AA5342 Down DCA

[ATC Watcher]

​​QUOTE=sunnySA;12030070]FWIW, I don't understand why NTSB didn't recommend re-transmit.

Current Voice Switching Systems allow multiple frequencies and provide re-transmit options, and as such provide instantaneous splitting of frequencies to separate control positions.

Shows the age of the hardware used in FAA . But using the current method is also a choice ,
The standard way to couple frequencies in ATC is what was avail in DC , you can transmit on both, listen to both simultaneously but not retransmitting on both . potentially reducing eventual blocked transmissions , or at least improves the detection of blocked transmissions .
in ATC , VHF anti blocking systems are being discussed since Tenerife ( 1977) , CONTRAN was the first one , tested but never really implanted , ,later some copies were made , introduced here and there but with a switch to disable, when traffic got too high ,. not sure what the situation is today but I doubt it changed much. ( waiting to be contradicted)
,
In the air , most new 8,33 VHFs have a "dual" function , where you can listen to 2 frequency simultaneously , but when the master is receiving , the slave is blocked out , some have a replay function but useless in flight , especially when flying manual VFR at 200 ft .. I doubt this would have made any difference in this case . Plus it would not solve UHF/VHF ground coupling issue.

[JohnDixson]

This was supposed to be a checkride including Night vision Goggle usage and a bunch of submittals regarding the use and accuracy of the bardo metric altimeter system, and not much, if anything regarding the radar altimeter system accuracy.
The UH-60 Maintenance Test Flight Manual includes a barometric altimeter accuracy check, which is accomplished by calling the tower for the local altimeter setting, set the altimeter accordingly and comparing the altimeter readout to the elevation of that heliport/airport. THE ACCEPTED MAXIMUM ERROR IS 70 FEET. So, the baro altimeter readout can be 70 ft off and you are OK to fly: VFR or IFR.

The radar altimeter ( APN-171 or later APN-209 ) accuracy is similar at +/- 3 ft then 3% of indicated altitude, so, for the H-4 Route Maximum altitude of 200 ft. The Rad Alt could be as much as 9 ft off.

The NVGs do show Rad Alt.

Haven’t seen any submittal indicating the Rad Alt was inoperative or unusable.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

This was supposed to be a checkride including Night vision Goggle usage and a bunch of submittals regarding the use and accuracy of the bardo metric altimeter system, and not much, if anything regarding the radar altimeter system accuracy.
The UH-60 Maintenance Test Flight Manual includes a barometric altimeter accuracy check, which is accomplished by calling the tower for the local altimeter setting, set the altimeter accordingly and comparing the altimeter readout to the elevation of that heliport/airport. THE ACCEPTED MAXIMUM ERROR IS 70 FEET. So, the baro altimeter readout can be 70 ft off and you are OK to fly: VFR or IFR.

The radar altimeter ( APN-171 or later APN-209 ) accuracy is similar at +/- 3 ft then 3% of indicated altitude, so, for the H-4 Route Maximum altitude of 200 ft. The Rad Alt could be as much as 9 ft off.

The NVGs do show Rad Alt.

Haven’t seen any submittal indicating the Rad Alt was inoperative or unusable.

None of the references to NVGs in the hearing made mention of a HUD capability.

The Helicopter Operations presentation included a slide stating that pilots are "Trained to use barometric altimeter to navigate helicopter route ceilings".

[BFSGrad]

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

The radar altimeter ( APN-171 or later APN-209 ) accuracy is similar at +/- 3 ft then 3% of indicated altitude, so, for the H-4 Route Maximum altitude of 200 ft. The Rad Alt could be as much as 9 ft off. The NVGs do show Rad Alt. Haven’t seen any submittal indicating the Rad Alt was inoperative or unusable.

Extensive discussion in the interview transcripts about why all of the DC area helicopter pilots (medical, LEO, military) use baro rather than radar altitude when flying the DC helicopter routes.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Legislation in U.S. House of Reps. pending .....

Waiting to see what becomes of the controversial Section 373 in the recent NDAA.
_________________________
Joint Statement of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and House Armed Services Committee Bipartisan Leaders on NTSB’s Recommendations to Address DCA Crash
For Immediate Release: February 06, 2026
[Committee contacts omitted]

Washington, DC – The bipartisan leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Armed Services Committee today issued a joint statement regarding the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) recently approved recommendations to address the January 29, 2025, midair collision at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
Joint statement from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-WA), House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL), and House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA):

“Now that we have received the approved recommendations and probable cause from the NTSB on the tragic DCA midair collision that claimed 67 lives, and with the NTSB’s final report expected in a matter of days, we are working on a comprehensive legislative solution to address what we’ve learned. It is our firm belief that meaningful improvements to the safety of our airspace require the full and fair consideration of all of the NTSB’s recommendations. We are continuing to evaluate the information and analysis gathered and put forward by the NTSB, and we will work together expeditiously on legislation to ensure a crash like this can never happen again.”

