Please share your alternate theory that does not "strain credulity." This is the most likely scenario. They were wearing the goggles and the ambient lights from the surrounding city camouflaged the closer plane. I'm having more trouble believing as you do that one or all of them saw the plane and hit it anyway. |
It doesn't. It's just multiple "holes of the swiss cheese" lining up to create an unlikely disaster. |
Hmm, this is odd. Hegseth stated it in is statement this morning, and earlier Washington Post had it listed in their "what we know" page on the crash (in fact I think it said that the training flight was specifically to train for flying with night vision goggles on), but it has since been removed from that page. Odd that this would be reported for several hours and then suddenly change without an announcement of why (like maybe the pilots did not have the goggles on when they recovered them). Perhaps simply the result of info being reported as it's available but this could be a critical issue. |
PP here and you misunderstand me. My point is that is that it strains credulity that it would *just* be confirmation bias, if there were three people in the helicopter. Because with each additional person you increase the likelihood someone looks at the radar and says "no there's another plane" or similar. I agree that there must be an additional factor, like all three of them wearing night vision goggles, that would explain how three people could have somehow missed the closer plane on both the radar AND visually out the window of the helicopter. I think the explanation that it was only confirmation bias is highly unlikely because of the number of people involved. There must be a reason none of the three of them saw the other plane which (if you look at flight paths) was bearing directly towards them for close to a full minute prior to collisions (both the plane and the helicopter veer west right before collision, the plane because it's the path to get to the runway, the helicopter for unknown reasons -- they had been told to go behind the plane which would have sent them east). |
I wasn’t validating the reason, but that has been one of the giant WTFs to me- why would they ever have that as a training route? Now I understand the reason but I agree with your points. They do already have a number of places far from DC. |
|
Interesting comment from someone claiming to be a USCG helicopter pilot who has flown this route:
Common question: what about Night Vision Goggles (NVGs)? - I’m in the USCG, but I assume this Army crew likely had NVGs. But goggles are not a panacea… they don’t show color, they dramatically limit your peripheral view, and in bright, urban environments, they can get oversaturated aka washed out. Flying through DC, it can change minute by minute as to whether you are better off “aided” (goggles down in front of your eyes) or “unaided” (goggles flipped up out of the way on your helmet). Sometimes it even varies depending on which side of the aircraft you’re on. Just because they had goggles doesn’t mean they were more likely to see the airliner. The airliner has a lot of bright lights on already, and the same goggles that help them avoid trees and power lines could also have reduced their peripheral vision at key moments. |
Right. But Drump is vague about whose DEI hires are at fault. |
Do they do this training exercise not only at night during rush hour at DCA, but with NO RADAR on? Someone pls confirm. |
| Trump mentioned DEI so that people would be talking about that instead of the Jan 20 removal of the FAA head, and his proposed fed cuts, it’s embarrassing that people think there’s anything to it beyond him wanting a scapegoat and to change the conversation. The fact that he immediately appointed a new head speaks to how he didn’t want that to be the focus. |
I don't think the word to describe this is "bizarre." I think the word is criminal. |
You really want some ignorant armchair detective to spin up a faux theory about this? |
This is interesting but also begs more questions than it answers. This seems like an insane way to train people to do what sounds like a complicated and potentially dangerous maneuver. I understand you need to be trained to evacuate people from DC at night even with commercial jet traffic. And that you might include night vision goggles in that training because you need to both avoid power lines/trees as well as other aircraft. But should that training really occur in a place with actual commercial flights in the area? Can't they use simulators and then some kind of staged training course IRL (using aircraft NOT carrying innocent civilians). It feels like they rolled the dice with civilian planes at DCA as a way to train pilots to evacuate VIPs. Does that sit right with anyone? Not with me. |
Didn't he also cut the aviation safety committee? |