Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

Sounds like you need to get to work STAT on some conspiracy theories and rumors!!

Nope. I have not engaged in any conspiracy theories or rumors. I am simply telling you that no one is every going to accept the explanation that, well, it's just very hard to see when flying at night as an acceptable explanation for why 64 civilians and 3 military personnel lost their lives here. I don't want a wild conspiracy theory to explain it, I want an explanation that makes sense. "Oops well doing this thing that planes and airplanes do all the effing time is hard" does not makes sense.

I accept it. If you are going to judge a nation professionals, then you need to understand the situations they are in.

The pilots were beam to beak at one point and it’s hard to discern aircraft lights from surrounding city lights. Perhaps aircraft lights need to be a certain color that will stand out at night and not be used by cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the family can just say "don't release the name ever."

I've never heard of that before.

I’m sure it will be released, but they probably asked for and were given a delay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

East of the river is mainly anacostia resi lights, that’s it. Street lights or car lights. Nothing with huge belonging ring lights and the big bright white landing floodlight.

This is insane.

I hope all DC area military exercises are halted.

And VIP flights. This may have been one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.

Will you be going to the crash site to pay your respects: how is that not a completely ordinary, expected, and even softball question. The answer should have been: yes, I will be going to the crash site to console the families and to thank the first responders as soon as doing so will not impede the recovery efforts. Had he said that, no one would be talking about his actual response. I’ve never taken a journalism class and have no political training but can easily determine this is the right Q&A. Stop defending him. Stop gaslighting that the reporter’s question was the problem.

I am defending his response. I’m not gaslighting anything—I am stating clearly I think the reporter’s question was stupid.

You must be more literal than Trump. I mean, if Trump had an actual problem with literality and precision, he would have made a joke about being a being a bird, not swimming in the river. Let's not defend what will go down as one of the most unpresidential responses in the history of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.

Will you be going to the crash site to pay your respects: how is that not a completely ordinary, expected, and even softball question. The answer should have been: yes, I will be going to the crash site to console the families and to thank the first responders as soon as doing so will not impede the recovery efforts. Had he said that, no one would be talking about his actual response. I’ve never taken a journalism class and have no political training but can easily determine this is the right Q&A. Stop defending him. Stop gaslighting that the reporter’s question was the problem.

I am defending his response. I’m not gaslighting anything—I am stating clearly I think the reporter’s question was stupid.

It is a very standard question, asked of every president during every catastrophe. It's even more common to answer unequivocally "yes, I will be there." I'm not surprised that you're unfamiliar and uninformed about this basic journalism practice. Nothing stupid about the question.

It actually would have been fine for him to say "no there are no plans for me to visit the site -- we need to give them space to do their work." Asking that question doesn't mean he has to say yes.

He just needs to not be a snotty jerk about it. This is the kind of response you get from a 12 year old and then you say "let's try that again without the attitude, okay?"

It is fine if he doesn't visit the site. There are no survivors and it's a spread out site and there may not be a good reason for him to go. But is he incapable of answering that question without sarcasm and rudeness? Apparently, yes.

His second administration is just going to lead to more deterioration of social norms that help underpin our society. People watch him do this stuff and defend it and applaud it, and that normalizes it for everyone else to start acting that way. If everyone acts like Trump, though, we don't even have a society. We just have a bunch of petulant a$$holes competing over resources and lying and cheating and being aggressive about it.

Sounds great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some of you think it's MORE believable that the Helo pilots were homicidal/suicidal rather than merely undertrained/improperly focused on their job?

I just cannot believe the BH was unaware. Given all the psychologically unwell people in this country, I don't know why intentional sabotage is so outside realm of possibility.

But by three people?? That seems really unlikely that three people are in the same BH and so mentally disturbed that they are not only suicidal but willing to kill a plane full of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.

Will you be going to the crash site to pay your respects: how is that not a completely ordinary, expected, and even softball question. The answer should have been: yes, I will be going to the crash site to console the families and to thank the first responders as soon as doing so will not impede the recovery efforts. Had he said that, no one would be talking about his actual response. I’ve never taken a journalism class and have no political training but can easily determine this is the right Q&A. Stop defending him. Stop gaslighting that the reporter’s question was the problem.

I am defending his response. I’m not gaslighting anything—I am stating clearly I think the reporter’s question was stupid.

It is a very standard question, asked of every president during every catastrophe. It's even more common to answer unequivocally "yes, I will be there." I'm not surprised that you're unfamiliar and uninformed about this basic journalism practice. Nothing stupid about the question.

It actually would have been fine for him to say "no there are no plans for me to visit the site -- we need to give them space to do their work." Asking that question doesn't mean he has to say yes.

He just needs to not be a snotty jerk about it. This is the kind of response you get from a 12 year old and then you say "let's try that again without the attitude, okay?"

