Another 737 catches fire

[WAYNO]

The experts here have already condemned the Army pilots, only because the helicopter was at the same altitude as the approaching aircraft. Why need the NTSB if folks already have it figured out with no more evidence than is provided by the media idiots?

I was Army Aviation. I would never for a second claim these military pilots to be in any way inferior to commercial pilots.

Now the question to be answered, is why they were at the same altitude and proximity.

It was not unheard of for a helicopter pilot to ask the tower for permission to fly across an airport. If it was safely doable, permission would be granted. Did these Army pilots ask for that permission and the tower complied, not seeing other impactable aircraft? Remember, the tower was short handed. Or did the helicoipter crew make a mistake? That is exactly why the NTSB must sort thru all the evidence, and is exactly why the internet vigilantes are not involved in such an investigation.

Humans are not infallible. I personally know of two fatalities involving Army pilots that were deemed to be pilot error. And we know of many others, both civilian and military, deemed to be pilot error.

Please. let's allow the investigation to complete its course, and allow the chips to fall where they may.




.

 

[WillametteWill]

@WAW44 & @Provincial (and others), I appreciate your insight, knowledge, and experience, I spend a bunch of time in the back seats of aluminum tubes, not in the front two. Aviation fascinates me, I always enjoy learning more.

 

[Provincial]

I am seeing ex-military pointing fingers every which way to shift blame. One claimed that the copilot of the jet was at fault because he didn't see the helicopter! Another tried to blame the female helicopter pilot, despite the fact that the check airman was the one reporting traffic "in sight" and being responsible for monitoring the pilot who was being evaluated.

I get the feeling that these people feel that civil aviation should get out of the way of military aircraft.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I am seeing ex-military pointing fingers every which way to shift blame. One claimed that the copilot of the jet was at fault because he didn't see the helicopter! Another tried to blame the female helicopter pilot, despite the fact that the check airman was the one reporting traffic "in sight" and being responsible for monitoring the pilot who was being evaluated.

I get the feeling that these people feel that civil aviation should get out of the way of military aircraft.

Wow that's crazy they said that, commercial pilot did everything tower told them to. Saw helicopter at last second and tried to pull up and away. No way can it be their fault at all imo. Obviously helicopter pilot's fault because they had a 200' ceiling and they were at 325'.

Yes it's screwy to have rules of so little vertical separation but those were the rules that day (hopefully they will learn from this and change them for the future).

As Blancolirio said, they (tower and chopper) treated it so nonchalantly. It should be an abnormal deviation not everyday commonplace. Couldn't the tower have asked chopper to hold until plane was clear? Seems like both tower and army were too used to the thin margins and should have been more safety minded. In the end it all comes down to the chopper pilot/crew being too high and the other things (including chopper and plane not being able to hear each other) were contributing factors. No way at all this could be the commercial pilot's fault.

Bottom Line:

1) Chopper did not follow the rules for altitude and their responsibility for visual separation
2) Perhaps tower could have held them short until plane passed by but was not required by the rules. Tower turned over responsibility to chopper pilot for visual separation
3) They need to revamp the rules so that the margins aren't so close/risky

 

[WillametteWill]

Please. let's allow the investigation to complete its course, and allow the chips to fall where they may.

Sound advice. My interest is in future prevention. I have zero interest in pointing fingers just for the sake of blaming someone. My profession is in prevention, be it personal protection or other safety fields. I also have close to 30 take offs and hopefully the same number of landings scheduled in the next few months alone, including at 0530 tomorrow. I'll actually use some of the information from this event in a class on Saturday because we can learn valuable lessons from terrible events, so hopefully, someone gets to come home at night that might otherwise not make it.

 

[Provincial]

ADS-B was turned off on the helicopter. It would have helped alert the jet earlier.

I like Sean Duffy's quote at the end of this article:

https://www.aol.com/news/key-safety-system-off-army-182532831.html

 

[Provincial]

I think the army turns off the ADS-B because they don't want ATC to know their real altitude.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think the army turns off the ADS-B because they don't want ATC to know their real altitude.

Fwiw/fyi I often watch the ads-b around here a lot for the f-15s and other oddball military aircraft that come in. They are usually visible right after take off and right before landing and that's all. Some rare times they are visible for longer but it's often intermittent even then.

The choppers that simply pass through on a straight course from south to north usually they always have ads-b active. Chinooks and transport types is about all we get.

 

[Provincial]

I think the Washington, DC area acts differently. Probably different than any other Terminal Control airspace. They have a lot of "Important" people there.

By the way, the V in front of the H60 designation means it is a VIP transport. I used to fly a DC-3 that had been a VC-47D toward the end of its military career. It was assigned to the Strategic Air Command, and was equipped to carry B-47 and B-52 engines between bases. It really was used for the Colonels to qualify for flight pay and visiting officers to add an aircraft type to their logbook.

 

[WAW44]

Why need the NTSB if folks already have it figured out with no more evidence than is provided by the media idiots?

I was Army Aviation. I would never for a second claim these military pilots to be in any way inferior to commercial pilots.

Now the question to be answered, is why they were at the same altitude and proximity.

First, a lot of people commenting on this are commercial (and ex-military) pilots with thousands of hours, so the Media Idiots comment is not very accurate.

Nobody said the helo pilots were inferior in general, but what people are saying is that in this instance, they screwed up, and got many people killed.

