Midair in Washington - The Facts from a Black Hawk Instructor Pilot - Myths Dispelled

[@alafrosty]

Surprised that you didn't touch on the uh-60 flying at 350 ft when he should have been under 200 ft. Aircraft should have been elevation deconflicted. Listen to longer controller tape. Controller checked in twice with copter pilot about visual separation. This was 100% on the Blackhawk pilot.

[@bryonraper3506]

Why would he mention that? Then military pilots wouldn’t be preferentially hired for all kinds of jobs if their flaws weee known.

[@eeroala5132]

The pilot of the UH 60 was not a he it was she.

[@unclefreddy2009]

@@eeroala5132irrelevant, and instructor was male.

[@RealTechZen]

The ATC had his system flashing a visual Conflict Alert warning and giving the audio Conflict Alert warning. Regulation requires the ATC to announce a Conflict Alert to both aircraft and instruct them to "Turn left immediately!". The CRJ was diverted from the primary runway to 33 at the last possible moment because the ATC had allowed the larger airliner behind it to get too close so it would have overrun the CRJ if they both landed on the Primary. That last moment diversion to runway 33 created the conflict, which would not have existed had the CRJ remained on approach to the Primary. This was 100% controller error by a DEI hired controller.

[@unclefreddy2009]

@ ahhhh yes let’s mix actually facts with distortion, nice play! Separation conflicts happen a lot with tight spacing, a circle to land on 33 is a very common approach and is completely acceptable. It’s a shorter runway so many reject it, but that procedure is fine. This one is much simpler. They asked for and were granted visual separation, and misidentified the jet they were separating from. Simple as that, and if you have ever flown in an environment with city lights and cars approaching at this angle it’s difficult to see, and the copter cockpit I’m hoping they have a cvr for because I bet there is ample distraction. That’s the reason for the 200 ft ceiling on that part of the copter chart.

[@frederickking1660]

The choppers are suppose to stay below 200 feet in this area. He was at 300 to 350 feet.

[@eeroala5132]

The pilot of the UH 60 was a female with very low hours.

[@Chris_H_OH58D]

@ it does not matter if it was a female or not. And 500 h is not a bloody rookie.

[@kxjx]

​@@eeroala5132 all the statistical evidence suggest that female pilots are at least as safe as male pilots. There is some evidence to suggest that female pilots might even be slightly less likely to be involved in fatal accidents, but in any case the difference is very small.

[@albedo0point39]

Helicopter climbed to 350feet in a zone where they were limited to 200ft max. This was their key fault, the rest of the discussion is noise.

[@SilentThundersnow]

Right. Without the helicopter being too high, this accident doesn't happen. Somebody's head should roll. Because this shouldn't happen.....

[@dalewoodiel]

That is true however, if you look at other flights, they start their climb back up to 1300 feet for their approach back into Davidson airfield. I agree the root does say at or below 200 feet.

[@greyjay9202]

Correction: The PSA aircraft didn't hit the Blackhawk. The Blackhawk hit the airliner, literally T-boning it. The Blackhawk was 100 feet higher than its mandated altitude. Lack of separation. What you avoid talking about, is the craziness of allowing helicopter traffic in the airspace of a busy commercial airport's take off and landing zone. Bluestreak was on final to land on runway 33. It was a stabilized approach, following the ILS glideslope. All normal and correct. PAT25 was higher than it should have been, and failed to identify the jetliner in its path.

[@mightyblues7]

I would have hoped you would have given a balanced view. Sadly this didn't happen. The Black Hawk was required to not go above 200, they hit when they were at 400 approximately.

[@TormentedHealer]

True. Military people have a tunnel vision and of course they are brothers in arms and blame all others.

[@charlesbrewer6552]

This is an excellent presentation, thank you. I am an Australian former flight instructor. One thing Snak Pak did not explain was the difficulty of seeing an aircraft that is on a collision course at night. When you are sighting aircraft most of them will be moving against the background lights, they are the ones that will NOT hit you. The one that WILL hit you is stationary among the background lights and so is VERY difficult to see until you are really close!

