Quote:

---

But prove me wrong and complete this sentence:

The person who got everyone killed was: _______________

---

Fortunately mishap investigations are more nuanced than this. There are many factors at play from the design of the airspace to the ATC procedures to the regulatory requirements on aircraft equipment to both crews (five people) with the responsibility to see and avoid that contributed to the mishap. Remove any one of those factors or errors and tragedy would likely have been averted.

Her flying off the helo track and not properly identifying the aircraft to pass behind were the last and worst contributors. They failed as a crew to see the CRJ and he failed to correct her errors in flight path.

Bingo. You can answer that statement with any of the following (in no particular order), change their behavior / actions, and the crash never happens.

The pilot flying
The instructor pilot
The ATC operator in the DCA tower who vectored the air craft into close proximity on visual flight paths at night
The FAA personnel that approved helicopter route 4 originally
The personnel that DIDN'T review the near miss data from DCA and recommend changes to route 4
And on and on.

Civil aviation is a system that doesn't stop at the cockpit door. It's a complex system and you don't pick one single thing to fix failures in complex systems. You address as many of them as you can simultaneously. The system failures here extend well past DCA and potentially touch every congested air space in the country.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild part is, this the type of person that will sit in the passenger seat and argue with google maps while you trying to drive.

---

LOL, sounds like my GF.

Logos Stick said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild part is, this the type of person that will sit in the passenger seat and argue with google maps while you trying to drive.

---

LOL, sounds like my GF.

---

They can't help it.

GAC06 said:

---

Well I'm not sure how saying "she clearly screwed up" is giving her a pass. I haven't seen the transcript but the article says that at 15 seconds before the collision he stated that he thought ATC wanted them on the other side of the river. 15 seconds is a long time to not follow up with an actual command like "come left" or to take the controls.

---

That's what the maps indicated. Do pilots understand maps?

Reading what little is available. Nobody in the helo could locate the CRJ, nobody in the helo could read a simple map a laymen could understand, and nobody in the helo could accurately set an altimeter.

In summary, the helo pilots killed all people on the CRJ and their crewman.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.

---

Because it sounds like you're doing everything possible to give her a pass and put the blame on the IP even though everyone would be alive if she had done as commanded

---

Maybe re-read what you just quoted.

---

And it still sounds like you're trying to give her a pass and blame the IP even though he commanded her to make the turn that would have saved everyone and she refused

But prove me wrong and complete this sentence:

The person who got everyone killed was: _______________

---

Have we actually seen an actual word for word transcript or have the actual cockpit tapes been released? I read the NTSA report and what they described didn't sound like a "command" to me. I will admit to having no idea what normal conversations are like between an PI and PF for a checkout flight. But it seems to me like a lot of the difference of opinion here really boils down to whether you think "he ordered her to turn and she didn't" or "he told her he thought the ATC wanted them to be further east instead of ordering her to turn eastward." Clearly she was at fault for having the helo too high and outside of the approved corridor. But the degree to which the PI shares some blame really centers around when the PI should have either taken the controls or given a more direct order to change course if he had not in fact already done so.

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

jeremiahjt said:

---

If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.

---

That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.

---

that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****

---

You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.

---

What happens to the aircraft when the two are trying to control the craft in opposite directions?

In most aircraft the two sets of controls are linked so they'd feel each other on the controls and resolve it verbally, but normally they'd resolve it verbally before it ever came to that.

"In a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, the pilot and copilot have dual controls (cyclic, collective, and pedals) that are mechanically linked, meaning both sets move together. If the pilot and copilot attempt to apply conflicting inputs simultaneously, the stronger force typically prevails due to the direct mechanical linkage, but this can lead to erratic aircraft behavior or loss of control, especially if the inputs are significantly opposed"

N8Dawg05 said:

---

Bingo. You can answer that statement with any of the following (in no particular order), change their behavior / actions, and the crash never happens.

The pilot flying
The instructor pilot
The ATC operator in the DCA tower who vectored the air craft into close proximity on visual flight paths at night
The FAA personnel that approved helicopter route 4 originally
The personnel that DIDN'T review the near miss data from DCA and recommend changes to route 4
And on and on.

Civil aviation is a system that doesn't stop at the cockpit door. It's a complex system and you don't pick one single thing to fix failures in complex systems. You address as many of them as you can simultaneously. The system failures here extend well past DCA and potentially touch every congested air space in the country.

---

This! In root cause analysis, you are not trying to find the one person that did something stupid to pin the blame on so you can dance on their grave. You are trying to figure out what missteps along the way made it so that one person doing something stupid was enough to let somebody or many somebodies get seriously hurt or killed.

