9 ms·

The idea is that you're supposed to train as you fight.

by howard941 1y ago

firesteelrain 1y ago
I get that but in DC airspace near Reagan?
- howard941 1y ago
  Yes, you're right, lousy airspace design. Flown perfectly the chopper should have been no closer than 75' from the airplane if everyone is flying exactly on altitude (which never happens, you have to give at least +/-50'). Couple that with the difficulty of picking out an airplane against the hundreds of backlights of the valley and disaster was inevitable.
  - ultrarunner 1y ago
    The FAA says that I can't fly closer than 500 ft to a shed in the desert, but a Blackhawk is fine to be within 75 ft of a part 121 airliner in a bravo.
    - howard941 1y ago
      Yeah but the Blackhawk requested visual separation. It shouldn't have, it couldn't tell the difference between the CRJ and any number of lights around it. Anyway, at that point the request was granted and you see how it ended.
      - ultrarunner 1y ago
        I recall the tower establishing that they could maintain visual separation, not a request being made from the helicopter. My point is that if everything had gone perfectly, as little as 75 ft of separation would be provided. This is unacceptable in this context for reasons should have been clear ahead of time, but very unfortunately are made clearer in hindsight.
        howard941 1y ago
        Let's refresh recollections. TFA: "Shortly after the Black Hawk passed over Washington’s most famous array of cherry trees, an air traffic controller at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport alerted the crew to a regional passenger jet in its vicinity. The crew acknowledged seeing traffic nearby. One of the pilots then asked for permission to employ a practice called “visual separation.” [...] "Visual separation approved,” the controller replied." There's no ambiguity here.
        ultrarunner 1y ago
        This doesn't really address my point, but the ambiguity arises from the fact that there are often implicit understandings tunneled through standard phraseology that may or may not be intended. We don't know exactly what the Blackhawk crew said. Clearly tower thought they'd be staying clear of the CRJ, but the Blackhawk crew (to some degree) thought they'd be staying clear of some other lights in the area. Regardless, 91.119 applies (harshly, and unambiguously, in some cases) to significantly safer operations than 75 ft visual separation from passenger aircraft in bravo airspace. That is absurd. Failure was built into the design from the beginning.
        howard941 1y ago
        What is your point, that 75' isn't enough separation? Of course it's not enough. But you know as well as I do that visual separation is normal, encouraged even. We know pretty clearly what the Blackhawk crew said. They said they had the traffic in sight and requested visual separation from the reported traffic, not from some passive lights on the ground. Yes indeed, failure was built in to the airspace design.
lobotomizer 1y ago
Wasting innocent civilians out of sheer stupidity, checks out.
stefan_ 1y ago
Its a switch in the cockpit. Does train as you fight mean you gotta hit the chaff dispenser aswell? Wheres the line?
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  Almost certainly moving after this fiasco.
LgWoodenBadger 1y ago
Within reason, which is why soldiers train with blank-firing adapters and blanks, and not live ordnance when simulating combat. Turning ADS-B on/off likely has zero effect on the training/fighting relationship.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  The article says the reason is a bit different - that the route they were practicing is (in theory) sensitive information. > But the Black Hawk did not operate with the technology because of the confidentiality of the mission for which the crew was practicing. That is because ADS-B Out positions can be obtained by anyone with an internet connection, making the system a potential risk to national security. Seems like leaving it in listen-only mode would be wise, though.
  - xhkkffbf 1y ago
    They were coming back from Langley. I'm told it was just to "refuel."
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      On one hand, I've got a reputable news organization publishing an article with specific information from experts, pilots, etc. On the other hand, I've got an internet rando who once told me to Google up MGTOW saying "I'm told". Which one would you find credible?
    - jjwiseman 1y ago
      It wasn't coming back from Langley. That's misinformation from people who don't know the subtleties of what's displayed by flight tracking sites. For more info see https://x.com/aeroscouting/status/1884983390392488306 https://x.com/aeroscouting/status/1884983390392488306
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    The route is a public/known helicopter flight path. There's nothing secret about it. Here's a map of the helicopter routes in the area. In this case, they were flying on route 4... https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851p.ct004873/?r=0.67,0.258,0.189,0.104,0 https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851p.ct004873/?r=0.67,0.258,0... Yes, this group transports VIPs and sometimes does so in secret. This training flight was a "simple" check-ride for the pilot (simple in scare quotes because part of the ride was using the NVGs, which strikes me as fairly ridiculous in the DCA air space).
yuliyp 1y ago
The ADS-B transponder tells other planes where you are. It doesn't tell you where the other planes are. Turning it off when there are civilian planes doesn't improve your ability to aviate. it just hurts the situational awareness of the civilian planes who aren't supposed to be learning how to fight.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  ADS-B goes both directions - you can broadcast, and you can listen. In this case, having it on would've told the Blackhawk crew a plane was way closer than they thought, even if the Blackhawk had broadcasting off.
  - ClumsyPilot 1y ago
    This sounds very strange: - What combat situation will require a military aircraft to be flying 30 meters from civilian jet doing routine flights? - i don’t believe that there really is no technical solution to provide awareness to civilians of the presence and location of military aircraft without altering the pilot’s experience - if it had told the Blackhawk crew a plane was way closer, the crew would still be alive. That’s like the whole point. I have no expertise or n the area, but I can’t share the feeling that decision making is extremely poor, and sometimes it actually takes an outsider, who is free from groupthink and cope, to see that a decision is stupid.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > What combat situation will require a military aircraft to be flying 30 meters from civilian jet doing routine flights? Evacuating leadership during a 9/11 scenario? > i don’t believe that there really is no technical solution to provide awareness to civilians of the presence and location of military aircraft without altering the pilot’s experience There is. That’s ADS-B. Which broadcasts your position. So it’s turned off in military aircraft at times, for obvious reasons.
      - LeafItAlone 1y ago

