12 ms·

The missteps that led to a fatal plane crash at Reagan National Airport

140 points by keepamovin 2y ago

keepamovin 2y ago
https://archive.is/23Uv1 https://archive.is/23Uv1
beeburrt 2y ago
Thanks! And Username checks out :)
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Thank you :)
- dang 2y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817001. Nothing wrong with it! I just want to save space at the top of the thread. (One of these years we'll build a more specialized system for aggregating related links)
flowerthoughts 2y ago
Why is there a flight path along the Potomac river, right in front of a landing strip, at landing altitudes? The article claims the helicopter was higher than it should have been, but isn't it safer to fly high across the airport if you're crossing?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Training to evac politicians from what I understand. From wikipedia: > "The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor." Continuity of Government Plans is what they do when nukes get launched or a 9/11 sort of thing happens.
  - vkou 2y ago
    Should the people who had the most ability to prevent a global nuclear war be survivors of one? That seems like a misalignment of incentives.
    - dkokelley 2y ago
      Not sure what the next best option here is. There was a thought experiment once where it would require the president to kill the key holder in order to launch a nuclear attack (the launch codes would be embedded in the designated key holder's heart). In theory this would make sure the president knew the seriousness of his or her actions, but it was never seriously considered as a protocol.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      The US's ability to respond to a nuclear attack is a deterrence to one beginning in the first place.
      - vkou 2y ago
        The chain of command is designed to be resilient enough to do so without having to bail the VIPs out of the frying pan they landed themselves and the rest of the world in. They need to have as much skin in the game as everyone else.
        542354234235 2y ago
        In the case of a nuclear attack, most of the nuclear “chain of command” would be targeted and, realistically, many would not survive. The continuity of government plan for a nuclear attack isn’t designed to get all the influential muckety mucks out of the frying pan, it is to attempt to get the bare minimum of decision makers to secure facilities like Site-R or onto Doomsday Planes so they can wage an all-out nuclear retaliatory war. Very very few people would make it out of DC, and even getting anyone Sec Def or above out would be a very close thing. The point is that for deterrence to work, it has to be credible. If Russia thought it could “kill” the US government so that no one would be able to effectively order a counterattack (either because they are dead or because they can’t communicate orders to actual nuclear forces), would they do it?
- standyro 2y ago
  the military gets what it wants in DC, and the pilots were too comfortable and on different radio systems (helo can’t hear airplanes and vice versa, air traffic control is their intermediary) A disaster waiting to happen in retrospect. Similar issues at other airports like runway incursions, especially at crowded small airports like SFO and LaGuardia with antiquated runway layouts.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Let's wait for the investigation to complete before we opine on what is or isn't a "disaster waiting to happen." The entire aviation system is a "disaster waiting to happen" unless you assume a baseline level of aircrew competence, and the question will be whether or not the aircrew fell victim to a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, or whether they just screwed up. Sad to say, as a former aviator, I have seen it before where people died and families lost loved ones ultimately because of a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, but also other times because someone flat-out just screwed up.
    - tremon 2y ago
      FTA: data recently analyzed by the board revealed that National Airport was the site of at least one near collision between an airplane and a helicopter each month from 2011 to 2024 I would say that statistic in and of itself qualifies as a "disaster waiting to happen". I agree that we should wait for the full report, but I don't think the GP is using hyperbole in this case.
      - jonah 2y ago
        That line really stood out to me. One would hope that someone would realize this was a disaster waiting to happen and make changes before it actually happened.
      - goku12 2y ago
        One near collision every month (minimum) for 13 years? How is that a disaster waiting to happen, as much as it is a case of wilful criminal negligence? How many near collisions are needed for the authorities recognize that it's an unacceptable risk? How did they let this happen?
- kube-system 2y ago
  There's a lot going on in a small area there. Even without helicopters, the main runway (01/19) is the busiest runway in the nation, and it points directly at a no-fly zone over the white house, so the approach has a complicated turn at the last moment. Directly across the river, there's a military base with a heliport. And those helicopters often transport important individuals inside of those areas and to areas up and down the river. Those helicopters aren't just casually flying through, they are doing things in the immediate area. Just as an example, look at a map and take note of where DCA is, where the Marine One hangar is, and where the White House is. All of this stuff is right around the airport.
  - queenkjuul 2y ago
    Doesn't fully explain why the military flight path runs right on front of the landing pattern for the main runway. Even with the proximity to each other, i don't see how that was necessary
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 2y ago
      This accident didn't involve the main runway, but runway 33. Although -- look at a map -- runway 33 points across the river to a military base with a heliport. It seems obvious as to why military helicopters would have to be there. Now, this particular flight wasn't landing there, but I don't think it is in any way confusing as to why military helicopters are in this area or taking these routes. This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.
      - tbrownaw 2y ago