In this case, approving a routing that allowed helos to pass under landing aircraft with less vertical separation than the standard altitude error either aircraft is allowed to have as part of routine operation is a big part of the root cause. That to me is a key element of the problem that allowed the other cascade of problems to lead to a fatal crash. If the standard routing put the helos 350' below the landing aircraft (by routing them further east), either plane being off their assigned elevation path by 150-200' would still not have allowed a crash.

You can certainly assign most of the blame to the helo pilot being off course and too high, but there are many other things that set the stage for that to be a fatal mistake.

fc2112 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.

---

At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.

You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.

Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.

---

And in a politicized military just like any other job, men who have been told to sit down and let women **** it up may be punished for following those rules if the female in question makes a complaint after the man follows procedure.

The tricky part is that we will never know if there were extenuating circumstances that made this instructor reluctant to take over.

There is a chance there were none.

But based on the military has been operating lately there is just as good a chance that were some.

---

Not dying is all the circumstance he needed. Political BS goes out the door when faced with your own mortality.

---

But the political BS is why he hesitated, and it cost lives.

---

I do not believe for one moment he hesitated due to political BS. He is responsible for that aircraft, its crew and it's safe operation. His life is on the line as well as people he is responsible for. It is a heavy responsibility and whatever crap you have made up in your head does not change his responsibility or duty.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Incredible to see people trying to blame the IP and defend this woman

She ignored his command and got everyone killed because of it

---

This was a tragic accident, no one kn that helicopter saw the CRJ. They were searching for it, but there is no evidence that the CRJ was seen.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.

---

Because it sounds like you're doing everything possible to give her a pass and put the blame on the IP even though everyone would be alive if she had done as commanded

---

The aircraft commander is responsible for the aircraft and crew. If your copilot screws up or your crew does, you as the commander are responsible. He was reminding her calmly because he was trying to coach her into the right position.

---

And it still sounds like you're trying to give her a pass and blame the IP even though he commanded her to make the turn that would have saved everyone and she refused

But prove me wrong and complete this sentence:

The person who got everyone killed was: _______________

---

The aircraft commander is the answer.

bobbranco said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Well I'm not sure how saying "she clearly screwed up" is giving her a pass. I haven't seen the transcript but the article says that at 15 seconds before the collision he stated that he thought ATC wanted them on the other side of the river. 15 seconds is a long time to not follow up with an actual command like "come left" or to take the controls.

---

That's what the maps indicated. Do pilots understand maps?

Reading what little is available. Nobody in the helo could locate the CRJ, nobody in the helo could read a simple map a laymen could understand, and nobody in the helo could accurately set an altimeter.

In summary, the helo pilots killed all people on the CRJ and their crewman.

---

Chaotic environments at night make it hard to read paper maps. There is no moving map or MFD in that model of Blackhawk. It is analog technology. Aircrews get task saturated. When your copilot gets task saturated you try to take up the slack and can become task saturated yourself. There is no auto pilot in the model they were flying, there is no HUD. You are listening to 3 or 4 radios, looking outside, trying to keep your copilot in the right position.

The two altimeters in the aircraft can be up to 150 feet off from each other and 75 feet off from the altitude they are set for individually.

akm91 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

jeremiahjt said:

---

If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.

---

That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.

---

that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****

---

You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.

---

What happens to the aircraft when the two are trying to control the craft in opposite directions?

---

The controls are connected. Army pilots are conditioned to immediately relinquish the controls upon hearing the words "I have the controls." That's all it would have taken. He did not feel that the danger had escalated to the point to need to take the controls.

bobbranco said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Just arrogance and incompetence. Pretty much standard operating procedure for women who worked with Joe Biden.

---

Seesh.

---

A Captain, that's a brazen butthole, won't pull rank on a WO? Happens all the time.

---

Nope. Very rarley do commissioned officers ignore Warrant officers. Warrant officers are very experienced experts in their fields.
In Army Aviation commissioned officers do not ignore Warrant officers that are the aircraft commander or the mission commander. The Warrant is in their position due to their experience and expertise. The Warrant in command is responsible for the aircraft and the mission no matter who else is a part of the flight.

I have been an Army Aviator for 17 years, the last nine and a half flying Blackhawks, flown in Afghanistan, become an aircraft commander, air mission commander, aviation safety officer and instructor pilot.

I have learned that there are multiple experts on Texags far more knowledgeable than me on aviation in general and Army Aviation in particular so I will defer to their expert opinions.

Hubris noted.

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.

---

At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.

You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.

Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.

---

And in a politicized military just like any other job, men who have been told to sit down and let women **** it up may be punished for following those rules if the female in question makes a complaint after the man follows procedure.

The tricky part is that we will never know if there were extenuating circumstances that made this instructor reluctant to take over.

