Blackhawk / CRJ-700 Midair

[RobLyman]

@RobLyman any more info you can share about the 12th Aviation Battalion and their training and readiness requirements?

I have never worked with them specifically.

All IPs in the Army and Army National Guard used to go through the IP Course (IPC) at Ft Rucker or one of the National Guard training centers (EAATS or WAATS). I went to WAATS. Some of the courses done by ARNG are better than their AD equivalent. I haven't seen one that was worse. Having said that, the IP training track was changing just as I retired. They allowed for model specific IP training (ie 60L to 60M) to be done at the unit. As I left, they were working on allowing in-house training for both initial IPs and MTPs. In my opinion, that was a mistake and a serious standardization and safety problem. But what the heck? I was a dinosaur retiring. With the accident IP having around 1000 hours, he most likely was trained at the unit. The variation in IP quality could vary tremendously. My guess would be that with only 1000 hours as an IP, I seriously doubt the 12th had any elevated PC requirements over general Army standards. I would similarly be surprised if evaluation in the DC helo routes was not a part of their initial PC evaluation and annual APART. The Army ATM suggests that if tasks are not evaluated both day and night, they should be evaluated in the more demanding mode. This would mean it is VERY likely the NVG APART would require flight on the DC routes. I'm not 100% sure it was required, but according to the regs, it should have been required. So any argument that they shouldn't have been flying there during a "training flight" is bullshit and uninformed.

I have flown through NYC helicopter routes a LOT. I delivered and picked up new aircraft from Lakehurst and doing a first VFR flight there was fun and a great learning/teaching experience for pilots that I took with me. Any specific questions about the DC routes are better answered by someone who has flown those, but I think my experience in NYC is similar to the DC routes. One thing that is worth mentioning...Anytime you fly a route so frequently, the chance of complacency creeps in. This also applies to the controllers constantly guiding aircraft through those routes. Having mostly experienced pilots in those aircraft can lull a controller into not being prepared for their encounter with an inexperienced crew in a Black Hawk.

I know this is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, but if I flew that route I would be at 100', not 200', especially with an aircraft coming into runway 33. But then again, my first 1500 hours of helo flying had a majority of my night time being unaided over the water. Most Army aviators I know detested flying unaided, much less unaided over (open) water. It looks like the Potomac is about 3/4 nm across right there. Not wide enough to frighten Army aviators, but perhaps too narrow for a 360 for spacing. Note: Did anyone see the higher resolution video where you can actually see the helicopter prior to and during the accident? They had a cruise nose-down attitude suggesting 100 kts or more airspeed. Those with 60 experience will know that they don't pitch down or up much with small or gradual changes in altitude. While they may have been within airspeed restrictions for the route if there are any, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have recommended speeds for the route. Maybe they do. Does anyone know? This would help for spacing and, if set low enough, allow for 360 degree turns for spacing without a risk to noise abatement issues or ground obstacles over the city.

 

[Hotdogs]

Crew: a 1000 hour CW2 instructor pilot is not "very experienced". Even the best CW2s I flew with lacked the full wisdom to realized that they don't know everything. Conducting an NVG APART with a 450-500 hour copilot can make this a relatively risking mission. A barely experienced IP with a junior (flight time wise) PC who is higher rank (maybe their company commander) is not optimal. It's done, but it is not optimal. An APART requires flight in both the left and right seat. Depending on how the day and instrument APARTS were flown, the NVG eval could have been done with the instructor in either seat. This would have been indicated on the risk assessment. Doing an NVG APART in a congested area like this would require the IP to be WAY ahead of the aircraft, just in case something unusual happened. If this route were part of their normal mission, it would be a necessary part of their APART. Can this PC safely get me through this airspace at night? According to the TC 1-1520-237-10, there is no requirement for a 2nd crew chief under NVG. In fact, some units allow NVG flights that originate and end at an airport to fly with just 2 pilots. It's part of the risk assessment worksheet and hopefully this was at least discussed during the brief.

Can you explain why this would be risky for the annual evaluation flight? Otherwise single ship ops not conducting a tactical event seems very admin from my perspective. Particularly for an IP with over 1,000 hours. I will admit, our admin check rides are pretty basic lay ups, and not designed to be nut-crushers. I suspect it might be different for you guys.

I have never worked with them specifically.