[@TheNiteinjail]

To me the biggest clue is altitude. Helicopter tracks through there are height restricted to

[@flyinghedgehog3833]

Pilot mixed up bridges... WILSON IS SOUTH....can climb to 300 ft there.

[@ServantofYaHi777]

My question is , when did the chopper begin its ascent from 200 ft to 400 ft which is 100 ft higher than the max altitude and that's only after you've flown out just a little click.

[@SnakPakFlight]

We don't really know exactly how high it got. I saw 300' according to the radar screen, but those radars don't work particularly well at low altitudes. And it looks like they didn't have ADSB reporting on. We will know their exact altitude once the black box is analyzed.

[@carlyellison8498]

In the final 24 seconds prior to collision the helicopter changed course ~35 degrees, climbed at least 50 ft, and accelerated from 104 to 113 knots.

[@phil1517]

​@@SnakPakFlight--- the helicopter and CRJ collided at 350 feet. This means the helicopter was too high on Route 1/4.

[@rcline60]

@@SnakPakFlightblack box on a UH60L, which you alluded to was the model based on after accident videos/pics? Unless there are mods that I am unaware of, L models don’t have FDR or CVR.

[@JSLEnterprises]

ATC passed off control to the helo for visual inspection, the helo was most likely tracking the 3130 behind the CRJ and not the CRJ itself. With that said, ATC should not be passing off control to any aircraft within direct or direct adjacent airspace of the airport.

[@Iamuprise74]

I see your point but I wonder how common it is to alert one aircraft that another aircraft is departing in the same direction as your going? It doesn't seem like a common ATC thing to say. Wouldn't it be more relevant to say this if incoming aircraft as supposed to outgoing and taking off in the same direction as you which means that the plane is going to elevate quickly and substantially at a higher altitude then the helicopter was allowed to be at. If the place is taking off ahead of you and elevating quickly why does the tower really need to warn the helicopter. You'd think the warning would most definitely come if another aircraft was fast approaching you and similar attitudes. My guess

[@micheleflores7460]

Just for clarification, the plane did NOT collide with the helicopter, at least that is the preliminary information we have at this time! Please watch your words and description analysis.

[@100SteveB]

Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias on the part of the Blackhawk crew. And just saying, it's more a case of the Blackhawk flying into the plane, rather than the other way around - the plane was in the right place at the right altitude, the helo on the other hand was flying too high, and sadly it looks like he or she was looking at the wrong aircraft.

[@CatBuchanan]

He ALSO appears to have violated the corridor for helos which hugs the DC side of the Potomac. He was too far SOUTH and was above the proscribed ceiling for helos as well.

[@vainhedgepig6302]

In a video from VASAviation they seem to have the initial comms from ATC to PAT25 about the CRJ. ATC says: “PAT25, traffic just south of the Woodrow Bridge, a CRJ, it’s 1200 feet setting up for runway 33”. PAT25 confirms they have it in sight and requests visual separation which is then approved. If the information in that video is correct, at that point PAT25 was at 200ft and the CRJ would have been at PAT25’s 3 o’clock. AAL3130 was behind and slightly to the right of 5342. Then just before the crash was the second exchange about whether PAT25 had the CRJ in sight, the one you included in your video.

[@Iamuprise74]

Good thought but if made me think how common I'd it to warm one of a outgoing place departing quickly and elevating quickly that's ahead of you? If think to planned on a similar attitude approaching each other would be a more common use of the ATC warning as opposed to a plane in front of you departing

[@taketime0626]

I love how you talked about perspective while in the sky. It reminds me of how I can’t stand to be on a one story roof, but I have no problem jumping out of a plane. I just try to explain to people, that when you are high up with nothing near you, there really is no height perception… so I don’t have that fear of falling. I believe this was a total accident 😢 My sincere condolences to everyone affected.