[ATC Watcher]

Whow! Legislation to force the FAA and the US military to fully implement NTSB recommendations ? That will be a first since the grand Canyon collision in 1956 if it really materialize.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Whow! Legislation to force the FAA and the US military to fully implement NTSB recommendations ?

I think not.

[Someone Somewhere]

"Full and fair consideration" = you need to make more 'hmm' sounds and look properly concerned before rejecting the recommendations, rather than simply rejecting them out of hand.

/s I hope.

[Musician]

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

Joint statement from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-WA),

These are the guys responsible for stalling the ROTOR act that the Senate passed with bipartisan support last year.

https://www.politico.com/live-update...-bill-00764270

But Transportation Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) has objected to the bill, saying he wants big changes to it.

In a series of recent interviews, Graves has cited concerns over impacts to general aviation, the small-scale flights that range from recreational trips on single-engine planes to crop dusting.

On Tuesday, the top Democrat on the House transportation panel, Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington, said in an interview he was mulling two options: either adjusting the ROTOR Act or crafting new legislation after the National Transportation Safety Board last week issued 50 recommendations related to the catastrophe, which killed 67 people.

.
The journalists asked Homendy about it on the day of the board meeting, and she diplomatically said she'd been busy with the DCA midair documents since the board meeting and final report were coming up, but she also reiterated she wants ADS-B IN on every aircraft, so...

The NTSB has the enviable role of being able to champion safety absent any other consideration. The FAA and politics in general need to balance that with economic, business and other interests, so the outcomes are pretty much guaranteed to be compromises falling short of what we would want.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Musician

The NTSB has the enviable role of being able to champion safety absent any other consideration. The FAA and politics in general need to balance that with economic, business and other interests, so the outcomes are pretty much guaranteed to be compromises falling short of what we would want.

Yes, it's hard to see how it could work any other way - but it does of course mean that a proportion of NTSB Safety Recommendations will ultimately not be adopted on cost or other grounds.

For example, the FAA are now going to make 25-hour CVRs mandatory on all new-build airliners, as recommended (a while back) by the NTSB, but an accompanying SR that they should also be retrofitted to all airliners currently flying was rejected, not unreasonably, by the FAA.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I think not.

When I first heard of concept " Safety firts, but at affordable price"- I was young and naive.

Unfortunately concept expanded over years into :
Not only safety first but at affordable price including our ( ruler cast) own financial interests as well.

It means - we will only invest into safety when we buy products from our close companies ( we keep shares, enjoy dividends etc) or our brother is vendor to such company, or bank transactiom ( especially loan for safety improvmens) is done by our relative who is paid comision for selling credits at higher rates ( because we have to invest in safety- in order to save lives. &#128121 etc..

Things that should be done- are contrary to our political and economic interests.

That is why it wont be changes in this case.

[Equivocal]

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

When I first heard of concept " Safety firts, but at affordable price"- I was young and naive.

Safety should always be the first consideration but the concept of safety being the highest priority is not realistic. People who still champion the 'safety has the highest priority' policy have missed a key element of safety management. What all the safety management system rules should achieve is a minimum acceptable level of safety - once that has been done, make money, buy from your brother/sister, have fun. Sadly, this often appears to be misunderstood or overlooked.

Some of the NTSB's recommendations centre on making the task of investigating future accidents easier rather than improving flight safety directly - not a bad idea - but not so easy to evaluate or justify.

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Originally Posted by Equivocal

Safety should always be the first consideration but the concept of safety being the highest priority is not realistic. People who still champion the 'safety has the highest priority' policy have missed a key element of safety management. What all the safety management system rules should achieve is a minimum acceptable level of safety - once that has been done, make money, buy from your brother/sister, have fun. Sadly, this often appears to be misunderstood or overlooked.

Some of the NTSB's recommendations centre on making the task of investigating future accidents easier rather than improving flight safety directly - not a bad idea - but not so easy to evaluate or justify.

It is always pleasure to read your wise words. Precise and balanced approach. 👍

I forgot to write: Today, I am neither young nor so naive....
So, they read your words but with reverse order: buy from brother/ sister- make money- safety...

