Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "KJRH -TV | Tulsa | Channel 2" channel.

All this talk of altitude is a red herring. The altitude doesn't matter because 150 ft is not adequate vertical separation even if both aircraft were on altitude. These aircraft were supposed to be separated laterally. The proximate cause of the collision is that the helicopter failed to maintain visual separation by passing behind the CRJ as instructed.
5
The altitude doesn't matter because 150 ft is not adequate vertical separation even if both aircraft were on altitude. These aircraft were supposed to be separated laterally. The proximate cause of the collision is that the helicopter failed to maintain visual separation by passing behind the CRJ as instructed. All this talk of altitude is a red herring..
3
@Summitspeedfly LOL? You don’t understand the point here. Even 150 feet is not sufficient vertical separation. You cannot allow an airliner to fly 100 feet over the top of a helicopter. The helo was instructed to maintain visual separation and pass behind the CRJ because there would obviously be insufficient vertical separation even if the helicopter was not high. Lateral separation was required, was assigned to the helo, and the helo failed to comply with the instruction. That is the real cause of the collision. Even if the helo had been at 200 feet the CRJ could have collided if it were just a bit low on glidepath. Again, lateral separation was required.
3
@karinhedman6903 The instruction to pass behind was the final instruction, but the helo had previously requested and been approved to apply visual separation from the traffic. It was only when the controller began to doubt that the helo was going to maintain separation that he asked the helo if it actually had the traffic in sight and gave explicit instruction to pass behind the CRJ. The helo could have easily avoided the CRJ if it actually had it in sight.
2
@Summitspeedfly Yes, I have landed on 33 many times. You don't fly 100' over the top of a helicopter on short final to 33. The fact that two published flight routings intersect doesn't mean the intersection can be occupied simultaneously by two aircraft. You are really stupid if you don't understand what I'm talking about. Don't waste any more of my time.
2
@E-plunksna No it isn't adequate. Air traffic control never separates aircraft by only 150 ft vertically.
1
@Summitspeedfly LOL yourself. You seem incapable of grasping the point. They would have missed each other by 150 feet if they had been on altitude, but that was not what was intended to provide the required separation as that is insufficient. You do not allow an airliner to skim over the top of a helo on short final. LATERAL SPEPATATION WAS REQUIRED, and that is what the controller instructed the helo to do. It failed. If they had lateral separation as REQUIRED, they could be co-altitude with zero danger.
1
@Summitspeedfly LOL yourself. You don’t understand the point here. 150 feet is not sufficient separation in any plane. You cannot allow an airliner to fly 100 feet over the top of a helicopter. The helo was instructed to maintain visual separation and pass behind the CRJ because there would obviously be insufficient vertical separation even if the helicopter was not high. Lateral separation was required, was assigned to the helo, and the helo failed to comply wiuth the instruction. That is the real cause of the collision. Even if the helo had been at 200 feet the CRJ could have collided if it were just a bit low on glidepath. Again, lateral separation was required.
1
@E-plunksna At night all you see it lights, and when they are not moving they blend into all the other lights. When a light is not moving you cannot judge its distance. Things that are on a collision course are not moving in you flied of view,
1