[@mikey19608]

I'm glad you explained the 2 different frequencies of the tower, some recordings did not show the PAT25 responding, others did. Is there an established altitude where the helis are supposed to cross the approach path?

[@micheleflores7460]

Definitely not ATC fault! This is the helicopter crews fault! Call it what it is!

[@sprue_goose]

Greeting from Australia. I always appreciate your “instructor” style with clear explanations and to the point commentary. Thanks mate.

[@SnakPakFlight]

Cheers!

[@SnakPakFlight]

We have some Aussies come to train with us from time to time and they are our favorite group. (sorry...favourite)

[@mavericksimulation]

I was hoping you'd post some info on this tragic accident. Thanks for straight facts.

[@tmiles337]

Great video appreciate your time and effort! Praying for everyone involved.

[@srstacy]

Back in 1988, when I was a new pilot undergoing RL progression training in Korea, we were a flight of two UH60s. We took off trom 2 separate confined areas and were going to link up in flight. It appeared to me that the other acft took off and headed north, so I flew toward it to fall in staggered left. It actually turned back south west toward me, so I was heading on a collision course. I was experiencing the reversible perspective illusion. You had the description of that up on your slide. The IP realized it and took the contrils. I believe they experienced that and thought they were going to pass behind it. It's just a possibility.

[@SnakPakFlight]

Hey man thanks for commenting! What did you fly?

[@srstacy]

@SnakPakFlight I flew the the UH-60 A/L. I retired just as the M models were getting fielded.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@srstacy Awesome! Flew limas for a few years with 101. Now back to Mikes. Thanks for serving. Crazy to think we flew the same model aircraft but I was crapping my diaper when you were in flight school!

[@Tordan69]

Snak Pak, provided that the helo followed the path of Route 1/4 AND had stayed below 200 ft as the route instructs, can you tell if that vertical separation would have been enough at the point of impact?

[@thegenr8]

Accidents like this make all pilots slow down and take another look!

[@LazySusan.]

If the AA plane was larger do you think there'd be a better chance of survivors? Or do you think it would've been even more catastrophic? I know nothing about aviation (other than the fact I graduated from Wright State) so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

[@SnakPakFlight]

It's hard to say. Mid-air collisions are so rare but they are usually devastating. If this helicopter were to crash into a wing on a giant 747, there's not much hope it would be able to continue flying. Also, the bigger the plane, the faster it needs to go to generate lift (generally speaking). So even on final approach, it's going really fast. Can't really maintain control at those speeds without the critical components of the airframe.

[@SnakPakFlight]

Also, there are no stupid questions. Only stupid people!

[@Iamuprise74]

​@@SnakPakFlightbut don't stupid people only ask stupid questions? HA just joking good job very entertaining video

[@nickarthurnight1019]

Alt 300? Maximum was 200ft. Go behind the Aircraft on Final. You're only 300 ft AGL headed toward oncoming traffic and the airstrip. Wow, don't cross the flight path for RWY 33 check your barometer and get below 200ft and turn away

[@SnakPakFlight]

Definitely some factors at play here but I don't want to get too deep on the speculation until we have all the facts.

[@jfgrivard2]

The Black Hawk was at 400ft altitude and was supposed to respect a 200ft ceiling which is a bit of a red flag, not enough to confirm a deliberate act, but certainly something to consider. Next thing is you cannot miss an airplane coming at you almost head on with it's landing light and with all the passenger windows that are lit, and we know the CRJ was at eye level because they actually hit it. Also at 400ft when you're looking at another plane that is only a few hundred feet from you, you cannot be confused by a another light because it is so prominent and also at 400ft no other tower light or street light or any other structure from the ground is not confusing your sight at eye level boresight. We need to dismiss the portion about the verbal exchange between the Black Hawk and the tower confirming the Black Hawk has a visual on the CRJ and it's confused with another airplane in the case where we consider the scenario where this is a deliberate act because he/they would simply say they have a good visual to not alert the tower.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@jfgrivard2 You've got your head wrapped around the intention here. It was not intentional. We don't know their exact altitudes yet. And the CRJ was not heading straight for them. Imagine whatever you want, but until you get into a cockpit at night and look around, you will never know how disorienting it can be. Also, they may have had their heads inside looking at instrumentation or ipads or tuning radios, etc. There may have been task saturation. Miles turn to meters and to inches very quickly when aircraft are traveling toward each other in the hundreds of knots.

