367 Learjet X-AUCI Philadelphia Crash and Reagan MidAir Update + GA News
55:48 Share

This past week has been one of the worst weeks for aviation in recent memory. We've had the mid-air collision between a U.S. Army Black Hawk and a regional jet, and a Learjet crash shortly after takeoff in Philadelphia. Today I'll be giving you updates on those crashes, including audio we haven't heard before from the U.S. Army Helicopter.

And I do have good news to share as well, including our first ever giveaway to listeners. And it's a good one that you'll want. So stick around to hear about that during my updates after the news. Hello again and welcome to Aviation News Talk, where we talk general aviation. My name is Max Trescott. I've been flying for 50 years. I'm the author of several books and the 2008 National Flight Instructor of the Year. And my mission is to help you become the safest possible pilot.

Last week in episode 366, I gave an early analysis of the midair collision at Reagan National Airport and talked about some of the many factors involved. So if you didn't hear that episode, you may want to check it out at aviationnewstalk.com slash 366. And if you've just found our show for the first time, welcome. Glad to have you here. Now, in whatever app that you're using, touch either the subscribe key or if you're using the Apple podcast app or Spotify, the follow key so that next week's episode is downloaded for free.

And this is, of course, a listener-supported show supported by, yes, people like you. So if you've been listening for a while and you enjoy this show and you thought, yeah, I'd like to support this show, go ahead and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Why don't you go ahead and take a moment right now, stop what you're doing, and go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash support and sign up to support the show via either PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, or Patreon. And when you do, I'll read your name on the show. Coming up in the news for the week of February 3rd, 2025, a man that crashed a drone into a firefighting aircraft pleads guilty, and a second drone pilot is charged with a rather unusual crime.

And one company may be setting a record for the number of remote towers they manage. All this and more in The News Starts Now.

From TheRegister.com, a Culver City, California resident has admitted to crashing his drone into a super scooper firefighting aircraft battling the LA wildfires. The drone pilot pleaded guilty to one count of unsafe operation of an unmanned aircraft, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year behind bars. In exchange for pleading guilty, he's been ordered to complete 150 hours of community service in support of wildfire relief.

and paid full restitution to the government of Quebec and the aircraft repair company for the damage caused. On January 9th, he piloted a DJI drone that collided with a CL-415 Super Scooper, creating a 3x6 inch hole in its left wing and grounding the aircraft until repairs were completed. The CL-415 can carry up to 1,600 gallons of water and is considered to be one of the most effective wildfire fighting tools.

Canada's government has been sending two of the craft to California annually during wildfire season to help battle the state's blazes. According to the Department of Justice, repairs to the craft cost at least $65,000, not to mention the lost flight time that could have helped slow the spread of fires. The pilot reportedly launched his drone from a parking structure near the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica on the day of the incident with the intent to observe damage caused by the fire.

In the process, he allowed the drone to fly more than a mile and a half away from him, losing sight of it before it collided with the aircraft. The airspace where he was flying was under FAA flight restrictions at the time.

FBI LA Assistant Director Akhil Davis described the act as, quote, lack of common sense and ignorance of his duty as a drone pilot. But the pilot isn't some random drone hobbyist. Not only is he the founder of game developer Treyarch, which was acquired by Activision and became one of the studios behind the Call of Duty franchise, but he's also the president of Skydance Interactive, which develops VR apps and video games. Oh, and

And by the way, he holds a Ph.D. in math from UC Berkeley.

And if you think bad drone behavior only occurs in America, this story comes from Sweden. From Dayton247now.com, a man faces a nearly $3,000 fine for operating an aircraft while intoxicated. The aircraft in question, a drone. A 55-year-old man faces a fine for an incident that occurred in July 2024 in which he was caught flying a drone in a temporary no-fly zone constructed around a classic car show.

Officers tracked down the owner after spotting it in the sky, and the man reportedly admitted to flying it. The man's blood alcohol content was found to be 0.069, over the legal limit in Sweden of 0.02%.

It's reported that the incident is the first example of someone being prosecuted for flying drunk driving a drone. District Court President Karin Helmont said that the prosecution used the same skill they would use for drunk driving in a car to determine the punishment. "It's an aircraft, even though it's flown by itself, it's controlled by someone down on the ground." The man, who later claimed he was not the one flying the drone, was sentenced to a daily fine of around $36 for 80 days for

for a total of $3,000. From avweb.com, unlatched door suspected in RV10 fatal accident. The NTSB preliminary report of the January 2nd crash of a Vans RV10 in Fullerton, California, confirms earlier reports that multiple witnesses observed the pilot's side clamshell door swinging open on takeoff.

The report further reveals that Vans sent the builder-owner a retrofit kit for a secondary door latch in January 2010, but the latch was never installed. According to the NTSB, installing the secondary latch kit was, quote, recommended before further flight, as described in Service Bulletin 10-1-4, published by Vans in January of 2010.

The accident flight departed from Fullerton, KFUL, around 2 p.m. While the aircraft was in the run-up area, security video shows the door was in the down position, but not flush with the fuselage. A witness near the departure end of the runway reported seeing the aircraft pass right to left and saw the door swing open at approximately 100 feet above ground. He then saw an arm reaching out and pull the door down.

Shortly after, the pilot transmitted immediate landing required, initially saying he would land in the opposite direction on runway 6. But he then entered a left downwind for runway 24. The four-seat aircraft crashed into the roof of a furniture warehouse on the base leg, killing the pilot and his passenger, who was his teenage daughter, and injuring 20 workers in the warehouse.

