Politics of the crash.

32,775 Views | 384 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by halfastros81
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Highway6 said:

No Spin Ag said:

FTAG 2000 said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

Why the hell do you guys think it was intentional? Looks to me like they didn't see it.


The chopper was going straight. The pilot had to be looking straight ahead. The plane it crashed into had lights flashing so it could be seen by others.

It's hard not to see the obvious.

Or, could the pilot of the helicopter been passed out and didn't see he was flying into a plane?

If they had night vision goggles on, your field of view is reduced by about 40%. Plus bright lights can wash out your view completely.

Not hard to make that jump on not seeing the plane if they were under NV conditions (or the pilot was looking at console, map/nav, or something else).


There's only one person in those helicopters? I ask because I don't know, so any info help.
A crew of 3 on this one


Thanks for that.

So even if one of them was looking at a map, there's two others you'd expect to be paying attention.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

Why the hell do you guys think it was intentional? Looks to me like they didn't see it.


The chopper was going straight. The pilot had to be looking straight ahead. The plane it crashed into had lights flashing so it could be seen by others.

It's hard not to see the obvious.

Or, could the pilot of the helicopter been passed out and didn't see he was flying into a plane?
You guys are INSANE if you think this was intentional. Both pilots didn't see each other because it's HARD TO SEE. And the helicopter didn't have ADS-B. You guys think they were both in on the conspiracy? To the death? Really?


No, just the helicopter. Or it could just be complete incompetence on the part of the helicopter pilot, but regardless, the helicopter has a lot of time to not keep going straight at the plane yet still does.

I'd imagine the Blackhawk pilots are trained to use evasive maneuvers to not hit other aircraft in the sky, no?
If the airline pilot saw him, then he WOULD have turned to avoid him. He wouldn't have just flew into him because "he was supposed to move". That shows how hard it is to see and why ATC tells everybody about traffic. This pilot thought ATC was taking about another plane. Not the smaller closer one. Most military aircraft don't have ADS-B. That is much more to blame here than anything.
The lack of ATC giving bearings, or `o'clock positions, or even just layman `to your left or right' positions for what plane talking about still bothers me given how much traffic is in the sky including the blatantly visible one taking off. If that's normal procedure its kind of blockhead.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.


So females hired makes them automatically DEI?
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
ETFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

aTmAg said:

My brother flew military for 19 years before he retired. Now he flies GA aircraft for fun on weekends. Both he and I are shocked how hard it is to see other aircraft down low with all the ground clutter. I imagine it's even more difficult at night.
But this plane wasn't "down low" in relation to the helicopter.


Yes it was. Have you flown at night?
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Spin Ag said:

aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.


So females hired makes them automatically DEI?


Yes
ETFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
titan said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

Why the hell do you guys think it was intentional? Looks to me like they didn't see it.


The chopper was going straight. The pilot had to be looking straight ahead. The plane it crashed into had lights flashing so it could be seen by others.

It's hard not to see the obvious.

Or, could the pilot of the helicopter been passed out and didn't see he was flying into a plane?
You guys are INSANE if you think this was intentional. Both pilots didn't see each other because it's HARD TO SEE. And the helicopter didn't have ADS-B. You guys think they were both in on the conspiracy? To the death? Really?


No, just the helicopter. Or it could just be complete incompetence on the part of the helicopter pilot, but regardless, the helicopter has a lot of time to not keep going straight at the plane yet still does.

I'd imagine the Blackhawk pilots are trained to use evasive maneuvers to not hit other aircraft in the sky, no?
If the airline pilot saw him, then he WOULD have turned to avoid him. He wouldn't have just flew into him because "he was supposed to move". That shows how hard it is to see and why ATC tells everybody about traffic. This pilot thought ATC was taking about another plane. Not the smaller closer one. Most military aircraft don't have ADS-B. That is much more to blame here than anything.
The lack of ATC giving bearings, or `o'clock positions, or even just layman `to your left or right' positions for what plane talking about still bothers me given how much traffic is in the sky including the blatantly visible one taking off. If that's normal procedure its kind of blockhead.