It is fine if he doesn't visit the site. There are no survivors and it's a spread out site and there may not be a good reason for him to go. But is he incapable of answering that question without sarcasm and rudeness? Apparently, yes.

His second administration is just going to lead to more deterioration of social norms that help underpin our society. People watch him do this stuff and defend it and applaud it, and that normalizes it for everyone else to start acting that way. If everyone acts like Trump, though, we don't even have a society. We just have a bunch of petulant a$$holes competing over resources and lying and cheating and being aggressive about it.

Sounds great.

While I don't agree that it's fine for him to not go (it's 10 min from the WH) I agree with everything else you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the theory that the Helo pilot confused the CRJ for another approaching CRJ and the ATC should have been more specific. Didn’t the pilot or at least one person in the helo have experience with flying that route? I live under the flight path near the river, and there’s a steady flow of flights, spaced about 3 minutes apart. Shouldn’t the pilot have known that if they see a plane kind of far off and they receive a warning from the ATC, this warning must refer one nearby?

Yes that would be common sense and critical thinking.

It seems critical thinking and common sense was lacking in the helo’s occupants. Kind of impulsive behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

This explanation is very unsettling to those of us who are not pilots and do not work in aviation.

"It's hard to see things that are right in front of you while flying at night" is never going to satisfy anyone for an explanation for this crash.

Sounds like you need to get to work STAT on some conspiracy theories and rumors!!

Nope. I have not engaged in any conspiracy theories or rumors. I am simply telling you that no one is every going to accept the explanation that, well, it's just very hard to see when flying at night as an acceptable explanation for why 64 civilians and 3 military personnel lost their lives here. I don't want a wild conspiracy theory to explain it, I want an explanation that makes sense. "Oops well doing this thing that planes and airplanes do all the effing time is hard" does not makes sense.

I accept it. If you are going to judge a nation professionals, then you need to understand the situations they are in.

The pilots were beam to beak at one point and it’s hard to discern aircraft lights from surrounding city lights. Perhaps aircraft lights need to be a certain color that will stand out at night and not be used by cities.

No one is disputing that it might have been hard for the helicopter pilots to see the plane. That is accepted.

The point is that this is not a sufficient explanation for the accident. It is a part of the picture but those of you who just keep repeating "it was hard for them to see the plane under those conditions" aren't getting that this is not enough. Why wasn't radar consulted? Why didn't they see the plane once they were no longer nose-to-nose? Why didn't ATC calling out a second time to see if they had visual separation raise an alarm for them to possibly confirm that they were looking at the right aircraft? Why didn't they confirm location of the plane they were looking at when ATC called back in order to ensure they were referring to the same plane?

And even beyond the visual separation issue: Why did the helicopter rise to 350 feet in violation of the flight plane? Why did they bank west toward the airport at the worst possible moment regardless of where other planes were (directly in front of National's runways for incoming traffic)?

Responding to these questions by saying "well you see, it is very hard to see a plane that is right in front of you when flying at night" is not going to make people stop asking these questions. Noted. Now explain all the other stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow these videos. I know looks can be deceiving but it just looks...so intentional. How do you not notice a jet flying at you. Do Blackhawks not have windows on the side? Are there blind spots?

Plexiglass bubble, and they were way above the tree line so no excuse not to see or look slightly left at a plane lining up for runway 33.
Plus the fact that ATC told them the facts twice.

At night it can be hard to tell if a stationary light in the sky is a light on the ground, or a light from a plane traveling directly at you. I help my dad spot traffic in his plane whenever I see him, and have since I was a teen, and night flying can be tricky because of that even in clear conditions.

East of the river is mainly anacostia resi lights, that’s it. Street lights or car lights. Nothing with huge belonging ring lights and the big bright white landing floodlight.

This is insane.

I hope all DC area military exercises are halted.

And VIP flights. This may have been one.

It definitely was one. A training flight doesn't take off from Langley. They were dropping someone off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some of you think it's MORE believable that the Helo pilots were homicidal/suicidal rather than merely undertrained/improperly focused on their job?

I just cannot believe the BH was unaware. Given all the psychologically unwell people in this country, I don't know why intentional sabotage is so outside realm of possibility.

But by three people?? That seems really unlikely that three people are in the same BH and so mentally disturbed that they are not only suicidal but willing to kill a plane full of people.

The non-pilot was likely oblivious and just along for the ride in the back.
Perhaps the instructor took control and the student pilot just went with it. Chain of command and all--you don't question. Who knows. It's not outside the realm of possibilities.

The prevailing theory behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 is suicide and there were 3 pilots on board. Unfortunately intent is almost impossible to prove after the fact. 🙁

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DOD has officially released the names of the crew chief and instructional pilot.