        > This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA. Three are occasional news articles and sci-fi worlds advocating for flying cars to replace normal cars. I imagine that would actually be like this situation but a gazillion times worse, rather than the promised elimination of traffic jams.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  It's "safer" not to do a lot of things you do in military aviation, for one. And second, the flight path was deliberately plotted out requiring aircrew to maintain certain altitudes and stay within certain lateral boundaries to avoid other traffic. This is no different than any number of corridors like it around the country. At some point, it's like saying "isn't it 'safer' not to take the freeway because everyone drives so fast?"
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    The appropriate analogy would be to take the freeway on a unicycle, naked. Otherwise known as inviting disaster.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  The helicopter did not cross the airport. The helicopter crossed the approach path to the airport, it was supposed to stay low enough not to be in the approach path. Then the pilot steered around the wrong plane and blundered right into the plane that they were supposed to be avoiding. Politicians wanting contradictory things, oops.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    Ironically it would probably be safer if the helicopter crossed directly over the airport. At least then airplanes are usually on the ground, except for the cases where someone has to abort a landing and go around. Still dangerous, but it should happen less often.
- michael1999 2y ago
  The military run a VIP helicopter-taxi service, with routes right though active landing flight paths.
- cosmicgadget 2y ago
  No because that would put them in the way of a missed approach/go-around.
firesteelrain 2y ago
I still don’t understand the policy of the Army at the time to allow disabling of ADS-B Out in civilian airspace. I can understand in wartime.
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  > Doing so was Army protocol, meant to allow the pilots to practice secretly whisking away a senior government official in an emergency. 1: You don't want to do that for the first time in wartime. 2: In case you've been living under a rock, we are at war with Russia right now. We just haven't declared war.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    True, train as you fight. But this was like a check-ride for the young Captain. ADS-B Out didn’t need to be off.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    I fail to see how flying untracked in a public airspace 8000km away from Moscow has anything to do with the US being in a new cold war, I don't see what good it brings, especially if it's to play hide and seek around a civilian airport
    - Hnrobert42 2y ago
      The Russian Embassy is pretty close as is the Chinese. That said, they could easily track military helicopters with or without ADS-B Out.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        Easily? I suppose a surveillance radar on the roof of those embassies wouldn’t go unnoticed.
        jamessinghal 2y ago
rdtsc 2y ago
> Warrant Officer Eaves stated that it was at 300 feet and descending to 200 feet — necessary because the maximum height for its route closer to the airport had dropped to 200 feet. But even as it reached that juncture, Warrant Officer Eaves evidently felt obligated to repeat his instruction: The Black Hawk was at 300 feet, he said, and needed to descend > Not only was the Black Hawk flying too high, but in the final seconds before the crash, its pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to change course. > He told her he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left, toward the east river bank. Turning left would have opened up more space between the helicopter and Flight 5342, which was heading for Runway 33 at an altitude of roughly 300 feet. She did not turn left. As much as the article tries to balance it out that the controllers should have done more it seems that ultimately the pilot flying was distracted and not following instructions from the instructor sitting next to them. It happened at least twice based on the captured recordings. Was there something in their personal life or career to warrant that - a setback, some family situation? Otherwise they seemed qualified and flew that route a few times already.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Was there something in their personal life or career to warrant that - a setback, some family situation? Otherwise they seemed qualified and flew that route a few times already. Beyond her general lack of flight-time? Her primary role appeared to be some sort of liaison in DC, not flying Blackhawks.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhcom2 2y ago
    450 hours over 5 years for a Army helicopter pilot stateside doesn't seem to be abnormally low.
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      That's only 90 hours/year. Not even 2 hours/week. That may be common for an Army pilot, but for somebody expected to fly during wartime, transport VIPs under stressful conditions, etc that's pretty goddam minimal.
listenallyall 2y ago
> He told her he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left This is an interesting sentence. In a very generous interpretation, the pilot (if she had survived) might claim that she wasn't directed to turn, just that the instructor believed ATC wanted her to turn, and thus she still needed to evaluate the situation and decide what to do. In other words, she might claim she didn’t defy an order, because being told an instructor "believes" something is different than being directed to do it.
- mmooss 2y ago
  What are the actual words used by the warrant officer? I think you are taking a characterization in the article too literally.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Very possible. That's kind of the point of my comment - like you I'm curious what actual words were said and whether they are normal protocol for a training exercise, and at what point does the trainer abandon the exercise and just go "you're about to crash!" either out of urgency or panic?
MartinGAugustin 2y ago
[dead]
VirusNewbie 2y ago
Why didn't the ATC talk to the airline pilots? Isn't that an egregious error?
- cosmicgadget 2y ago
  Some combination of: Trying to make sure the 'squeeze play' didn't go awry. Being told twice the helicopter could see the CRJ and would maintain visual separation. The built-in vertical separation rules. A jet in landing configuration isn't in a great position to see and avoid something below it.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 2y ago
The helo route was likely instituted decades ago when traffic was lower. The NTSB incident database search turned up a close call between rotary and fixed wing just about every month in the last several years. This was a accident waiting to happen. This is not by any means the only midair collision where a crew was avoiding a different aircraft.