I mean, atc confirmed twice that PAT25 had traffic in sight, PAT25 confirmed AND requested visual separation "yeah we see it, we'll keep our distance". Edit: I'm not quoting pat25 here, just putting in normal English what that would have meant.


Seems pretty obvious what they actually had in sight was the airplane on approach to 1, straight south down the river from them. Not the rj to their 9-11ish, that would have been basically parallel to them until the turn to the west to align with 33. This really does just look like an accident. Obviously things can and will be improved, based on findings.
jwoodmd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaroonStain said:

No Spin Ag said:

aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.


So females hired makes them automatically DEI?


Yes
You've got some outstanding female Aggies that you are insulting.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ETFan said:

titan said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

Why the hell do you guys think it was intentional? Looks to me like they didn't see it.


The chopper was going straight. The pilot had to be looking straight ahead. The plane it crashed into had lights flashing so it could be seen by others.

It's hard not to see the obvious.

Or, could the pilot of the helicopter been passed out and didn't see he was flying into a plane?
You guys are INSANE if you think this was intentional. Both pilots didn't see each other because it's HARD TO SEE. And the helicopter didn't have ADS-B. You guys think they were both in on the conspiracy? To the death? Really?


No, just the helicopter. Or it could just be complete incompetence on the part of the helicopter pilot, but regardless, the helicopter has a lot of time to not keep going straight at the plane yet still does.

I'd imagine the Blackhawk pilots are trained to use evasive maneuvers to not hit other aircraft in the sky, no?
If the airline pilot saw him, then he WOULD have turned to avoid him. He wouldn't have just flew into him because "he was supposed to move". That shows how hard it is to see and why ATC tells everybody about traffic. This pilot thought ATC was taking about another plane. Not the smaller closer one. Most military aircraft don't have ADS-B. That is much more to blame here than anything.
The lack of ATC giving bearings, or `o'clock positions, or even just layman `to your left or right' positions for what plane talking about still bothers me given how much traffic is in the sky including the blatantly visible one taking off. If that's normal procedure its kind of blockhead.


I mean, atc confirmed twice that PAT25 had traffic in sight, PAT25 confirmed AND requested visual separation "yeah we see it, we'll keep our distance". Edit: I'm not quoting pat25 here, just putting in normal English what that would have meant.


Seems pretty obvious what they actually had in sight was the airplane on approach to 1, straight south down the river from them. Not the rj to their 9-11ish, that would have been basically parallel to them until the turn to the west to align with 33. This really does just look like an accident. Obviously things can and will be improved, based on findings.


Why no altitude warning?
heteroscedasticity
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
It ""appears" that this is a lie. Are you going to apologize and retract your post or just let it hang out there as a testament to your character?
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
ETFan said:

titan said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

No Spin Ag said:

aTmAg said:

Why the hell do you guys think it was intentional? Looks to me like they didn't see it.


The chopper was going straight. The pilot had to be looking straight ahead. The plane it crashed into had lights flashing so it could be seen by others.

It's hard not to see the obvious.

Or, could the pilot of the helicopter been passed out and didn't see he was flying into a plane?
You guys are INSANE if you think this was intentional. Both pilots didn't see each other because it's HARD TO SEE. And the helicopter didn't have ADS-B. You guys think they were both in on the conspiracy? To the death? Really?


No, just the helicopter. Or it could just be complete incompetence on the part of the helicopter pilot, but regardless, the helicopter has a lot of time to not keep going straight at the plane yet still does.

I'd imagine the Blackhawk pilots are trained to use evasive maneuvers to not hit other aircraft in the sky, no?
If the airline pilot saw him, then he WOULD have turned to avoid him. He wouldn't have just flew into him because "he was supposed to move". That shows how hard it is to see and why ATC tells everybody about traffic. This pilot thought ATC was taking about another plane. Not the smaller closer one. Most military aircraft don't have ADS-B. That is much more to blame here than anything.
The lack of ATC giving bearings, or `o'clock positions, or even just layman `to your left or right' positions for what plane talking about still bothers me given how much traffic is in the sky including the blatantly visible one taking off. If that's normal procedure its kind of blockhead.


