Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does a black hawk helicopter have duplicate controls for a pilot and a copilot? Can you disable one or the other for training purposes?

Yes. Especially in the case of a training flight. The instructor pilot would have had the capability to take over control of the helicopter.

However if the problems happened too quickly right before collision, it may not have mattered. But it does significantly undermine the theories that the pilot was suicidal and steered into the plane. In order for that to be the case, the pilot would have had to know exactly where that plane was while somehow the instructor was in the dark, and then veer into it last minute. That seems highly unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does a black hawk helicopter have duplicate controls for a pilot and a copilot? Can you disable one or the other for training purposes?

Yes. Especially in the case of a training flight. The instructor pilot would have had the capability to take over control of the helicopter.

However if the problems happened too quickly right before collision, it may not have mattered. But it does significantly undermine the theories that the pilot was suicidal and steered into the plane. In order for that to be the case, the pilot would have had to know exactly where that plane was while somehow the instructor was in the dark, and then veer into it last minute. That seems highly unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the problems is that the FAA makes most of the flights land from the South even when winds are from the south. They think they can increase capacity because of the two runways there, but it gets so busy that it is dangerous. So many people asked the FAA why they insist on landing from the south most of the time and this is what the FAA put out:

https://www.flyreagan.com/sites/flyreagan.com/files/legacyfiles/2019_09_18_-_operational_advantages_of_a_north_configuration_at_dca_dlh.pdf

The poorer people live south of DCA and complain less than North Arlington and Bethesda. That's why.

I doubt the above is true. I've spent a lot of time watching DCA planes, and they routinely shift which way the planes "enter" the runway area.

This is done based on wind direction and other weather factors.

Anonymous wrote:Does a black hawk helicopter have duplicate controls for a pilot and a copilot? Can you disable one or the other for training purposes?

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

How will all those VIPs get home?

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Too little too late.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It links to a different (Vegas) incident. Can you provide the correct link?

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

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: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.