140 points by keepamovin 2y ago

keepamovin 2y ago

https://archive.is/23Uv1 https://archive.is/23Uv1

beeburrt 2y ago

Thanks! And Username checks out :)

keepamovin 2y ago
Thank you :)
dang 2y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817001. Nothing wrong with it! I just want to save space at the top of the thread. (One of these years we'll build a more specialized system for aggregating related links)

flowerthoughts 2y ago

Why is there a flight path along the Potomac river, right in front of a landing strip, at landing altitudes? The article claims the helicopter was higher than it should have been, but isn't it safer to fly high across the airport if you're crossing?

lupusreal 2y ago
Training to evac politicians from what I understand. From wikipedia: > "The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor." Continuity of Government Plans is what they do when nukes get launched or a 9/11 sort of thing happens.
- vkou 2y ago
  Should the people who had the most ability to prevent a global nuclear war be survivors of one? That seems like a misalignment of incentives.
  - dkokelley 2y ago
    Not sure what the next best option here is. There was a thought experiment once where it would require the president to kill the key holder in order to launch a nuclear attack (the launch codes would be embedded in the designated key holder's heart). In theory this would make sure the president knew the seriousness of his or her actions, but it was never seriously considered as a protocol.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    The US's ability to respond to a nuclear attack is a deterrence to one beginning in the first place.
    - vkou 2y ago
      The chain of command is designed to be resilient enough to do so without having to bail the VIPs out of the frying pan they landed themselves and the rest of the world in. They need to have as much skin in the game as everyone else.
      - 542354234235 2y ago
        In the case of a nuclear attack, most of the nuclear “chain of command” would be targeted and, realistically, many would not survive. The continuity of government plan for a nuclear attack isn’t designed to get all the influential muckety mucks out of the frying pan, it is to attempt to get the bare minimum of decision makers to secure facilities like Site-R or onto Doomsday Planes so they can wage an all-out nuclear retaliatory war. Very very few people would make it out of DC, and even getting anyone Sec Def or above out would be a very close thing. The point is that for deterrence to work, it has to be credible. If Russia thought it could “kill” the US government so that no one would be able to effectively order a counterattack (either because they are dead or because they can’t communicate orders to actual nuclear forces), would they do it?
standyro 2y ago
the military gets what it wants in DC, and the pilots were too comfortable and on different radio systems (helo can’t hear airplanes and vice versa, air traffic control is their intermediary) A disaster waiting to happen in retrospect. Similar issues at other airports like runway incursions, especially at crowded small airports like SFO and LaGuardia with antiquated runway layouts.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Let's wait for the investigation to complete before we opine on what is or isn't a "disaster waiting to happen." The entire aviation system is a "disaster waiting to happen" unless you assume a baseline level of aircrew competence, and the question will be whether or not the aircrew fell victim to a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, or whether they just screwed up. Sad to say, as a former aviator, I have seen it before where people died and families lost loved ones ultimately because of a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, but also other times because someone flat-out just screwed up.
  - tremon 2y ago