The idea is that you're supposed to train as you fight.

firesteelrain 1y ago

I get that but in DC airspace near Reagan?

howard941 1y ago
Yes, you're right, lousy airspace design. Flown perfectly the chopper should have been no closer than 75' from the airplane if everyone is flying exactly on altitude (which never happens, you have to give at least +/-50'). Couple that with the difficulty of picking out an airplane against the hundreds of backlights of the valley and disaster was inevitable.
- ultrarunner 1y ago
  The FAA says that I can't fly closer than 500 ft to a shed in the desert, but a Blackhawk is fine to be within 75 ft of a part 121 airliner in a bravo.
  - howard941 1y ago
    Yeah but the Blackhawk requested visual separation. It shouldn't have, it couldn't tell the difference between the CRJ and any number of lights around it. Anyway, at that point the request was granted and you see how it ended.
    - ultrarunner 1y ago
      I recall the tower establishing that they could maintain visual separation, not a request being made from the helicopter. My point is that if everything had gone perfectly, as little as 75 ft of separation would be provided. This is unacceptable in this context for reasons should have been clear ahead of time, but very unfortunately are made clearer in hindsight.
      - howard941 1y ago
        Let's refresh recollections. TFA: "Shortly after the Black Hawk passed over Washington’s most famous array of cherry trees, an air traffic controller at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport alerted the crew to a regional passenger jet in its vicinity. The crew acknowledged seeing traffic nearby. One of the pilots then asked for permission to employ a practice called “visual separation.” [...] "Visual separation approved,” the controller replied." There's no ambiguity here.
        ultrarunner 1y ago
        This doesn't really address my point, but the ambiguity arises from the fact that there are often implicit understandings tunneled through standard phraseology that may or may not be intended. We don't know exactly what the Blackhawk crew said. Clearly tower thought they'd be staying clear of the CRJ, but the Blackhawk crew (to some degree) thought they'd be staying clear of some other lights in the area. Regardless, 91.119 applies (harshly, and unambiguously, in some cases) to significantly safer operations than 75 ft visual separation from passenger aircraft in bravo airspace. That is absurd. Failure was built into the design from the beginning.
        howard941 1y ago
        What is your point, that 75' isn't enough separation? Of course it's not enough. But you know as well as I do that visual separation is normal, encouraged even. We know pretty clearly what the Blackhawk crew said. They said they had the traffic in sight and requested visual separation from the reported traffic, not from some passive lights on the ground. Yes indeed, failure was built in to the airspace design.