[@phil1517]

​@@jfgrivard2--- the Black Hawk pilots were wearing phosphorous night vision goggles which restricted their peripheral vision. The ascent to 400 feet was likely unintentional since they were likely hand flying and not on autopilot. There is NOTHING about this collision that says it was intentional. It has alk the earmarks of a little bit of sloppy flying by the helo pilot and poor separation management by ATC.

[@Chris_H_OH58D]

A guestimation from me. Maybe the crew of the BH did see the "correct" CRJ in the last second and tried to decelerate fast, but the helo pops up quite a bit when hauling 100+ kts and pulling on the stick in a hasty manner. Does this make any sense? I think the airliner was totally not aware of the helicopter and was hit from the right while turning left. So the helo was "under" their belly and popped right into them from down and right.

[@everythinginfullspectrum8625]

Thank you, a lot of info in this video!

[@GrimReaper-1]

My understanding - MLAT goes through ADS-B, TIS-B system from MLAT receivers on the ground to provide SA to others.

[@danielroncaioli6882]

I work in aerospace so any accident hits hard. However, originally coming from Army Aviation, this seems to be hitting a lot harder than normal.

[@christophererwin7605]

Even if the helicopter had been at 200ft, the minimum vertical separation for vfr is 500ft. The controller should have never allowed these aircraft to get this close. ATC is the boss and needs to take responsibility.

[@jfgrivard2]

I'm just an electrical engineer but I have more than 30yrs of experience analyzing issues from a true factual standpoint and looking for root cause (you can't cram in my field, you can't just wing it, you need to put in the work when you go for root cause in electrical systems, you need be very hard headed and be hard to convince to make sure you are truly after root cause, and yes a lot of people get emotional in the room sometimes, usually only true nerds like me keep their calm and comb every aspect of it again and again, others in the room are either fed up or bored with replaying the same scenarios again and again by me and my peers). When analyzing root cause sometimes you need to dwell on a plausible scenario and play it out until you're satisfied that it's actually not plausible and you can dismiss it. I'm kind of locked on the fact that the accident happened at 400ft altitude, even though the Black Hawk had to respect a ceiling of 200ft. This is a bit of a red flag from the get go, but not enough to jump to conclusions but it deserve some attention, why did the Black Hawk fail to respect the ceiling. The black hawk ran into the incoming CRJ, this means for the last several seconds the black hawk had perfect visual of the CRJ especially at 400ft looking straight ahead almost boresight, you cannot miss all the light that comes out through dozens of windows on the side of the airplane. The Black Hawk could not miss this by being confused from other lights because it was high enough at 400ft that there is no other either tower lights or street lights or any other lights from any structure on the ground that is tall enough to offer confusion at 400ft when looking at an other airplane at your eye level that is only a few hundred feet from you as you are dashing into it's direction - when you look at it boresight and your head is looking straight you cannot miss the lights from the passenger windows off the side of the airplane, not to mention the powerful landing light as the Black Hawk was close to head on course between the 2 aircrafts for a good portion of the trajectory (i.e. no need to look down or up as the Black Hawk was at the exact same altitude +/= 5ft max which is an absolute fact since it actually hit the plane). I'm just trying to move away from that hypothesis in my mind so if anyone wants to jump in and slowly analyze this please do so. I've seen a lot of army personal in the past commit acts where they deliberately turn against other innocent people one day out of either depression or other things going through their mind when they commit this act. Again, I'm just trying to exhaust that option so I can move on to consider the other options and analyze them as thoroughly in my mind. If someone wants to help with this conversation, please do not bring the fact that the Black Hawk replied they have a visual of the CRJ and they were looking at another airplane, this is a good piece of information for other scenarios though, but not for the scenario where this would be a deliberate act (i.e. in the deliberate act scenario, the Black Hawk would simply reply they have visual on the airplane as they are seeking to run into it to not alarm the tower).