All IPs in the Army and Army National Guard used to go through the IP Course (IPC) at Ft Rucker or one of the National Guard training centers (EAATS or WAATS). I went to WAATS. Some of the courses done by ARNG are better than their AD equivalent. I haven't seen one that was worse. Having said that, the IP training track was changing just as I retired. They allowed for model specific IP training (ie 60L to 60M) to be done at the unit. As I left, they were working on allowing in-house training for both initial IPs and MTPs. In my opinion, that was a mistake and a serious standardization and safety problem. But what the heck? I was a dinosaur retiring. With the accident IP having around 1000 hours, he most likely was trained at the unit. The variation in IP quality could vary tremendously. My guess would be that with only 1000 hours as an IP, I seriously doubt the 12th had any elevated PC requirements over general Army standards. I would similarly be surprised if evaluation in the DC helo routes was not a part of their initial PC evaluation and annual APART. The Army ATM suggests that if tasks are not evaluated both day and night, they should be evaluated in the more demanding mode. This would mean it is VERY likely the NVG APART would require flight on the DC routes. I'm not 100% sure it was required, but according to the regs, it should have been required. So any argument that they shouldn't have been flying there during a "training flight" is bullshit and uninformed.

Don’t sell the Army short on its standardization for IPs. The Marines are horrible when it comes to standardized instructor training. We have a 1 week academic basic ground course led by a contractor for our most basic IPs quals, then everything else is in house or self taught with the exception of a few MAWTS check-rides and WTI. Which again, have zero classes on educational theory, psychology, scenario design, aeromedical biology, or fundamentals of instructing. Hell, I’d even take a standardized approach on why and how our T&R is written based on event and stage.

Even the WTI academic courses are 3 week tactically focused fire hoses with a bunch of tests that are meant to be more painful than useful. The only way we get away with it is because we’re so small - we can keep the noose tight on knuckleheads going off the reservation with studs.

 

[JTS11]

we can keep the noose tight on knuckleheads going off the reservation with studs.

I got a chuckle out of this one, bc it's mostly true. The true distillation of this concept was witnessing certain things while instructing at the FRS. "Who the F taught you to do that?". Would mostly be handled at the O-3 level of instructors.

But same/same at the squadron level too. Honestly, there's a degree of being slaves to the T&R and OpTempo that produce less than ideal IP training/production. Looking back, yeah I got firehosed with quals to then get firehosed thru WTI. At the backend, there were a few nights initially (LLL Aerial Refueling/DLQ with boot CPs with maybe 1 time doing it from the left seat) that were not fun.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

To the best of my understanding, the 12th Avn Bn operates exclusively the UH-60L (no matter how painted) which is an A with upgraded engines.
Trying to get information on their training status/average monthly flight time, but there is an obvious hesitation from Army insiders to release much at this time. NVG "standardization" throughout the Army is very local command specific. Some have extensive SOPs, other, not so much.

 

[RobLyman]

Can you explain why this would be risky for the annual evaluation flight? Otherwise single ship ops not conducting a tactical event seems very admin from my perspective. Particularly for an IP with over 1,000 hours. I will admit, our admin check rides are pretty basic lay ups, and not designed to be nut-crushers. I suspect it might be different for you guys.



Don’t sell the Army short on its standardization for IPs. The Marines are horrible when it comes to standardized instructor training. We have a 1 week academic basic ground course led by a contractor for our most basic IPs quals, then everything else is in house or self taught with the exception of a few MAWTS check-rides and WTI. Which again, have zero classes on educational theory, psychology, scenario design, aeromedical biology, or fundamentals of instructing. Hell, I’d even take a standardized approach on why and how our T&R is written based on event and stage.

Even the WTI academic courses are 3 week tactically focused fire hoses with a bunch of tests that are meant to be more painful than useful. The only way we get away with it is because we’re so small - we can keep the noose tight on knuckleheads going off the reservation with studs.

In Jax, a simple transition along the river through Craig (KCRG) airspace and then directly into Mayport (KNRB) can be challenging for some Army aviators if they haven't done it in awhile or have never done it. Simply forgetting to setup the radios for the quick frequency change can put you in the Class D and in the traffic pattern at Mayport without having contacted tower. It's not tough, but falling behind can turn a somewhat routine transition into a request to call a number when you land... or worse. My experience is that a 1000 hour IP probably hasn't had a student scare them yet. Me? I have had some serious shit-your-pants situations develop because I over estimated the capability of my copilot. A 1000 hour CW2 IP with a 500 hour CAPT who is likely his company commander is a great setup for a couple of fundamentals of instruction gotchas. Excessive professional courtesy, a desire to impress your boss, check ride-itis, etc...It's not that these factors aren't present much of the time, but a relatively low hour IP is much less likely to anticipate these factors before they become a problem. Busting along at 100 kts at night, at 200', in very busy airspace is not the time to figure out your evaluee can't keep their altitude or is a knucklehead with radio communications.

