25 hospitalized after 'significant' turbulence on Delta flight
View attachment 353403​

Is there nothing CAGW can't do?

 

Is there nothing CAGW can't do?

Bumping the tiny mass of an airplane is a rounding error relative to the total system energy. It do get a kick about these, IMO, predetermined "facts" and outcomes studies.

 

Bumping the tiny mass of an airplane is a rounding error relative to the total system energy. It do get a kick about these, IMO, predetermined "facts" and outcomes studies.

One could argue about the increased frequency and severity of these events. But the data would have to be abundant and reliable, not to mention the need for an objective and unbiased analysis ... I doubt we're there yet.

 

Bumping the tiny mass of an airplane is a rounding error relative to the total system energy. It do get a kick about these, IMO, predetermined "facts" and outcomes studies.

I would not be surprised if there was an economic trade off between smooth flights and fuel usage.

If turbulence is, in fact, increasing in frequency, I'd say it has more to do with a choice between flying through disturbed air vs. flying around it.

Airlines could save money and blame God for the discomfort.

 

I would not be surprised if there was an economic trade off between smooth flights and fuel usage.

If turbulence is, in fact, increasing in frequency, I'd say it has more to do with a choice between flying through disturbed air vs. flying around it.

Airlines could save money and blame God for the discomfort.

In the old days of flying the pilot would say. "reports of turbulence ahead, we're moving around it" My last flight from DFW to PDX had about an hour of extra seat-belt time after the "reports of turbulence ahead.", we didn't change the flight path at all, just flew right through it.

 

One could argue about the increased frequency and severity of these events. But the data would have to be abundant and reliable, not to mention the need for an objective and unbiased analysis ... I doubt we're there yet.

It's very difficult to get such data, because how these things were handled in the past is simply very different than today. Fifty years ago, if a plane hit severe turbulence, usually no one heard about it except the friends and family members that the passengers told. Today, it is officially documented and tracked, as well as being reported worldwide on the national news accompanied by fifteen videos and spread by a bunch of viral videos.

 

In the old days of flying the pilot would say. "reports of turbulence ahead, we're moving around it" My last flight from DFW to PDX had about an hour of extra seat-belt time after the "reports of turbulence ahead.", we didn't change the flight path at all, just flew right through it.

Part of that decision-making process reflects better information upon which to base it. In the past, if you had reports of turbulence is was very vague and sparse -- reports from other pilots (known as PIREPs). So you had no idea how bad or extensive it was, and thus if the general conditions favored things like thunderstorms, you gave them a wide berth. Today, we have much better and denser data collection allowing decisions to be made based on a much finer understanding of how severe and how widespread the situation actually is.

Other factors at play are that the skies are more crowded. There's about twice as many airline flights in the sky at any given time compared to a few decades ago. So not only are the routes themselves more congested, but the scheduling is a lot tighter and delays due to routing around weather cause greater ripples across the system as planes and aircrews aren't where they need to be for subsequent flights.

 

Part of that decision-making process reflects better information upon which to base it. In the past, if you had reports of turbulence is was very vague and sparse -- reports from other pilots (known as PIREPs). So you had no idea how bad or extensive it was, and thus if the general conditions favored things like thunderstorms, you gave them a wide berth. Today, we have much better and denser data collection allowing decisions to be made based on a much finer understanding of how severe and how widespread the situation actually is.

Other factors at play are that the skies are more crowded. There's about twice as many airline flights in the sky at any given time compared to a few decades ago. So not only are the routes themselves more congested, but the scheduling is a lot tighter and delays due to routing around weather cause greater ripples across the system as planes and aircrews aren't where they need to be for subsequent flights.

I would suggest also that modern materials and structures and computer controlled avionics allow the planes to fly undamaged and (relatively) unmolested through substantially bad conditions. Why fly around when you can fly through?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/30/us/ntsb-hearing-dc-crash
Less than a second before hitting a passenger jet, helicopter instructor told pilot to change course, NTSB hearing reveals

The NTSB also presented for the first time major “discrepancies” in the altitude readouts on board the US Army Black Hawk helicopter that led to the crew believing they were flying lower over the Potomac River than they actually were.

Investigators said Wednesday that, following the crash, they tested three of the same models of Black Hawk helicopters from the same Army unit involved in the collision flying over the river.

