There's a lot going on in a small area there. Even without helicopters, the main runway (01/19) is the busiest runway in the nation, and it points directly at a no-fly zone over the white house, so the approach has a complicated turn at the last moment. Directly across the river, there's a military base with a heliport. And those helicopters often transport important individuals inside of those areas and to areas up and down the river. Those helicopters aren't just casually flying through, they are doing things in the immediate area.
Just as an example, look at a map and take note of where DCA is, where the Marine One hangar is, and where the White House is. All of this stuff is right around the airport.
Doesn't fully explain why the military flight path runs right on front of the landing pattern for the main runway. Even with the proximity to each other, i don't see how that was necessary
This accident didn't involve the main runway, but runway 33. Although -- look at a map -- runway 33 points across the river to a military base with a heliport. It seems obvious as to why military helicopters would have to be there.
Now, this particular flight wasn't landing there, but I don't think it is in any way confusing as to why military helicopters are in this area or taking these routes.
This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.
> This is inherently very complicated and high volume airspace, and there is a lot of helicopters because there are important leaders who use military helicopter transport, not commercial airports, but many of the places they might be landing are all around DCA.
Three are occasional news articles and sci-fi worlds advocating for flying cars to replace normal cars. I imagine that would actually be like this situation but a gazillion times worse, rather than the promised elimination of traffic jams.
Actually, its a great way to eliminate traffic jams. The vehicles involved in the collision will naturally exit the roadway. So long as the flame and smoke don't obscure visibility, traffic will unjam itself.
My question would be “why not close down Reagan?” especially now that the DC Metro runs to Dulles. Yes, yes, Congress likes to fly into Reagan. Too bad.
Not only does Reagan have the same design problem as LGA and SFO (built before jetliners, runways too short), it’s incredibly close to restricted airspace. No civilian needs to fly into an airport that close to DC.
The area has enough traffic to support three airports, and all three (DCA/IAD/BWI) carry between 26-27 million passengers a year, each. I don't think you could close one of them without some significant disruption to service.
Travel in/out of IAD from DC can take an hour, which is obviously why people there prefer DCA. And the flights there are all short-haul anyway, so many are the types of flights people are doing on short turnarounds.
There are a handful of exceptions (of which SLC is one), but broadly the airport is legally limited to destinations within a 1250 mile perimeter to keep long haul traffic at IAD/BWI.
A compromise could be to close it for arrivals during certain hours, opening up one entire side of airspace (depending on the wind).
The pain could be mitigated somewhat by adding seating areas and more aircraft parking while using larger planes. For instance, fewer flights total, consisting of 737s and a320s and eliminating flights that previously used shorter commuter sized aircraft.
I don't think IAD has the capacity to absorb the DCA traffic, at least not on a regular basis. Even if you include BWA I have my doubts that you wouldn't have to cut a bunch of flights due to gate or runway limitations.
They’re not necessarily elected, nor American, but anyone who is important enough to be traveling by PAT is probably important enough to travel by motorcade when using surface streets.
the military gets what it wants in DC, and the pilots were too comfortable and on different radio systems (helo can’t hear airplanes and vice versa, air traffic control is their intermediary)
A disaster waiting to happen in retrospect. Similar issues at other airports like runway incursions, especially at crowded small airports like SFO and LaGuardia with antiquated runway layouts.
Let's wait for the investigation to complete before we opine on what is or isn't a "disaster waiting to happen." The entire aviation system is a "disaster waiting to happen" unless you assume a baseline level of aircrew competence, and the question will be whether or not the aircrew fell victim to a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, or whether they just screwed up.
Sad to say, as a former aviator, I have seen it before where people died and families lost loved ones ultimately because of a systematic risk inherent in what they were doing, but also other times because someone flat-out just screwed up.
data recently analyzed by the board revealed that National Airport was the site of at least one near collision between an airplane and a helicopter each month from 2011 to 2024
I would say that statistic in and of itself qualifies as a "disaster waiting to happen". I agree that we should wait for the full report, but I don't think the GP is using hyperbole in this case.
One near collision every month (minimum) for 13 years? How is that a disaster waiting to happen, as much as it is a case of wilful criminal negligence? How many near collisions are needed for the authorities recognize that it's an unacceptable risk? How did they let this happen?
One of the biggest challenges for the FAA et al. is preventing both individuals and organizations from developing this kind of complacency, where something extremely dangerous becomes "just how we do it here, and it's fine".
Unfortunately, they don't always succeed. Every crash is a lesson learned too late. We endeavor to learn earlier than that, and when we don't, we make sure we learn in the aftermath.
That line really stood out to me. One would hope that someone would realize this was a disaster waiting to happen and make changes before it actually happened.
Relying on seeing another aircraft in the air at night is pretty much a disaster waiting to happen.
You don't see aircraft at night, you see lights. And they're over a city--a gazillion lights. Thus all you really see are moving lights. But if two objects are on a steady collision path neither moves relative to the other. Thus both sets of pilots would simply have seen stationary lights, invisible against a sea of stationary lights.
Training to evac politicians from what I understand. From wikipedia:
> "The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor."
Continuity of Government Plans is what they do when nukes get launched or a 9/11 sort of thing happens.
Not sure what the next best option here is. There was a thought experiment once where it would require the president to kill the key holder in order to launch a nuclear attack (the launch codes would be embedded in the designated key holder's heart). In theory this would make sure the president knew the seriousness of his or her actions, but it was never seriously considered as a protocol.
The chain of command is designed to be resilient enough to do so without having to bail the VIPs out of the frying pan they landed themselves and the rest of the world in.
They need to have as much skin in the game as everyone else.
In the case of a nuclear attack, most of the nuclear “chain of command” would be targeted and, realistically, many would not survive. The continuity of government plan for a nuclear attack isn’t designed to get all the influential muckety mucks out of the frying pan, it is to attempt to get the bare minimum of decision makers to secure facilities like Site-R or onto Doomsday Planes so they can wage an all-out nuclear retaliatory war. Very very few people would make it out of DC, and even getting anyone Sec Def or above out would be a very close thing.
The point is that for deterrence to work, it has to be credible. If Russia thought it could “kill” the US government so that no one would be able to effectively order a counterattack (either because they are dead or because they can’t communicate orders to actual nuclear forces), would they do it?
Penn & Teller's book 'Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends' included a short story whose premise was a test to see if the president would be more likely to start a nuclear war if a safe bunker was available.
The helicopter did not cross the airport. The helicopter crossed the approach path to the airport, it was supposed to stay low enough not to be in the approach path. Then the pilot steered around the wrong plane and blundered right into the plane that they were supposed to be avoiding.
Ironically it would probably be safer if the helicopter crossed directly over the airport. At least then airplanes are usually on the ground, except for the cases where someone has to abort a landing and go around. Still dangerous, but it should happen less often.
It's "safer" not to do a lot of things you do in military aviation, for one. And second, the flight path was deliberately plotted out requiring aircrew to maintain certain altitudes and stay within certain lateral boundaries to avoid other traffic. This is no different than any number of corridors like it around the country.
At some point, it's like saying "isn't it 'safer' not to take the freeway because everyone drives so fast?"
The article claims the helicopter was higher than it should have been, but isn't it safer to fly high across the airport if you're crossing?