Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifnckN6nfM

Perspective of a military helo pilot who flew that route

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that it appears crude to be talking suicide this close to the accident but taking the emotion out of it-it's a theory being discussed at length by pilots on aviation forums (airliners.net, Reddit, etc).

[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.

There are presuppositions in the English language.

If Trump didn’t have dementia, he could have figured out the answer.

Her did not need to respond in such a crass way.

A better way would be: “We appreciate the emergency responders and their work. At this time, we want to give them the space to do their work. We are exploring meeting with the affected families inside the WH instead.”

See how that’s better than:

“You want me to go swimming?”

The families don’t need the very public terms “want me to go swimming?” As a reminder that their beloved’s dead body is in a river or was recently in a river.

Obama had a much better response.

EXACTLY. Anyone with two brain cells would have answered it better and in a non-combative way. He can't think of anyone but himself though so this is on brand.

We all know how he acts in a crisis - remember him making fun of masks and suggesting people drink bleach during covid. His response to this is more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This post asks so many needed and important questions.
Something about this awful situation and the information the public is being allowed is just not adding up. Things are not completely making sense. There must be more to it all.

[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.

Even if he has no intention of going, the easiest thing to say would be “We are looking into that and working with recovery teams on issues like that.” Then at some point in the future he sends Vance and Usha to lay a wreath or dedicate a memorial. That’s how a normal adult would handle that. He’s definitely worse than he was 8 years ago and I don’t see how everyone doesn’t recognize that he is acting like your elderly relative with dementia with their weird slightly off-topic aggressive responses.

[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.

Agree.

No one asking the question after, say, a building explosion would expect the president to go to the precise place the bomb exploded and walk in the ashes.

Trump’s response just illustrates the mental decline the media won’t mention.

My own dad was belligerent like this as dementia took over.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was wondering whether a medical emergency among one of the copter pilots might have made the copter do that last minute jog over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This post asks so many needed and important questions.
Something about this awful situation and the information the public is being allowed is just not adding up. Things are not completely making sense. There must be more to it all.

I am the PP and I would caution you agains this thinking. It has not even been 48 hours, they only just recovered the black boxes from the plane (and to my knowledge have not recovered anything from the helicopter) and they are still recovering bodies and debris.

It should not surprise anyone that we don't have all the answers. We will need to be patient.

But that doesn't mean that just repeating "it's hard to see when you fly at night" is going to lay any concerns to rest. That's obviously not the whole story here or this kind of thing would happen all the time and we'd have banned night flying a long time ago. It's a weirdly reductive thing to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Just highlighting this for all of the "I just can't believe it" posters.

This Helo pilot is literally saying YOU CAN'T SEE THE PLANES from a helo at night in that area.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifnckN6nfM

Perspective of a military helo pilot who flew that route

Now, we need to have a serious debate about the helos being there at all. But the helo did not suicide into this plane.

[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.

We have also never heard a president blame DEI for an aviation crash after he fired FAA staff, rescinded ATC job offers, and forced the FAA director to resign. Oh and also terrorized federal employees, including ATCs, for a week after letting 1500 racist criminals out of jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if he has no intention of going, the easiest thing to say would be “We are looking into that and working with recovery teams on issues like that.” Then at some point in the future he sends Vance and Usha to lay a wreath or dedicate a memorial. That’s how a normal adult would handle that. He’s definitely worse than he was 8 years ago and I don’t see how everyone doesn’t recognize that he is acting like your elderly relative with dementia with their weird slightly off-topic aggressive responses.

I think he's experienced cognitive decline and also his outlook has shifted to be significantly more combative. He views himself as being uniquely attacked by outsiders, especially the press. He is noticeably more aggressive with press even than he was in 2020 (which was already very bad) and he views all but the friendliest outlets as an enemy to be defeated. He truly does not think he should have to answer even basic questions from most media outlets.

If you've seen him even on Fox News recently, he's more combative even with them. I can't decide if this is troubling or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I've never heard of that before.

We have also never heard a president blame DEI for an aviation crash after he fired FAA staff, rescinded ATC job offers, and forced the FAA director to resign. Oh and also terrorized federal employees, including ATCs, for a week after letting 1500 racist criminals out of jail.

No matter. It will leak eventually. Enough people already know who it is. There will be funeral services. Etc.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how all the female and POC aviators are feeling about being thrown under the bus this whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just highlighting this for all of the "I just can't believe it" posters.

This Helo pilot is literally saying YOU CAN'T SEE THE PLANES from a helo at night in that area.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifnckN6nfM

Perspective of a military helo pilot who flew that route

Now, we need to have a serious debate about the helos being there at all. But the helo did not suicide into this plane.

This is not definitive.

(1) This is one guy.

(2) Just because sometimes a helicopter pilot can't see a plane in front of them on this route does not mean that the helicopters can NEVER see planes in front of them. If you listen, that's not even what this guys says. We don't know if the helicopter could see the plane or not. People are speculating.

(3) Everything this guy says would speak to the importance of staying low and to the east through that corridor. If it is truly standard that helicopter pilots flying this route simply cannot see oncoming plane traffic landing at National, then I'd expect these pilots to adhere tightly to the flight route which is designed to keep them away from oncoming planes *even if they can't see them.*

I am not one of the people speculating suicide or homicide (we have ZERO evidence of either) but I also am tired of people acting as though we know what happened just because some pilots have stated that it CAN be hard to see a plane nose-to-nose in that situation.

You are actually jumping to conclusions as aggressively as the people claiming it's definitely a suicide mission.

We don't know what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how all the female and POC aviators are feeling about being thrown under the bus this whole thing.

My best friend is a female pilot, former military.

I can assure you they aren't even a little surprised. Disappointed of course, but at least the women aren't surprised. She's heard way worse over the course of her career. Way worse.