According to the NTSB report, the door handle was found just short of the forward closed and locked position, and because it was not fully forward, its locking button had not engaged. The lock pins were found extended about a half inch out of the door ends, and when the door handle was tested by moving it forward, the pins extended a further 7 16ths of an inch, and the locking button engaged. From GlobalAir.com, NTSB blames pilot and controller for deadly 2022 midair collision.

The NTSB has issued its final report on a deadly collision in north Las Vegas, determining that one of the causes to be the pilot's failure to ensure the plane was aligned with the correct runway, and naming contributing factors, such as the controller's failure to provide information and react to the developing conflict promptly, and insufficient staffing at the facility.

And by the way, insufficient ATC staffing has been an issue in this country for decades and is one of the issues being discussed in the Washington, D.C. midair. Back to this story, you may recall that this was a crash in which a PA-46-350 Malibu Mirage collided with a Cessna 172 that was doing pattern work on the right runway. The planes collided about a quarter mile from the approach end of runway 30R,

The NTSB said that neither plane had been provided advisory information regarding the other from the controller. ADSB data indicated that after the Malibu acknowledged the clearance to land on runway 30L, the plane flew a close-in downwind leg and performed a continuous left turn through the final approach path to runway 30L, rolling out of the turn aligned with the final approach path to runway 30R.

And that TSB simulation indicated that if a cockpit display of traffic information had been available on the Cessna, it might have generated a visual and aural alert concerning the low-wing plane about 30 seconds before the collision.

The simulation of the Garmin 500 GDL-88 combination installed on the Piper indicated that the system may have generated a visual and aural traffic advisory alert about the Cessna about 22 seconds before the collision. In the minute before the collision, the Cessna would have been in the Piper pilot's field of vision for only about 15 seconds.

During most of this time, the Cessna would have appeared as a small object in the windshield, and the Cessna would have been obscured behind the Piper's center window post in the last eight seconds before the collision as it grew in size in the field of view. The Cessna, when visible, would have appeared slightly below the horizon and against a complex background making it more difficult to identify.

The controller was assigned to the airport in 2009 and certified on all controller positions, as well as controller in charge. On the day of the collision, he was working both local controller positions and local assist combined.

While his normal work schedule consisted of four 10-hour shifts, and he had indicated a preference not to work overtime, he told investigators that he was regularly scheduled for six-day work weeks and had been since the COVID-19 pandemic. He estimated his overtime at about 300 hours for the year. The NTSB said that he was asked if he was fatigued on the day of the crash. He said yes. He reported that he experienced fatigue both on position and long-term.

The NTSB said he described being jaded and not seeing an end in sight to the extra workload. The controller recalled periodic conversations about fatigue in the tower cab, but felt the fatigue had not affected his work on the day of the collision. The NTSB's probable cause cited the piper's failure to ensure that the plane was aligned with the correct runway, which resulted in a collision with a Cessna.

The controller's failure to provide timely and adequate traffic information to either plane and his failure to recognize the potential conflict and act promptly contributed to the crash. From GeneralAviationNews.com, Prop Blast bends Cessna 172. The CFI reported that during the taxi for takeoff in a non-movement area at the airport in Apalaca, Florida, he and his student noticed a large multi-radial engine airplane near their intended taxi route.

The instructor told the student to deviate from the painted taxiway yellow line to provide for additional distance away from the prop wash behind the larger plane. As their taxi continued behind the other airplane, the 172 started violently shaking, the right wing lifted, and the left wing hit the taxiway surface. The nose also tipped forward, which resulted in the propeller striking the ground.

The CFI shut off the engine. However, he estimated the plane was pushed by the prop blast an additional 100 feet further until eventually stopping upright on all three landing gear.

According to the pilot of the larger airplane, there had been delays for departure clearances, and he had positioned his airplane into the wind while waiting, which resulted in the tail and the engine propeller blast oriented toward the taxiway the accident airplane taxied through. He stated that at the time of the event, his airplane was at flight idle and he was not performing a run-up. He did not know anything about what happened until after he heard about a prop strike over the radio. Probable cause?

The CFI's decision to taxi behind a large multi-engine airplane, which resulted in an encounter with prop blast and a loss of airplane control. From cbc.ca, employee at pilot training school seriously injured after being struck by propeller. And this story comes out of Canada. An employee at a company that trains pilots was injured when he was struck by the prop of a small aircraft as a student attempted to start its engine.

On January 8th, a student pilot at Harves Air Service Limited at St. Andrews Airport, north of Winnipeg, was preparing for a local flight in a small Cessna. The student followed the startup checklist, but when he attempted to start its engine, it would start, sputter, and then quit. A Harves Air employee noticed that the student was having difficulty and walked over to offer assistance.

TSB spokesperson Chris Krepsky said in an email to CBC News, the employee hand-rotated the propeller and was subsequently struck by it. An ambulance transported the employee to the hospital with serious injuries. Harves Air President Adam Penner said that the employee was released from the hospital the day of the accident, is at home recovering and doing very well, all things considered. From avwab.com, helicopter operator arrested 16 months after crash.

A man who was flying a helicopter and allegedly abandoned his three injured passengers after it crashed has been arrested 16 months after the incident. The pilot, age 38, of Enderby, British Columbia, is facing a list of criminal charges related to the crash, which occurred in a river about 20 miles east of Enderby in southern B.C. in August of 2023. He's also charged with lying to Transport Canada.

The Robinson R-44 clipped a wire and ended up in a shallow section of the river. The pilot is alleged to have fled the scene in a car driven by someone else, leaving behind three female passengers who were taken by ambulance to a hospital. A dog that was on board died in the crash. The pilot appeared in court on January 27th and was released on $5,000 bail. Witnesses said the helicopter involved was seen flying erratically over the river before the crash.