[@carlyellison8498]

In the final 24 seconds prior to collision the helicopter changed course ~35 degrees, climbed at least 50 ft, and accelerated from 104 to 113 knots.

[@elderbob100]

Paragraphs are your friend.

[@victoryhammer4113]

What I think happened is tower was lining up airplanes on 01 and since blue streak is a smaller plane to land on 33 now there is 2 different frequencies 1 for helicopters and 1 for planes also there were about 3 planes lined up for landing the #2 plane flying to close to blue streak and I think that the black hawk pilot had a visual on the wrong aircraft the #2 aircraft instead of the aircraft next to him

[@learningone7786]

Why allow visual separation in such a congested area, especially at night, vs full radar control separation, if even possible?

[@SnakPakFlight]

Good question. Things become routine when the same players are working on a regular basis. You get to know the controllers and other aircraft that operate in the area. I think the controller thought they had the situation in the bag and moved on to other priorities. The questions that need to be answered are: Was it smart to allow the CRJ to amend it's landing clearance to circle for RWY33 when that would have put it on a path close to the inbound H-60? Did the CRJ see the H-60? Which aircraft was the H-60 looking at when it confirmed visual tower? If the H-60 saw the CRJ it eventually collided with, did the pilots experience an illusion which made it seem further away or moving in a different direction? Were any of the crews task saturated and not paying enough attention to the outside surroundings? What impact did ADS-B technology have on the crews' situational awareness? Until we answer these questions, we won't have a clear answer to what happened.

[@RealTechZen]

The ATC had his system flashing a visual Conflict Alert warning and giving the audio Conflict Alert warning. Regulation requires the ATC to announce a Conflict Alert to both aircraft and instruct them to "Turn left immediately!". That wasn't done. That failure alone makes the ATC solely responsible for the accident. Furthermore, the CRJ was diverted by the ATC from the primary runway to 33 at the last possible moment, because the ATC had allowed the larger airliner behind it to get too close, the so it would have overrun the CRJ if they both landed on the Primary, and the CRJ couldn't speed up because AAL1630 was already on the primary runway awaiting takeoff clearance. That last moment diversion to runway 33 created the conflict, which would not have existed had the CRJ remained on approach to the Primary. This was 100% controller error by a DEI hired controller.

[@Iamuprise74]

I'm wondering if the helicopter had trouble seeing the plane as it appears to be coming out of the city lights. How bright are those planes landing front lights? At what distance does a pilot actually recognize that those are airplane lights coming at me and not an illusion or possibly something else. I know at night your not suppose to look at lights directly but to the side of the object. I read it somewhere in a pilots handbook

[@frederickking1660]

The pace of these airports need to slow down. They are moving at a break neck speed and it bit this time hard. They don't ask to change the runway thus probably doesn't happen. I bet they changed the runway because they needed a little time for a departing aircraft to clear out.

[@chris-hayes]

So, I guess the part I'm a little surprised by is a Blackhawk doesn't have like a radar that can show all these nearby planes to the pilots? Like you said you use foreflight-I know many commercial and private pilots have tablets with them running foreflight, flightaware or similar. Just seems backwards that some private pilot in a Cessna can see what planes are around them, but a Blackhawk pilot doesn't have that technology available to them.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@chris-hayes The black hawk was designed to fly in combat. The navigation systems were designed as such and not to operate in civilian airspace although they are fully capable of doing so. Decisions had to be made in design of these systems and sacrifices had to be made. Also, decisions take forever in the DOD so even the newer blackhawks don’t have ADS-B In. I always fly with a stratus that gives me live Ads-b traffic advisories on foreflight, but not everyone does.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@chris-hayes And no radar. Fighters usually have a targeting radar. But we don’t.

