Yep, I read that also. But, with an error potential of 100 ft? How they can determine that precisely is somewhat of a guess. I have no doubt it's a close estimate but, an estimate it is. Both aircraft should have set their altimeter to the reported Density Altitudes so, the altimeters should have been showing accurate readings. I have little doubt the airliner was at the reported altitude and so it makes sense the Blackhawk was within feet of the airliner's altitude but, I'm thinking the helicopter data estimated altitude (supposedly from the tower is more based on the airliner's black box and not on data from the tower. My understanding is that the Blackhawks data has not been retrieved and won't be until the fuselage has been recovered and inspected. I don't understand that decision but, I don't get paid for crash analysis.
Edited: BTW, while I may be wrong, I still don't believe the Blackhawk crew was under NVGs prior to the collision. Just an opinion but, it's all mine and I'm sticking to it.
Rams
You are beginning to sound a lot like patrick...defending your sacred cow (US Army) without any proof whatsoever. As far as the altitude, I'm absolutely amazed, that someone that has not flown anything in well over a decade knows more than NTSB.. Are you just holding out hope, that somehow it's going to be the airliner pilot's fault....or ATC? ALL, the evidence points to the helo pilots flying their aircraft INTO the airliner, not the other way around.
The book's author, Garrett Graff, said the site was called Raven Rock Mountain Complex, or "Site R," located just miles from Camp David. It remains one of three main backup facilities for the U.S. government, and the main one for the Pentagon leadership. "It's 100 percent operational today. There's a team of maybe 100 personnel inside Raven Rock right now, ready to pick up the pieces of the U.S. government," Graff said.[/i]
Can I just say... this place has the absolute best ribs I've ever had in my life... they are dirt-cheap, and... AND... you can buy them individually. I paid ~$1.30 for three ribs, baked beans, a slice of turkey, and cornbread with a fountain soda. Like... it was 1985 deli prices in there.
Not much scenery since it's underground, but they have flat-screen TVs around the cafeteria with curtains around them, displaying cameras into the parking lot to make you feel like you're not in an underground facility and looking out windows (and so you know if it's night or day).
You are beginning to sound a lot like patrick...defending your sacred cow (US Army) without any proof whatsoever. As far as the altitude, I'm absolutely amazed, that someone that has not flown anything in well over a decade knows more than NTSB.. Are you just holding out hope, that somehow it's going to be the airliner pilot's fault....or ATC? ALL, the evidence points to the helo pilots flying their aircraft INTO the airliner, not the other way around.
Don, there is absolutely no good reason to compare me with him. That's a very insulting thing to do. But I understand how you came up with that. I have stuck to my opinion. Although I haven't posted the articles I've read by former pilots, I am not alone in what we believe about the use of NVGs in that light polluted area. Yes, it's been a lot of years since I flew NVGs. I also agree the Blackhawk flew into the airliner.
There's no way I have tried to shift blame to the airliner pilots, I also haven't read any official report where the NTSB has officially said NVGs were in use at the time of the collision. There are questions that should be asked and I'm very confident the NTSB will ask those questions. If that's (proof) been put out there, I haven't seen it, I will be watching for such a declaration. No doubt as to who's at fault at this point, the Blackhawk was IMHO definitely at fault up until something is proven otherwise. Reference the use of NVGs, until there's proof the pilots were under NVGs, I'll hold with what I've stated but, will eat crow if it's proven. As I've previously stated, I and the other Army pilots have discussed this with agree on the NVGs would be shocked if the NVGs were in use.
Edited: Reference that sacred cow you mentioned, I honestly can't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the post of mine you quoted but, OK. I am very proud of being an Rotary Wing Aviator but, the Army was my second choice due to the number of pilots and helicopters the Marines needed, my chances of getting into flight school were greatly increased by going Army.
Edit II:
quote
Pete Hegseth, Trump's Defence Secretary, stated that the crew “did have night-vision goggles” with them, but he did not specify if they were donning them at the time of the crash.
Hegseth only confirms a possibility.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-05-2025).]
You are beginning to sound a lot like patrick...defending your sacred cow (US Army) without any proof whatsoever.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Don, there is absolutely no good reason to compare me with him. That's a very insulting thing to do. But I understand how you came up with that.