And finally from newatlas.com, 23 airports in Norway controlled from one location.

Indra Group has taken multitasking to the next level, signing an agreement that has the company providing ATC services for 23 Norwegian airports from one central location in Bodo, Norway. Indra has developed a system where multiple airfields can be controlled from automated control towers operating from a central location. Using the company's Innova air traffic control system, a single operator can deal remotely with up to three airports at a time.

This means that a low-traffic airfield can have the same flexibility at a reasonable cost as a larger one. Currently, Indra provides its technology to Remote Tower Center at Avanor Air Navigation Services' BOTA location, which is claimed to be the world's largest with 16 control stations capable of handling up to 48 airports at one time.

The Innova air traffic control system provides the operator with a single, fully integrated display showing all the usual air traffic and airport control functions, including air traffic situation display, electronic flight strips, and weather information.

Well, that's the news, and in a couple minutes I'll be announcing our new giveaway that you'll want to participate in. But first, I'm happy to announce that we have a new monthly feature starting today called the Headset Minute by Lightspeed. In each of these segments, Derek Schmidt will be joining us to briefly discuss a headset topic of interest to pilots. Derek is a senior member of the customer service team at Lightspeed, and he talks with pilots around the world about headsets. And here's how each of these segments will be introduced.

And now here's a headset minute by Lightspeed with Derek Schmidt. Derek, welcome to the show. It's a pleasure to be here, Max. Thank you for having me. So why would a pilot want a noise reduction or ANR headset versus a passive headset? Well, certainly all pilots want as quiet a headset as they can get. But price is usually a factor when selecting a headset.

Because of the technology used in a passive noise-reducing headset, they are a little less expensive. And for aspiring pilots, that can be very attractive. But I do hear it on the phones all the time from experienced pilots who have made the switch from passive to active noise-reducing headsets. And they do describe the difference as night and day.

The technology in an ANR headset actually cancels the noise in the cockpit, not just blocking it out. So it does provide overall an increased noise reduction in the cockpit. The ANR technology specifically targets the loudest levels of sound in the cockpit, like

like engine and propeller noise, as well as blocking out low frequency noises, which both canceled out can help a pilot hear audio communications more accurately. As well, ANR headsets cancel both low and high frequency noises. The pilot is not experiencing those sounds when flying, so it does reduce overall stress and noise-induced fatigue when up in the air. So how does this reduction in noise make for safer flying?

Those high-frequency noises can be distracting for a pilot. Oftentimes, they're registered psychologically as a sign of imminent danger that's happening in the cockpit. Similarly, those constant lower-level noises coming from the engine really do induce fatigue and can impact a pilot's ability to focus over long flights.

So noise reducing headsets, which are tuned to cancel out those noises and help reduce both distractions while up in the air, improving concentration, as well as reduce fatigue while they're flying. And fatigue is a real factor. I remember that 25 years ago when I used to have a passive headset. Derek, thanks so much for joining us here today. It was a pleasure, Max. Thank you.

Coming up next, information about that giveaway, plus our video of the week. And then later, we'll talk about the Potomac River midair and the Learjet crash in Philadelphia. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast.

Let's start with the big news. I mentioned we have an exciting giveaway coming up and who doesn't like free stuff? Anyway, you just heard the headset Bennett sponsored by Lightspeed, and they're going to make four of you very happy. And that's because they've agreed to give away one of their top of the line Delta Zulu headsets every quarter to an aviation news talk listener. So in 2025, you'll have four opportunities to get one of these $1,200 headsets for free.

Now, I own several Lightspeed models, and the Delta Zulu is my favorite. One of its unique features is hearing EQ-ity. EQ is short for equalization, and with EQ, you can selectively boost or cut specific frequencies to achieve a desired sound. And this is perfect for pilots like me, who have some hearing loss at the higher frequencies.

The Lightspeed app lets you run a hearing test, and then you can customize the Delta Zulu to match your hearing profile, which means you'll hear ATC and everyone else a little more clearly. And here's how you sign up for this first giveaway. Just go out on the web to aviationnewstalk.com slash giveaway. That's all one word. And that will take you to a page where you can enter your name and contact information. So just remember, go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash giveaway.

And more good news. Congratulations to Chaz Ryan. He says, Hello, Max. Thanks for all you do and the experts you have with the show. I earned my commercial certificate last week and use the oral exam guide authored by Jason Blair. I'm now prepping for my CFI written exam. Chaz, congratulations to you.

And now let me tell you about our video of the week. And this fits with a safety issue that we've talked about in the past. You'll get to see the landing of a PC-12 with a tow bar attached to its nose gear. Yeah, not good. And while everyone walked away, the plane had significant damage, and you'll be able to see that in the video. To see our videos, go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash video. And while you're there, you'll find four different options for signing up to support the show.

So if you've been listening for a while and you've thought about that in the past, please go ahead and sign up to join the club and help support the show.

Now, speaking of tow bars, coincidentally, John Fiscus, who's the owner of the Flight Academy Flight School in Seattle and who we've had on the show, copied me on an email that he sent out to his instructors two weeks ago. And here's what he wrote. Tow bar unsafe activity. We've observed three instances in the last few weeks, implying it happens more often than that, of customers attaching a tow bar to the nose wheel and then walking away, saying

Not just to grab something, but legit, they put it on and then they either went to their car to load things, continue to pre-flight, or to go inside for a bathroom break. Never, and I mean with zero exceptions, should a tow bar be attached and then left. If you aren't ready to move the aircraft right now, then do not attach the tow bar. And don't lay the tow bar in front of the nose wheel either. That's only slightly less bad.