    FTA: data recently analyzed by the board revealed that National Airport was the site of at least one near collision between an airplane and a helicopter each month from 2011 to 2024 I would say that statistic in and of itself qualifies as a "disaster waiting to happen". I agree that we should wait for the full report, but I don't think the GP is using hyperbole in this case.
    - jonah 2y ago
      That line really stood out to me. One would hope that someone would realize this was a disaster waiting to happen and make changes before it actually happened.
    - goku12 2y ago
      One near collision every month (minimum) for 13 years? How is that a disaster waiting to happen, as much as it is a case of wilful criminal negligence? How many near collisions are needed for the authorities recognize that it's an unacceptable risk? How did they let this happen?
kube-system 2y ago
There's a lot going on in a small area there. Even without helicopters, the main runway (01/19) is the busiest runway in the nation, and it points directly at a no-fly zone over the white house, so the approach has a complicated turn at the last moment. Directly across the river, there's a military base with a heliport. And those helicopters often transport important individuals inside of those areas and to areas up and down the river. Those helicopters aren't just casually flying through, they are doing things in the immediate area. Just as an example, look at a map and take note of where DCA is, where the Marine One hangar is, and where the White House is. All of this stuff is right around the airport.
- queenkjuul 2y ago
  Doesn't fully explain why the military flight path runs right on front of the landing pattern for the main runway. Even with the proximity to each other, i don't see how that was necessary
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 2y ago
    This accident didn't involve the main runway, but runway 33. Although -- look at a map -- runway 33 points across the river to a military base with a heliport. It seems obvious as to why military helicopters would have to be there. Now, this particular flight wasn't landing there, but I don't think it is in any way confusing as to why military helicopters are in this area or taking these routes. This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.
    - tbrownaw 2y ago
      > This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA. Three are occasional news articles and sci-fi worlds advocating for flying cars to replace normal cars. I imagine that would actually be like this situation but a gazillion times worse, rather than the promised elimination of traffic jams.
psunavy03 2y ago
It's "safer" not to do a lot of things you do in military aviation, for one. And second, the flight path was deliberately plotted out requiring aircrew to maintain certain altitudes and stay within certain lateral boundaries to avoid other traffic. This is no different than any number of corridors like it around the country. At some point, it's like saying "isn't it 'safer' not to take the freeway because everyone drives so fast?"
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  The appropriate analogy would be to take the freeway on a unicycle, naked. Otherwise known as inviting disaster.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
The helicopter did not cross the airport. The helicopter crossed the approach path to the airport, it was supposed to stay low enough not to be in the approach path. Then the pilot steered around the wrong plane and blundered right into the plane that they were supposed to be avoiding. Politicians wanting contradictory things, oops.
- jandrese 2y ago
  Ironically it would probably be safer if the helicopter crossed directly over the airport. At least then airplanes are usually on the ground, except for the cases where someone has to abort a landing and go around. Still dangerous, but it should happen less often.
michael1999 2y ago
The military run a VIP helicopter-taxi service, with routes right though active landing flight paths.
cosmicgadget 2y ago
No because that would put them in the way of a missed approach/go-around.

