FULL Press Conference: NTSB delivers updates to investigation of DCA plane crash
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- The National Transportation and Safety Board provide an update to the investigation of the DCA plane crash.
STAY CONNECTED AND STAY AHEAD WITH FOX 5 DC
Subscribe to FOX 5 DC on TH-cam » th-cam.com/users/ch...
Read the latest local and national news on fox5dc.com » fox5dc.com/
Watch FOX 5 DC programming live » fox5dc.com/live
Get your local forecast from the FOX 5 DC Weather team » www.fox5dc.com...
Learn how to follow us on social media, download our news and weather mobile apps, find us on your Smart TV and sign up for our daily newsletter » fox5dc.com/con...
Follow FOX 5 DC on Facebook » / fox5dc
Follow FOX 5 DC on Twitter » / fox5dc
Follow FOX 5 DC Instagram » / fox5dc
Vote in the daily FOX 5 DC InstaPoll » fox5dc.com/ins...
FOX 5 DC, WTTG-TV and FOX 5 PLUS, WDCA-TV are owned-and-operated TV stations of the Fox Broadcasting Company. We are located in Washington, D.C. and serves the entire Washington metropolitan area (including Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the Martinsburg, West Virginia area). Our studio is based in Bethesda, Maryland.
Seeing his emotion when speaking on spending time with the families is just even more gut wrenching 😭
I am watching this now for the second time but am now realizing why reporters continue to ask about clarification about the 200 feet prelim shown by the air traffic control screen. Mr Inman changed what he said…originally he said it was the airplane that was showing 200 feet to the ATC screen. He acknowledged to the other gentleman “sorry it was reverse,right?” The other gentleman corrected and said it was the Blackhawk helicopter showing the preliminary of 200 ft…they don’t know actual for sure because the tape is not yet dryer/readable.
I think it’s possible Mr Inman did initially say incorrectly that the airplane was showing 200 ft to the ATC. When all was said and done these 2 men basically said that tower preliminarily saw 200 feet for the Airlplane and the helecopter. I think Mr Inman had reversed it when he said airplane and thought we realized the correction when the other man specifically said they were speaking about the helicopter showing 200ft.
I understand him getting frustrated, that they continue to ask that about altitude question, but I myself was very confused with the way he presented the information. He said it wrong at first, and then even said to the other man it’s the reverse right?
I could be wrong, but am I the only one that thinks that maybe that ATC show of 200 feet was only to Blackhawk helicopter and not both????
IMO the CRJ flight data recorder (showing 325 feet +/-) is more reliable than ATC radar data (showing 200 feet for the chopper) at the time of the collision. The videos of the collision also suggest the collision was at 300 +/- feet. The main question lingers.....why did the chopper pilot ascend above the allowed ceiling in that airspace of 200 feet?
Thus far you seem to know more than any other commentary.
Clearly I haven’t a clue.
Thanks for sharing your information.
@@jillruben8924 Sure thing. There's a LOT of things I'm clueless about, but as a pilot, I follow these tragic accidents closely.
@ Being a Pilot I can believe what you’re saying. You know all the lingo. Thank you so much for responding.
@@jlvandat69 they seem to not want to answer in a way that places the Blackhawk above 200ft. I wonder if they'll admit it once the truth comes out.
@ I noticed that as well, but I think their avoidance of the chopper altitude question may be due to conflicting data at this point. The NTSB has an excellent reputation, so I'm sure they'll provide clarification once the data conflicts have been resolved.
You are not explaining the differing altitudes well enough. Thats why people have questions about it
Ya that guy is not the best public speaker. He made it way more complicated than it needed to be, he seemed nervous and out of sorts. He is emotional, I get it, but he has to be able to communicate clearly and clinically. The guy with glasses was much more clear and well spoken
Having only 5 people operating the entire airspace near DCA is insane.
profits over safety
And who knows the qualifications of any of them. Asking the crew of the helo whether they could see the AA plane was losing valuable time, that ATC person should have told the helo immediately to get out of the way as the crash was imminent. A firm decisive order.