Tomar prop strikes are one, if not the biggest insurance claim in the Cirrus world. We've had our customers do it to their own aircraft, thankfully not with one of our CFIs present, who I'd consider to be at fault if they were.

If a prop touches the tow bar as caused by the starter or engine running, it's an immediate teardown overhaul. This will put the airplane down for about three months and cost nearly $100,000 in direct expense. And if it's a flight school aircraft, then we will also charge for the loss of use. Stress this to your customers. A tow bar prop strike will, not might, will cost them about $150,000, but

Leaving the Tobor on just isn't worth it. Well said, John. And this is an incredibly common issue in aviation. And yet it is so easy to avoid with this simple procedure.

I tell pilots to only allow the tow bar to be attached to the nose wheel when the tow bar is in their hand. So if you have to walk away for any reason, before you walk away, disconnect the tow bar and leave it on the ground next to the nose wheel. Then when you come back, reconnect the tow bar to the nose wheel. And if you're concerned that by leaving the tow bar on the ground that you might fly away and accidentally leave it on the ground, remember this.

Forgetting the tow bar on the ground and flying away without it is infinitely cheaper, and hence better, than letting the tow bar remain attached when you start the engine. So if you use a tow bar on a plane, commit to never letting it be attached to the nose wheel unless it's in your hand.

And now we have even more good news. I'm just back from a five-day trip to Tennessee where I passed two check rides in three days. I'm proud to say that I'm now a commercially rated helicopter pilot. And if you're a private pilot, I strongly encourage you to put getting the commercial certificate for whatever you happen to fly on your to-do list. I always tell people that getting the commercial will make you a better pilot. And I can definitely see that I'm a much better helicopter pilot than I was back

before I started working on my commercial. I learned so many nuances about how to fly a helicopter better. And let me tell you how I happened to do my helicopter checkride in Nashville. We don't have a helicopter DPE in the Bay Area, so we always have to wait until one comes to the area. And I knew that I had to go to Knoxville, Tennessee to do my annual Vision Jet Recurrent Training. And to get there, I always fly through Nashville and then drive to Knoxville.

And I always like to get to Tennessee a day early just to adjust for the three-hour time change and to rest up. And I thought, why not see if I can do my helicopter commercial checkride while I'm in Nashville?

So about six weeks ago, I contacted John Kennard, who's a DPE and one of the four partners that owns Aerolux Aviation, which is a fixed wing and helicopter flight school at the John C. Toon Airport in Nashville. You may remember that I interviewed John back in October in episode 352 to talk about how Aerolux took three of their R44 helicopters to North Carolina to help deliver supplies to towns that were cut off by the flooding that occurred after Hurricane Helene.

Now, luckily, John had an opening in his schedule on the day before I needed to be in Knoxville, so I booked a checkride. And I also booked a two-hour training flight for the day before the checkride so that I could get familiar with flying out of the John C. Toon Airport. And that plan worked out exceptionally well, and I'm so glad I chose to take my checkride there. On Friday, the day before the checkride, I flew with Brooke Barczyk, who is one of their senior CFIs and also one of the partners in the company.

Prior to flying with Brooke, I think I've flown with about nine different CFIs in my barely hundred hours of helicopter time. So Brooke was number 10 and he was probably the best CFI I've flown with. He clearly loves to teach and he has great communication skills. And by that, I mean, he's good at giving just the right amount of information and coaching. Instead of talking nonstop about things I already knew, he focused on the tiny improvements I could make to what I was doing.

So if you fly helicopters, definitely seek out Brook if you're ever in the Nashville area. Now, here's something I did for the first time on that Friday and again on Saturday before the checkride. We've talked in the past about the value of chair flying, which is sitting in a comfortable chair at home and visualizing different scenarios, such as landing an airplane in a crosswind, and then imagining the control movements you need to make.

One of the more challenging maneuvers on the private and commercial helicopter check rides is flying an auto rotation with turns, which used to be called the 180 degree auto rotation. I think the name was changed to indicate that the maneuver is to be done with turns, not necessarily a 180 degree turn. This maneuver has both your arms and legs in motion while requiring a somewhat complicated scan that includes the airspeed, rotor RPM, trim, and your landing spot.

And the whole thing's over in about 25 seconds. Over the last two years, I've visualized this maneuver often before falling asleep in bed. But what was different this time was that I used the swivel chair in my hotel room. On both days, I practiced all of the arm and leg movements required while also swiveling the chair 180 degrees. And I think that final bit of preparation paid off.

On the day of the checkride, I met with John and he reviewed my logbook. He was particularly happy that I'd created a one-page document that listed each of the flights in my logbook that met a requirement for the commercial checkride. This greatly reduced the time I needed to spend hunting through my logbook. After signing in and out of IACRA to acknowledge the pilot's bill of rights, I paid his fee and we got into the oral discussion.

Since it was an add-on checkride, there were fewer topics on the oral discussion than there would be for an initial commercial checkride. Many of the questions, such as identifying airspace on a sectional map, were simple since I teach these topics to fixed-wing pilots. John, I actually apologize for having to ask such simple questions, but I insisted he ask me everything that's required.

We then went to fly in the helicopter. We first did some landings and maneuvers at the airport, and then flew a few miles away to do a steep approach to a field surrounded by trees. We then did a maximum performance takeoff and returned to the airport to do the last two tasks, which were the straight and auto rotation, and the auto rotation with turns.

The autorotation with turns has always been challenging for me as it's difficult to keep the RPM at 100%, especially while banking in a turn which speeds up the rotor.

But the chair flying did pay off, as it was the first time I ever remember doing an auto rotation where the RPM needle didn't seem to move. I flew the maneuver so well, the tacks seemed stuck on 100% throughout the maneuver. Afterwards, John said it was the best auto rotation with turns he'd ever seen on a checkride. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do it again that well, but for sure I now know how to practice it in this wheelchair.