I mean, atc confirmed twice that PAT25 had traffic in sight, PAT25 confirmed AND requested visual separation "yeah we see it, we'll keep our distance". Edit: I'm not quoting pat25 here, just putting in normal English what that would have meant.


Seems pretty obvious what they actually had in sight was the airplane on approach to 1, straight south down the river from them. Not the rj to their 9-11ish, that would have been basically parallel to them until the turn to the west to align with 33. This really does just look like an accident. Obviously things can and will be improved, based on findings.
Agree, but even your example there shows the value of what saying (in whatever jargon as you said appropriate) --the value of "I mean the one at your 9-11sih" might have had. If only to prompt a second look. It just is a little surprising.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
samurai_science
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t
We have to assume so, we know its not merit based anymore
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
Blue diamond for you.

It has become disgusting that many on the political right think that way now.

This kind of attitude is why the left can point at MAGA, and the political right in general, and say it is a racist/sexist/bigoted movement.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Saw this. Another perspective


This guy says the helicopter was way too high. And says ATC was not necessarily at fault.

Don't know if this guy is accurate.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
Blue diamond for you.

It has become disgusting that many on the political right think that way now.

This kind of attitude is why the left can point at MAGA, and the political right in general, and say it is a racist/sexist/bigoted movement.
The main reason for the DEI uproar is the lowering of standards. You don't know if ANY people in important rolls meet the old standards, or are only there because of the lowering of standards.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jwoodmd said:

MaroonStain said:

No Spin Ag said:

aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.


So females hired makes them automatically DEI?


Yes
You've got some outstanding female Aggies that you are insulting.


If one is hired because they are outstanding, this is a merit hire. If they are hired based upon gender, race, EIEIO, etc this is DEI.

South Park clip

How is this so hard to understand?

HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.

Seems like you're going to be working overtime to round off the corners of that square peg to fit it into the round hole of DEI, no matter how much time it takes.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
And that's just one problem with DEI and quotas.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Science Denier said:

Saw this. Another perspective


This guy says the helicopter was way too high. And says ATC was not necessarily at fault.

Don't know if this guy is accurate.
That is what has been bothering for a while. Why did the helo ascend as if to intercept when it had been flying at the proper altitude right up until shortly before (that's what he says)??

For those that keep scoffing at some of the more suspicious minded (am not one) try to see it from this perspective; When it looks like you changed course to ram, --- Occam's razor actually suggests that might what happened. Could the pilot have been mental for some reason??

If what this guy says is true -- we are not imagining the perceived increase to improper altitude.
HoustonAg9999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
Blue diamond for you.

It has become disgusting that many on the political right think that way now.

This kind of attitude is why the left can point at MAGA, and the political right in general, and say it is a racist/sexist/bigoted movement.



Newsflash the left says that regardless of what maga or the right says ir does
usmcbrooks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

I've read claims that the NVG's used by army aviators make vision akin to 'looking through toilet paper.'

This is still the Occam's razor simplest answer, imho. That neither the experienced pilot, nor co-pilot getting trained to use them, saw/recognized the plane they hit. The only real politics then would be why staffing was abnormal/reduced in the control tower, but that's really only a tangential impact to the pilot error.
Driving with NVG's is hard enough especially using the old AN/PVS 7B. I believe the Marine Corps has updated to SBNVG's recently. I do not know which ones Pilots use, I would imagine it's the AN/PVS-31C BNVD. You have very little depth perception while using NOD's.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoustonAg9999 said:

Rapier108 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
Blue diamond for you.

It has become disgusting that many on the political right think that way now.

This kind of attitude is why the left can point at MAGA, and the political right in general, and say it is a racist/sexist/bigoted movement.



Newsflash the left says that regardless of what maga or the right says ir does
Yeah, but stuff like this makes it all too easy for people to believe it.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prime0882 said:

ttu_85 said:

aggiedent said:

ttu_85 said:

Prime0882 said:

Logos Stick said:

pollo hermanos said:

No surprise his most ardent supports care little about reality.

The liberal CNN host baselessly blaming trump is evil.

Trump baselessly blaming DEI is good.

