Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAA has now restricted helos from DCA's airspace.

How will all those VIPs get home?

With all the RTO workers on the road now, they’ll have to crawl along in cars like the plebes.

Poor them. Karma.

They will just adjust the route to fly over more neighborhoods

Which is much safer for everyone, including people in neighborhoods.

Not really, flying over neighborhoods means flying at a higher altitude or changing altitude more frequently because helicopters have to clear trees and power lines. Which would actually increase conflict with other aircraft in the sky, especially around airports.

Also helicopter noise can have a fraying impact on people's nerves and could lead to more mental health problems, car crashes, and home accidents.

Oh for crying out loud. I live on the water near a Navy base and we have helicopters fly by our house all the time. It makes the walls shake and it's loud but they don't hover so it's over within seconds. Of all the things I could list that fray my nerves, that's not even on there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the family for wanting privacy, but it is clearly not only her fault. I do believe the BH was solely at fault but there were three people on board. Who knows what happened or should have happened. It's obvious though that more than one person screwed up.

This.

It seems like a 3-person failure. Not one of them saw the correct plane, despite verbal acknowledgement? That's not a one-person error.

That was the only plane south of the bridge in their line of sight. The JAZZ 789 had not taken off when they first gave visual confirmation of the CRJ. Something else definitely happened and I am waiting for the black box recordings to be released (but knowing how army covers up everything I doubt we will here it all).

Untrue. AA3130 was lined up to land right after the doomed plane. Many pilots believe that is the plane they were monitoring mistakenly.

There are no additional planes with lights anywhere nearby in latest of the surveillance recordings. The ones from earlier footage were also in motion .

There are no camera angles from the POV of the Helo. All footage shows it from the side of the Helo. Look at the radar - 3130 was immediately next in line to land. Would have landed 2 minutes after but for the collision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s absolutely no way they did not see this plane. Goggles or not. Look at this angle. The light from the plane is illuminating strongly enough to be captured in this manner.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/security-footage-shows-new-angles-of-d-c-crash-230772805611

The planes stack up and they form line. The helicopter pilot was most likely looking down the river not to their left. The plane came from the left to land at 33. I guess they did not acknowledge the plane was landing on runway 33 as opposed to to the main runway.

The ATC clearly mentions that a CRJ, at 1200 feet, south of wilson bridge is cleared to land at runway 33. They acknowledge that ad ask for visual separation (this was the first time). Then when they were too close, again ATC tells them to go behind the CRJ, they ask for visual separation and got approved and then they crashed right into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s absolutely no way they did not see this plane. Goggles or not. Look at this angle. The light from the plane is illuminating strongly enough to be captured in this manner.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/security-footage-shows-new-angles-of-d-c-crash-230772805611

It's almost as if planes and helicopters fly in a 3-dimension space instead of a 2-dimensional one...

The plane in that video is coming at you. The helicopter is coming from the side. The lights you see aren't pointed at the helicopter.

I swear, after watching Don't F With Cats, I thought the internet community could be pretty smart but you all are really crushing that hypothesis.

[Anonymous]

Wonder what happened to those passengers who were next to land behind the CRJ, I guess they quickly had to reroute, or did they just land as planned? Must have been terrifying for them also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ever heard the saying, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras? Alternatively known as Occam's Razor. I'm just a statistics sort of person.

The problem is that "the simplest explanation is probably the right one" could lead people directly to suicide. Because it's very simple -- why would a helicopter fly right into an airplane? Death wish I guess.

The explanations about visibility along that route at night complicate that kind of conclusion though. It's an alternate theory -- maybe the helicopter literally could not see the plane. Worth looking into! But is that automatically more simple or elegant an explanation? Not even a little. While pilots sometimes can't see oncoming planes, perhaps even often can't see them, it is not true that they can never see them. In fact we already have evidence that helicopters can at least sometimes see them, even at night, as we look at these other "near misses" where in some cases the helicopters shifted course to avoid collision.

The "horses not zebras" advice is designed for, for instance, ER doctors who are constantly faced with people facing life threatening symptoms and need to diagnose and treat quickly to save lives. They are trained to go for the simplest and most likely explanation because 9/10 times it will be correct and they'll save a life. Whereas if they sit around examining all possible explanations, people will die waiting.

But this is the opposite situation. People have already died. The cause is already an event that is extremely out of the ordinary -- a midair collision. We don't need to make a snap judgment about what is most likely here. We need to take our time, examine all possible explanations, and try to get it 100% right. This is not a situation where Occam's razor applies.

