Midair Collision at Reagan International

[Hawkmoon]

This is interesting: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/01/us/black-hawk-helicopter-training-plane-crash/index.html

According to this article:

But the data available to the air traffic controllers showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident, Inman said, an unexplained discrepancy that will need further investigation.

But ...

Flight tracking data from the moments before the fatal midair collision appear to show the helicopter flying 100 feet above its allowed altitude, and veering off the prescribed route along the Potomac River’s east side.

Multiple aviation safety videos have shown the radar track that shows the helo at or above 300 feet approaching the point of impact. I'm not buying that radar data available to the world is more accurate than the radar used by ATC. My suspicious nature suggests that it may be routine for military pilots to blow through the 200 foot ceiling on this route. This time the result was what any rational person might expect, and the .gov needs time to fabricate a plausible-sounding explanation.

[AZRedhawk44]

I get the impression that the female pilot under evaluation is a Washington bellycrawler and they're circling the wagons around her, and the helicopter limousine program.

She was a White House aide during the Biden admin.

[Hawkmoon]

I get the impression that the female pilot under evaluation is a Washington bellycrawler and they're circling the wagons around her, and the helicopter limousine program.

She was a White House aide during the Biden admin.

I don't think it's a coincidence that she was on a training flight so soon after the change in administration. Most likely when she had to go back to a real job in the real Army she needed to get her flight hours caught up.

I do think, though, that based on numerous reports surfacing about other near misses that there will have to be a reevaluation of these helicopter corridors through busy air space. I wonder how often the Army choppers fly above that 200 foot ceiling and get away with it because their path doesn't happen to cross that of a commercial airliner on an ILS approach to runway 33.

[dogmush]

This is interesting: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/01/us/black-hawk-helicopter-training-plane-crash/index.html

According to this article:

But the data available to the air traffic controllers showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident, Inman said, an unexplained discrepancy that will need further investigation.

But ...

Multiple aviation safety videos have shown the radar track that shows the helo at or above 300 feet approaching the point of impact. I'm not buying that radar data available to the world is more accurate than the radar used by ATC. My suspicious nature suggests that it may be routine for military pilots to blow through the 200 foot ceiling on this route. This time the result was what any rational person might expect, and the .gov needs time to fabricate a plausible-sounding explanation.

The article is mistaken, or lying.  And I tend to think lying, because of their semantics.

Here is the ATC Radar screen of the accident:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1idrvqu/radar_tracking_of_aa5342_and_pat25_before_and/

Under the PAY25 callsign it's flashing data:  003  08 and 4FW and HELO.  Helo is self explanatory.  The 003 is altitude.  300 Feet.  002 would be 200, 10 would be 1000 eyc. You can see JIA 5342 and AAL 3130 descending as they approach the airport, and towards the end AAL 1630 take off and ascend. 

Now here's the lie.  PAT =25 was cruising along at 300 ft, dipped to 200 for literally 8 sec, before climbing back to 300 for the collision.  So " showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident" is technically correct.  it was briefly at 200 near the time of the accident.  But it was clearly flying along at 300 for the transit.  (also understand the RADAR is rounding those altitude numbers.  003 could be 349 feet.)

[Hawkmoon]

The article is mistaken, or lying.  And I tend to think lying, because of their semantics.

Here is the ATC Radar screen of the accident:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1idrvqu/radar_tracking_of_aa5342_and_pat25_before_and/

Under the PAY25 callsign it's flashing data:  003  08 and 4FW and HELO.  Helo is self explanatory.  The 003 is altitude.  300 Feet.  002 would be 200, 10 would be 1000 eyc. You can see JIA 5342 and AAL 3130 descending as they approach the airport, and towards the end AAL 1630 take off and ascend. 

Now here's the lie.  PAT =25 was cruising along at 300 ft, dipped to 200 for literally 8 sec, before climbing back to 300 for the collision.  So " showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident" is technically correct.  it was briefly at 200 near the time of the accident.  But it was clearly flying along at 300 for the transit.  (also understand the RADAR is rounding those altitude numbers.  003 could be 349 feet.)

I agree with you. The .gov is slow-walking the release of information so they can coordinate their exculpatory statements.

I hope someone pulls historical radar data for that vicinity and checks to see if military helicopters adhere to the 200-foot ceiing, or if they routinely cruise through there at (or above) 300 feet.

[Kingcreek]

Interesting YT on BlackScoutSurvival Jack Richland has a bunch of info.
The pilot of the Blackhawk, her social media was all disappeared. She had less than 500 hours of flight time, probably lesbian, recently part of Biden’s WH staff. The flight originated in Langley VA.

[WLJ]

Flight recorder shows the plane at 325ft at time of crash.
Plus the airliner pilots may have been attempting a pull up at time of the crash

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14354085/Hero-pilot-ditch-bid-save-doomed-American-Airlines-jet.html

[MechAg94]

But ...

