Cleaned up for now. Let's stay on topic and stop the insults, please. Thanks much.

Why would they turn off their ADS-B for a check ride flight? My very limited understanding of ADS-B is that it will show the pilot all local traffic of other ADS-B equiped aircraft in the area. I believe in this case, it would have alerted the airliner of the presence of the VH-60 on a collision path as well as alert the VH-60 pilots of the airliner. I understand the need to turn this off in the VH-60 while on real missions but see no logical reason to turn it off for training or check rides. For the pilots out there, am I thinking about this correctly?

No Bee'z, people were not hurt, they were KILLED.

you lost this one beez

We can chat about this in a never ending loop. The NTSB report will shed light on any errors or practices.

I am sure the NTSB comes here for insight.

Some of you all Need to move to europe for your guaranteed govt provided safety.

Have fun! See ya!

You’ve worked several air disasters? In Concho county? In Texas? How many air disasters have there been in the US during your professional life that you could’ve witnessed the results of?

Genuinely curious. I thought you were a police detective.

Even with recent events, I’ll wager air travel is safer than being in an auto on the road.

I didn't work Concho County, I worked DFW Metroplex, how many can you count that occurred there, 191, 1141, etc...who do you think responds to air disasters if not police/fire? I was also a firefighter at one time in my career, Crash/Fire/Rescue as a matter of fact...I'm not speaking from inexperience; I have seen a thing or two in 44 plus years of service.

The government cannot 100% ensure your safety from auto accidents, air disasters or even the medical profession.

The FAA is the regulatory agency for aviation and their number one objective is safety. They create all the rules, regulations and training standards for aviation in the USA. The military has additional standards and regulations for their pilots (usually higher) but they also generally have to conform to FAA rules over CONUS.

The NTSB investigates transportation accidents, especially aviation ones, and publishes detailed reports on their findings. They aren't a regulating body. Sometimes their reports result in changes in aircraft, regulations, practices, training etc.

We have this combination of pilots, regulations, technology. Usually the regulations aren't creating accidents, Sometimes it's a failure in technology including the aircraft or components. Often it's the human factor which results in accidents whether that be the pilot, maintenance personnel, and/or air traffic control (less common).

When you have the human factory involved, all we can do as a society is strive to reduce the number of accidents.

Turkey, exactly. There are people that act like any accident is 100% avoidable, but when you add the human component, that avoidable part drops quickly.

For those who feel this “should have been avoided”…then leave and go to europe where the govt doctates life a lot more.

For those that want some autonomy and freedom, we need to realize that comes with some risk. Yeah life is risky. No one can guarantee anything 100% of the time no matter what regulations are put into place.

Smh

LOL, that is some funny Chit right there...and pure nonsense to boot.

But our government can use the safest methods / regulations / training available, for the good of all.

Police are highly trained professionals and there are regulations and laws governing their job. Do they make mistakes or have accidents?

Sure, but most of their mistakes don't lead to deaths of 60 something people...look I'm not blaming the military personnel, or the commercial pilot, or even the air traffic controllers, I'm saying the regulations allowing any aircraft in the glide path of a landing or departing commercial jet is simply wrong and not justifiable...I think that is the reason the government has No Fly Zones for Drones, even small ones.

Concho you’re looking at it wrong. There are regulations about pilots maintaining visual separation and being at the correct altitude and position. There are also regulations about air traffic control. They aren’t supposed to put aircraft on a collision course. These regulations are for aircraft inside and outside a landing path.

But we don’t have an NTSB report yet that details where things started to go wrong that set the outcome into motion.

It’s for secure areas or they are not under the direction of air traffic control (in controlled airspace).

If your are flying an airplane and you don’t do what air traffic control tells you (in controlled airspace), you’re likely going to hear, [callsign] possible pilot deviation, let me know when you’re ready to copy a phone number. Every pilot dreads hearing that.

You may be right, but when I saw this midair disaster, I immediately thought back to PSA Flight 182 over San Diego...not a bunch has changed since 1978 except for a bunch more aircraft in the skies. I personally believe we are being exposed to dangers that need not be, and we should speak up when we see issues of safety concern, I simply don't see an acceptable reason for one aircraft to cross the flight path of another aircraft or to be on a direct collision course with another aircraft. If the helicopter was 100 feet too high, that 100 feet is way too close for comfort, reasonableness, safety, 1000 feet would be too close for me, and only separating two aircraft by a 100 feet sounds nuts to me, especially with the commercial jet landing...you have to descend in altitude to land...hence the word landing.

[color:#FF0000][/color]


Kinda like when Kamala Harris...<<<< WOKE WOMAN >>> was the ( ACTING PRESIDENT ). AMERICA decided to get off the plane. And and have a MERIT MINDED MALE take the reins as President.

Aircraft crossing the flight path of another happens every day and would be nearly impossible to avoid at any busy airport. Remember, the aircraft are 'supposed' to be separated on two dimensions.

1. Altitude
2. Distance either Fore or Aft of other aircraft

Either of the two would be sufficient to avoid collision.
Both (as intended) makes for pretty safe air travel.

Albeit... the margins (altitude strata) at this Airport are exceedingly tight.