I'm not super IP or anything, but I can honestly say I would have been wondering why I was being asked to pass behind an aircraft several miles away heading directly at me. That is if I misidentified the aircraft as one of the others on final to 01. I would have asked the tower to clarify traffic and/or slowed down. This situation would have me on pins and needles. I teach my students to pay attention on the radio and anticipate what is going to happen. This allows me to make decision and pick airspeeds and headings that will help ATC route me and other aircraft. It's come from years of experience in many different flying environments. Does a 1000 hour IP or 500 hour PC get this far ahead of the aircraft? The anser is NO in my experience. The IP heard ATC clear an aircraft to 33. But did he really listen?

Maybe I'll get my pee pee slapped by admins for "speculating", but even the hypotheticals provide a learning opportunity. If you are transiting a class D, pay attention to calls that may not be for you. It will help you understand what is going on and help you make better decisions, avoid embarrassment, make you appear more professional (imagine that), and in some cases save your life.

The old Army IPCs enforced a LOT of standardization. Maybe too much in my opinion as a Navy to Army transfer. In the past, it took some time at their unit before an IP would stray off the course he had been set on at the IPC. Now, that "standardization" may never get instilled in the new IP. Instead, he will learn from his SP what and how his unit does it. It might be hard to understand for Navy folk, since there are usually only one or two FRS per airframe, and most of the squadrons are co-located with the FRS. In the Army, aviation is spread out all over the country. Heck, Florida has two guard and one reserve location that fly the 60. Even Hawaii has a guard unit on the big island and at least one AD unit on Oahu flying the 60. Imagine learning to be an IP in Hawaii. You may never fly with another IP outside your unit your entire career seeing as AD rarely flies with the guard.

Annual evaluations: They are called Annual Proficiency and Readiness Test (APART). There is an oral exam, open book written exam on the manual, EP exam, day flight, night/NVG flight, instrument oral exam and instrument check ride. There are mandatory maneuvers that have to be done on each flight. Some of the day tasks are repeated in the night flight. The EPs can be done, if the evaluee is spot on, in about 4 trips around the pattern. To do that requires extreme orchestration. Usually it is more like10 trips around the pattern. Then there is low level NVG nav and maneuvers, including confined area landings. Day/night maneuvers must include a start up and shutdown and radio communications. At a minimum it should include operations at your home field and any routes or airfields frequently used. For us at Cecil, we always tried to include Camp Blanding for LZs and to evaluate the pilot's ability to navigate and communicate on the CARS route structure at night. For the 12th, it would make sense to include the helo routes in DC during the day or night flight. I would make sure any PC I evaluated could do it at night. But that's me. As SP I strongly encouraged that sort of thinking of my IPs. I'm pretty sure the 12th's actual mission would require flight in the DC area with little or no planning. Probably something akin to a medevac mission in their local area.

So the pressure and risk would be that a LOT of things had to get done in that night flight. The less experience the evaluee has, the longer it takes to complete the mission. ie you may have to repeat maneuvers or do a little teaching during the eval. Similarly, the less experience the IP has, the less they are prepared to make up time or make sound decisions for completion of the eval. The teaching portion might take longer as well. Throw in a slightly higher than average potential for some Flight Instructor's Handbook type issues and now the flight is at a higher risk level. I can't imagine how bad the flight would be through the helo route if there was a hostile cockpit environment or the PC had bad check-ride-itis. The Army does have a higher percentage of asshole IPs than the Navy. At least in my experience.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Only because I have this photo on my phone. June 1991 taken from my aircraft by crew chief. Dash-2 HAC went on to a distinguished career as a Fed LEO.
As I posted earlier, DC routes were common milk runs during my time at HC-6.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

The old Army IPCs enforced a LOT of standardization. Maybe too much in my opinion as a Navy to Army transfer.

The Army does have a higher percentage of asshole IPs than the Navy.