[@jessecallahan6515]

Should’ve had 2 crew chiefs for a night flight in congested airspace.

[@jakeski3142]

You think two guys sitting in the back would be better than one guy sitting in the back? What’s the guy in the back going to do?

[@stephanc7192]

Why was PAT25 approved for visual separation?

[@jakeski3142]

That’s standard procedure. It’s typically more effective than radar separation and it relieves load on the controller.

[@whoever6458]

Good information! Thank you, sir! Glad I found your channel.

[@socomon69]

you keep saying the jet that collided with the helicopter, when in fact the helicopter collided with the jet based on who has responsibility for separation. showing some bias in your framing.

[@andrewjackson5127]

Oh, we do know what happened. UH60 busted max altitude of 200 feet. No other details really matter. This was pilot error on the chopper. They were too high. There's a reason why they were restricted to 200 feet or lower, and this collision is the reason. It wasn't an accident.

[@Rwalt61]

I'm just curious. Does the Blackhawks have Black boxes or not? You're right, I only listen to actual pilots instead of armchair quarterbacks. So many people are saying DEI was to blame or whatever.

[@andrewjackson5127]

No one knows yet whether DEI was a factor or not, but the very nature of DEI suggests that it could be and that's why people say it. I mean you're hiring people NOT based on their skill with DEI.

[@TheAcerbicTraveller]

Fort Belvoir is no where near the origin of the helo flight as shown on numerous flight trackers. The flight appears to originate in the extremely upscale neighborhood of McLean, near Langley. If you've seen Jack Ryan, it's the same area a mil helo picks up Jack in the first episode at the house party. The Belvoir base is a 30 minute drive south following the river, turning, then up the old Jeff Davis Parkway. I understand you don't I've there. Confused.

[@SnakPakFlight]

I didn't say it originated from Belvoir. The unit was based in Belvoir. The data on ADSB exchange is not perfect which is why I'm not making any assumptions about what happened yet.

[@TheAcerbicTraveller]

@@SnakPakFlight Yes, several reports say the unit was based at Belvoir. You use the curser over the map showing where the helo flight begins, at 7:40 you motion at what you guess is Belvoir, but it's the Mclean residential area. Then show the helo beggining to fly around 9:33. Was the helo taking off for in the middle of a longer flight?

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@TheAcerbicTraveller Yeah I don't really know. Like I said, the data from that site is unrealiable. We don't know yet where the flight originated from. They didn't have ADSB (I think) so we can't really track their flight with too much certainty. We'll know more when the black box data emerges.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@TheAcerbicTraveller At the beginning of the video, I explain that the purpose of this video is to clear up some myths and provide some perspective from a pilot on the situation. I'm not trying to push my theory of what happened but there are a lot of those videos out now.

[@TheAcerbicTraveller]

@@SnakPakFlight I've no weird theories, and trust, don't seek any. Was just wondering if it was a longer flight and we just see a part of it, or they left from a government area near the houses, dropped someone off, or near Langley to refuel. Obv don't know how to read flight apps. Your video is quite informative. Thanks for answering my badly worded questions.

[@landonmintz4850]

Thanks for this man. It’s been terrible seeing the things you’re pointing out and seeing media take liberties with the story. Also whenever tower calls out an aircraft especially in a busy area is it standard practice to give a clock position and est alt? IE do you have the CRJ 10oclock same level?

[@SnakPakFlight]

Depends on how busy they are. The controllers are trying to be as brief as possible.

[@wayne9638]

great video, it also pissed me off all the stupid conspiracy theories, rest in peace

[@jjstevenz]

Why didn't the controller notice the CA prox going off on the radar and immediately tell one of them to turn? that's what don't make sense to me. im gonna put it on the controller for not lookin at the screen he had plenty of time to call one of them off

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@jjstevenz shrug emoji

[@Crazylab1616]

Were they too low for the warning to go off?