firesteelrain 2y ago

I still don’t understand the policy of the Army at the time to allow disabling of ADS-B Out in civilian airspace. I can understand in wartime.

gwbas1c 2y ago
> Doing so was Army protocol, meant to allow the pilots to practice secretly whisking away a senior government official in an emergency. 1: You don't want to do that for the first time in wartime. 2: In case you've been living under a rock, we are at war with Russia right now. We just haven't declared war.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  True, train as you fight. But this was like a check-ride for the young Captain. ADS-B Out didn’t need to be off.
- lm28469 2y ago
  I fail to see how flying untracked in a public airspace 8000km away from Moscow has anything to do with the US being in a new cold war, I don't see what good it brings, especially if it's to play hide and seek around a civilian airport
  - Hnrobert42 2y ago
    The Russian Embassy is pretty close as is the Chinese. That said, they could easily track military helicopters with or without ADS-B Out.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      Easily? I suppose a surveillance radar on the roof of those embassies wouldn’t go unnoticed.
      - jamessinghal 2y ago

rdtsc 2y ago

> Warrant Officer Eaves stated that it was at 300 feet and descending to 200 feet — necessary because the maximum height for its route closer to the airport had dropped to 200 feet. But even as it reached that juncture, Warrant Officer Eaves evidently felt obligated to repeat his instruction: The Black Hawk was at 300 feet, he said, and needed to descend > Not only was the Black Hawk flying too high, but in the final seconds before the crash, its pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to change course. > He told her he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left, toward the east river bank. Turning left would have opened up more space between the helicopter and Flight 5342, which was heading for Runway 33 at an altitude of roughly 300 feet. She did not turn left. As much as the article tries to balance it out that the controllers should have done more it seems that ultimately the pilot flying was distracted and not following instructions from the instructor sitting next to them. It happened at least twice based on the captured recordings. Was there something in their personal life or career to warrant that - a setback, some family situation? Otherwise they seemed qualified and flew that route a few times already.

alistairSH 2y ago
Was there something in their personal life or career to warrant that - a setback, some family situation? Otherwise they seemed qualified and flew that route a few times already. Beyond her general lack of flight-time? Her primary role appeared to be some sort of liaison in DC, not flying Blackhawks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rhcom2 2y ago
  450 hours over 5 years for a Army helicopter pilot stateside doesn't seem to be abnormally low.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    That's only 90 hours/year. Not even 2 hours/week. That may be common for an Army pilot, but for somebody expected to fly during wartime, transport VIPs under stressful conditions, etc that's pretty goddam minimal.

listenallyall 2y ago

> He told her he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left This is an interesting sentence. In a very generous interpretation, the pilot (if she had survived) might claim that she wasn't directed to turn, just that the instructor believed ATC wanted her to turn, and thus she still needed to evaluate the situation and decide what to do. In other words, she might claim she didn’t defy an order, because being told an instructor "believes" something is different than being directed to do it.

mmooss 2y ago
What are the actual words used by the warrant officer? I think you are taking a characterization in the article too literally.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Very possible. That's kind of the point of my comment - like you I'm curious what actual words were said and whether they are normal protocol for a training exercise, and at what point does the trainer abandon the exercise and just go "you're about to crash!" either out of urgency or panic?

MartinGAugustin 2y ago

[dead]

VirusNewbie 2y ago

Why didn't the ATC talk to the airline pilots? Isn't that an egregious error?

cosmicgadget 2y ago
Some combination of: Trying to make sure the 'squeeze play' didn't go awry. Being told twice the helicopter could see the CRJ and would maintain visual separation. The built-in vertical separation rules. A jet in landing configuration isn't in a great position to see and avoid something below it.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 2y ago

The helo route was likely instituted decades ago when traffic was lower. The NTSB incident database search turned up a close call between rotary and fixed wing just about every month in the last several years. This was a accident waiting to happen. This is not by any means the only midair collision where a crew was avoiding a different aircraft.