That is the FAA regulation. The altimeter must be +/- 75 feet from airfield elevation.

I might be wrong but I had also heard she had busted a few check rides before this and this was her last shot. If he had taken controls it would have become another busted check ride so he was trying to hint to her that she was in the wrong place and needed to fix herself "unofficially".
I'm sure if he had seen the plane he'd have taken over. I doubt he was saying it that way just because she was a girl and he was afraid of offending her, but more to make sure she would "figure it out herself" for the check ride purposes.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Imagine a scenario where you are a military pilot, helmsman, driver, operator, (or whatever).

You are on a check-ride.

Your instructor gives you a maneuvering order.

And your response is "Oh-kay .... "fine."

Under what circumstances would you not be pulled out of training and picking up cigarette butts by the end of the day?

---

It took me quite a while after returning to civilian life not to repeat back what I was being told to do by my boss and ending the statement with "aye." You do this in everything from repeating back course changes, to damage control drills, to taking the coffee order of a superior. It's how you ensure things aren't missed. In what world is "okay" and "fine" acceptable?!?!

---

Is this not part of civilian and military flying in general? Someone gives you an instruction, inside or outside the aircraft, and you repeat the instruction then follow the instruction. Especially on a checkride. That even got extended to the positive exchange of controls that takes 3 steps and almost sounds like a Leslie Nielsen movie (my controls, your controls, my controls). I've never flown with NVGs but I've used them before and I get how FOV is limited. This whole thing is tragic, but I'm glad we've finally stopped blaming the ****ing controllers and the airspace rules. It seems clear now this was pilot error.

Pinochet said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Imagine a scenario where you are a military pilot, helmsman, driver, operator, (or whatever).

You are on a check-ride.

Your instructor gives you a maneuvering order.

And your response is "Oh-kay .... "fine."

Under what circumstances would you not be pulled out of training and picking up cigarette butts by the end of the day?

---

It took me quite a while after returning to civilian life not to repeat back what I was being told to do by my boss and ending the statement with "aye." You do this in everything from repeating back course changes, to damage control drills, to taking the coffee order of a superior. It's how you ensure things aren't missed. In what world is "okay" and "fine" acceptable?!?!

---

Is this not part of civilian and military flying in general? Someone gives you an instruction, inside or outside the aircraft, and you repeat the instruction then follow the instruction. Especially on a checkride. That even got extended to the positive exchange of controls that takes 3 steps and almost sounds like a Leslie Nielsen movie (my controls, your controls, my controls). I've never flown with NVGs but I've used them before and I get how FOV is limited. This whole thing is tragic, but I'm glad we've finally stopped blaming the ****ing controllers and the airspace rules. It seems clear now this was pilot error.

---

Not always.

But for the CWO verbiage in my cockpit, the answer would have been "correcting" or asking for amplification of what's wrong. It's increasingly clear the Flying Pilot had lost Situational Awareness, but didn't correct when it was pointed out to her.

Jetpilot86 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

revvie said:

---

Maybe 70 feet is 'good enough for government work' in most situations. I cannot imagine not having proper calibrated instruments being allowed in the DC area. I am sure that will be rectified in future, but it is something that should have been addressed before unnecessary deaths.

---

The public deserves to know the truth with regard to this. There should not be anywhere near that fine of a margin for error or the rules need to change.

---

Speculating here, but I suspect local ATC rules were created to accommodate the flow of traffic around DCA that were looser than standard separation and dependent upon the choppers being able to avoid the planes. The question is whether/what will change to keep a repeat from occurring.

I firmly believe the chopper "saw" the wrong plane because of the night conditions and the NVG's. Haven't watched the hearing yet, but picking out plane lights against the backdrop of city lights can be a challenge under normal conditions. The RJ believed the Controller had aircraft separation under control, the Controller believed the chopper had the RJ, the Chopper was looking at the wrong plane. The rest is just a distraction.

The question is why the chopper had the wrong plane called in sight. NVG's? city lights? Overloaded pilots? It hit the RJ because they didn't see it, question for me is why?

---

I mean DCA is right there near downtown DC almost, there is A TON of light pollution in the pilots horizon/vision, heck the only areas without all the city lights are just adjacent to DCA of the parks to the north and south and the Potomac itself... Helicopter traffic in that area always looks like an accident waiting to happen (except maybe the Marine One pilots that transit thru there)

TRANS RIGHTS: Women can do anything trans man can do except… pic.twitter.com/CAWZ4bFDKi

— @amuse (@amuse) July 12, 2025