I.e. I would like to say they will not buy/do what is essential and minimum neccessary for safety but shoping with best" economic" view.
it is always higher 10 % of1million rather than 10% of 10 000.

😇

[WillowRun 6-3]

Wall Street Journal article re: advocacy of parents of 5342 FO

The Wall Street Journal has published an intensely relevant piece reporting on the advocacy efforts - and the grief, and the resilience - of Tim and Sheri Lilley, the parents of Sam Lilley, the F/O of Bluestreak 5342.

Here is the headline and subheading:
"A Pilot’s Parents Work to Clear His Name After the Deadliest Crash in Decades
An American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter collided a year ago over the Potomac, creating unlikely friendships and advocates."
by-line, Christoper Kuo (Feb. 13, 2026 8:00 p.m. ET)

In several of the perhaps too-many posts (including a recent rant) I have written onto this thread, I have repeatedly made the point, or asked the question, who speaks for the pilots of Bluestreak 5342? Despite the WSJ reporting focusing on just the RHS pilot on the fateful night of 29 January 2025, I believe we now know that indeed, those blameless aviators indeed have a voice. In the safety ecosystem aftermath on Capitol Hill and before the eminences of the NTSB. And in the courtroom, I hope. Because although I have met a goodly number of very fine "aircraft crash litigation attorneys" on both sides of the adversarial barrier, I'm not recalling any whose advocacy resonates with such resolve as shown by these two grieving but determined parents. (No offense to the Gucci loafers or Clarence Darrow vests.)

If you've posted on this thread, or if you have just read it from time to time (or entirely) - go read about the parents of Bluestreak 5342's F/O, Tim and Sheri Lilley, please.
WillowRun 6-3

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

The Wall Street Journal has published an intensely relevant piece reporting on the advocacy efforts - and the grief, and the resilience - of Tim and Sheri Lilley, the parents of Sam Lilley, the F/O of Bluestreak 5342.
WillowRun 6-3

Thanks for posting this WR 6-3 , very moving text . One thing we aviation professionals do not always fully understand is how deep the emotions are by the grieving families after an accident . It runs strong for years , decades after the event , children and even grand chidden of victims are still maintaining alive the emotions 50, even 60 years after an accident . They never forget and nearly always cannot understand why we discuss this in theory, legal and technical terms that, in their views, is meant to be protecting or at best excusing the real culprits for the death of their loved ones.
I have unfortunately witnessed this almost all the time in the accidents I surveyed.

On the legal front , only in my home country, France , it always has been a disaster for the families , from the 1968 AF Caravelle shot down , the 1973 Iberia mid air collision in Nantes, the 1986 UTA DC10 bombing , the Concorde, or AF447 , every single time , it took well over 10 years to get a trial and every time the judgement was absolving , what the families saw as the real culprits, and the wounds are still open for them , decades later

Justice in the US is much faster , but I am not convinced the result will be better for the families. I hope for them I am wrong . Keep us posted WR 6-3.
.

[Bergerie1]

I agree. We don't acknowledege enough the grief of all the relatives and friends of the victims of an air accident. I lived very near the mother and father of Simon Ticehurst and saw at first hand what they went through after the Staines Trident accident. This was a particularly difficult event because of the acrinomy afterwards. We need to understand the waves of grief that spread out, often to many hundreds of people, after such an event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...ays_Flight_548

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3

"A Pilot’s Parents Work to Clear His Name After the Deadliest Crash in Decades

I'd have to say that my already low opinion of lawyers (present company excepted, obviously!) took a further hit when I read that they were preparing a case against PSA.

[paulross]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Thanks for posting this WR 6-3 , very moving text . One thing we aviation professionals do not always fully understand is how deep the emotions are by the grieving families after an accident . It runs strong for years , decades after the event , children and even grand chidden of victims are still maintaining alive the emotions 50, even 60 years after an accident . They never forget and nearly always cannot understand why we discuss this in theory, legal and technical terms that, in their views, is meant to be protecting or at best excusing the real culprits for the death of their loved ones.
I have unfortunately witnessed this almost all the time in the accidents I surveyed.

On the legal front , only in my home country, France , it always has been a disaster for the families , from the 1968 AF Caravelle shot down , the 1973 Iberia mid air collision in Nantes, the 1986 UTA DC10 bombing , the Concorde, or AF447 , every single time , it took well over 10 years to get a trial and every time the judgement was absolving , what the families saw as the real culprits, and the wounds are still open for them , decades later

Justice in the US is much faster , but I am not convinced the result will be better for the families. I hope for them I am wrong . Keep us posted WR 6-3.
.