And a few weeks before I arrived for the checkride, John's wife, Teresa, sent me an email saying, quote, I have read your bio and listened to your podcast. The reason you're still around is because you are driven by a genuine passion for aviation. My husband, as well as the other partners at Aerolux Aviation, are the same way. There's only one thing they love more than flying. It's inspiring and mentoring the next generation of aviators. If you have time after the checkride, I'd like to arrange a roundtable discussion with everyone. Your story is truly inspiring.

So after the check ride, I spent about an hour and a half talking with the team. Aerolux Aviation has three R-44s, an R-22, a Cirrus, and a number of other fixed-wing aircraft. They do flight training and tours and expect to get a Part 135 certificate soon. I started by talking about some best practices and gotchas for flying the SR-22. I then brought up the Houston R-44 collision with a tower, and we talked about that accident and distraction risks when flying tours.

Now, when I did the Aviation Safety Certificate Program at USC last year, one of the instructors brought up the concept of inventing an accident, which is trying to predict the most likely incident or accident to occur within one's own organization.

I mentioned this concept, and Keith Chapman, who's one of the owners and a former Southwest Airlines pilot, said he was most concerned about midair collisions. He said that in 2006, Aerolux started with just one helicopter on the field, and theirs was the only helicopter, but now there are many helicopters flying in and out of there, so much so that the airport recently became a class delta with a tower.

We talked about how they might think about buying an iPad and a sentry for each helicopter to help mitigate the risk. Afterwards, I heard that they're planning to do it. Overall, I was very impressed with Aerolux and their team. So if you ever get to Nashville, I'd encourage you to sign up for one of their helicopter tours of the downtown area. I did that too while I was there, and it was fun seeing all the local sites.

Afterwards, I drove the 2.5 hours to Knoxville. I always enjoy that drive as it's mostly a straight shot on I-40, and it's fun driving through all the rolling hills. On Sunday and Monday, I did my two days of annual recurrent training, which culminated in probably my 7th or 8th checkride in the Vision Jet. This time, the simulators were busy, so we took one of their jets and spent 2.5 hours flying around doing the required maneuvers and the four required instrument approaches.

The next day, I drove back to Nashville and caught a Southwest flight to the Bay Area. All in all, it was a very enjoyable experience, though if I had to do two check rides again in a row, I'd try to have more than one day between them. On the first day in the simulator, I noticed I was late to rotate on my first takeoff, and I realized that was because I was still daydreaming about flying helicopters.

And here's a short text message I received from Patreon mega-supporter Vik Bajaj. He said, I heard your Flystow episode. That would be episode 365. He says, I use AirSync to automatically upload the logs. It goes to ForeFlight, Savvy Aviation, and Flystow automatically. This makes it trivial to debrief every flight.

Vic, thanks so much for sending that. And I also had another listener email me around the same time about AirSync. So I looked them up and found their website at air-sync.com. And it says that they simplify aircraft ownership for maintenance. They instantly graph engine and flight parameters or use tools like CAP and SAVI to take a deeper look.

For accounting, they say they can easily track flights and pass through a manifest and even connect with services like aviation tax consultants. For records, automatically adds entries to aircraft logs like plane logics and pilot logbooks like ForeFlight Logbook and Log10. For proficiency, replay flights, get exceedance alerts and use tools like CloudAhoy to debrief flights.

And they say that AirSync is by far the lowest cost turnkey solution for the flight data or FDM and flight operations quality assurance or FOCWA available in the market today. Not only does AirSync provide the physical hardware FDM solution for integrating into your aircraft, it also provides worldwide cellular connectivity for automatically off-boarding flight data from the aircraft.

Anyway, it goes on at the bottom here. It says an individual or operator can enable airsync on an aircraft with a flyaway cost of under $1,000. So I hadn't heard of them before, but sounds interesting. And apparently a number of listeners are using them. So check them out if you'd like to have your flight data automatically downloaded after every flight.

And here's more good news to share. I literally haven't looked at the rankings for this show for the last couple of months because I prefer to spend time working on new content for you. But when I looked it up a couple of days ago, we were ranked number one for three of the prior four days. And on that other day, we were ranked number two out of the over 250 aviation podcasts listed in the Apple podcast app. So thanks so much for listening and please tell all of your friends about the show.

And Aviation is a small community, so see if you know any of these people who've signed up in the last few weeks to help support the show. Thanks to these new supporters on Patreon, including Wilfredo Sanchez Vega, M. Patrick O., Gavin Gasson, John Chadwick, and Jared Ingram.

And also thanks to some new PayPal supporters, including George Thompson, Joel Williams, and Anthony Roble. And we'll mention more of these names next week. And if you'd like to hear your name, go ahead and head out now to aviationnewstalk.com slash support and sign up to support the show at whatever level you choose. Coming up next, we've got some updates on that midair collision at Reagan National Airport. And we'll also talk about the Learjet crash in Philadelphia. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast.

Let's start with some updates on the Potomac River midair collision that occurred last week between a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and a regional jet. And then we'll talk about the crash of a Learjet that occurred two days later in Philadelphia.

We talked about the midair collision in detail last week in episode 366, and most of what I said in that episode appears to be correct. I did make a mistake when I said that, quote, the Black Hawk helicopter was on a right base leg to the same runway. But it turns out it was not landing at Reagan National. While it looked like they were on a base leg to runway 33, it turns out instead that they were a little off their assigned helicopter route number one on what looked like a base leg.