I haven't looked at this thread for a few days, and I come back and see this? Two grown men talking about someone else behind their back like a couple of teenage girls? In a helicopter/plane crash thread of all things? Seriously, guys?
When visibility is good, pilots of regional airline jets bound for Reagan National Airport expect to hear a familiar request from air traffic control as they fly north up the Potomac River: Can the flight crew divert to Runway 33?
Pilots who agree initiate a swooping turn that on final approach brings them northwest and low across the river — the path American Eagle Flight 5342 was on last week when it and a U.S. Army helicopter collided.
While the primary approaches to the airport’s main runway provide jets with hundreds of feet of clearance over the busy helicopter corridors that run along the Potomac, there is no such cushion for Runway 33.
The charted approach for that alternative landing takes jets within 15 feet of the top of the Route 4 helicopter corridor as it is depicted in navigation maps, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Aviation Administration documentation.
With little margin for error, the design places intense responsibility on air traffic controllers and helicopter pilots to stay clear of jets navigating a low and highly technical approach to the airport’s shortest landing strip, experts said. Several airplane pilots interviewed by The Post described close encounters with helicopters while approaching Runway 33, and other pilots have filed reports about such incidents to a federal aviation safety database.
The helicopter route and landing path for the runway essentially put aircraft “in the same place,” said Scott Dunham, who has worked as a National Transportation Safety Board investigator and an air traffic control instructor. “You have to move one of them.”
When necessary, current and former air traffic controllers said, the tower will alert helicopter pilots to the presence of an approaching jet — as it did last Wednesday when the Army helicopter neared the path of Flight 5342 — and ask if they can see it. If they can, controllers ask the pilot to maintain “visual separation,” meaning they will keep the plane in sight and use their own discretion to avoid a collision. Helicopter pilots who cannot see a jet on final approach are asked to hold at points north or south of the crossing, they said.
Still, aviation experts who reviewed The Post’s findings said they were surprised the FAA had designed the airline and helicopter routes in such close proximity. Runway 33 for decades was used by prop planes and private aviation. As airlines have increasingly relied on small regional jets, those aircraft have been asked to land on Runway 33 to help ease congestion at the busy airport.
John Cox, a retired airline captain who specializes in collision investigations, said the arrangement creates risks. “There’s too much of a chance of altimeter error, a gust of wind, a non-optimally flown approach where you’re a little low,” he said. “You want margins. Even 100 feet is pretty close.”
That’s especially true because, according to navigation documents, pilots control their planes manually on the final approach to Runway 33, meaning the path of their descent will vary from the FAA-designated approach.
The National Transportation Safety Board has not said precisely where or at what altitude last week’s crash occurred. In the moments before the collision, the Army Black Hawk had been flying above the 200-foot ceiling for helicopters in the area, The Post has previously reported. The cause of the collision, which left 67 dead, remains under investigation.
Ken Biddulph, a retired Army Black Hawk helicopter pilot who was previously assigned to the aviation unit involved in last week’s crash, said that because helicopters must descend to such a low altitude to avoid planes near the airport, he used to visualize the route as “flying a tunnel through their airspace.”
Of the possible vertical separation between planes and helicopters where the two routes cross, he said, “It’s just one of the closer ones in the nation that I can think of.”
Asked late last week about the proximity of the two published routes, an FAA spokesman declined to comment, citing the crash investigation. “The FAA will quickly take any actions necessary based on evidence from the investigation,” the agency said in a statement.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association also declined to comment.
Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy said Friday that the government had closed helicopter Route 4 to certain aircraft, at least through the initial stage of the investigation, saying the decision would “immediately help secure the airspace near National Airport, ensuring the safety of airplane and helicopter traffic.” The corridor can still be used by helicopter flights related to lifesaving medical support, active law enforcement, active air defense or presidential transport, the Transportation Department said.
Over the years, helicopters have flown directly under low-flying planes at this midair intersection, in some cases causing the larger aircraft to pull up to avoid a possible collision, according to records and interviews.