“Notably, the barometric altimeters continued to be 80 to 130 feet lower than the helicopter’s determined altitude above sea level when flying at speed over the tidal portion of the Potomac River,” NTSB investigator Marie Moler presented to the hearing.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/30/us/ntsb-hearing-dc-crash
Less than a second before hitting a passenger jet, helicopter instructor told pilot to change course, NTSB hearing reveals

The NTSB also presented for the first time major “discrepancies” in the altitude readouts on board the US Army Black Hawk helicopter that led to the crew believing they were flying lower over the Potomac River than they actually were.

Investigators said Wednesday that, following the crash, they tested three of the same models of Black Hawk helicopters from the same Army unit involved in the collision flying over the river.

“Notably, the barometric altimeters continued to be 80 to 130 feet lower than the helicopter’s determined altitude above sea level when flying at speed over the tidal portion of the Potomac River,” NTSB investigator Marie Moler presented to the hearing.

“My concern is, where else in the national airspace does that exist where there are charted helicopter routes?”

This is a perfect application for AI. I asked Grok: "Examine all FAA flight maps and tell me where helicopter routes come within 500 feet of airplane flight routes."

Identifying specific locations where FAA helicopter routes come within 500 feet of airplane flight routes requires detailed analysis of FAA aeronautical charts, including Helicopter Route Charts, Sectional Aeronautical Charts, and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) charts, as well as precise data on altitudes and flight paths. The task is complex due to the volume of data, the variability of routes, and the need for precise geospatial and altitude comparisons. Below, I provide a comprehensive response based on available information, including insights from the provided search results, general FAA regulations, and known instances where such proximity has been noted. Since I cannot access real-time or exhaustive FAA chart databases, I will focus on known examples, general principles, and guidance for further investigation.Key FindingsWashington, D.C. Area (Reagan National Airport, Runway 33 and Helicopter Route 4):A notable case where helicopter and airplane routes come into close proximity is near Reagan National Airport (DCA) in Washington, D.C. A Washington Post analysis (February 4, 2025) highlighted that the approach path for Runway 33 at DCA crosses over Helicopter Route 4, a corridor used by helicopters flying north and south along the Potomac River.

Proximity Details:Jets approaching Runway 33 from the south, particularly smaller regional jets like American Eagle Flight 5342, pass over Helicopter Route 4 near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge at an altitude of at least 700 feet above the maximum altitude allowed for helicopters (typically around 200–300 feet AGL in this corridor, though exact altitudes vary). Further along the approach, as jets turn northwest over the Potomac, they again cross Route 4 at lower altitudes.
The Post analysis suggests that at certain points, the vertical separation between jets and helicopters can be less than 500 feet, especially if helicopters are operating at the upper limit of their allowed altitude or if jets are slightly below their assigned approach altitude.
The FAA does not provide precise coordinates for the edges of Helicopter Route 4, making exact distance calculations challenging, but the overlap of these routes has raised safety concerns, particularly after a near-collision incident involving an Army helicopter and a regional jet.

Operational Context:Helicopter pilots in this area often rely on visual separation, where they are alerted by air traffic control (ATC) to approaching jets and must maintain visual contact to avoid collisions. If visual separation cannot be maintained, helicopters are asked to hold at designated points north or south of the crossing.

The FAA has temporarily restricted certain helicopter operations on Route 4 (except for lifesaving, law enforcement, air defense, or presidential transport) following the incident, indicating heightened concern about this proximity.

Chart Reference:The Washington, D.C. Helicopter Route Chart, published by the National Ocean Service (1988, with updates), details numbered helicopter routes, including Route 4, and their proximity to DCA’s airspace. This chart can be accessed via the Library of Congress or FAA’s digital products.

General FAA Regulations and Helicopter Route Design:Minimum Safe Altitudes:Under 14 CFR § 91.119, helicopters can operate at lower altitudes than fixed-wing aircraft, provided they comply with FAA-prescribed routes or altitudes and pose no hazard to persons or property on the surface. Over non-congested areas, helicopters must maintain at least 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, but they can fly lower if authorized by the FAA.

Fixed-wing aircraft, except during takeoff or landing, must maintain 1,000 feet above obstacles in congested areas and 500 feet above the surface in non-congested areas.

Helicopter Route Charts often recommend altitudes or flight ceilings/floors to avoid conflicts with fixed-wing traffic, including wake turbulence from large aircraft. These altitudes are designed to maintain separation, but local ATC discretion may allow deviations.

