Plane crash DCA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

Men crash in training flights all the time. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest investigating whether we are lowering standards to allow mediocre men to fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

Men crash in training flights all the time. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest investigating whether we are lowering standards to allow mediocre men to fly.

If they flew their plane into a passenger jet, it absolutely would be questioned why we are allowing unqualified people to fly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

Again I’ll ask what you think of the repeated near misses at this airport? Is that an acceptable risk to put commercially flying civilians under for taxi services?

Curious what your position is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

Men crash in training flights all the time. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest investigating whether we are lowering standards to allow mediocre men to fly.

If they flew their plane into a passenger jet, it absolutely would be questioned why we are allowing unqualified people to fly

Where is the NLRB report finding that anyone was unqualified to fly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

Men crash in training flights all the time. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest investigating whether we are lowering standards to allow mediocre men to fly.

If they flew their plane into a passenger jet, it absolutely would be questioned why we are allowing unqualified people to fly

You didn’t say unqualified people. You said women. Is that synonymous to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

Again I’ll ask what you think of the repeated near misses at this airport? Is that an acceptable risk to put commercially flying civilians under for taxi services?

Curious what your position is here.

The “near misses,” you aren’t even citing, where a commercial pilot bowed out of the landing queue bc a helicopter was in the vicinity or closing in is not what happened here. That’s due to lack of trust of the helo pilots there.

Here a plane was over almost over the river, 400m from the runway, at 400ft alt, and had to evasively try to pull up at the last second. Which didn’t work.

Meanwhile no one of authority has disclosed why the BH helicopter route and altitude was so off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

Again I’ll ask what you think of the repeated near misses at this airport? Is that an acceptable risk to put commercially flying civilians under for taxi services?

Curious what your position is here.

The “near misses,” you aren’t even citing, where a commercial pilot bowed out of the landing queue bc a helicopter was in the vicinity or closing in is not what happened here. That’s due to lack of trust of the helo pilots there.

Here a plane was over almost over the river, 400m from the runway, at 400ft alt, and had to evasively try to pull up at the last second. Which didn’t work.

Meanwhile no one of authority has disclosed why the BH helicopter route and altitude was so off.

I don’t need to do your research for you, but Tim Caine spoke about this issue awhile ago, and someone above posted a link to near miss stats for that airport.

And I don’t think you know much about aviation if you think that the helo being 100 or even 250 feet off is ‘so off’. If you ever have seen flight tracking on an app, as example, you will occasionally see flight paths passing over each other but they are *thousands* of feet apart.

Why was our govt comfortable with this close of a path way next to commercial flights? Crazy

I’m seeing chatter on the VIP issue around fwiw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

So it crashed bc there are female pilots?

And you are aware that there were helicopter crashes during the Vietnam war, right?

No, I’m saying this is a training failure. It’s needs to looked into what has happened with the training standards. That may or may not have anything to do with more women/changing standards.

Men crash in training flights all the time. Yet I’ve never heard anyone suggest investigating whether we are lowering standards to allow mediocre men to fly.

If they flew their plane into a passenger jet, it absolutely would be questioned why we are allowing unqualified people to fly

You didn’t say unqualified people. You said women. Is that synonymous to you?

You should direct your focus on the training of pilots and stop quibbling over what you perceive as some slight towards women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt there was a VIP on board ever. And I doubt that the helicopter took off from Langley.

On day 1, Hangover Hesgeth said it was a continuity of government training exercise. It took off from Belvoir or Bolling and went to Mt. Weather. In order to prevent having the route monitored, they turned the transponder off when they got (initially) to Langley. On the way back they turned the transponder on when they got to Langley so as to be seen by ATC when they re-entered airspace used by DCA. No VIP. Simple.

Why would a training flight have a VIP onboard? Waste of time for the VIP and training missions carrying an actual VIP are no longer training missions.

My understanding of Continuity of Government is that they trained for a terrorist or nuclear attack by flying "body doubles" of senators, congressmen, et al, up to Mt. Weather, so that if the time came for the real thing, they would act accordingly, taking the actual politicians up there. These "pseudo" lawmakers would then pretend to act as real lawmakers, passing legislation, issuing directives, etc. Don't ask me how I know. Sounds like a joke, but it happened for real after the Sept. 11, 2201 attacks, one of which was aiming for the Capitol. I forget who he was, but one senator said something along the lines of "I could get arrested for this, but after the 9/11 attacks I was whisked up to a mountain on a minute's notice" (no mention of the specific mountain). Dick Cheney was evacuated as well, possibly not to Mt. Weather but to Raven Rock on the Mason-Dixon line. There was even a dumb TV show about this, with Kiefer Sutherland.

