Posted on 01/31/2025 12:29:30 AM PST by Morgana
Pilot goes through event with full ATC comms
https://youtu.be/hfgllf1L9_4?si=uoHl0wGtI7axCTkF
As another pilot has pointed out, at night you dont see other aircraft…you see lights. And this helo crew was surrounded by lights in the air, on the ground all around..but focused on the lights of the aircraft in line behind this one,
And using night vision goggles which i am reading from military pilots, reduced their field to 40%.
It was the ATC that had full screen awareness of the situation as it evolved, and failed to unambiguously communicate and control the situation to the apparently distracted helo crew, which was on separate comms from the airliner.
OK..
Basic traffic rules at an airport...
Once you are cleared to land YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!
Period.
It is up to the atc and other pilots to get and stay the hell out of the way...
This did not happen, the helo pilot was not even acknowledging commands from the atc.
It is possible. it looked like a straight path and altitude. It looked very direct in the video of the crash.
Could the pilot have been a Jihadi?
Or as you suggested one of those with a twisted sense of reality.
I think it may become clearer in the next few weeks. FAA crash inspection is very detailed. Military records are not hard to access.
” the helo pilot was not even acknowledging commands from the atc.”
Yes. In context that is another bright indicator that it could have been intentional.
The affect of night vision goggles, would be out of place in the area around the airport. Lights everywhere and moving. Would that have hidden the plane from the view of the chopper pilot? Bright lights are blinding from bright lights.
The helicopter path on the last right turn actually put it at 90 degrees impact angle.
It will be interesting to see what the rest of the passenger list. I would hate to think this was intentional, but the more you look at it. It is possibility.
Yes. I don’t yet want to think about that possibility. But it cannot be overlooked.
“As another pilot has pointed out, at night you dont see other aircraft…you see lights.”
Yes, and the lights on that jet, coming at the copter pilot, looked like the sun. And I saw some “experts” yesterday mention all those lights on the towers; yes those blinking lights on those lattice towers are easily mistaken for jets going 200 mph.
As an experienced air traffic controller with 30 years in FAA Terminal Towers and Approach control, I agree with this assessment.
1. The FAA Order 7110.65 delineates the correct verbiage to be used with "visual separation" and the exchange between the
two actors isn't even close.
2. The FLM (Supervisor) releasing another controller earlier and combining the Local Control (Tower) with Ground Control
during a congested traffic period is nuts. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Supervisor was DEI as well.
I wonder if the same helicopter pilot was involved.
Comment from a different thread an FR regarding the identity of the pilot not named:
Look at the plot of the flight path. The tranny deliberately tracked and targeted the CRJ airliner. It sounds like the pilot was a member of the "Zizian" radical vegan leftist trans cult. These are the same group who killed the Vermont border guard.
Who remembers TWA Flight 800, where the FBI and CIA overruled the NTSB and concluded the cause of the crash was a sparked wire in a fuel tank in a wing of the aircraft. All of the numerous ground witnesses who saw an ascending flare of a rocket were told they didn't know what they were looking at and were silenced.
Trump needs to get to the bottom of this. Another terrorist attack? Radical vegan leftist trans cult? Reporting on the Vermont incident just a few days ago has already been shut down by the feds.
Thank you for the link. Very revealing.
The helicopter pilot accepted responsibility for “separation”, it was very clearly recorded multiple times.
From that point, it makes the pilot suspect.
Erratic flight path and incorrect altitude almost looks like a fight was going on in the Blackhawk helo.
Agree.
i watched capt steve
i thought it was a good analysis
helo pilot said twice he was responsible for visual separation
but was looking at wrong plane
My first thought after watching the footage on Fox news was: that Helocopter flew directly into the plane, how is this not an attack of some sort?
There is some sentiment that American English is more intelligible than British (certainly to Americans), but I rarely have problems communicating with Brits, except when they use words differently. Which is why ATC uses a very precise and well defined vocabulary.
For instance, in field artillery control, the word “repeat” means “repeat the previous fire mission”. Which is why people in the military use “say again” to mean “please repeat the last message”. When a field artillery forward observer says “fire for effect”, he (or, Lord help us, she) mean “fire for lethal effect, you are on target”.
I recall during Gulf War I, cringing when I heard CNN reporters and reporterettes, using the phrase (in describing Iraqi AAA) as “firing for effect”, as in movie special effects. Which was an accurate description of Iraqi AAA efforts. The Germans did much the same thing during WW-2, luftwaffe AAA was relatively ineffective, and not militarily worth the cost, but the Reich (Adolf) thought they had to “do something” to show that they were not fighting back. (Actually, without the Luftwaffe AAA, the Allies might have done what Curtis LeMay did in Japan, remove guns from bombers and lower the altitude for more accurate bombing.)
Interesting, except ATC failed to request PAT25 heading, so that, ATC could say:
“PAT25, do you see the CRJ at your 10 o’clock, over land?”
Because, “Do you see the CRJ?” is not sufficient.
Understaffing, usually one ATC would handle helos and have the time to manage this properly.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.