Helicopter Route Charts:Helicopter Route Charts, published by the FAA, depict routes in high-density helicopter areas (e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.) at a scale of 1:250,000. They include recommended altitudes, heliports, NAVAIDs, obstructions, and visual checkpoints to facilitate navigation and traffic avoidance. These charts are updated every 56 days.

Routes are designed to avoid airspace requiring prior authorization (e.g., Class B or C airspace) and to minimize conflicts with IFR or VFR airplane routes. However, in busy metropolitan areas, helicopter routes may cross or run parallel to airplane approach or departure paths, potentially bringing them within 500 feet vertically or laterally.

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Separation:Most helicopter operations in these charts are conducted under VFR, where pilots are responsible for “see-and-avoid” to maintain separation. FAA guidelines in the D.C. area, for example, allow closer proximity than elsewhere, requiring 1½ miles lateral separation, 500 feet vertical separation, or visual separation.

In areas with high traffic density, such as near major airports, ATC may direct helicopters to fly below 500 feet to avoid fixed-wing traffic, increasing the risk of close encounters.

Other Potential Areas of Concern:New York City and Long Island:Helicopter Route Charts for New York City depict routes along the Hudson and East Rivers, often at low altitudes (e.g., 500–1,000 feet AGL). These routes can intersect with approach and departure paths for airports like LaGuardia (LGA), John F. Kennedy (JFK), and Newark (EWR), particularly in Class B airspace transitions.

The Long Island helicopter route, mandated by the FAA in 2012, requires pilots to fly at 2,500 feet over land and 3,000 feet offshore, reducing conflicts with airplane routes. However, transitions to and from this route near North Hempstead and Glen Cove may bring helicopters close to VFR or IFR airplane paths.

Exact locations where separation is less than 500 feet are not explicitly documented in the provided sources, but busy terminal areas like LGA’s Runway 13/31 approaches could be candidates for further analysis.

Los Angeles:Los Angeles Helicopter Route Charts cover routes in a high-traffic area with multiple airports (LAX, BUR, SNA). Routes like those along the Los Angeles River or near downtown heliports may cross under or near approach paths, such as LAX’s Runway 24/25 arrivals. Recommended altitudes (e.g., 500–1,500 feet AGL) may place helicopters within 500 feet of descending airplanes, especially in VFR conditions.

Specific intersections require detailed chart analysis, but areas near LAX’s Class B airspace boundaries are likely candidates.

Other Major Metropolitan Areas:Cities with significant helicopter activity (e.g., Chicago, Houston, Miami) have Helicopter Route Charts that may overlap with airplane routes near airports. For example, Chicago’s helicopter routes along Lake Michigan may intersect with Midway (MDW) or O’Hare (ORD) approach paths, potentially at close vertical separations.

Challenges in Identifying Exact Locationsata Limitations:Helicopter Route Charts provide recommended altitudes, but actual altitudes flown depend on ATC instructions, pilot discretion, and real-time conditions. Airplane routes, especially VFR routes, are less rigidly defined, complicating precise comparisons.

The FAA does not publish precise lateral or vertical boundaries for many helicopter routes, as seen in the D.C. case, making it difficult to calculate exact separations without proprietary data or real-time flight tracking.

Dynamic Operations:Helicopters often operate under VFR with flexible altitudes, and airplanes may deviate from published routes due to ATC instructions or weather. This variability means potential conflicts may occur intermittently rather than consistently.

Chart Access:Comprehensive analysis requires access to current Helicopter Route Charts, VFR Sectional Charts, IFR Enroute Charts, and Terminal Area Charts for each region. These are available via the FAA’s Digital Products portal (e.g., https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/) or platforms like SkyVector.

Recommendations for Further InvestigationTo pinpoint all locations where helicopter routes come within 500 feet of airplane routes, the following steps are necessary:Access FAA Charts:Obtain current Helicopter Route Charts for major metropolitan areas (e.g., Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) from the FAA’s Data Portal or SkyVector.

Cross-reference with VFR Sectional Charts, Terminal Area Charts, and IFR Approach Plates to identify overlapping airspace.

Analyze Altitude Data:Compare recommended helicopter altitudes (from Helicopter Route Charts) with published airplane approach/departure altitudes (from IFR charts or Standard Terminal Arrival Routes/Standard Instrument Departures).
Focus on areas near Class B, C, or D airspace, where helicopter routes often transition under or near airplane paths.

