Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Badger

The bad data comment is a misdirection. regardless of 300, 400 or 278 the data clearly showed they were way above the 200-foot ceiling, and they knew it. It does not matter that the data was not exactly 278, in fact what they thought it was makes their error more egregious and makes them more accountable.


3 posted on 02/19/2025 6:12:54 AM PST by Skwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Skwor

Yes - why didn’t they immediately attempt to lower altitude above the ceiling?


9 posted on 02/19/2025 6:22:32 AM PST by HombreSecreto (The life of a repo man is always intense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Skwor

The pilots were not very experienced for the complicated airspace, not the instructor nor especially the woman trainee. Also, they were short a crew chief, so whoever approved the mission screwed up as well.


13 posted on 02/19/2025 6:25:03 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Skwor

Exactly. I’ve stated such since the beginning.

As soon as they identified an instrument conflict, the flight should have terminated - NOT continued - ESPECIALLY in urban, congested airspace at low altitude. At a minimum this was an instructor FAIL.

For the record, the instructor was CWO2 Andrew Eaves...a name I’ve only seen in the media ONCE.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14344975/black-hawk-pilot-identified-andrew-evans-dc-plane-helicopter-crash.html

That includes the Crew Chief Ryan O’Hara.

The reasons for the conflict we’ll have to wait for the NTSB report (doubtful the prelim will elaborate).

IMHO they should never have been flying in an urban area with NVG (thermal only, but merely one link in a long chain of failures). Hegseth has his work cut out for him.

“’These are our top pilots doing this National Capital Region.’” is a pathetic statement in the wake of this avoidable collision. It smacks of damage control for the status quo, and it ENRAGES me.


25 posted on 02/19/2025 6:40:19 AM PST by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Skwor

+1


31 posted on 02/19/2025 7:05:42 AM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Skwor

wonder if the pilots often disregard the altimeters believing they’re unreliable


32 posted on 02/19/2025 7:08:29 AM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Skwor

It is extremely important for pilots to periodically check ane reset their altimeter if needed.

Altimeter Errors

Manufacturing and installation specifications, along with 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix E requirement for periodic tests and inspections, helps reduce mechanical, elastic, temperature, and installation errors. (See Instrument Flying Handbook.) Scale error may be observed while performing a ground altimeter check using the following procedure:
Set the current reported airfield altimeter setting on the altimeter setting scale.
Read the altitude on the altimeter. The altitude should read the known field elevation if you are located on the same reference level used to establish the altimeter setting.
If the difference from the known field elevation and the altitude read from the altimeter is plus or minus 75 feet or greater, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap7_section_2.html


50 posted on 02/19/2025 8:59:14 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson