, her a commissioned officer and him a chief warrant officer. So during this training event he was in charge but still has to show proper courtesy to a senior officer. Since altimeters are checked yearly and tested via a pitot test by QC PERSONNEL, seems to me the AVIM QC department needs to be investigated, because it’s BS that that many aircraft had bad altimeters.
The guy from Project Farm should have narrated.
A YT video has been posted showing a piece of the NTSB's hearing related to this investigation where it appears the pilot flying may have had a history of vertigo and the CVR has a statement mentioning they were "feeling a little dizzy". Transcript of this shown during the hearing.
This is all still preliminary - but flying on Goggles makes you susceptible to vertigo. They distort the world outside and it’s really easy to get disoriented.
Last edited:
Especially in the environment where they were flying with all the lights.
Do you mean that they would be blinding or that they might not be visible?
There was some discussion as to how visible the aircraft and ground lights might be. I've heard that some lighting in aviation specifically puts out some infrared specifically for night-vision visibility. This mentions that helicopter pilots are far more likely to be using NVGs.
Initially used in military settings, NVGs, an acronym for Night Vision Goggles, have over the years found application in contexts where it is necessary to conduct emergency or security operations even in the dead of night.
In particular, they have proven suitable for piloting helicopters which, unlike aircraft with dedicated runways, have to land in contexts where the surface is not artificially illuminated and therefore in low light.
This is why, in addition to the military world, even civil regulations on obstacle lighting for aircraft have, in some countries, integrated new functions designed specifically for the use of NVGs.
I’m referring to them flying with NVG’s, with all the lights from the ground all around creates massive glare for them making it harder for them (the UH60) to see. If light is intense enough it could shut the NVG’s down., requiring a reboot so to speak.
Last edited:
They’d be bright, but they’re 100% using NVG with autogating and auto gain.
@Skippy722
Have you flown with nods with this auto gating and gain? I’m glad they have this feature now because we didn’t in my day. Do they really cut down the bright bloom effect? I helped pioneer the Anvis 6’s with the then new 25mm lens’s back in the 90’s
Have you flown with nods with this auto gating and gain? I’m glad they have this feature now because we didn’t in my day. Do they really cut down the bright bloom effect? I helped pioneer the Anvis 6’s with the then new 25mm lens’s back in the 90’s
