The DC crash: "How is it possible that the helo didn't see the landing lights of the jet?"

I've flown both heavy jets and helicopters, and flew the latter into the Pentagon dozens of times.  This required flying right by Reagan airport.  I'm very familiar with the procedures then.  When I was there helos were restricted to staying below 100 feet.

A CRJ-700 flies final approach at 135 to 140 knots.  Radar shows that when the two aircraft collided, the jet was aligned with runway 33, at a heading of 330 degrees magnetic.

The jet's pilots had been on a straight-in approach to runway 01--the main runway, with a heading of ten degrees magnetic.  But at the last minute the controller asked the pilots if they could change to a different runway--33--to let a plane holding short of runway 1 to takeoff.  The jet's pilots agreed, so now they were flying a totally visual approach--meaning you have to spot the runway and get lined up based on visual cues.  That shift increases the pilots' workload because they have only a minute or so to get lined up with the new runway. 

So where do ya think the jet's pilots are looking?  Sure: both of them were looking at the runway.  They weren't looking for conflicting traffic cuz they'd been cleared to land.

Five seconds before impact, radar shows the helo turned 45 degrees to the right, so it was now flying at right angles to the jet.

  

The jet's landing lights were on, and those are astonishingly bright:  Car headlights can reach 300 feet ahead, but a plane's landing lights reach at least ten times farther.  If the helo pilots had been looking around, they couldn't have missed those blinding lights.

But apparently, for some reason the helo pilots didn't see those blinding lights to their left.  The mystery is, why didn't they?

The cruise speed of a Blackhawk is 150 knots (173 mph) or almost the same as the jet's speed.

Now one of the interesting things in flying is that if a plane is crossing your path at 90 degrees, at your same speed, it doesn't move relative to your windshield but just gets bigger.  And since at night there are fewer visual cues--just lights--then if you're looking down to a background of a city, the only way to spot one light out of tens of thousands on the ground is if it's moving relative to the background.

Problem is, because the pilots of the jet were looking at the runway and had been cleared to land, they weren't looking for other traffic--and shouldn't have been.  Being cleared to land lets the pilots concentrate on landing the plane, eh?  And they were looking at the runway, not looking around for traffic--which is totally expected!

The big question is why the helo pilots didn't see the blinding landing lights of the jet--which the videos of the crash clearly show were on.  The answer could be that the helo pilots may have been wearing night-vision goggles.

The standard Army night-vision goggles (AN/PVS-14) have a field of view of about 40 degrees.  I don't know if helo pilots use this same model, but chances are they do. (There are newer goggles with a wider field of view but they haven't been widely purchased yet.)  If the NTSB does their damn job we'll find out.

We've already heard that the helo was flying a "training mission" using NV goggles.  There's no way to know if the pilots were wearing 'em when the crash occurred, but if they were, then unless they were deliberately turning their heads checking to the side--something you don't normally do because you rely on your "peripheral vision"--they wouldn't have seen the jet's super-bright landing lights.

The traffic controller knew the helo and the jet were very close to the same altitude, and since the jet was on final and couldn't maneuver, the controller asked the helo "Do you have the CRJ in sight?  Pass behind it."  One of the helo pilots replied that they did.  The controller then directed the helo to "Pass behind the CRJ."  But apparently the helo pilots thought a plane miles ahead was the traffic they were being warned about, and took no action. 

Even more bizarre: I've seen a vid of a different radar plot that shows the two targets closing, with a flashing red "CA" warning--"collision alert"--for at least 20 seconds before impact.  IF that video of the radar scope is authentic, ATC either didn't notice it, or that warning was on a radar ATC didn't have.

Now: Ultimately the pilot in command is responsible for everything that happens to his plane.  He's the more experienced pilot, so it makes sense.  The significance will soon be apparent.

The National Transportation Safety Board is charged with finding the cause of the crash.  Because of bribem's stupid policies, the head of that agency is a female, appointed by bribem's handlers in August of 2021.  (Trump hadn't had time to replace her.)  Her most important skill (for biden's handlers) was that she's a member of the Teamsters Union.  She was first appointed by Trump as a member of the NTSB in 2018, to finish out a term expiring in 2019.  So she couldn't do much damage.

But the bribem regime not only kept her on past that end date, but just three years later decided to appoint her the HEAD of that agency.  Ahh, of course!  She must have shown that she was the person on the Board most skilled at deducing the cause of an accident!

Sure.  You bet, sparky.  No, appointing her to head the NTSB won bribem votes from labor unions.

Wiki (I know) is careful to show that she was appointed as a member of the NTSB by Trump, to finish out a term expiring the next year--totally obscuring bribem's role in appointing her to head it.

It's been reported that one of the helo pilots was female, with just 500 hours of total flying time.  Watch for her to be totally exonerated by the NTSB--and fair enough, because the more experienced instructor is responsible.  I totally agree.  But IF the Army aviation unit doesn't have a hard rule NOT to wear night-vision goggles in crowded airspace, the commanders of that unit should be relieved of command. 

https://x.com/i/status/1885358731816309075