The military, unfortunately is used as a weapon against the US citizen. Chemtrails, dew, area 51, black ops, 9/11 just to mention a few. Nefarious evil doer's have control of it. So why was the doomed plane from Kansas rerouted to runway 33 and what happened in Kansas history on another Jan 29. First it was declared a free state on January 29, 1861. Since both the Masons and Jesuits were deviously involved in the Civil War, were they celebrating or remembering something. Also who on that plane did they want gone? They do not concern themselves with collateral damage. Whatever data they collect, the videos, if not fake, show a quickly moving helo fast fixed on their target from aways off even descended somewhat to hit the plane broadside for maximum effect. Just food for thought.
Ignorance is bliss with you couch potato pilots.
Clearly, the NTSB and the FAA are at odds.
WE NEED THE INTERNET
The question again The question again The question again The question again is how is a helicopter at 200 ft altitude at the end of a runway acceptable under any circumstances
Since you have the same comprehension skills as the reporter; I'll say it AGAIN. The NTSB is currently trying to see what there is a -+ in the attitude. Meaning, shut it, and wait for the NTSB.
Repeating the same damn question 54 times doesn't suddenly make the variable just pop right out.
This is less than 48 into a crash. Meanwhile, almost ALL damn aircraft investigations can take upwards of 16 - 24 months to get a full report ready and released by the NTSB.
For now, the NTSB needs to just not have press conferences, until data is analyzed.
@@naturalselection1096 This should help your comprehension . How is a helicopter at 200 ft altitude at the end of a runway acceptable under ANY circumstances Ever . or any reason .
Why didn't he say what the ATC radar showed the CRJ to be at? He only mentions ATC Alt for PAT. He only gives the Alt of the flight recorder on the CRJ. When a reporter goes to ask, he cuts him off hard. Seems odd. .. and wraps up quickly, walks off.
He was already upset about recounting his time with the families, which I can only imagine the type of emotion that stirs up, then the stupid reporters keep asking the same freakin’ questions… heck I was getting annoyed with them and I’m not even there. He said multiple times the reading from the tower isn’t 100% realiable and they are waiting on more data to be brought out to know exactly what was happening… then the ding-bat reporters try to get an answer to a question he has said over and over they do not know yet. I would have done the same thing he did.
Because they are still trying to investigate the data they have gathered thus far and if they give out any more information/data that they haven’t yet confirmed to be accurate then the news media will use it to paint a false narrative to make it look like they have the facts to the entire story. When in reality nobody has the all important facts and data to prove who was in the wrong or who was in the right place.
@TheDieselmonkey11 I'm kinda thinking they want to compare what the CTR & Flight Boxes say
about both and compare to see if there are discrepancies or if they both correlate. Seems by what he said both aircraft were pretty much where they should have been as far as altitude, proximity- absolutely not. I worked in fire & rescue for 10+ years and that taught me everything is not always as it seems. MUST have ALL the facts to be sure of the answers. And, boy o boy does the media love to run with a half truth and spin it to meet their agenda.
Good to see someone else watching that wants ALL the facts!!
How can plus or minus 25ft be accurate data? Number 2 how is there a 100ft. discrepancy between the plane data and tower data? How can we be sure that the altitude gauges are working properly in the CRJ with a plus or minus corrected altitude? That should be an exact number.
THIS GUY DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING WHAT NTSB CURRENTLY KNOWS
18:26 Sound like they need to do more about make them black boxes water proof. Question, did the crj, descend from 3700 ft, to 325 ft, straight away to turn and go into runway 33 instead of runway 1, when the tower said they could, ? How else ask this question, my understanding is the collision happened, just after runway change?
Compare that to the press conference with Trump.....
From PPRuNe:
patrickal
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Regarding the collision of American Eagle JIA342 and Army Blackhawk PAT25, I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of both the FAA and the United States Army Aviation Branch. If the NTSB in any way blame the pilots in the incident, they are not doing their job. Let’s look at all of the holes in this swiss cheese:
1. In an effort to maximize commercial air traffic in and out of DCA, the FAA has created the “deviate to RWY 33 procedure” for air traffic in-bound to RWY 01. This requires a right-hand turn from the RWY 01 approach followed by an immediate hard left-hand turn to line up on RWY 33. FAA criteria for a stabilized approach states that you have to be stable at 500 feet AGL on final in VMC or perform an immediate go-around. But on this particular approach, you will be at or below 400 feet AGL as you come out of the left turn to final. So the FAA has granted an exception to the “stabilized requirements” at DCA to allow for this maneuver. This allows ATC to shorten the distance between arriving and departing aircraft that are utilizing conflicting RWYs. The FAA in essence violates its own safety standards on stabilized approaches for the sake of expediency.