I have some small insight into the grief of families in these situations.

One of my best school friends was on UTA 772 that was bombed over Niger in 1989, he was 36. We had learnt to fly together, I saw his first solo and he saw mine. We both worked in Africa in the 1980s but for different companies.

I knew his family well and I spent a fair bit of time with them after the accident and here are a few things I learnt:

Firstly, immediately after an accident the friends and relatives are desperate for information, first the What, then the Why. They will look anywhere and everywhere for this information. In this modern world this might well lead them here. When I post on this forum I am always conscious that some of the bereaved are most likely reading. If that is you then I hold you in the light. Getting clear, accurate, timely information to them can be a great comfort. Not everyone can comprehend an accident report or some technical aviation detail but they can if it is explained in a language they can understand so good posts on pprune can help. Consider it a service.

The second lesson for me was dealing with grief. I have been involved in several fatal (non-aviation) accidents and with the families of the victims. As an engineer by training I was taught, reinforced later by experience, that an objective approach is most likely to get to understand the cause and prevention of an accident. However that objective, dispassionate, disinterested approach completely ignores the very powerful emotions that can consume the surviving victims. It is all too easy use the objective facts as some kind of shield for yourself. I think that some recognition that grief can be a great help to the bereaved. The spectrum of grief is enormous and no two people deal with it in the same way.

Motivation: In my experience (and this seems to be the case with Tim and Sheri Lilley) is that some bereaved often have a powerful motivation to prevent this happening again. These people can help you advance your cause if you feel the same way.

A final lesson, and apologies to any lawyers here, is that most legal systems utterly fail to serve the victims or their bereaved. They are glacially slow, bureaucratic, wildly expensive, and polluted with politics. They usually serve the powerful at the expense of the weak (in the UK the NHS is the poster child for this). UTA 772 was one and there are many other aviation ones as ATC Watcher mentions. More examples would be Hillsborough, Grenfell Tower, Pan Am 103, Deepwater Horizon, and Piper Alpha, the list goes on and on.

There is a postscript to my story of UTA 772. My friend's body was never identified so it was nearly seven years later that his affairs could be settled. We then held a memorial service at our flying club (he had left some money in his will to the club). After the memorial his mother reached into her bag and handed me a camera. Apparently the French military would regularly visit the UTA 772 crash site where the shifting sands would often reveal new wreckage. They found some of his belongings, including this camera. Here is what it looked like having survived the bomb, falling from 35,000 feet and spending several years in the desert:




It was pretty beaten up but I could tell it had a film in it. With a specialist photo laboratory in London and help from Kodak's technical department we carefully processed the film. The negatives were pretty thin but there were definitely half a dozen images there. As the lab said "once we heard the story all of our printers wanted to have a go at getting some prints from this."

I remember the joy on his mothers face when she leafed through the prints and right near the end was a picture of her son. It must have been taken a few days before the crash and was certainly the last image of him alive.
Personally, I hate the word 'closure' in these situations as it implies that the grief ends at some point. It never does, all you can hope for is that day by day one manages it a little better. I think that photograph helped his mother to do this, if only a little.

Others weren't so lucky; her other son became obsessed with finding out what had happened to UTA 772, also with Pan Am 103 which had some obvious similarities. That obsession gradually descended into mania.

[BFSGrad]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I'd have to say that my already low opinion of lawyers (present company excepted, obviously!) took a further hit when I read that they were preparing a case against PSA.

Isn’t the lawsuit mentioned in the WSJ article the same lawsuit announced back on 9/24/25 (see post #1666)?

Without willing plaintiffs, there is no lawsuit.

[ATC Watcher]

paulross , when you say :

Firstly, immediately after an accident the friends and relatives are desperate for information, first the What, then the Why. They will look anywhere and everywhere for this information. In this modern world this might well lead them here. When I post on this forum I am always conscious that some of the bereaved are most likely reading. If that is you then I hold you in the light.

This is a very important sentence . Explaining , yes but not passing judgement and not to who you think is to blame . I always try to refrain myself and some other posters here to pass judgement before all facts are known just because of this .

I was sadly involved in the aftermath of the Uebrlingen collision , and I am still to this day so upset at this ignorant Swiss journalist that printed the nationality, name of the controller on duty and the village where he lived at a time where only wild speculations were around as to what really happened, and that directly led to his murder by the father of one of the victims, in his home in front of his wife and 2 small children. Designating who to blame hours after an accident seem to be the norm on social media today , but at least , here on PPRuNe , let's try to be professionals and not doing that .
Thanks for posting your story Paulross.