“It can get really sketchy,” said Richard Gallaher, a helicopter pilot who for years flew corporate executives in and out of downtown Washington. Gallaher said that more than once during the 1980s and 1990s, he spotted a jet on final approach as he neared the intersection and dropped his altitude to under 100 feet to safely pass under a plane that was simultaneously coming into Runway 33.
“I’ve flown underneath and looked up into the wheel well,” he said.
Airline pilots, meanwhile, told The Post they have looked down in surprise to see a helicopter passing below, an experience they said is not common on final approach at other airports.
One regional jet pilot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still flies for a major airline, said he was shocked the first time a helicopter flew under him as he was making the final approach to Runway 33. He described how the air traffic control tower told him the chopper would maintain visual separation, but the helicopter never slowed down, prompting him to pull up as the helicopter shot past. His evasive maneuver, he said, left him on a steeper and more dangerous descent to the short runway. The pilot said the experience left him shocked and furious.
“I realized that they will let those helicopters do anything once they say ‘traffic in sight,’” he said, describing the practice as “totally insane.”
The FAA’s published protocols for flying in the D.C. area set forth standards that allow aircraft to be in closer proximity than would be permitted in much of the country. Most flying is conducted under what are known as “visual flight rules,” and pilots are instructed to maintain one of the following: 1½ miles of lateral separation, 500 feet of vertical separation or “visual separation.”
FAA guidelines do not specify what distance is allowable under visual separation but say none of those instructions should be “interpreted as relieving pilots of their responsibilities to see and avoid other traffic.”
The largest planes departing and arriving at National use its longest landing strip, designated as Runway 1 or 19 depending on whether traffic is coming from the north or south. At close to 7,000 feet long, it is the airport’s only runway able to accommodate many larger commercial jets. It is the nation’s busiest runway, with an average of more than 800 takeoffs and landings combined each day in 2023, the airport says.
Pilots of smaller regional jets told The Post that, when approaching from the south, they are regularly asked to reroute to Runway 33 to relieve pressure on Runway 1 — as American Eagle Flight 5342 was on Wednesday night.
The request to divert to the roughly 5,200-foot runway typically comes from air traffic control as a plane flying up the Potomac River nears the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, they said. All jets approaching the main runway pass over Route 4 near the bridge, at least 700 feet above the maximum altitude allowed there for helicopters, The Post found.
To line up for the Runway 33 approach, pilots turn their jets eastward, the start of an arc that takes them away from the Potomac and over the District. Then, spotting a radar dome at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling or the steeple of a white church — two landmarks designated by airlines as visual cues to begin final descent — the pilots turn northwest back toward Virginia. The path brings jets back over the Potomac River and over helicopter Route 4.
The FAA does not give precise coordinates for the edges of the corridor that helicopter pilots can use to fly north and south along the river. Pilots, who fly manually in the area, told The Post they try to adhere to the path depicted on the FAA navigational chart. The Post analysis used the edges as drawn in that chart.
Helicopters that hug the east side of the river, the D.C. side, are farthest below the approach path. The closer a helicopter is to the center of the river, the less vertical space there is between it and the path of a descending plane.
On the final approach to Runway 33, a plane on the path prescribed by the FAA reaches the airspace over the depicted helicopter route at an altitude of just under 250 feet, and exits it at just under 215 feet, The Post’s analysis found.
Pilots have documented close calls with helicopters at that spot in the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The database does not include the names of airlines or pilots involved, nor does it indicate whether the incidents were ultimately investigated or verified by federal authorities.
In 2013, a commercial jet pilot reported that a helicopter turned into the plane’s path after initially acknowledging visual separation. The captain, who was in the final approach to Runway 33, “made a hard right turn and executed a missed approach to avoid a collision,” the pilot wrote in the report.
A regional jet pilot in 2015 described a close call with a helicopter while coming into the final approach, despite having followed the airline’s approach guidance “exactly as planned.” The plane had to be steered onto a new course “to prevent it from becoming a midair collision,” the pilot wrote, noting that only later did the tower inform the plane of the helicopter’s location, by which point “it would have been too late.”
“Maybe they don’t have a specific guideline to keep the arriving traffic separated from the low flying helicopters,” the pilot wrote.