2. The FAA creates the Route 1/4 helicopter route through the DCA airspace as a VFR route with constantly changing altitude requirements. The lowest limit is at 200 ft MSL through the area east of DCA. Any pilot will tell you that flying that low over water at night is a best a tense experience. Try not to break that limit flying at night while also trying to communicate with ATC and simultaneously searching for possible conflicting aircraft.
3. The United States Army Aviation Branch deems it acceptable to allow training missions for Army Reserve pilots with limited flying experience to fly these helicopter routes through this complex and extremely active airspace. Compounding this, training flights at night using night-vision goggles are deemed “safe” in spite of the fact that using said goggles severely limits peripheral vision and makes it difficult if not impossible to perceive any color other than green and white. Picking out particular lights against the background of urban lighting is challenging, as is depth perception. Scanning key cockpit instruments is also made more difficult, making it challenging to accurately maintain altitude. Add to that workload the need to be in constant communication with ATC as well as monitoring all other comms traffic not directed to you but necessary in order to maintain good situational awareness. Given the density of commercial air traffic on this route, common sense would dictate that this route be flown by only the most experienced pilots and only when absolutely necessary. Reasonable logic would understand that conducting training missions should not be using final approach areas with heavy commercial traffic.
4. The Army crew on PAT25 are flying a mission they have been ordered to fly, at night and using night vision goggles. Although they may feel it is difficult and may be anxious about it, their command structure has determined that it is an appropriate training procedure and as such must meet minimum safety requirements. They do not have the authority to question the mission or the orders to fly it.
5. JIA342 is on approach for RWY 01, but is asked at the last minute by ATC to deviate to RWY 33, requiring the “circle to land” maneuver. Therefore, they are now on approach different from what they briefed for.
6. Any aircraft following the “circle to land” approach to RWY 33 will most likely have both pilots focused on RWY 33 as they come out of the left turn to final, especially if it was a last-minute request by ATC. In this case they will be looking to make sure that AA1630, which has just been given clearance to depart from RWY 01, is clear of the intersection with RWY 33 as they complete their final approach, and be ready for a go-around if it is not. In addition, this left bank makes it extremely difficult for the first officer to see any conflicting traffic coming towards them from the 1 to 2 o’clock position, as that traffic will probably be below the right window level. For the pilot, who is on the left side of the cockpit, visibility of such conflicting traffic will be nearly impossible.
7. For whatever reason, ATC is working with “split frequencies while controlling this airspace, so that although the controller hears both the aircraft on approach and the helo traffic south-bound on “Route 1”, the pilots of those respective aircraft only hear information directed at them. Thus they are not aware of all that is going on around them, and as such their situational awareness is limited by factors outside of their control.
8. ATC informs PAT25 of the conflicting aircraft on approach for RWY 33 at 1200 feet MSL, but at the time, PAT25 is heading almost due east towards the Jefferson Memorial on Helo Route 4 while JIA342 (the CRJ) is executing its right turn departing from the RWY 01 approach and is now heading in a northeast direction as it prepares to make a hard left onto the RWY 33 short final approach. From their respective positions, PAT25 in all likelihood sees the landing lights of AA3130 which is trailing JIA342 and whose landing lights are pointed almost directly in his direction, and mistakenly identifies it as the aircraft approaching RWY 33. At no time does it appear that ATC notifies JIA342 of the conflicting helo traffic. They are most likely focused on their approach to RWY 33, which was just handed to them.
9. As JIA342 rolls out of its left hand turn to final on RWY 33, completing the deviation they were just handed and had not briefed for, it is now approaching the 9-11 o’clock position of PAT25. Since the pilot of PAT25 is on the right-hand side of the Blackhawk, visibility of the CRJ may be limited. Both pilots of PAT25 are now most likely visibly fixated on passing to the rear of AA3130, which is in their 1-3 O’clock position, and which is the conflicting aircraft they perceive as the one ATC initially warned them about.