In reality, both are moronic.

Trump did not blame DEI.



Did you even watch the presser? Swear it feels like 1984 on this board sometimes.
1984 was great times. Didn't get to see the presser but based on the scale of the tragedy I find this post to be very odd. What does a tragic event have to do with what was generally a very successful year for the US with the USSR being bent over a barrel.

In general, DEI absolutely compromised competence and adversely effected organizational effectiveness in a very negative way. No way one can honestly and truthfully make a case otherwise.


He's talking about 1984 the book, not the year.
Sorry I missed where 1984 was italicized in that post.
I fixed it for ya. I know critical thinking is hard - ya tried. I did enjoy the year 1984, too.


Speaking of critical thinking. Prime, I'm still waiting for you to post where Trump blamed DEI for this crash.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

HoustonAg9999 said:

Rapier108 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

a female pilot which would still be DEI.
bulls**t

Which is why DEI is such a cancer.

People assume anyone other than a straight white male got where they got by DEI
Blue diamond for you.

It has become disgusting that many on the political right think that way now.

This kind of attitude is why the left can point at MAGA, and the political right in general, and say it is a racist/sexist/bigoted movement.



Newsflash the left says that regardless of what maga or the right says ir does
Yeah, but stuff like this makes it all too easy for people to believe it.


Who gives a *****

Are we supposed to bend over backwards and let DEI destroy our country because we care about moron's feelings?

For the record: I don't give a **** what is dangling between your legs or the amount of melanin in your skin if you are the best person for the job. We know for 100% fact that standards are lowered to accomplish DEI initiatives .

That's the problem. And those of you pearl clutching because you are worried about hurting someone's feelings are part of the problem.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's possible to want to get rid of DEI without blaming it for all of society's woes at the same time.
Deleted User
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wabs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
usmcbrooks said:

nortex97 said:

I've read claims that the NVG's used by army aviators make vision akin to 'looking through toilet paper.'

This is still the Occam's razor simplest answer, imho. That neither the experienced pilot, nor co-pilot getting trained to use them, saw/recognized the plane they hit. The only real politics then would be why staffing was abnormal/reduced in the control tower, but that's really only a tangential impact to the pilot error.
Driving with NVG's is hard enough especially using the old AN/PVS 7B. I believe the Marine Corps has updated to SBNVG's recently. I do not know which ones Pilots use, I would imagine it's the AN/PVS-31C BNVD. You have very little depth perception while using NOD's.
Posted this on another thread. I've flown in that area at night before (former military helo pilot). If the pilots we're still on goggles then that's a problem. You can't see **** in well-lit, populated areas with goggles on. We ALWAYS flipped them up and flew without them in that situation.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaroonStain said:

No Spin Ag said:

aggie93 said:

Charpie said:

aggie93 said:

Captn_Ag05 said:

Trump being Trump today with his comments. This is the type of thing that has blowback and got him bogged down the first time. I am sure Susie Wiles is pulling her hair out.
Except it appears the pilot was a Trans and the ATC Tower was understaffed in part because they have been pushing for DEI hires. It appears Trump knew this before the PC but the trickle out of information so far looks like it's going to support his statements.

Trump is going to be Trump, the key for him this go round is to stay on offense and not worry about trying to curry favor with the press, that was his downfall last time. He just needs to keep moving and moving fast so they can't focus on a target.
And the bolded part has already been debunked
A lot of things will continue to come out on this but that would still make it was a female pilot which would still be DEI.


So females hired makes them automatically DEI?


Yes


Consistency.

Respect.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
ETFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
titan said:

Science Denier said:

Saw this. Another perspective


This guy says the helicopter was way too high. And says ATC was not necessarily at fault.

Don't know if this guy is accurate.
That is what has been bothering for a while. Why did the helo ascend as if to intercept when it had been flying at the proper altitude right up until shortly before (that's what he says)??

For those that keep scoffing at some of the more suspicious minded (am not one) try to see it from this perspective; When it looks like you changed course to ram, --- Occam's razor actually suggests that might what happened. Could the pilot have been mental for some reason??

