[dwg2]

OK, I’ll say it. As someone who has done a little flying, you listen to your flight instructor. It doesn’t matter who you are, you listen to your flight instructor. She didn’t and unfortunately 67 people were lost.

[TexasGator]

“OK, I’ll say it. As someone who has done a little flying, you listen to your flight instructor. It doesn’t matter who you are, you listen to your flight instructor. She didn’t and unfortunately 67 people were lost.”

She was PIC. There was no instructor aboard.

[DesertRhino]

Politically connected lesbian. Listening to your flight instructor, or a mediately responding to orders is nothing she’s familiar with. It’s more important to her to take selfies grinning in the cockpit like an idiot.

[PGR88]

[Bigg Red]

mark

[ducttape45]

Bingo

[cpdiii]

When flying IFR which the were not but using night vision which then essentially becomes IFR, accurate communication between pilot and ground control is essential. The lady busted altitude maximums. Ground control advised to change vectors which were ignored probably due to communication error (the transmission was "stepped on by other transmissions on the same frequency and no one understood the transmission and this is common.)

The instructor pilot in command was a warrant officer, and warned her of the incoming collision possibility and was ignored. Then it gets rather unknown. Nothing happened relative to new direction by the chooper after the suggested left turn. At this point the warrant officer should have said, "I have control." He did not. Oddly as pilot in command he bears responsibility for this. He did not do it but he owns it.

PS A few years ago I had to do a check ride for a FAA inspector for a flight review. I was a bit nervous but it all went well. I suspect the warrant officer who was pilot in command had hesitancy about taking control from a superior commissioned officer. We will never know