[wyldfire]

In the video from the webcam there's another plane which is much easier to see. Could they have asked about "the aircraft" and the helicopter pilot mistook which one they referred to? "yes I can see the plane flying much higher"

[unsnap_biceps]

It's possible but generally there's implied context to ATC. ATC would only instruct you to watch out for possible vector interceptions. flying over an approach path, the context would be that you would look for aircraft on approach, not ones in holding or other patterns above.

That said, it's possible they mistook which aircraft to look for, but it's unlikely imho and we will likely never know for sure, as I would presume the pilots are deceased.

[dylan604]

I got a lesson in how ATC works with helicopters up close and personal on a helicopter tour. ATC had the helo pilot hold position while an airplane was on final approach. I asked the pilot why we needed to hold as we could clearly see the aircraft and were to my lack of knowledge on the subject "plenty" far away. (It actually took me a second to locate the airplane as my sense of scale was not expecting the plane to be so small which is part of why I made the assumption we were plenty far away.) That's when the pilot told me we were not in the way of the approach but if the pilot had to declare a miss (or whatever they call it) and climb to circle around. The helo was near the path for the plane on the abort flight path. Once the plane was on the ground, ATC allowed us to continue.

It was my first experience in an aircraft seeing how ATC controlled the airspace directly. Lots of respect to the folks in ATC with a fraction of understanding in just how much they have to deal with other than the obvious take-off/landings.

[TylerE]

There was a second American Airlirns flight only a couple miles and a thousand feet higher in altitude in the same approach course. You can actually see it in the video that’s circulating.

[mlyle]

It's pretty dang easy to misjudge distances and closing rates in a plane or helicopter, especially at night.

[ketanmaheshwari]

Is this true for the trained pilots as well?

[paulddraper]

It's next to impossible to know at night.

The only thing you have visually is direction / angular velocity.

[pfdietz]

And if you're on a collision course the other vehicle will appear motionless, with no change in direction.

If the airliners was approaching faster than the helicopter it could have been approaching from behind. How large is the field of view of a UH-60?

[lightedman]

"How large is the field of view of a UH-60?"

Massive, you're practically against the glass. Visibility below is more obstructed than visibility above or to the sides.

[paulddraper]

From the radar tracking, they appear to have been at least somewhat head-on.

(Also at a low altitude in a large city ... lots of lights.)

[pfdietz]

I wonder if there's a support element that would have obstructed the field of view over a narrow angle. This has been the cause of automobile accidents when cars approach at just the correct speeds to keep the other vehicle behind the pillar at the side of the windshield.

[sklargh]

Yes.

[throwaheyy]

No, that aircraft (having taken off from Reagan, visible in the full not-cropped videos) is close to the Kennedy Center camera but is nowhere near where the CRJ and helicopter were.

[trhway]

> easier to see.

One has radars even on recreational boats. That was a military helicopter. At night. It would be hard to believe that it doesn't have nor radar nor IR cameras, and the plane would be lightened up like X-mas tree in both.

[jahewson]

Marine radar is trivial compared to air-to-air radar. The Black Hawk, like most aircraft, does not have an air-to-air radar. IR cameras would be completely inappropriate for the situation but night vision goggles are a possibility I guess - though still have all the same drawbacks as using your eyes - you have to look in the right direction and recognise what that small dot is that you’re seeing.

[trhway]

>Marine radar is trivial compared to air-to-air radar.

like in the case of a boat, the air-to-air radar is still peanuts compare to the cost of the plane/helicopter

>The Black Hawk, like most aircraft, does not have an air-to-air radar.

Pretty surprising for the military. You'd like to know when an enemy fighter or a missile coming for you. And military frequently operates in the territories without any ATC, so you'd like to see even the friendly planes and helicopters too. Say at night over Iraq.

And even without radar - simple ADS-B receiver attached to notebook plotting onto the screen of the notebook would be a great improvement in that situation over DC or anywhere over US.

> IR cameras would be completely inappropriate for the situation ...recognise what that small dot is that you’re seeing.

in visual at night you have a sea of city lights with some low flying lights you can easily mistake for ground lights. In IR all those city lights would pretty much disappear, while the plane's engines and exhaust would be a very bright light against very dark background of the sky.

[bigiain]

>>The Black Hawk, like most aircraft, does not have an air-to-air radar.

>Pretty surprising for the military. You'd like to know when an enemy fighter or a missile coming for you.

I'd guess the answer to "when is an enemy missile heading towards me" would usually be "shortly after you turn on your radar transmitter and reveal your location"...

[trhway]

>turn on your radar transmitter and reveal your location".

That was in the past. Even if you don't turn your radar on, in IR cameras widespread today your engines are visible from tens of kilometers, and without your radar on the missile comes to you without you being aware of it.

[dumah]

Missile approach warning systems don’t need radar. Most use IR sensing and lasers.

Even in radar-based MAW systems, they are not multipurpose and do not detect aircraft by design.

[nradov]

Lack of air search radar on military utility transport helicopters is only surprising to aggressively ignorant people who can't be bothered to do a few minutes of basic research. Even some tactical jets that operate over hostile territory lack air search radar, although they do have other defensive systems.

[dumah]

The air-to-air radar is not necessarily peanuts compared to the helicopter. A recent sale of blackhawks to Greece was priced at 1.95B for 35 helos. A past sale of 36 Apache Longbow radars and support to Korea was priced at 3.6B.

A helo is a sitting duck for a fighter so what would it do anyways. AEW will tell the helicopter about a fighter and vector them to safety. An active military radar will only be lit when necessary.

I do agree that an iPad with flight radar should have been able to help avoid this incident, much less the engineered solution that is warranted in a combat aircraft.