airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 20,899
- 16,830
- 2,415
THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU PROVIDE IT, "EXPERT"???![]()
I did.
I provided the correction to your fuckup. And your fuckup that you denied at first.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU PROVIDE IT, "EXPERT"???![]()
I did.
You did nothing. If you're such an expert on planes, then YOU should have been making the scale diagrams. Sorry I upset your world by showing a Leerjet by mistake because it just happened to still be in my mind having been the latter of two major plane incidents! And yes, I even misspelled it on purpose just to dick you off again.
But that is OK, I looked up the AA jet involved, downloaded a picture, scaled and replaced it on my chart, refound this thread and put it in showing that it CHANGES NOTHING pertinent about why these two should not have been so close to each other, and actually makes the reason worse, all in the time it took you to get your head unstuck from your zipper, Ace.
You still thought the Lear hit the Heli which shows me that you have zero credibility with this.
Now crawl back under your rock and let the adults handle this.
Now crawl back under your rock and let the adults handle this.
The helicopters fly the entire length of the rivers. Horizontal paths crossing between planes and helicopters is inevitable. That’s what makes the altitude restriction so important.Well, you see, here is part of the problem as I see it. Here is a diagram I just drew up of the relative sizes of the Learjet and Blackhawk to each other.
The diagram also shows the agreed upon separation between the two they were supposed to be flying apart, agreed by the FAA, military and airport, assuming both were right on the mark, meaning that given instrument error, they might be flying even closer while still doing everything right. Keep in mind their paths (and air turbulance) would be at right angles to each other. And this is under clear, stable conditions. Add to that the jet is coming in for a landing, so their attention is focused straight ahead on the runway and their instruments, not looking around the area for errant choppers.
The final kicker was the chopper's ADS-B was switched off, which /would/ have reported to the controllers the chopper's location and altitude. Had the controllers been fully staffed, something should have caught their notice that the chopper was not giving out altitude and location data. Then to add insult to injury, an hour earlier, one of the controllers was sent home for the night. See any problem here? Seems to me that these choppers ought to by flying their missions SOUTH of the airport rather than crossing right under the main commercial landing corridor!
View attachment 1076271
The helicopters fly the entire length of the rivers. Horizontal paths crossing between planes and helicopters is inevitable. That’s what makes the altitude restriction so important.
There are multiple locations that helicopters fly out of all around DC. Not to mention Marine One taking off from and landing at the White House.Bad idea. If their base were south of the airport, they could fly out to the Atlantic Ocean without crossing within 100-200 feet of commercial airlines.
There are multiple locations that helicopters fly out of all around DC. Not to mention Marine One taking off from and landing at the White House.
Marine One can fly over the meat of the city. All other traffic has to stay mostly over water. The plane in the crash was diverted to the shorter runway that runs 10:00-4:00. It covers land but it’s not ‘consequential’ terrain.When Marine One is in the air, I expect that ALL other air traffic is temporarily suspended or grounded in the region.
Marine One can fly over the meat of the city. All other traffic has to stay mostly over water. The plane in the crash was diverted to the shorter runway that runs 10:00-4:00. It covers land but it’s not ‘consequential’ terrain.
And when Reagan won (the first guy I voted for) he kept on the crushing high interest rates and destroyed the middle class to stop inflation.Carter screwed the economy up big time..............that's why he lost in a landslide victory.
So you weren't born yet?
Like I said before, one administrations actions affect the country for years.And when Reagan won (the first guy I voted for) he kept on the crushing high interest rates and destroyed the middle class to stop inflation.
We'd have been better off with the inflation.
Like I said before, one administrations actions affect the country for years.
Carter is responsible for two severe recessions that screwed up the economy for some time.
Carter avg of 9.68% while Reagan was 4.68%.Actually, that's not really true, either.
The thing to remember is that the 1980 recession was already bringing inflation to heel, there was no reason to keep up the pressure, but Reagan did anyway, because he saw a perfect chance to destroy the middle class.
Carter avg of 9.68% while Reagan was 4.68%.
Can you hear me now?