As I explained last week, the early data we have for their flight path is very jagged, and that may have made their actual flight path look more like a base leg than it was. Ultimately, we'll probably see flight data from FAA radar that will probably depict a smoother, less jagged route than what we currently have for the helicopter.

And my thanks to RH at Opposing Bases who reached out and asked what my source was that the helicopter was landing at Reagan National. As I texted back to him, when the tower told the helicopter to pass behind the airliner, I assumed a little too much as I was thinking that I heard the tower say to, quote, pass behind and follow the jet, a phrase I hear all the time from tower controllers. In fact, the tower just said to pass behind the jet. They did not say to follow the jet. So I misheard that.

Oddly, as I was getting off a Southwest flight yesterday, the flight attendant, who is interested in becoming a pilot, also said to me that the helicopter had been instructed to pass behind and follow the jet. So she made the same mistake that I did when remembering what was said. So perhaps, and I think this is unlikely...

perhaps the helicopter pilots heard the instruction the same way that both the flight attendant and I misheard it, which was to follow the jet. Again, I think that's highly unlikely, but it's within the realm of possibility that they took away the same meaning and altered their course in a way that they thought would lead them to follow the jet.

As I mentioned last week, the last data point shows the airliner climbed 50 feet, so it's likely they spotted the helicopter at the last moment and decided to climb. It's been widely reported that the helicopter climbed from 200 to 300 feet toward the end of its flight. It's quite possible that both aircraft spotted each other at the very end and both decided to climb, and that would make sense as when you're low over a dark river, few pilots would try to descend in that situation.

Hopefully both cockpit voice recorders have good data and will possibly hear something from those transcripts to help explain the last few seconds of the flights. I mentioned at the beginning of this show that I found the Black Hawk helicopter's transmissions to the tower, which I'll play in a moment. I said correctly last week that the reason we weren't hearing the helicopter's side of the conversation was because they were on a different frequency and the controller was transmitting and receiving on multiple frequencies simultaneously.

Here's the ATC audio that I played last week, updated to include the helicopter's transmissions. And this does come to us courtesy of LiveATC.net. At 8.43 p.m., five minutes before the accident, Flight 5342 checks in with the tower on the Mount Vernon Visual using the call sign Blue Streak 5342. Tower, Blue Streak 5342 on Mount Vernon Visual, runway 1. Blue Streak 5342, Washington Tower, 1 star, 3-2-0-1-7-2-5-6, runway 3-3.

20 seconds later, Flight 5342 responds. Yeah, we can do 3-3-4-3-6-3-3-4-2. 3-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-3

45 seconds later, the tower notifies PAT-25 of the airliner's position. About a minute and a half later, and just 20 seconds before the crash, the tower gives the helicopter this instruction.

Six seconds later, we hear this transmission and you can hear other people in the tower cab reacting to the explosion that occurred when the aircraft collided. It's been widely reported that the helicopter deviated from its assigned route, which was the DC helicopter route one.

I've been wondering how wide that route is and just how far the helicopter was outside that route. Looking at the DC helicopter sectional, I measured the width of the route as being 0.17 nautical miles wide, which is about 1,000 feet wide. In the vicinity of the airport, it's depicted as being over the water along the eastern ridge of the river. The river at that point is about a half nautical mile wide, which would be about 3,000 feet. As best I can tell, the crash occurred about 0.21 nautical miles or

or about 1,250 feet from the East River Bank. So my best estimate is that the helicopter was about 250 feet horizontally from where it should have been if it had stayed within the helicopter route number one. That's not a lot of deviation from an assigned track, but obviously in this case it may have been just enough to have led to the crash.

Early reports said that the radar display in the tower indicated the helicopter was at an altitude of 200 feet, while the helicopter was actually at around 300 feet. That early information has been updated, and the NTSB says the radar display was correctly displaying the helicopter's altitude as 300 feet. Radar display altitudes are of course rounded to the nearest 100 feet, so the display can only display 200, 300, 400 feet, and so on.

And at a Saturday briefing, the NTSB said that preliminary data from the jet's flight data recorder showed that it was flying at an altitude of 325 feet, plus or minus 25 feet, when it collided. Helicopter Route 1 does require helicopters to be at or below 200 feet in the vicinity of Reagan National Airport. So the helicopter was apparently 125 feet higher than it was permitted to be at the time of the crash.

In the 30 seconds before the crash, MODES data for the helicopter sometimes displayed 200 feet and sometimes displayed 300 feet. Now, since transponders report altitudes in 100-foot increments, you could get that result by flying up and down between 240 feet and 260 feet. So this early data doesn't give a really accurate picture of the helicopter's altitude.

The NTSB reports that all of the black boxes of the regional jet and the helicopter have been recovered, so eventually we'll probably get accurate altitude and position data for both aircraft. One thing new this week is that an internal preliminary FAA safety report about the collision said that the staffing at the tower was, quote, not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic. A single controller was handling both the helicopter and the airplanes in the vicinity of the airport.

The accident occurred at about 8.48 p.m., and the report says that, quote, those jobs typically are assigned to two controllers rather than one between 10 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. The duties are normally combined at 9.30 p.m. when traffic has diminished. But before the accident, the tower supervisor combined the duties to allow one controller to leave early. However, at this point, there was no indication that ATC staffing levels played any role in the collision.

One unusual outcome of the accident is that two staff members of the Metropolitan Washington Airport's authority were taken into custody on suspicion of leaking video surveillance footage of the crash. I also mentioned last week that someone from the FAA apparently leaked video of the final radar plots that showed collision alerts or CAs for the two aircraft. And I'm guessing the FAA will be trying to figure out who did that.

