5 hours ago
(5 hours ago)MonkMode Wrote: Well I appreciate you corrected me on that 1500 foot altitude error. I had heard that on another forum from someone claiming to be a flight expert.
I believed it because I heard on the radio: PAT25 was told of an approaching CRJ just south of the Woodrow bridge at 1200 feet setting up for runway 33. Then visual separation approved.
Looks like the CRJ had descended to 300 feet by the time they collided.
In any case, the reference the Woodrow bridge, pinpointed the CRJ precisely.
Did PAT25 not know where the Woodrow bridge is???
I doubt it, so there is still no excuse, if visual separation was approved, for PAT25 to not have seen the CRJ it hit IMO.
I still think PAT25 went on a collision course, and turned into the CRJ at the very moment the CRJ turned toward runway 33 from an opposing angle.
I have now heard 300 feet is still about 100 feet higher than PAT25 was approved to fly.
Yes they crossed paths, they weren’t heading at each other in a straight line, but looks their fronts collided, and PAT25 intentionally swerved and ascended to collide with the CRJ.
Have you looked at the ADS-B images of the area at the time? There were two other planes near the bridge at the time the CRJ made their right turn to line up for 33. The crew of PAT25 would have seen lights, roughly where they would expect the CRJ to be, and assume that was the CRJ. Even if they correctly identified the CRJ at first, they wouldn’t have been looking at it constantly. Look down to check instruments, or to the side to clear airspace around them, the CRJ turns, the crew of PAT25 looks back in front of them, sees lights exactly where they expect to see them, and never realizes that the CRJ turned and misidentifies the next flight as the CRJ they’re supposed to pass behind.
There’s no evidence PAT25 did anything but a last minute evasion attempt, no matter how many times you repeat that they pulled up onto them deliberately.
Logic is dead. Long live BS.