Last Wednesday night, an air traffic controller alerted the Army Black Hawk helicopter to the presence of Flight 5342 two minutes before the aircraft collided, and again just seconds before, audio recordings show. The controller also instructed the helicopter to go behind the path of the airliner.
Dunham, the NTSB investigator, said the controller seemed to have taken appropriate action. He said that in light of the crash, aviation officials may have to examine whether to keep Route 4 intact while allowing landings on Runway 33.
“You could decide this one isn’t worth it,” he said.
It does appear the FAA doesn't have a real grip on just how dangerous this combination of routes are.
I haven't looked at this thread for a few days, and I come back and see this? Two grown men talking about someone else behind their back like a couple of teenage girls? In a helicopter/plane crash thread of all things? Seriously, guys?
I mean, it's not really behind your back... otherwise you wouldn't have seen it. It was a slow burn for 2 or more individuals.
Don, I offered to not respond or ignore Patrick's posts and am doing my best to keep my word. It does appear that not everyone is consistent. Will leave it at that.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I mean, it's not really behind your back... otherwise you wouldn't have seen it. It was a slow burn for 2 or more individuals.
Exactly. Right out here in the open for all to see.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hey, look... despite of what you might think... I'd go to a bar and have a few Coors Lights with you any day, and we'd have a blast.
A commercial pilot acquaintance of mine responded to my request for his take on what caused this crash. This was his response.
quote
It appears just a lot of things went just slightly wrong for this accident to happen. But first, the idea of closing this airport because of the proximity to things. Just not going to happen, too much money involved in many areas. First, the airlines themselves own the landing/departure slots once they are awarded by the government. And as efficiency improves they have awarded more and more slots to various airlines and routes. These slots can be sold and bought by other airlines but seldom become available because of the higher premium yield for DCA versus Dulles and Baltimore. And this is not the only airport with theses traffic congestion issues in cities . . . LaGuardia (also a slot controlled airport), San Francisco with two parcel runways so close together that landing in pairs is common several hundred feet apart (yes, passengers are quickly briefed over the PA), San Diego with a damm parking garage built on the approach path so the angle to the runway is steeper, etc. A lot of airports have issues, but pilots train for many of these airports in simulators. The worst of them, before a new Captain can fly in to them they have to ride with an experienced Captain into and out of the airport. All regulated by the FAA and watched over by them constantly. If you ever see a guy/gal in a pretty cheap blazer standing up by the cockpit before departure it is probably an FAA individual making a surprise ride along on a leg. Very, very common on our airlines.
Now, what went wrong, I believe a few things. The only altimeter I’m interested in is the Blackhawk. With several onboard at least one will be stuck at impact, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. As I said before, the circle to runway 33 is challenging. As is normally the case here, it comes late in the game and the crew has to decide quickly. I’ve never flown a CRJ like this, but I know the approach speeds are similar to an airliner twice its size because it has no leading edge devices to provide additional lift at slow speeds like a large airliner has. Hence 125knots in the flare is common . . . and now your on a short, short runway for those speeds. And B737’s and A320’s do this routinely as well. So the CRJ rounds the corner on short final and is going to be focused on a runway lighting system to provide a proper glide path. If the CRJ pilots are on top of their game they are on the lower end of that lighting system glide path. Remember, short runway . . . plant the airplane with little flare and stop the airplane. Nothing has to do with altimeters on short final like this, it is all visual . . . inside airspeed, outside lights of glidepath (repeat 10 times a second). And then, the barking of the collision avoidance system was hopefully going full blast. And then did the CRJ pilots hear the half conversation the controller was having with the Blackhawk while they were doing the circle??
The Blackhawk pilots were following the river south in a haphazard way, the communication with the tower was professional . . . but yet . . .i wonder did they really know what the CRJ was doing in the circle to runway 33?? I’m starting to think they did not know the flight path the CRJ was taking. And then they confused some other lights with the CRJ and thought they were well behind it.
The controller was counting on the Blackhawk to pass behinds the CRJ. When a pilot responds “in sight” and will pass visual behind that alleviates the controller of separation. The controller is visual with outside but would have a small radar scope near them for additional situational awareness at this level of airport. The controller questioned the Blackhawk pilot a second time if they had the CRJ because he/she could see the conflict.