This makes no sense. If you wanted to kill yourself, flying a military helicopter into a commercial airliner would be by far one of the harder ways to do it.

Remember the pilot who flew into the mountains. Remember MH370 or 360. It’s not unheard of but this time a helicopter.

You gave two examples out of the what, millions of people who have sadly taken their own lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what happened to those passengers who were next to land behind the CRJ, I guess they quickly had to reroute, or did they just land as planned? Must have been terrifying for them also.

All the planes behind were diverted. If you track AA3130, they went to BWI. Others went to Dulles, and others turned back to their origination airport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the family for wanting privacy, but it is clearly not only her fault. I do believe the BH was solely at fault but there were three people on board. Who knows what happened or should have happened. It's obvious though that more than one person screwed up.

And by this same logic, if the other two on board were named, she should have been too. Being a female doesn't give you special privileges. You want equality in everything, then it should be the same here too.

I am female.

The military hasn’t released any names. Their families released them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That POS president has taken away her family, her friends, the public's right to mourn her. Shame on him! He needs to go back to h#ll where he came from.

I'm no trump supporter but he hasn't done that. Her family chose to hide this information from the public who have a right to know. More importantly, the families of those killed because of her error (if it was actually unintentional), deserve to know who caused them to lose their family member. Her mistake cost lives and saying it would affect her family doesn't cut it.

We do not know it was her mistake alone - there were 3 people who were not paying attention to their surroundings, according to control tower communications. Let the investigation go through. Your assumptions and anger are a cover for something else.

That she supports the felon despite her protests. People want her name so they can tar and feather her reputation and tell her family what trash she is. Just wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the family for wanting privacy, but it is clearly not only her fault. I do believe the BH was solely at fault but there were three people on board. Who knows what happened or should have happened. It's obvious though that more than one person screwed up.

And by this same logic, if the other two on board were named, she should have been too. Being a female doesn't give you special privileges. You want equality in everything, then it should be the same here too.

I am female.

The military hasn’t released any names. Their families released them.

This. And it’s been explained 100 times. People don’t read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the family for wanting privacy, but it is clearly not only her fault. I do believe the BH was solely at fault but there were three people on board. Who knows what happened or should have happened. It's obvious though that more than one person screwed up.

This.

It seems like a 3-person failure. Not one of them saw the correct plane, despite verbal acknowledgement? That's not a one-person error.

That was the only plane south of the bridge in their line of sight. The JAZZ 789 had not taken off when they first gave visual confirmation of the CRJ. Something else definitely happened and I am waiting for the black box recordings to be released (but knowing how army covers up everything I doubt we will here it all).

Untrue. AA3130 was lined up to land right after the doomed plane. Many pilots believe that is the plane they were monitoring mistakenly.

But the ATC clearly said CRJ which I believe is a smaller plane (and a pilot with thousands of hours should know that) and the AAL3130 was not a CRJ. And remember the CRJ was the first in their line of sight. The AAL3130 was behind that.

If all you see is the lights, a bigger plane farther away can look exactly the same as a smaller plane closer to you. It's not like they could see the physical structure of the airplane at night.

[Anonymous]

What a coincidence that Elon used this every example to rail against DEI. To be clear, I disagree with him 110%. But it sure seems like it is one of his personal missions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musk-boeing-dei-diversity-x-posts-pilots-rcna133351

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what happened to those passengers who were next to land behind the CRJ, I guess they quickly had to reroute, or did they just land as planned? Must have been terrifying for them also.

All the planes behind were diverted. If you track AA3130, they went to BWI. Others went to Dulles, and others turned back to their origination airport.

The people on board AA3130 would have witnessed this tragedy. I can only imagine what went through their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My BIL works for Southwest and they are known to have a super Trumpy culture amongst pilots, I wonder what they are thinking these days with all of his nonsense.

Most of my fellow pilots lean right. Some far right. Many of them have been spouting the DEI nonsense in aviation for years. I guarantee you all of them will lay this on the tower controllers and the controllers union for making it difficult for the govt to hire/fire controllers. As someone who is more center of the road there is more than a small amount of truth to this.

Perhaps, but in this instance it seems clear that the tower workers were not a fault.

[Anonymous]

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.

Except it was a fine question and anyone would understand it to mean that he visits the people who are making the search and recovery efforts. He's visiting the area where it happened, and where the search and recovery is still underway. Any other president would have been there already.