So I conclude that the helo was returning from a legitimate training mission, after dropping off a passenger(s) at the mountain, who had a legitimate reason to be on the initial flight. The crew was not on a joyride.

The time traveler has exposed themselves. Maybe you'd care to comment on the space aliens who were responsible for taking over the controls of the BH and flying it into a passenger plane?

Cheney was taken to the bunker underneath the WH. Why are you making stuff up? I know 2 people personally that were in the bunker with him on 9/11 but you can just watch the Apple documentary on this in which Cheney, Scooter and Rice themselves talk about this. No one was whisked away via helicopter from the WH.

Cheney was supposed to go to Mt. Weather but he didn't. Dennis Hastert, third in line for the presidency after W. and Cheney, was flown to Mt. Weather. Sec Def Rumsfeld was supposed to go to Raven Rock but he refused. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Sec Def, was flown to Raven Rock.

They were not flown from the WH. So stop.

This thread is not about Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the White House. It is about the need for helicopter pilots to train for the contingency of an attack on the seat of government, and the need to evacuate people (i.e. "VIPs") from a variety of locations in the DMV to secure locations away from the city. There is no other practical way to transport people to those sites other than by helicopter. If indeed that was what the flight was about, i.e. training, then it was perfectly legitimate. We should hold off on the actions of the Black Hawk crew until an investigation is complete, but I am afraid that the event has become so politicized, that we will never know.

There wouldn’t be any in-bound flights if the capital is under attack. They should train this route when the aren’t dozens of civilian planes landing. Like midnight. Just a phenomenally bad decision to allow this route when the airport is open.

DP. This is why so many people here are convinced that it had to be training in conjunction with a VIP trip. Because otherwise the decision to allow the training to take place at that time of day through that airspace is so illogical that it defies belief.

Considering how frequently helicopters are flying around there, it likely happens all the time. You just don’t know about it because they’ve never flown into a passenger plane

They do fly around a lot and there have been many close calls. There are a number of reasons they’re in the air. Training and gaining hours can happen in addition another purpose for the flight, but if the SOLE purposes of a flight is training, there is no reason in the world that should be done around an airport with known congestion issues and dozens of commercial planes in the area. Some of us don’t think the Army is stupid enough to do this, therefore we’re asking, what was the true mission of the flight? And if it was typical and authorized use, why hide it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

The route is a problem for everyone. There are frequent near misses. The taxi service needs to take another route or stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

I’m saying this route should have been zero problems for properly trained pilots

Again I’ll ask what you think of the repeated near misses at this airport? Is that an acceptable risk to put commercially flying civilians under for taxi services?

Curious what your position is here.

The “near misses,” you aren’t even citing, where a commercial pilot bowed out of the landing queue bc a helicopter was in the vicinity or closing in is not what happened here. That’s due to lack of trust of the helo pilots there.

Here a plane was over almost over the river, 400m from the runway, at 400ft alt, and had to evasively try to pull up at the last second. Which didn’t work.

Meanwhile no one of authority has disclosed why the BH helicopter route and altitude was so off.

I don’t need to do your research for you, but Tim Caine spoke about this issue awhile ago, and someone above posted a link to near miss stats for that airport.

And I don’t think you know much about aviation if you think that the helo being 100 or even 250 feet off is ‘so off’. If you ever have seen flight tracking on an app, as example, you will occasionally see flight paths passing over each other but they are *thousands* of feet apart.

Why was our govt comfortable with this close of a path way next to commercial flights? Crazy

I’m seeing chatter on the VIP issue around fwiw

3rd hand “info” suits you well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has brought to light some huge failures in pilot training. I think it’s fair to consider is this is related to intentionally filling more women into these roles that were previously closed. Did that alter training standards? Or is it something else that has caused this massive training failure? Is it that they were trained properly but the culture has changed pilots go off script and don’t follow standards because they feel over confident- and that’s become acceptable?

But the pilots of Vietnam could fly their bullet ridden low tech helicopters through gun fire, landing with ease between close trees,
where staying on the ground for seconds longer than absolutely necessary means low survival. I think it’s care training standards have changed as well as acceptable practices when out of flight school

Lol this is a glorified taxi service route. Are you suggesting that the military should only allow its very best seasoned fighter pilots to fly as taxis? Seems like a misuse of resources, no?

Dp

Let the navy help black hawk pilots handle it, not the army. They can get there from Annapolis and have more hours in the cockpit per year than army.

As for an emergency evacuation, similar to sars and covid/wuhan, government leaders get out days before the plebes and their commercial jets are even aware there was a problem.

Either way, a black hawk pilot flying anywhere should be able to maintain 150-200 feet above ground or water. Practicing over water is very important as sky and water, day or night, can be situationally disorienting to a fighter or helo pilot.