If what this guy says is true -- we are not imagining the perceived increase to improper altitude.
We've been saying this since the night it happened. Takes very little time to pop up 100' in a heli. They got out of position and had the wrong airplane in sight.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
ETFan said:

titan said:

Science Denier said:

Saw this. Another perspective


This guy says the helicopter was way too high. And says ATC was not necessarily at fault.

Don't know if this guy is accurate.
That is what has been bothering for a while. Why did the helo ascend as if to intercept when it had been flying at the proper altitude right up until shortly before (that's what he says)??

For those that keep scoffing at some of the more suspicious minded (am not one) try to see it from this perspective; When it looks like you changed course to ram, --- Occam's razor actually suggests that might what happened. Could the pilot have been mental for some reason??

If what this guy says is true -- we are not imagining the perceived increase to improper altitude.
We've been saying this since the night it happened. Takes very little time to pop up 100' in a heli. They got out of position and had the wrong airplane in sight.
Right. But it does explain why those thoughts of intention happen. IF there were admin VIPs aboard that would make a crazy with motive scenario work - it would have been hard to really hold to saying it wasn't. Its that ridiculous looking however understandable.
BoerneGator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Where else are you supposed to do it? Part of a checkride is to assess your ability to complete the mission. If your mission is VIP transport around DC, then that's what you have to do
Fully understand those necessities for training, Simulators or flying around less densely populated areas (not to mention all of the nearby restricted airspace will not be good replicators.

What is not absolutely necessary and can be controlled is the civilian commercial traffic volume at DCA. Need to adjust those runways as well. Shut down 33, for instance. Too short, approach angle after lining up for a straight shot coming down one side of the Potomac for runway 1 to then change to a different angle of approach crossing to the other side of the Potomac raises another question for me.

Outer markers for 33. Where are those located? I assume the CRJ went out to those before turning back in to line up? Or being a smaller fixed wing, shorter bank to turn inside the outer marker?
The CRJ had been cleared to land on runway 33 using a visual approach, thus negating any need to pass over the "outer marker" for runway 33, or any other demarcation points.

This is a clear case of the PAT25 (helo) failing to see the airliner on final and avoid it. It was also where it NEVER should have been!

I also believe it will be found that the ATC failed to instruct the helo that it was encroaching into airspace it should not be in!
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prime0882 said:

HTownAg98 said:

It's possible to want to get rid of DEI without blaming it for all of society's woes at the same time.
That would require nuance and critical thinking about a complex problem. Something which seems to be in short supply across the country today, regardless of party. Gotta feed the outrage machine.


Ya'll attack that strawman with valiant vigor.

No one is blaming it for "all of society's woes." As clearly demonstrated multiple times in this thread, DEI has directly contributed to the current state of both the FAA and the military. It's a relevant part of this discussion regardless whether or not it was the most direct contributing factor of the tragic accident.

I guess I lack critical things skills and "nuance" but I make up for it with competent reading comprehension and the ability to identify logical fallacies.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great post!
JamesPShelley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prime0882 said:

Logos Stick said:

pollo hermanos said:

No surprise his most ardent supports care little about reality.

The liberal CNN host baselessly blaming trump is evil.

Trump baselessly blaming DEI is good.

In reality, both are moronic.

Trump did not blame DEI.



Did you even watch the presser? Swear it feels like 1984 on this board sometimes.
Feels like 1984? Many of us ****ing lived it for the last four years.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Takes very little time to pop up 100' in a heli. They got out of position and had the wrong airplane in sight.

Question for the helicopter pilots:

In a fixed wing bug smasher, it I suddenly see a wall of aluminum in front of me, I can bank, climb, or dive, since I can't stop.

A helo could conceivably stop into a hover, but is that even an option?

I don't know enough about rotary wing, but it seems possible to me that if someone was trying to avoid a collision, trying to stop forward movement might be tried. But what does that do to your flight path? If you try to suddenly hover, does yanking back on the controls make you pop up in altitude? It doesn't seem likely that you would simply screech to a stop straight and level like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I find myself wondering if that explains the altitude deviation. Or did the climb precede any avoidance?

Admitting my ignorance here, please be kind
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.