9 ms·
The warrant officer was the instructor and was training her. Few times doesn't make someone qualified. I think it was because of military egos and ranks, the wa
by YetAnotherNick 1y ago
The warrant officer was the instructor and was training her. Few times doesn't make someone qualified. I think it was because of military egos and ranks, the warrant officer didn't force corrected the Captain.
Also why is training happening in such dangerous path where even if the instructions were followed the aircrafts could get as close as 30 m apart.
- milkshakes 1y agoexploring this phenomenon is the premise of season two of "the rehearsal"
- rdtsc 1y ago> I think it was because of military egos and ranks, the warrant officer didn't force corrected the Captain. I think they should prohibit such type of flights when ranks are reversed. Let's imagine he would have yanked the controls and avoided the crash. Now the Captain could have said "you're insubordinate and tanked my qualification flight, there will be a price to pay".
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoExtremely unlikely. Laughably so.
- rdtsc 1y agoSorry, I am trying to follow, but it's a bit ambiguous. It is laughable that the instructor would take controls away, or laughable that they wouldn't, or that in a military subordinate structure there can be retaliations. I am up for a good laugh, just not sure which one you meant we'd be laughing at.
- radlad 1y agoCoincidentally, Nathan Fielder is currently doing an entire season of The Rehearsal based on the premise that a number of flight crashes occurred after the co-pilot failed to contradict or take controls from the pilot. > Nathan Fielder studies airliner black box transcripts in which the first officer feels too intimidated to challenge the captain, leading to fatal crashes due to pilot error. He discusses this with John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member, who had once recommended roleplay simulation to improve pilot communication. Really good season so far!
- rob74 1y agoThat's actually the crux of the matter - not only shouldn't they have done training (at night, with night vision goggles) in conditions where aircraft could be only 30 m apart, this construct of a helicopter flight corridor being within an altimeter's tolerance of the glide path for an airport runway shouldn't have been allowed to happen at all! It's unfortunate that the article focuses on who made what missteps and doesn't mention this systemic issue.
- scrlk 1y ago> I think it was because of military egos and ranks, the warrant officer didn't force corrected the Captain. I'd be shocked if the US military didn't provide crew resource management training for their aviators. This is exactly the kind of situation CRM is designed to prevent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
- FireBeyond 1y agoSimilar in firefighting, we train new cadets about correcting or calling out situations to their officer, especially re (but not limited to) safety.
- khuey 1y ago> Also why is training happening in such dangerous path where even if the instructions were followed the aircrafts could get as close as 30 m apart. Forget training, why is this happening under any circumstances ever? If a military transport mission is ever so critical that you're willing to fly it within 30 meters of a civilian airlines it seems to me that you should just close the airspace to civil air traffic at that point.
- Titan2189 1y agoThat helicopter route is available to anyone, not just army helicopters
- ultrarunner 1y agoEveryone else has ADS-b and uses shared comms.
- multjoy 1y agoI don’t know if the US shares a great deal with UK armed forces, but an officer ignoring a senior NCO, especially one training them, does so very much at their own peril. It is far more likely to be something like cognitive overload rather than a clash or personalities - you don’t get to be in that position in the first place if you have a tendency to disregard instructors.
- YetAnotherNick 1y agoI am talking about instructor. He didn't took control himself even likely knowing the captain was putting both in risky place.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoI've personally never met a warrant officer afraid of (or even the least bit timid about) correcting a commissioned company-grade officer (O-3 in this case).
- somat 1y agoWith regards to training for high tolerance situations. Places and times where a small error can have large consequences. Yes you ease into it, the first level of training is done in a safe environment, however as the person gains competence the training moves into the domain in question, the person gains experience at doing the thing in question while being supervised. Or to put it another way. What? You expect that their first flight through that tight corridor at night should be done alone? In conclusion, I think it is fine in general that they were doing training on that flight path. However the fact that the both pilot and the trainer erred so badly indicates the need for better low level training and a reevaluation of the need for such a tight flight path in a civilian zone. Update: unrelated thought, I could not decide if low or high tolerance was the term i wanted, after waffling a bit I went with high tolerance. as that is the correct engineering meaning, but really the term is ambiguous and means the different things in different domains, he has a high tolerance for alcohol means the opposite of he made a high tolerance part.
- 542354234235 1y agoWhile I can’t speak to their individual temperaments, this is not an issue in the Army. Warrant officers are probably the least likely to worry about rank being confused with authority. They have the military experience from serving in the enlisted ranks as an NCO, with the protection of being officers that are above enlisted but still fall outside the commissioned officer ranks. They aren't untouchable but are highly insulated from petty tyrants. I don’t know why the instructor didn’t take a more forceful/active role leading up to the crash, but I don’t think rank was a contributing factor.
- mbrameld 1y agoI agree with everything you said, just want to point out that there's a "street to seat" program for Army aviators, so the warrant may have never served as an enlisted soldier. I still don't think a reluctance to act based on rank was the issue, like at all. Aviation is different from the rest of the military, there is generally a culture of safety that supersedes the rank structure.
- rainsford 1y ago> Also why is training happening in such dangerous path where even if the instructions were followed the aircrafts could get as close as 30 m apart. I'm not sure that's a correct understanding of how the approach path to the runway and the helicopter route are supposed to interact. So far as I understand, the intent was never that a helicopter and airplane were supposed to be able to happily barrel along their respective paths within worrying about running into each other. That kind of thing happens a lot in aviation, but the separation distance is much, much larger. Instead, one was supposed to see the other and use their eyes to visually stay away (ideally by much more than 100 ft). That's what was supposed to happen here, and what the instructor pilot in the helicopter said they were doing. Visual separation is also used a lot in aviation, often in places where there are no narrowly defined paths at all, but it carries the risk of aircraft not seeing or misidentifying each other, which could be what happened here.
- tremon 1y agoeven if the instructions were followed the aircrafts could get as close as 30 m apart This doesn't match with how I understood the ATC's instructions. The helicopter was instructed to "pass behind" the landing airliner, not pass below. I think the controller's intention was for the helicopter to hold short of passing the runway 33 flight path, and not to enter that space until the plane had crossed the river.