Ultimately, there will be a lot of data from this accident. The Colgan Air final NTSB report was 299 pages long and was released just under a year after the accident. I'm guessing this report will be longer since two aircraft were involved. We'll likely learn some new information when the preliminary report comes out, probably within a couple weeks from now.

After that, we may not hear a whole lot of new information until the NTSB board holds a public hearing shortly before the release of the final report, perhaps about a year from now.

And while it will be easy to point fingers and place blame, a new safety approach, such as you'd find in organizations with an SMS or safety management system, would not seek to blame pilots or controllers as it recognizes that everyone makes mistakes no matter how good we are. Instead, it would focus on where there were systemic failures in the rules and regulations that were in place at the time that the accident occurred, and then focus on what changes should be made to mitigate those hazards.

For sure, the FAA, NTSB, and other agencies will look closely at Helicopter Route 1 and try to figure out if it's safe for helicopters to fly along the route that close to the airport when landings are being made to Runway 33. If there had been an SMS in place that oversaw these operations, a hazard assessment might have concluded that the safety margins were too small for this kind of operation.

After all, none of us can hand fly an altitude for long periods of time without some deviation. As a newly minted commercial helicopter pilot, I know it takes a lot of concentration to hand fly a helicopter and maintain an altitude at, say, plus or minus 50 feet for more than a few minutes. So, for example, if the difference between flying at 300 feet versus 200 feet is enough to result in an accident when a helicopter is just 250 feet off its assigned route, then

then perhaps a hazard assessment could have concluded that normal deviations in pilot performance would make this section of the roof unsafe under some conditions. Think of it this way. If, whenever we fly, being 100 feet high and 200 feet off our assigned route could lead to an accident, we'd all be dead.

So my hope is that as we look at this accident, we'll look at the systemic failures in the system rather than blame individuals. And here's a story about avoiding a midair collision that my primary instructor, Dick Johnston, told me about 50 years ago. The incident occurred in the 1960s or possibly the early 1970s.

Dick had a Part 135 certificate to carry passengers or cargo in his Cessna 182. One time he was flying cargo from our home airport in northern Pennsylvania to the Philadelphia International Airport. At some point near Philadelphia, he suddenly saw he was on a collision course with an airliner. He said he pushed forward to go under the airliner, but saw the airline pilot also push forward at about the same time, so they were still on a collision course. He then pulled back on the yoke, but saw the airliner also pitched up.

Dick said he then did a maneuver that he knew the airliner couldn't do. And I remember looking at Dick, trying to figure out just what kind of maneuver that would have been, but I couldn't figure it out. He said, and then I turned behind the airliner because I knew he couldn't do that. That story made a big impact on me, and it's always in the back of my mind when I fly.

By the way, if you want to learn more about midair collisions and how to avoid them, you may want to listen to episode 109 called Avoiding Midair and Near Midair Collisions. And you can find that episode at aviationnewstalk.com slash 109. Now let's look at the crash of X-ray Alpha Uniform Charlie India, the Learjet 55, which crashed on Friday, January 31st, just two days after the Potomac midair collision we've been talking about.

It departed Opelika Executive Airport in Florida, KOPF, at noon on Friday and flew for a little over two hours, landing at the Northeast Philadelphia Airport, KPNE, at 2.16 p.m. It was on the ground for a little less than four hours and then departed Philadelphia with two pilots and four passengers on board. It was a medevac flight with a pediatric patient, and it was headed to Springfield, Missouri, where it planned to refuel and then continue to Tijuana, Mexico.

The aircraft was registered in Mexico, and FlightAware.com shows it made frequent trips between the U.S. and Mexico.

Here's the conversation the flight crew had with a tower just before they departed from the Northeast Philadelphia airport. And this comes from LiveATC.net. Medevac, MedService 056 on departure. Turn right heading 2-9-0. Runway 24 clear for takeoff. Wind 250 at 1-0. We can't hear the jet's reply, probably because its antenna is lower than the tower's. And the receiver used to pick up this conversation is probably not located at the airport.

The tower then repeats the instruction. MEDS 056 Affirmative. On departure turn right heading 2900 runway 24 clear for takeoff. A few minutes later, tower sends the jet to departure. MEDS 056 contact Philly departure 123.8 123.8, Mike Tango Sierra 056 MEDS. Thank you, good day.

About 15 seconds after the crash, the tower called the jet, and a few seconds later, Philadelphia Departure also called the jet. Medevac, Midservice 056, Northeast Tower, contact Philly 123.8. Midservice 056, Philadelphia.

MedService 056 Philadelphia. The accident happened relatively quickly and there were no further communications with the crew. Weather at the time was 400 foot overcast and it was dark. I have downloaded the flight information from adsbexchange.com and then I uploaded it to flysto.net so that I could get a cockpit view of the flight data. I then created a video of the flight which shows a cockpit view with ground speed, altimeter, and vertical speed displayed.

That video has already been posted for Patreon supporters, so if you'd like to view that video and the over 90 other videos that I've posted for supporters of the show, just go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash Patreon and sign up at the $20 a month level or higher to support the show. And if you thought you were already signed up but didn't get an email when I posted that video,

go to patreon.com and make sure that you've updated your credit card with its current expiration date, as many credit cards on file with Patreon have expired, but they don't notify you when that happens. Now I'm going to go ahead and describe what's shown in the video. The altimeter setting at the airport was 29.71, so I've corrected the altitudes I'm about to tell you by subtracting 210 feet from the ADS-B altitudes you may find online to account for the non-standard pressure.

The first data point was captured shortly after takeoff at 6.06 p.m. local time. It shows the jet climbing through 405 feet MSL or 285 feet AGL at 171 knot ground speed with a climb rate of 2,300 feet per minute. The aircraft is accelerating and stabilizes at about 185 knots and 3,000 feet per minute as it passes through 1,000 feet MSL.