For those who have not had the experience of Army or Air Force flying after Naval Aviation (Marines in my case), it is a real eye opener. As Rob stated, there is lot of standardization in the Army, and not in the good way. Flying C-12R's from Willow Grove, we went through an extended period of time were we were prohibited to do touch and goes. The reason... the ATM (Aircrew Training Manual) didn't have a procedure for "Touch and Go." There was one for landing, and on for taking off... but not combining them into a touch and go. It took the "Gods" of Mother Rucker almost a year to figure out that they had prohibited something so fundamental that even 5 to 10 hour FAA student pilots could do a touch and go. If you questioned the IP on this, you were treated as a dangerous non-standard pilot. You thought back to your Gold Wing'ed days often, and sighed.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

Phrogs Phorever.
Thanks Chuck!!!

 

[ChuckMK23]

Phrogs Phorever.
Thanks Chuck!!!

This is a scan of a physical 4x6 color print - brittle and discolored!

 

[AIRMMCPORET]

Phrogs Phorever.
Thanks Chuck!!!

Am I aging myself to say I rode in one once.🤣

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

Don’t sell the Army short on its standardization for IPs. The Marines are horrible when it comes to standardized instructor training. We have a 1 week academic basic ground course led by a contractor for our most basic IPs quals, then everything else is in house or self taught with the exception of a few MAWTS check-rides and WTI. Which again, have zero classes on educational theory, psychology, scenario design, aeromedical biology, or fundamentals of instructing. Hell, I’d even take a standardized approach on why and how our T&R is written based on event and stage.

This is slowly but steadily getting better. The BITC course contract finally expired last year. MAWTS owns the courseware now and each division is able to make changes tailored to the T/M/S, reflective of fleet trends and other nuances. There is quite a bit of emphasis now on adult psychology, adult learning concepts, and instructor fundamentals - probably because guys like you have been beating the drum about the lack of it for quite some time.

The lack of standardized instructor certification appears to be community-specific. I remember talking to one of the senior F-35 pilots on the MEU last year, and all of their instructor certs are done by MAWTS IPs. (He also said the VMFAs and the F-35 division at MAWTS have an adversarial relationship at best, but that’s a whole different topic.)

 

[RobLyman]

For those who have not had the experience of Army or Air Force flying after Naval Aviation (Marines in my case), it is a real eye opener. As Rob stated, there is lot of standardization in the Army, and not in the good way. Flying C-12R's from Willow Grove, we went through an extended period of time were we were prohibited to do touch and goes. The reason... the ATM (Aircrew Training Manual) didn't have a procedure for "Touch and Go." There was one for landing, and on for taking off... but not combining them into a touch and go. It took the "Gods" of Mother Rucker almost a year to figure out that they had prohibited something so fundamental that even 5 to 10 hour FAA student pilots could do a touch and go. If you questioned the IP on this, you were treated as a dangerous non-standard pilot. You thought back to your Gold Wing'ed days often, and sighed.

'ZACKLY!!! Try teaching shipboard landings to these guys!

FWIW, I am going to amend my thought on the accident. After watching an overlay of the positions and radio calls for the nth time, I think PAT25 may have correctly identified the CRJ the first time at 5-6 nm. Then, by the time they made the second "visual" call, they and the CRJ had changed course and positions. Then I think PAT25 thought the next aircraft (still heading toward 01) was the CRJ, since it was where they expected it to be...further west. Meanwhile, the CRJ was over land and significantly more east. The lesson is still the same. Listen to calls that don't contain your call sign. Teach the same to your students.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

brittle and discolored!

Like looking in the mirror each morning.
Remembering back to when those Marine Majors in their mid-30s were so old and experienced.

 

[Gatordev]

The IP heard ATC clear an aircraft to 33. But did he really listen?

This is something that drives me absolutely bonkers over helo common. Someone will make a call to report their position and then when you reach out, they won't answer back to deconflict. It's like "well, I checked that box...moving on."

I've found it to be better now, but a year or two ago, there was one specific pilot from one of our competitors that would do that, and then would act disinterested when he acknowledged that we were going to the same hospital with a TOT of within 60 seconds of each other.

If you questioned the IP on this, you were treated as a dangerous non-standard pilot. You thought back to your Gold Wing'ed days often, and sighed.

This sounds very much like my thread from a couple of months ago. I wasn't trying to bash Army methods, but it's just so easy to go down that path.

 

[MIDNJAC]

My advice to helos in general would be like you all are saying.....with an emphasis....perhaps a triple emphasis on LISTENING. I'm sort of being facetious but in reality, it does seem like your standard phraseology is "this is me, let me read you a book report about my position and intentions and step on all other comms before I go back to doing helicopter things"

<obviously generalizing, before the rotary wing mafia beheads me, and drags my corpse through the streets of NS Mayport.....