There is a chance there were none.

But based on the military has been operating lately there is just as good a chance that were some.

---

Not dying is all the circumstance he needed. Political BS goes out the door when faced with your own mortality.

---

But the political BS is why he hesitated, and it cost lives.

---

I do not believe for one moment he hesitated due to political BS.

---

sure....

So it nearly happened again, and Duffy is ****ing piiiissssseedddd off.

Unacceptable. Our helicopter restrictions around DCA are crystal clear. In addition to investigations from @NTSB and @FAANews, I’ll be talking to the @DeptofDefense to ask why the hell our rules were disregarded.

Safety must ALWAYS come first. We just lost 67 souls! No more… https://t.co/7ijmc8MW8v

— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) May 2, 2025

HTownAg98 said:

---

So it nearly happened again, and Duffy is ****ing piiiissssseedddd off.

Unacceptable. Our helicopter restrictions around DCA are crystal clear. In addition to investigations from @NTSB and @FAANews, I’ll be talking to the @DeptofDefense to ask why the hell our rules were disregarded.

Safety must ALWAYS come first. We just lost 67 souls! No more… https://t.co/7ijmc8MW8v

— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) May 2, 2025

---

Yea I think I'm gonna stick with flying in/out of IAD for now. I'm not a nervous flyer or anything but even before the crash I was always a bit apprehensive flying in/out of DCA with all the **** going on around there all the time. Approaches are scenic and fun but not worth it.

akm91 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

ArmyAg2002 said:

---

jeremiahjt said:

---

If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.

---

That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.

---

that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****

---

You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.

---

What happens to the aircraft when the two are trying to control the craft in opposite directions?

---

The stronger pilot wins.

It's strange that she was such a lib and this happened. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe incompetence.
I get the co-pilot telling her what to do and then expecting her to do it. In his mind if he grabbed the controls from her he would've been complained on and had to deal with sexual harassment issues or some such nonsense.

Go arounds aren't really a big deal, and the helicopter wasn't in the airport's restricted airspace.

Quote:

---

According to the email written Friday by Chris Senn, FAA's assistant administrator for government and industry affairs, obtained by POLITICO, the Army helicopter also a Black Hawk "took a scenic route around the Pentagon versus proceeding directly from the west to the heliport" on Thursday, prompting controllers to call for two go-arounds.
While go-arounds are a typical maneuver for flights inbound to Reagan National given the congestion at the busy airport, Senn classified the incidents in the email as "loss of separation" events, which are a breach of the minimum separation standards for aircraft in the same airspace.
Senn added the aircraft "were not within the restricted mixed traffic area" of the airport, but the FAA will investigate whether the Army was in violation of its flight approvals.
A person familiar with the email, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, confirmed its authenticity.
In a statement, the FAA on Friday said a "priority transport" inbound for the Pentagon's helipad made both a Delta Air Lines flight and a Republic Airways flight perform go-arounds.
The agency said it will investigate the incident, which happened around 2:30 p.m. on Thursday.

---

If anything, I am fine with daytime pilots coming into DCA exercising an abundance of caution at this point though.

I think you're conflating accountable and responsible. She was flying under his supervision, she's responsible and he's accountable for what happened.

For those interested, the NTSB has 3 days of investigative hearings starting this morning. Live updates at the link below.

https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/live-updates-ntsb-investigative-hearing-on-dca-mid-air-collision/

Looks like one major factor was altimeter was not set correctly.

Quote:

---

Investigators said Wednesday the flight data recorder showed the helicopter was actually 80 feet to 100 feet (24 to 30 meters) higher than the barometric altimeter the pilots relied upon showed they were flying. So the NTSB conducted tests on three other helicopters from the same unit in a flight over the same area and found similar discrepancies in their altimeters.

---

The NTSB is running a series of hearings on the DC Mid Air collision and one of the most important factors was revealed early on - the Blackhawk's barometric altimeter consistently showed 80-130ft lower than actual altitude when flying.
The pilot thought they were flying at 200… pic.twitter.com/DyZm13M7HH

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) July 30, 2025

Make Altimeters Great Again

Logos Stick said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild part is, this the type of person that will sit in the passenger seat and argue with google maps while you trying to drive.

---

LOL, sounds like my GF.

---

[FF 7-months ...]

Quote:

---

Inside the helicopter, the instructor tells the pilot to change course.

"Alright kinda come left for me ma'am, I think that's why he's asking… We're kinda… out towards the middle."

"Oh-kay," the helicopter pilot responds.

"Fine."

Not even a second later the recordings capture the sound of the collision and impact as the aircraft falls into the frigid river below.

---

Mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm ...

Lord have mercy.