10. ATC, now receiving a conflicting aircraft warning, asks PAT25 if they have JIA342 in sight. In the absence of any obvious difference from the first mid-identification of the conflicting traffic, confirmation bias raises its ugly head. The voice response from the training pilot is calm and confident in stating that they do have it in sight and claim visual separation, probably proving once again that he mistakenly has AA3130 in sight slightly to his right directly in front of him and more than a mile away. Both pilots are totally unaware of JIA342 which is now arriving in front of them from their left.
11. The collision occurs.
In my humble opinion, the crews of both aircraft involved were set up by both the FAA and the Army Department of Aviation through a series of poorly based decisions which focused on expediency and departed from any appropriate utilization of a rational use of risk assessment. Consider the following:
1. Approval of the circling to RWY 33 maneuver which violates normal stabilized approach standards.
2. The establishment of a series of complex VFR helicopter track complex and heavily restricted air space as well as through final approach paths.
3. A 200 foot maximum altitude requirement over water and required even at night, which may result in a less than 200 foot vertical separation between aircraft on approach to RWY 33 and those traveling on Helo Route 1/4.
4. The decision to conduct military training missions in this complex and busy airspace with an abundance of commercial passenger traffic either arriving to or departing from DCA.
5. The use of split frequencies by the FAA which negatively impacts the situational awareness of all of the pilots in the airspace.
6. The use of night vision goggles to place even more limitations on the pilots.
Granted, all pilots involved may not have had the thousands of hours senior commercial and military pilot possess. But even the most senior individuals when placed in the task saturated environments these two crews faced would have at the very least felt their “pucker factor” increase through this. And there is probably an equal chance that the lack of common sense and appropriate safety design exhibited by the controlling entities would have resulted in a similar outcome. The odds were significantly stacked against these two flight crews, and unfortunately, against the passengers and flight attendants as well. If ever there were an example of an accident waiting to happen, this is it.
@@guyshirra824 thank you for your information, it was very helpful for a layman!
The big question to me is, Why in the world is the military doing a drill so close to a busy commercial airport. it seams to me they should be doing the drills in airspace that has little or no air traffic
That means when they have to operate in busy air traffic they have no experience. They have to practice in real scenarios. They do that all the time. But this time something wrnt wrong. We gotta find out why.
@DanielHoerle-ww9so that was a special training flight to practice for flying top govt officials out of DC in case of an attack etc so they had to train in real world scenarios, night time etc
Reporter's silly repetitive questions do not glean any more information, but would try the patience of God. I am glad that man walked away from them.
It does seem like the Blackhawk may flew too high or controller gauge may or may not cause the faulty gauge or gauges. Just curious if there is a video of footage to show what controllers were doing before, during and after the accident and in of the Blackhawk cockpit.
omg this guy 29:50 this guy is terrible outof control... bad rep for NTSB ... get a grip... can't handle whatsoever any kind of new conf press brief.. esp in such severe tragic tense event as this one. he gotta step aside or find a new job.
terrible awful There are or were in past incredible super great NTSB investigators ex Greg Feith
superb role model for all NTSB plus others
this guy out of his element clearly.
You might be a good investogator but you are not good at delivering clear and cogent information
these guys are INCREDIBLY professional. Top notch. Nice to see.
They really need a professional spokesperson and not an investigator to deliver information. They are too technical and need to speak in common English, not acronyms and initials.
I am leaning towards the air traffic controller tower being partly responsible for the crash. I just pick those vibes up from the large NTSB man speaking. I think being on two different frequencies and talking to the jet and helicopter simultaneously got the best of ATC. The final report will list the things he could have done better or differently.
You clearly didn’t listen to anything he said in this news conference
@@davidmathewson1088 but he was doing what he was told to do. Why was he allowed to do the job of 2 people? Why did the other person leave early?
increasing altitude while angling directly out into the river directly into a passenger jet is inexcusable.
Excuse me...but NO WHERE in this news conference did they say the Helicopter increased its altitude! He DID say that at the last second or so the PLANE tried to pull up.
I have no confidence in this guy
Nobody cares about your opinion.
@@TheDieselmonkey11...I like you!! 😉 WELL SAID!!
Im sure he's a nice guy, but sadly I kind of got the same vibe. Hopefully I'm wrong.
They sounded like they were scared in laying out the data. Seems that their own data is not credible at all
"We will attempt." Doesn't even move the needle, bud. That shit talk is unacceptable.