Geospatial Analysis:Use GIS tools or aviation software (e.g., ForeFlight, Garmin Pilot) to map helicopter routes and airplane paths, calculating lateral and vertical separations.
Pay attention to crossing points, such as river corridors (e.g., Potomac, Hudson) or urban heliport approaches.

Consult ATC and NOTAMs:Contact local FAA Air Traffic Managers or review NOTAMs for temporary restrictions or known conflict areas, as seen in the D.C. case.

ATC procedures may include unpublished separation minima or holding points that affect proximity.

Historical Incident Reports:Review NTSB or FAA incident reports for near-misses involving helicopters and airplanes, as these often highlight areas of close proximity (e.g., the DCA incident).

Critical ConsiderationsSafety Concerns:Close proximity between helicopter and airplane routes, as in the D.C. case, raises safety risks, particularly in VFR conditions where pilots rely on visual separation. The FAA’s reluctance to comment on the D.C. incident suggests ongoing scrutiny of route design.

Helicopter pilots’ ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings justifies lower altitudes, but this flexibility can lead to conflicts in busy airspace.

FAA Oversight:The FAA’s Helicopter Route Chart Program involves task forces with local ATC, military, law enforcement, and operators to design routes that minimize conflicts. However, the voluntary nature of pilot adherence to these routes can lead to deviations.

Aviation experts have criticized the FAA for allowing routes like those near DCA to coexist with minimal separation, suggesting a need for revised airspace design.

Limitations of Current Data:Without access to real-time flight data or proprietary FAA tools, exact locations beyond the D.C. example are speculative. General areas of concern (e.g., NYC, LAX) are based on known traffic patterns but require chart-specific analysis.

ConclusionThe most documented instance of helicopter routes coming within 500 feet of airplane routes is near Reagan National Airport’s Runway 33 approach, where jets cross Helicopter Route 4 along the Potomac River. Vertical separations may drop below 500 feet at certain points, as highlighted by a 2025 Washington Post analysis. Other potential areas include New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, where helicopter routes in high-density areas may intersect with airport approach/departure paths, but specific locations require detailed chart analysis. To comprehensively identify all such locations, access current FAA charts, perform geospatial analysis, and consult ATC procedures. The FAA’s ongoing review of incidents like the one in D.C. suggests that route adjustments may be forthcoming to enhance safety.If you need assistance with accessing specific charts or analyzing a particular region, please let me know, and I can guide you further!

Give Elon access to all the FAA charts, and let Grok train on them.

 

Intentionally -- or genetically -- stupid. You choose.

https://www.local10.com/news/local/...-arrest-2-men-over-reckless-drone-operations/

 

Intentionally -- or genetically -- stupid. You choose.

https://www.local10.com/news/local/...-arrest-2-men-over-reckless-drone-operations/

Both. This is why we need public caning from the stupid.

 

OMG!

 

OMG!

Sure shows how effective the restraint systems are. Even so, I'm amazed that the people at the back where it collided with the other beam weren't killed outright.

 

​

 

View attachment 353497​

I forget the specific numbers (it's been nearly forty years), but the brakes on an F-15 are rated for so many cycles of so many types of landings. I think it was about a thousand normal landings. Then it was a much smaller number for maximum-performance landings, something like 300, IIRC). I believe each landing was rated by the pilot and the crew chief turned that rating into an equivalent number of normal landings and tracked how much life was left. I wouldn't be too surprised if that process is automated now, at least on some aircraft. The F-15 brakes were also rated for a single rejected takeoff. I fully understood why when we got a brake assembly into the shop after a rejected takeoff -- the five high-strength bolts holding the assembly together had gotten so hot that they elongated like taffy and where probably half-again their normal length. It was impressive.

 

For first time in decades? I guess using harsh language is no longer working in Cali.

 

For first time in decades? I guess using harsh language is no longer working in Cali.

"Radical" would be crushing the driver with the car.

 

For first time in decades? I guess using harsh language is no longer working in Cali.

While I have no problem with vehicle forfeiture for those individuals that use their cars in a dangerous and reckless manner, particularly on a repeat basis, or that knowingly allow others to use their vehicle in such a way, the views of some of the people in that video represent the classic attitude of blaming the inanimate object and not the person misusing it.

 

28 hours!

https://viewfromthewing.com/no-food...ped-on-plane-after-black-rainstorm-diversion/