[@chris-hayes]

If you listen to the audio, when the ATC starts double checking if the Blackhawk pilot has the CRJ in sight, you can hear the collision alarm in the background. In hindsight the ATC should've done more and maybe should've guessed that the Blackhawk was looking at the wrong plane. But, the tower might get these kinds of collision alerts pretty often considering the air space. There might've been a false sense of security with the ATC thinking helicopters should always be below the approach glide slope at that point.

[@SnakPakFlight]

@@chris-hayes all good points

[@ugiswrong]

Stupid civilians

[@dlaird8]

I agree with you. The hawk was looking at the other acft further south. Ive flown that route at night under goggles. The lights make it really hard to see other acft.

[@SwampCityRadio1974]

What do you think of The Commander in Chief suggesting that the crash was likely the result of policies in favour of hiring the severely mentally and physically impaired specifically with reference to vision impairment (because why else couldn't the pilot see something straight in front of him?).

[@jakeski3142]

Politicians use every available opportunity to make political hay, in good taste or not

[@Pitchlock8251]

Great video on the incident. Its a shame social media jumped to warp speed conspiracy theory

[@SnakPakFlight]

Not sure what else we should expect at this point.

[@Pitchlock8251]

@@SnakPakFlight Its unfortunately the default at this point,

[@tripodcatz5532]

If you don't make KZbin videos while you're wearing a flight suit, you're not legit. If anyone watches a video of someone claiming to be an expert but they are wearing a tshirt and jeans, be suspicious my friends.

[@katefounder]

33. JS

[@foobarf8766]

Thank you from New Zealand, I only fly my computer but this is the best report I found yet, and my heart goes out to all affected.

[@bryonraper3506]

Nice try. But your content is more BS than anything else I have seen. You aren’t going to be able to excuse away this deal. On the altitude bust alone. That doesn’t even get to the altitude combined with crossing an approach path. If ATC had Ben speaking Chinese, it would t be near as big a factor as ass hats off altitude.

[@frederickking1660]

We have billions for ukraine but cant have enough atc in the towers of our airports.

[@JS-ti8ny]

So your claiming in no way whatsoever could this be a suicidal helicopter pilot..??? You are immediately claiming that is impossible..???

[@jakeski3142]

Well there were two pilots so tell me how likely it is that one of them just sat there and let the other one kill 67 people

[@TheMasterSgt-l7t]

This explanation is wonderful, easy to follow, and complete. 10 out of 10.

[@LearningCurves123]

Glad you're debunking the lies just wish someone would debunk the DEI lies too. I do have a question; Is there recording of what the pilot and co-pilot says during the flight? Would that be on the "black box"?

[@macjohnson2036]

When radar showed them coming together they should have told Blackhawk to stop and hold knowing that their altitude would be within a couple hundred feet

[@jakeski3142]

Controller had his attention on other planes. When they give visual separation it’s no longer his responsibility

[@a1reliableairconditioningi149]

Stick to your day job. Terrible flight review . Donald and Pete could have done better and boy is that saying something !

[@cookster155]

seems the internet sleuths got it right........

[@tearenoeft]

Well said sir! I’ve been trying to share your video all over social media! I’m an AMT for the 60s in the coast guard and currently working on my air crew before I try and make flight mechanic. And flying at night in a high traffic area can be pretty hectic. Sending prayers to the families.

[@SnakPakFlight]

Thanks for sharing!

[@scrivs1976]

I’m sorry mate, should have gone HC130-H/J🥹🤙

[@michaelbaron5233]

This was intentional terroist act

[@williamboyle8918]

Shrek was responsible

[@Maximus-Termann]

Surprised that you didn't mention the first two tries of the chopper to hit two starting planes before he flew around the airport, entering the landing approach airspace and finally hitting that plane on its correct hight and where the chopper never should have been.... Looking at the Blackhawks flight path I assume this was intentional and NOT an accident!

[@Alan-x3e9q]

Great perspective mate very informative … I saw both aircraft could not talk to each other but the tower could talk to both therefore both pilots were not hearing each others comms … very sad day for USA glad bless mate ✊✊✊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸✊✊✊🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺✊✊✊