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

I've never heard of that before.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPiNC5JpEYs

THis is ATC from the day before. Follow PAT 11 (another helicopter). Three times there are warnings due to the helicopter and plane being so close (he red CA). On one occasion, the plane has to do a go around to avoid the helicopter.

From reading on a pilot forum, the biggest issue here is the airspace use with helicopters flying under planes at low altitide and the fact that anyone is allowed to use visual separation at night in a busy air space. None of them think this was intentional and most believe the helicopter pilot didn't see the CRJ until 2-3 seconds before the collision. The CRJ was at 280 ft at the time of the collision and it isn't unsual for a helicopter to bounce up 50'. The forum of airplane pilots place little blame on anyone but rather on the procedures and normalization of unsafe flight paths that led to this situation. They also have access to records of dozens of nearly identical near misses in the same locations that were reported by ATC or a heli pilot or a plane pilot.

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.

I doubt this very much.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

Runway 33 is perfect for regional jets.

200 seaters can’t use it.

Not a big deal. Usually.

That's fine but that wasn't the original flight plan - the tower ATC had multiple landings spaced too closely and needed one of them to move from the pattern (landing on 1) to landing on 33. This is normal, but it shouldn't be normal - there should be enough ATC capacity so that the tower doesn't get behind the queue. Like everything else by itself it's fine, but it's another hole in the swiss cheese that led to this disaster. Just like having see and avoid. Just like night vision goggles. Just like conflicting traffic patterns. None of these on their own was the only cause. They all had to line up together and they did tonight. The public has no idea how close things have been.

I strongly disagree with the "all had to line up together" argument. There is one issue that is one major violation of protocol that trumps everything: the altitude of the helicopter.

You can discuss that there should be a better procedure in place and many would agree with you. But here is one that was in place and was violated. Everything else is a contributing factor.

Disobeying the command from ATC to wait until the plane passed in front of them was probably the bigger failure.

Ok. I stand corrected. Two major violations on the part of military helicopter.

Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.

Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm.

Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.

The staff did exactly what it was supposed to do, so reduced or not, that is not the problem. Red herring.

Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm.

For future improved safety, good point. For this situation: red herring. ATC was on top of the situation and gave instructions to avoid collision. Helicopter confirmed.

It's all part of the swiss cheese model. All the failures need to line up.

So now ATC needs to assume the army pilots can look at their radar for their closest jets or at which runway is which? And describe everything in poetic detail? Teach the pilot you have model? All realtime- not trust the pilots to understand basic stuff like runway number, required altitude, active airport, middle of the river vs East bank?

No that’s not the Swiss Cheese model where every stakeholder is simultaneously failing.

This was helicopter pilot team not following altitude protocol and not double checking radars or two runway lines.

ATC did not fail

CRJ did not fail.

No thanks. Pilot DQ. Get a neuropsych.

I've seen this "look at their radar" comment a few times, from someone who obviously has never sat in a cockpit. The pilot flying is looking OUTSIDE, not staring at their on-board radar scopes. This isn't flight simulator - the radar systems are not the same at ATC and while yes there is a conflict alert this isn't something you can scan easily with might vision. Fault here will go to the helo pilot but this is absolutely swiss cheese - if ATC hadn't screwed up the incoming traffic he wouldn't have had to have anyone do a circling approach to 33 that always conflicts with Route 1.

You need to stop with the silly Swiss cheese metaphor.

If National is known for these constant traffic changes, then the helo should have been extra careful about 1) not breaking altitude protocol and 2) obeying ATC's instructions. It did neither.

Also, you just make the helicopter sound more and more dangerous. Aren't the other people on the plane supposed to see what the pilot can't?

If not, I don't question just flying over an airport (insanity!), I question them flying at all!

Agree.

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.

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 think it’s just hard to get your head around how three people on a military helicopter in a very busy airspace can miss an aircraft. It’s not a sightseeing flight where people would be ogling the Lincoln memorial. I don’t think people are assuming anything, it’s just hard to get your head around it these people making this mistake in this airspace.

And yet that is by far the most likely explanation.

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.

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?

This looks exactly like two vehicles coming into a crossroads, neither automatically had the other in sight, neither maneuvered as if they did.