The crew had been instructed on departure to make a right turn to a heading of 290. At this point, though, they are still flying runway heading of 240, which is not surprising because it's still early in the climbout. As it passes through 1,100 feet MSL, the climb rate starts to drop and the aircraft accelerates slightly. This is the first sign that the aircraft may be experiencing some kind of power loss.

By 1,300 feet, the climb rate has been cut in half to 1,500 feet per minute, and the airspeed has increased slightly to 197 knots. You might expect to see similar instrument indications for a level off, but this reduction in climb rate happened in just five seconds, suggesting a fairly sudden loss of power. Five seconds later, at 1,370 feet, the aircraft starts to bank slightly to the left rather than to the right as the crew had been instructed.

At this point, the aircraft has accelerated to 206 knots and the climb rate has dropped to 900 feet per minute. Eight seconds later, the climb rate has decreased to zero, the airspeed is 214 knots, and the bank angle to the left has increased. Seven seconds later, the aircraft has climbed just 70 feet more to its maximum altitude of 1,440 feet, and it's now descending at 1,000 feet per minute at 230 knots.

Two seconds later, the aircraft is in a steep left bank and it's now descending at 3,300 feet per minute and 240 knots. It's just below 1,400 feet MSL. A second later, it passes through 1,300 feet at 250 knots and minus 4,800 feet per minute.

A second later, the turn appears to slow, the wings apparently became more level, but the aircraft is coming down at 6,700 feet per minute and 240 knots. The aircraft is now tracking almost due south, about 60 degrees off the runway heading. A second later, it's passing through 1,100 feet at 11,000 feet per minute and 245 knots.

From there it goes into a steep left turn and as the aircraft passes through 600 feet, it has an estimated descent rate of 18,000 feet per minute. This led to a very high energy crash that fragmented the jet. With a full fuel load, there was considerable fire on the ground. In addition to the six passengers on board who died, another person on the ground was killed. 22 people on the ground suffered injuries and five remained hospitalized, three of whom were in critical condition.

The NTSB has reported that the cockpit voice recorder was found at the bottom of an eight-foot hole in the ground. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the plane did not have a flight data recorder, but investigators are hoping to retrieve flight data from the jet's ground proximity warning system.

Now this accident happened shockingly quickly. The total time from when we noted the climb rate started to drop until impact on the ground was less than 30 seconds. The data suggests that there was a power loss during the climb, most likely with the left engine. If that's what happened, it's possible the crew responded improperly to the failure of an engine.

Of course, it's also possible, though a little less likely, that the crew had a dual-engine failure, in which case there would have been little they could have done to prevent the crash. And of course, it's possible that some other rare event occurred, but at this point, some kind of power loss seems most likely. Assuming the NTSB is able to download data from the black boxes, we'll eventually know more about what happened.

The flight crew's efforts to recover were undoubtedly hampered by the fact that they were flying at night in IMC. If you have an engine loss in day VMC conditions, it's much easier to detect an engine failure since you can see outside where you'll more quickly notice the rapid yaw that occurs when an engine fails. It would take most pilots longer to notice the yaw in IMC when they can only see the flight instruments.

The immediate first step to stop the yaw after an engine failure is to use opposite rudder to maintain directional control. Now this jet was an older aircraft. It was built in 1982. If it hadn't been updated, then it was a round gauge airplane. And having round gauges would put the pilots at a disadvantage versus having a modern glass cockpit.

One big advantage of glass cockpits is that the attitude indicator's horizon line is at least 10 inches long, which makes it easy to see if the aircraft is banked a few degrees left or right, even if you're sitting behind the pilot.

By contrast, the horizon line of a round gauge attitude indicator can be as short as two inches, and it's lost in a sea of other round gauges. So with round gauges, when in an unintended bank, that bank is less obvious than it would be in a glass cockpit. And with a glass cockpit, you could be looking at another instrument, such as airspeed or altimeter, and still see the horizon line, since it's essentially displayed behind all of the other flight instruments, so it's always in your field of view.

This aircraft had been climbing on runway heading, but didn't start to yaw to the left until four seconds after the climb rate decreased. I'm guessing that's because its turbine engine rolled back in power more slowly than a piston engine might. By contrast, when flying a piston twin, we'd instantly see a yaw toward the dead engine when an instructor abruptly pulls a throttle to idle. Managing an engine failure in a twin shortly after takeoff creates an extremely heavy workload for pilots.

Before taking off in a twin, I try to remember to run through the steps in my mind for dealing with a failed engine. That way, if an engine failure occurs, I've already thought about the steps I'll need to take, and hopefully I'll do a better job of remembering them. If you own a twin or fly a twin, it's essential that you practice engine out scenarios frequently so that the procedures are fresh in your mind when an engine failure occurs.

And just a reminder that I love hearing from you and I read many of your emails on the show. If you'd like to send me a message, just go out to aviationnewstalk.com, click on contact at the top of the page. That's absolutely the best way to send me a message. And of course, I also want to thank everyone who supports the show in one of the following ways. We love it when you join the club and sign up at aviationnewstalk.com slash support to

To support the show financially, you can also do that at aviationnewstalk.com slash PayPal. We also love it when you leave a five-star review on whatever app that you're listening to us on now. And of course, if you're in the market for a headset, please consider buying a Lightspeed headset and using one of the links in our show notes, because if you use those links, they will donate to help support the show. So until next time, fly safely, have fun, and keep the blue side up. And remember that you can always go around. Go around.

coming down. Till your silence may be sliding upside down. You can all