They screwed up, that's why they were there. There is no other reasonable explanation, none that I can see.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Korean airline inspecting bags to make sure no portable device chargers in overhead bins. Suspected cause of the fire that burned up a plane recently. People can still bring it onboard on their person so can identify early if it's going to catch on fire.

Airline issues world-first ban of common travel tech — after fire destroyed plane

An investigation into the cause of the flames that engulfed an aircraft last week has begun.

nypost.com

 

[WAW44]

Korean airline inspecting bags to make sure no portable device chargers in overhead bins. Suspected cause of the fire that burned up a plane recently. People can still bring it onboard on their person so can identify early if it's going to catch on fire.

Airline issues world-first ban of common travel tech — after fire destroyed plane

An investigation into the cause of the flames that engulfed an aircraft last week has begun.

nypost.com

Makes sense. The tech is everywhere, and not all of it is designed or made with good runaway protection. Even when the fire is contained, in a lithium battery fire bag for example, the smoke is a big issues inside the aircraft.

 

[made in china]

Korean airline inspecting bags to make sure no portable device chargers in overhead bins. Suspected cause of the fire that burned up a plane recently. People can still bring it onboard on their person so can identify early if it's going to catch on fire.

Airline issues world-first ban of common travel tech — after fire destroyed plane

An investigation into the cause of the flames that engulfed an aircraft last week has begun.

nypost.com

If a portable power pack was the cause, "identify early if it's going to catch fire" won't help.
Once the aircraft is sealed up and aloft, you can't simply open a window and throw the soon-to-burst-into-flames device out.
There's no stopping a runaway thermal event. If they truly lost a multi-million aircraft to a cheap portable power pack, they'd be within their rights to outright ban these devices.

My wife and I visited her friend this weekend. She had one of those e-bikes charging in her den.
I didn't say anything, but I was surprised that she hadn't heard how these things like to burn down homes.

 

[WAW44]

If a portable power pack was the cause, "identify early if it's going to catch fire" won't help.
Once the aircraft is sealed up and aloft, you can't simply open a window and throw the soon-to-burst-into-flames device out.
There's no stopping a runaway thermal event. If they truly lost a multi-million aircraft to a cheap portable power pack, they'd be within their rights to outright ban these devices.

My wife and I visited her friend this weekend. She had one of those e-bikes charging in her den.
I didn't say anything, but I was surprised that she hadn't heard how these things like to burn down homes.

Sure, but these baterries are everywhere, in everything, so how do you ban them? Laptops, phones...

Here is RC LiPo batteries and bags test :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ajz9t3CYbc

 

[made in china]

Sure, but these baterries are everywhere, in everything, so how do you ban them? Laptops, phones...

Here is RC LiPo batteries and bags test :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ajz9t3CYbc

Devil is in the details.....

Smartphones are generally trusted due to using the best battery supplier, plus they are much smaller than what's in a portable power pack.
Samsung had to recall some models of smartphone a few years ago due to a battery problem.

Laptops also have the same reputation. Furthermore, most of the aforementioned devices are supported by reputable companies.

Portable power packs are commonly available from Amazon or the like from unknown manufacturers who commonly use recycled and/or lower tier batteries from unknown sources. A "GooFoo" or whatever random name portable power pack "brand" won't support or take responsibility for self immolating devices.

Some will argue that laptops and smartphones are a necessity of modern life. No-name power packs aren't.
I like electronic doo-dads just like many people, but I've not found a compelling reason to buy a portable power pack when I'm okay with the battery life and wall chargers of more "necessary" items.

 

[WillametteWill]

Samsung had to recall some models of smartphone a few years ago due to a battery problem.

Yup. Galaxy Note 7s were banned from aircraft over eight years ago. So are hoverboards. I stopped carrying portable battery power banks due to the dubious origins of the devices.

 

[Alexx1401]

Sure, but these baterries are everywhere, in everything, so how do you ban them? Laptops, phones...

Here is RC LiPo batteries and bags test :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ajz9t3CYbc

Looks like the bag I bought for those 80 volt batteries for my lawn stuff are well worth having. When the weather warms up will be storing the batteries outside but while we are getting this cold snap I did want to keep them inside. So looks like it would make a lot of smoke down in the basement but at least keep the fire contained.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

In addition to being too high, another smoking gun revealed. Blackhawk cut off tower by pressing mic. The part they caught off was "pass behind CRJ".

Skip to roughly 10 min mark or 9:30 for more context. I didn't have enough patience to listen about the helicopter altitude data (starting at about the 13:00 mark) so maybe if someone listens to that they can update us.

View: https://youtu.be/YmYL4whwjS8?si=XikGoVRwzUC2FWXi

 

[WAW44]

In addition to being too high, another smoking gun revealed. Blackhawk cut off tower by pressing mic. The part they caught off was "pass behind CRJ".

Skip to roughly 10 min mark or 9:30 for more context. I didn't have enough patience to listen about the helicopter altitude data (starting at about the 13:00 mark) so maybe if someone listens to that they can update us.

View: https://youtu.be/YmYL4whwjS8?si=XikGoVRwzUC2FWXi

Transmissions being stepped on happens all the time , that's not a big deal. They , the helo, acknowledged traffic and tower was right to assume they will see and avoid . Tower had no idea they were wearing NVGs and were looking in the wrong place . Collision was at 278 ft , so the Blackhawk was too high , they screwed up. Few minutes prior they discuss they their individual altimeters are off by a 100 ft, and yet they still continued into the route that required threading a needle . This is on them and on the Army.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Dude close the shade it will go away !