Multiple aviation safety videos have shown the radar track that shows the helo at or above 300 feet approaching the point of impact. I'm not buying that radar data available to the world is more accurate than the radar used by ATC. My suspicious nature suggests that it may be routine for military pilots to blow through the 200 foot ceiling on this route. This time the result was what any rational person might expect, and the .gov needs time to fabricate a plausible-sounding explanation.


The article is mistaken, or lying.  And I tend to think lying, because of their semantics.

Here is the ATC Radar screen of the accident:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1idrvqu/radar_tracking_of_aa5342_and_pat25_before_and/

Under the PAY25 callsign it's flashing data:  003  08 and 4FW and HELO.  Helo is self explanatory.  The 003 is altitude.  300 Feet.  002 would be 200, 10 would be 1000 eyc. You can see JIA 5342 and AAL 3130 descending as they approach the airport, and towards the end AAL 1630 take off and ascend. 

Now here's the lie.  PAT =25 was cruising along at 300 ft, dipped to 200 for literally 8 sec, before climbing back to 300 for the collision.  So " showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident" is technically correct.  it was briefly at 200 near the time of the accident.  But it was clearly flying along at 300 for the transit.  (also understand the RADAR is rounding those altitude numbers.  003 could be 349 feet.)

Do you think they dropped to 200 feet due to the airport corridor, but then climbed up too early? 

[Hawkmoon]

Do you think they dropped to 200 feet due to the airport corridor, but then climbed up too early?

Doesn't matter. That entire corridor is marked on air nav charts as 200 foot until it reaches a bridge well south of Reagan National Airport.

[K Frame]

"until it reaches a bridge well south of Reagan National Airport."

That would be the I-95/-495 bridge, aka the Woodrow Wilson bridge.

[Hawkmoon]

"until it reaches a bridge well south of Reagan National Airport."

That would be the I-95/-495 bridge, aka the Woodrow Wilson bridge.

Correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3gD_lnBNu0

He discusses the chart and the altitude restrictions starting just before the 1:00 mark. The altitude drops from 700 feet to 300 feet at Key Bridge, well north of the airport, then it drops to 200 feet at the Washington Monument and remains at 200 feet to the Woodrow Wilson bridge, well south of the airport.

(I tried at attach a screen shot, but the file is too large.)

[AZRedhawk44]

But ...

Multiple aviation safety videos have shown the radar track that shows the helo at or above 300 feet approaching the point of impact. I'm not buying that radar data available to the world is more accurate than the radar used by ATC. My suspicious nature suggests that it may be routine for military pilots to blow through the 200 foot ceiling on this route. This time the result was what any rational person might expect, and the .gov needs time to fabricate a plausible-sounding explanation.


The article is mistaken, or lying.  And I tend to think lying, because of their semantics.

Here is the ATC Radar screen of the accident:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1idrvqu/radar_tracking_of_aa5342_and_pat25_before_and/

Under the PAY25 callsign it's flashing data:  003  08 and 4FW and HELO.  Helo is self explanatory.  The 003 is altitude.  300 Feet.  002 would be 200, 10 would be 1000 eyc. You can see JIA 5342 and AAL 3130 descending as they approach the airport, and towards the end AAL 1630 take off and ascend. 

Now here's the lie.  PAT =25 was cruising along at 300 ft, dipped to 200 for literally 8 sec, before climbing back to 300 for the collision.  So " showed the helicopter was at 200 feet near the time of the accident" is technically correct.  it was briefly at 200 near the time of the accident.  But it was clearly flying along at 300 for the transit.  (also understand the RADAR is rounding those altitude numbers.  003 could be 349 feet.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SboL2uNWBDo

I wish I was at this conference to get the correct words out to the NTSB officials that the reporters kept trying to ask but were failing to do so repeatedly.

This discrepancy between 200 and 300 feet altitude readings is irritating.

The Bombardier jet's flight recorder shows the accident at 325ft, +/- 25ft.  The tower's data shows the altitude of PAT25 at 200ft just before collision.  What we didn't get was the tower's data reporting the altitude of the Bombardier, or any indication of the latency of updates on this airport's radar system.  The dish spins at X revolutions per minute, right?  How many seconds passed between the last radar ping on PAT25 at 200ft and the impact?  What did the radar report for altitude and vector for PAT25 for the last 3-5 pings?  They say the radar only has a 100ft altitude granularity.  If that's the case, then there HAS to be another radar elsewhere in the Nation's Capitol that tracks aircraft from a national defense perspective that has better granularity.  The Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol Building... all these sensitive targets.  I imagine there's an angry hornet's nest of Patriot missiles or similar STA missile systems all over DC, ready to go and programmed to instantly fire given particular vectors and altitudes.

The question that was missing was:

We got Bombardier's flight recorder altitude.