So, the controller assumed the Blackhawk pilot knew the CRJ route but should have said “traffic 11’clock 2miles, pass behind as traffic passes left to right in front of you”. The controller “assumed’’ the Blackhawk pilots knew the route the CRJ was flying, a dangerous game.
So, the Blackhawk pilots probably did not know the airspace they were operating in well enough. But much of that only comes with experience, not book work. And that Blackhawk crew was probably on the lower end of experience; qualified and sharp pilots but just not seen everything DCA can throw at one. If there was a moment of doubt in their minds they should have asked for some guidance from the controller. (It is quite common and not frowned upon at all generally. But yet the IP had the more senior officer flying as copilot. Did that make him more hesitant to ask for directions??)
So, the CRJ, if that TCAS system was barking at them on short final, and you see a predator on the screen near you . . . go around and get away from the threat . . . Now! easy to say, though to do and abandon an approach. A second or two earlier on the go around and it would just be “a near miss paperwork shuffle”.
Anyone of these and everyone lives.
The aviation industry, like all highly skilled trades has seen a lot of turnover since Covid ended. Not sure if that has any influence on this accident.
What he could not address was the NVG issue that some claim may have been another factor.
NTSB chair claims Black Hawk helicopter crew wore night vision goggles before midair crash
NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy says preliminary data suggests the Black Hawk helicopter crew was wearing night vision goggles before colliding with a commercial jet last week.
Have to assume she knows something.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-06-2025).]
The pilot flying the helicopter was on a check flight and being tested on the use of night vision goggles. Investigators believe the crew was wearing the goggles throughout the flight.
If at any point they wanted to remove them, they would have had to have a discussion about it, which cockpit recordings do not indicate.
The pilot of the passenger plane may have attempted a last-second move to avoid the collision, the NTSB previously determined.
...................................
There was also an apparent discrepancy between two of the three Army pilots about what altitude they were flying at, according to investigators — and they were well above the 200-foot limit for that location.
At one point before the collision, the helicopter’s pilot announced that they were at 300 feet, but the instructor pilot was also heard saying the helicopter was at 400 feet, according to recordings.
At the time of the fiery crash, the Black Hawk was flying at 278 feet, Homedy said, adding, “That doesn’t mean that’s what the Black Hawk crew was seeing on the barometric altimeters in the cockpit.”
Black Hawk pilots may not have heard a critical directive from air traffic control to fly behind the American Airlines plane in the seconds before it collided with the jet, and may have had “bad data” on the altitude they were flying at, according to investigators.
Seventeen seconds before the deadly Jan. 29 crash, which killed all 67 people aboard both flights, the Black Hawk was directed to pass behind the passenger jet, National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said at a news conference.
“The portion of the transmission that stated ‘pass behind’ may not have been received by the Black Hawk crew,” Homendy explained.
The Black Hawk pilots likely “stepped on” the communication by pressing the mic in an attempt to communicate back to air traffic control.
The crew also may not have clearly heard that the American Airlines flight was “circling” in the DC airspace, investigators found.
My question. I was always under the belief that any directive that ATC gave an aircraft, had to be repeated back by the receiving pilot.. no? 'flyboy1234, houstonatc, pass behind jetblue." 'houstonatc, flyboy1234 pass behind jetblue'
Previous reports indicted that the airfield tower instructed to return to the airfield. Has that been mis-reported or ignored? My question is also to ask why the "Return to Base" if, that actually occurred.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-15-2025).]
Previous reports indicted that the airfield tower instructed to return to the airfield. Has that been mis-reported or ignored? My question is also to ask why the "Return to Base" if, that actually occurred.
Rams
Instructed who? (I never saw any ATC report saying that to any aircraft regarding this accident)..you have a link to it?)
Originally posted by maryjane: There was also an apparent discrepancy between two of the three Army pilots about what altitude they were flying at, according to investigators — and they were well above the 200-foot limit for that location.
At one point before the collision, the helicopter’s pilot announced that they were at 300 feet, but the instructor pilot was also heard saying the helicopter was at 400 feet, according to recordings.
At the time of the fiery crash, the Black Hawk was flying at 278 feet, Homedy said, adding, “That doesn’t mean that’s what the Black Hawk crew was seeing on the barometric altimeters in the cockpit.”