lobotomizer 1y ago

Wasting innocent civilians out of sheer stupidity, checks out.

stefan_ 1y ago

Its a switch in the cockpit. Does train as you fight mean you gotta hit the chaff dispenser aswell? Wheres the line?

shadowgovt 1y ago
Almost certainly moving after this fiasco.

LgWoodenBadger 1y ago

Within reason, which is why soldiers train with blank-firing adapters and blanks, and not live ordnance when simulating combat. Turning ADS-B on/off likely has zero effect on the training/fighting relationship.

ceejayoz 1y ago
The article says the reason is a bit different - that the route they were practicing is (in theory) sensitive information. > But the Black Hawk did not operate with the technology because of the confidentiality of the mission for which the crew was practicing. That is because ADS-B Out positions can be obtained by anyone with an internet connection, making the system a potential risk to national security. Seems like leaving it in listen-only mode would be wise, though.
- xhkkffbf 1y ago
  They were coming back from Langley. I'm told it was just to "refuel."
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    On one hand, I've got a reputable news organization publishing an article with specific information from experts, pilots, etc. On the other hand, I've got an internet rando who once told me to Google up MGTOW saying "I'm told". Which one would you find credible?
  - jjwiseman 1y ago
    It wasn't coming back from Langley. That's misinformation from people who don't know the subtleties of what's displayed by flight tracking sites. For more info see https://x.com/aeroscouting/status/1884983390392488306 https://x.com/aeroscouting/status/1884983390392488306
- alistairSH 1y ago
  The route is a public/known helicopter flight path. There's nothing secret about it. Here's a map of the helicopter routes in the area. In this case, they were flying on route 4... https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851p.ct004873/?r=0.67,0.258,0.189,0.104,0 https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851p.ct004873/?r=0.67,0.258,0... Yes, this group transports VIPs and sometimes does so in secret. This training flight was a "simple" check-ride for the pilot (simple in scare quotes because part of the ride was using the NVGs, which strikes me as fairly ridiculous in the DCA air space).

yuliyp 1y ago

The ADS-B transponder tells other planes where you are. It doesn't tell you where the other planes are. Turning it off when there are civilian planes doesn't improve your ability to aviate. it just hurts the situational awareness of the civilian planes who aren't supposed to be learning how to fight.

ceejayoz 1y ago
ADS-B goes both directions - you can broadcast, and you can listen. In this case, having it on would've told the Blackhawk crew a plane was way closer than they thought, even if the Blackhawk had broadcasting off.
- ClumsyPilot 1y ago
  This sounds very strange: - What combat situation will require a military aircraft to be flying 30 meters from civilian jet doing routine flights? - i don’t believe that there really is no technical solution to provide awareness to civilians of the presence and location of military aircraft without altering the pilot’s experience - if it had told the Blackhawk crew a plane was way closer, the crew would still be alive. That’s like the whole point. I have no expertise or n the area, but I can’t share the feeling that decision making is extremely poor, and sometimes it actually takes an outsider, who is free from groupthink and cope, to see that a decision is stupid.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > What combat situation will require a military aircraft to be flying 30 meters from civilian jet doing routine flights? Evacuating leadership during a 9/11 scenario? > i don’t believe that there really is no technical solution to provide awareness to civilians of the presence and location of military aircraft without altering the pilot’s experience There is. That’s ADS-B. Which broadcasts your position. So it’s turned off in military aircraft at times, for obvious reasons.
    - LeafItAlone 1y ago