We got tower's altitude for helicopter but not the tower's altitude for the Bombardier... which could imply the Bombardier's flight recorder altitude is suspect?

We are still awaiting data on the helicopter's flight recorder.

What was the tower's reported altitude for the Bombardier, and is there a discrepancy between the tower's data and the Bombardier?

The lack of specs for the Reagan radar system is bothersome.  What rules define whether a craft is displayed to ATC as 200ft or 300ft?  Is 250-349ft displayed as 300?  Or 300-399 is 300?  What is its true error range?  Judging by dogmush's linked reddit video, it appears that Reagan radar's refresh rate is about every 3 seconds.  Is that sufficiently granular for such congested space?

[dogmush]

PAT-25 (the helo) shows at 300 ft before the accident on DCA's screens.  It descended to 200 for a brief time. Ascended to 390 for at least a couple blinks of the radar display. 

Also, I *think* ATC radars get speed and altitude info from the transponder chirps rather than from directly tracking the target.  At least that's how ship traffic systems work. So dish revolution speed is less critical to refresh speed.

[Hawkmoon]

Also, I *think* ATC radars get speed and altitude info from the transponder chirps rather than from directly tracking the target.  At least that's how ship traffic systems work. So dish revolution speed is less critical to refresh speed.

That's correct. I don't know if ATC has any actual "radar" at all these days. Maybe somebody with a Fecesbook account could pass that question to Jamis.

[Hawkmoon]

Update by Juan Browne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mAUks0krI

And another insightful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3PtOdR_VCc

[AZRedhawk44]

A new thought and question came to me this morning.  Maybe one of you can answer this, maybe it's an oddity of this incident:

All the ATC radio recordings of PAT25 during this incident have a male speaking.  But we are told that we have a female Pilot-In-Command doing an evaluation flight.  Why wasn't the PIC responding to ATC, when asked to observe a particular craft?  Why wasn't the PIC the one requesting visual separation? 

Seems irresponsible for someone other than the actual Pilot to say "yeah I see it, we'll steer clear of it" or to otherwise respond to ATC instructions.

[Northwoods]

A new thought and question came to me this morning.  Maybe one of you can answer this, maybe it's an oddity of this incident:

All the ATC radio recordings of PAT25 during this incident have a male speaking.  But we are told that we have a female Pilot-In-Command doing an evaluation flight.  Why wasn't the PIC responding to ATC, when asked to observe a particular craft?  Why wasn't the PIC the one requesting visual separation? 

Seems irresponsible for someone other than the actual Pilot to say "yeah I see it, we'll steer clear of it" or to otherwise respond to ATC instructions.

The CW2 (a dude) was PIC.  The woman outranked him but was co-pilot that flight.  She had been a staffer in thr Biden administration, so probably wasn't fully current.  Guessing that flight was part of recurrency training she had to do.

[dogmush]

Also, it's pretty common for the person that's not actually flying to handle radios.  Leaves the flyer to aviate.  They are (supposed) to be talking to each other the whole time anyway so they are on the same page.

That's how I run my bridge when navigating tight or overly trafficked waters.  I'll drive, I have lookouts doing their thing, and my first mate is running the Radio and second RADAR.  On ships we call it "Bridge Resource Management" and it's a whole class.  I think Aviators call it "Cockpit Management" or somesuch.

[Hawkmoon]

Also, it's pretty common for the person that's not actually flying to handle radios.  Leaves the flyer to aviate.  They are (supposed) to be talking to each other the whole time anyway so they are on the same page.

That's how I run my bridge when navigating tight or overly trafficked waters.  I'll drive, I have lookouts doing their thing, and my first mate is running the Radio and second RADAR.  On ships we call it "Bridge Resource Management" and it's a whole class.  I think Aviators call it "Cockpit Management" or somesuch.

Crew Resource Management

[Hawkmoon]

The CW2 (a dude) was PIC.  The woman outranked him but was co-pilot that flight.  She had been a staffer in thr Biden administration, so probably wasn't fully current.  Guessing that flight was part of recurrency training she had to do.

No, the woman was the pilot. It was a check ride -- the CW2 was in an instructor/evaluator role.

[Northwoods]

CW2 Evans was PIC.  She was at the controls, but he was PIC.

[Hawkmoon]

He was PIC, but she was the pilot flying and he was handling the radios.

[MechAg94]

We need more acronyms in this thread. 

[Ben]

We need more acronyms in this thread. 

Okay. AC, not PIC.

[230RN]

It does get hard to follow.  I keep two browsers running so I can copy and paste abbrs conveniently to check meanings.  Sometimes works, sometimes not.

"RA" threw me until I actually had to ask right here on the board directly.

When they speak of an altitude of, say, 200 versus 300 feet from instruments on the plane, are these barometric readings, which are somewhat mushy, or direct RADAR to ground readings?