Except the better analogy would be a car approaching GW parkway from a side road and not looking before crossing. Oh and this car has 360 glass all around so no blind spots and the traffic on GW are all 18 wheelers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Came out last night that the sidestep to 33 was because ATC had put multiple jets on final for 1 too close. The whole event started long before, with at least one plane refusing to switch to 33. Still primarily the helicopter fault but having 1 tower ATC was a large contributing factor. Many of us in the aviation community have felt this is the exact scenario the multiple near collisions over the last 24 months would bring.

Runway 33 is perfect for regional jets.

200 seaters can’t use it.

Not a big deal. Usually.

That's fine but that wasn't the original flight plan - the tower ATC had multiple landings spaced too closely and needed one of them to move from the pattern (landing on 1) to landing on 33. This is normal, but it shouldn't be normal - there should be enough ATC capacity so that the tower doesn't get behind the queue. Like everything else by itself it's fine, but it's another hole in the swiss cheese that led to this disaster. Just like having see and avoid. Just like night vision goggles. Just like conflicting traffic patterns. None of these on their own was the only cause. They all had to line up together and they did tonight. The public has no idea how close things have been.

I strongly disagree with the "all had to line up together" argument. There is one issue that is one major violation of protocol that trumps everything: the altitude of the helicopter.

You can discuss that there should be a better procedure in place and many would agree with you. But here is one that was in place and was violated. Everything else is a contributing factor.

Disobeying the command from ATC to wait until the plane passed in front of them was probably the bigger failure.

Ok. I stand corrected. Two major violations on the part of military helicopter.

Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.

Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm.

Reduced staffing of the ATC tower.

The staff did exactly what it was supposed to do, so reduced or not, that is not the problem. Red herring.

Conflicting air traffic patterns that regularly require deconflicting were the norm.

For future improved safety, good point. For this situation: red herring. ATC was on top of the situation and gave instructions to avoid collision. Helicopter confirmed.

It's all part of the swiss cheese model. All the failures need to line up.

So now ATC needs to assume the army pilots can look at their radar for their closest jets or at which runway is which? And describe everything in poetic detail? Teach the pilot you have model? All realtime- not trust the pilots to understand basic stuff like runway number, required altitude, active airport, middle of the river vs East bank?

No that’s not the Swiss Cheese model where every stakeholder is simultaneously failing.

This was helicopter pilot team not following altitude protocol and not double checking radars or two runway lines.

ATC did not fail

CRJ did not fail.

No thanks. Pilot DQ. Get a neuropsych.

I've seen this "look at their radar" comment a few times, from someone who obviously has never sat in a cockpit. The pilot flying is looking OUTSIDE, not staring at their on-board radar scopes. This isn't flight simulator - the radar systems are not the same at ATC and while yes there is a conflict alert this isn't something you can scan easily with might vision. Fault here will go to the helo pilot but this is absolutely swiss cheese - if ATC hadn't screwed up the incoming traffic he wouldn't have had to have anyone do a circling approach to 33 that always conflicts with Route 1.

Not to mention, if the BH didn't ALSO have TCAS, the plane's TCAS wouldn't have picked it up. Both aircraft have to have it.

The "look at the radar" point is not about TCAS. It's that even without TCAS, the second pilot on the helicopter could have confirmed location of the plane they were supposed to be maintaining visual separation from on the radar.

All of this is related to the suggestion by a number of aviation experts that the helicopter thought ATC was referring to a plane further south and did not see the RJ approaching runway 33. Given the location of the helicopter, the time of day, and the limitations of eyesight in this specific situation (night, urban area with a lot of ground light), it seems reasonable to expect a co-pilot to be able to check radar and confirm the location of the plane they have already told ATC *twice* they will take responsibility for maintaining visual separation from.

TCAS is beside the point.

Yeah the CRJ would have been right there on the radar screen, descending for its landing.

How did all three BH people mistake the runways, a large 737 way by runway 1 lineup, altitude, hugging the shoreline, etc. right at the most critical point: passing an active runway?

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the names of the helo pilots are not released while the other plane's pilots were.

Military operates differently than civilian companies.

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why Trump kept harping on being psychologically strong. His exact words:

“And there are things where you have to go by brain power. You have to go by psychological quality, and psychological quality is a very important element of it.“

You see this new video where the helo literally slams into the plane. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist at all but the fact that the pilot’s name has not been released and the video seems so intentional and Trump kept harping on psychological strength really makes me uncomfortable about what actually happened.

This. He was told something. He's a very literal person who also lacks impulse control and a filter. I bet it was suggested to him that it could have been deliberate. 🙁