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: The NTSB only has the data recorded. The recorders have to be calibrated at regular intervals. Including speed radar from local traffic cops.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffw: The NTSB only has the data recorded. The recorders have to be calibrated at regular intervals. Including speed radar from local traffic cops.
[/QUOTE]
I assume you are joking but if not...........the data recorders can only be recalibrated by the sensor manufacturer. Usually, they need no recalibration.
Instructed who? (I never saw any ATC report saying that to any aircraft regarding this accident)..you have a link to it?)
Based on an earlier report, I remember it was stated that the Army Tower told the Blackhawk to return to base. I don't have a link to it, it may have been on TV but, I will look for it.
Edited: While I do remember the report, I'm not finding anything after reading several articles. Maybe my imagination has gotten the best of me or, I am simply not remembering the report precisely. Admittedly, it is possible.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-16-2025).]
Based on an earlier report, I remember it was stated that the Army Tower told the Blackhawk to return to base. I don't have a link to it, it may have been on TV but, I will look for it.
Edited: While I do remember the report, I'm not finding anything after reading several articles. Maybe my imagination has gotten the best of me or, I am simply not remembering the report precisely. Admittedly, it is possible.
Rams
I think that would have been bad business having 2 different controllers giving different instructions to the same AC in the same airspace. Having the Blackhawk just turn around and head back to Ft Belvoir without a handshake from Reagan ATC might look good in hindsight but in reality might have caused more problems than it already has. I can listen in, and watch here to Killeen/Ft Hood air and some ground tactical activity and once an Army helo gets over about 100ft altitude, it's released 100% to Killeen tower, they have to get permission from Killeen ATC before even launching and then Killeen will tell them which direction to proceed, what their traffic is, and at which altitude. All you need to listen in to Millington or Memphis is a good scanner that can receive VHF frequencies between 118.0 and 136.975 MHz. There's a way to do it on some smart phones but I haven't really looked in to it. I have a 3 year old Whistler hand held. I heard something about them folding up last year tho.
Originally posted by maryjane: I assume you are joking but if not...........the data recorders can only be recalibrated by the sensor manufacturer. Usually, they need no recalibration.
I think that would have been bad business having 2 different controllers giving different instructions to the same AC in the same airspace. Having the Blackhawk just turn around and head back to Ft Belvoir without a handshake from Reagan ATC might look good in hindsight but in reality might have caused more problems than it already has.
Agreed, I'm probably not correct but, I sure thought I read the Army airfield was recalling the Blackhawk. Oh well. Shrugg.
Agreed, I'm probably not correct but, I sure thought I read the Army airfield was recalling the Blackhawk. Oh well. Shrugg.
Rams
They probably do, under a certain ceiling but I know here, even a very low altitude test hop over by the maintenance pad gets Killeen atc. Now, This being a joint air facility I suspect the tower has both civilian and mil controllers but by far the majority of the traffic here is civilian air liners and gen aviation. (The Robert Gray Army Airfield's 2 big helo pads are empty since 3rd Corp's the air cav segment moved elsewhere They keep a few Blackhawks and Chinooks but they're almost always parked about 8 n miles to the west, across I-14. I think they keep one Blackhawk over by the terminal as a SAR bird)
They probably do, under a certain ceiling but I know here, even a very low altitude test hop over by the maintenance pad gets Killeen atc. Now, This being a joint air facility I suspect the tower has both civilian and mil controllers but by far the majority of the traffic here is civilian air liners and gen aviation. (The Robert Gray Army Airfield's 2 big helo pads are empty since 3rd Corp's the air cav segment moved elsewhere They keep a few Blackhawks and Chinooks but they're almost always parked about 8 n miles to the west, across I-14. I think they keep one Blackhawk over by the terminal as a SAR bird)
Don, Just speculation on my part but, I suspect the Army Tower's controlled airspace was only within their pattern (most likely defined by some physical landmarks so as to avoid noise issues and restricted airspace), below the 200 foot altitude and aircraft leaving there would switch over to the civilian tower once departing the Army pattern. Just a SWAG on my part.
That's a very insulting thing to do. 
. Sarcasm.