Not releasing the third name at the request of the family. Which is completely understandable after what’s transpired.

What? When has a name not been released due to the family’s request? I want an example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some of you think it's MORE believable that the Helo pilots were homicidal/suicidal rather than merely undertrained/improperly focused on their job?

I just cannot believe the BH was unaware. Given all the psychologically unwell people in this country, I don't know why intentional sabotage is so outside realm of possibility.

But by three people?? That seems really unlikely that three people are in the same BH and so mentally disturbed that they are not only suicidal but willing to kill a plane full of people.

Really only two people because the crew chief had no access to controls and could not have done anything.

But I agree with you that suggestions that this was a suicidal or homicidal act are not appropriate right now. The only evidence for that is extremely weak (people thinking it "looks intentional" the way the helicopter hits the plane) or circumstantial.

But also I try to remember that people are looking for answers because the accident is scary to them. Assigning blame is an effort to exercise control over a situation that feels outside of their control. It is not a mature reaction but it's also not an atypical one.

I am hoping the military can provide some answers to some of the pending questions that might put some of these theories to rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOD has officially released the names of the crew chief and instructional pilot.

Not releasing the third name at the request of the family. Which is completely understandable after what’s transpired.

What? When has a name not been released due to the family’s request? I want an example.

PP didn't link. It's probably a rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is belligerent even with the easiest questions:

“Trump said he would meet with some of the families affected by the crash. Asked by reporters whether he would visit the collision site, Trump responded: “What’s the site? The water? You want me to go swimming? I don’t have a plan to do that, but I will be meeting with some people that were very badly hurt — with their family member, obviously.””

—WaPo

Can’t believe someone was dumb enough to actually ask him to visit the collision site. He should’ve said oh You mean in the middle of the sky?

Don't be obtuse. What do you think people mean when they talk about any accident site? How about for the Twin Towers? Are you going to crack a joke about how you can't because the building isn't there anymore? Your'e about as funny as Trump.

It’s not obtuse. If reporters want to be treated as professionals, they need to not ask stupid questions. I was called out for asking a similarly stupid question when I was taking a journalism class in college right after 9/11. I’m grateful I learned that lesson at age 20. Clearly this reporter didn’t.

That’s right, you’re an expert because you took a journalism class 25 years ago! Has the White House press secretary reached out yet to have you screen questions?

I didn’t mean to imply I’m an expert—sorry if I did. I have never worked as a journalist. I am in no way affiliated with the White House. No, I have not been contacted by the current or any former White House press secretaries on any matter—I apologize for giving that impression. I meant to say that I was taught to consider my questions before asking them. I thought that was a valid lesson in a college journalism course, not something that needed to wait to be taught until a journalist is questioning the president.

Will you be going to the crash site to pay your respects: how is that not a completely ordinary, expected, and even softball question. The answer should have been: yes, I will be going to the crash site to console the families and to thank the first responders as soon as doing so will not impede the recovery efforts. Had he said that, no one would be talking about his actual response. I’ve never taken a journalism class and have no political training but can easily determine this is the right Q&A. Stop defending him. Stop gaslighting that the reporter’s question was the problem.

I am defending his response. I’m not gaslighting anything—I am stating clearly I think the reporter’s question was stupid.

It is a very standard question, asked of every president during every catastrophe. It's even more common to answer unequivocally "yes, I will be there." I'm not surprised that you're unfamiliar and uninformed about this basic journalism practice. Nothing stupid about the question.

It actually would have been fine for him to say "no there are no plans for me to visit the site -- we need to give them space to do their work." Asking that question doesn't mean he has to say yes.

He just needs to not be a snotty jerk about it. This is the kind of response you get from a 12 year old and then you say "let's try that again without the attitude, okay?"

It is fine if he doesn't visit the site. There are no survivors and it's a spread out site and there may not be a good reason for him to go. But is he incapable of answering that question without sarcasm and rudeness? Apparently, yes.

His second administration is just going to lead to more deterioration of social norms that help underpin our society. People watch him do this stuff and defend it and applaud it, and that normalizes it for everyone else to start acting that way. If everyone acts like Trump, though, we don't even have a society. We just have a bunch of petulant a$$holes competing over resources and lying and cheating and being aggressive about it.

Sounds great.

While I don't agree that it's fine for him to not go (it's 10 min from the WH) I agree with everything else you said.

I personally think it's fine for him not to go because usually the only reason for a president to visit a site like this is to provide a boost for the first responders and to bring attention to the recovery efforts. Trump has already shown that he has no interest in boosting morale and that he would only bring the wrong kinds of attention to the effort (spouting off nonsense conspiracy theories or trying to lay blame without having all or even any of the facts). So there is truly no reason for him to go even if it's literally in his backyard.