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.

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.

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.

Here's the thing - there's visiting the crash site and then there's the airport, where presumably many family members of the people on board were waiting to pick them up. It's one thing not to go visit a site where there are no survivors and is an ongoing recovery situation. But what about the families who were at the airport? I can't even imagine the chaos there as the news started to unfold and people began frantically texting their friends and family to see if that was their plane. Just awful. And instead of going there he asked if he should be swimming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing about the video is that it's easy to understand why the plane might have missed the helicopter altogether. Maybe more visible if you are looking at it head on (maybe?) but on the video the Black hawk is, as designed, fairly invisible against the night sky.

Yes, I believe the plane was totally unaware. I’d be surprised if there is anything at all on the jet’s black box. It’s probably mundane talk about what their plans are after landing.

Doubt it. It’s intense flying around DC at night. Talking about instrumentals, gauges, speed, alt, DCA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

I hope this wasn’t part of it:

"Initial indications suggest this may have been a checkride, or periodic evaluation by an experienced instructor pilot of a less experienced pilot," said Brad Bowman, a military analyst with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Black Hawk pilot.

"A checkride, as opposed to a normal training flight, creates some unique dynamics in the cockpit. In a checkride, the less experienced pilot can be nervous and eager to not make mistakes, while the instructor pilot is watching to see how the other pilot responds to different developments," Bowman explained. "Sometimes an instructor pilot will test the less experienced aviator to see how they respond, but such a technique would have been unusual and inadvisable in that location given the reduced margin for error."

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.

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?

you do realize, right, that "training" flight does not mean this was like frekin' drivers ed?

One pilot had 1000 hrs of flight time and the other had 500 hrs which is apparently a lot because each flight is relatively short and it's not like you are flying for days straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

+1 they don't need Pizzagate liberators, buffalo hatted shamans, and people who oppose women serving as pilots showing up at their house and/or the funeral.

That is a totally legitimate fear these days.

This. The president has already thrown her under the bus. I can’t imagine how they must feel.

This isn’t an example of being thrown under the bus. Her actions resulted in a lot of deaths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

+1 they don't need Pizzagate liberators, buffalo hatted shamans, and people who oppose women serving as pilots showing up at their house and/or the funeral.

That is a totally legitimate fear these days.

This. The president has already thrown her under the bus. I can’t imagine how they must feel.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

+1 they don't need Pizzagate liberators, buffalo hatted shamans, and people who oppose women serving as pilots showing up at their house and/or the funeral.

That is a totally legitimate fear these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The female pilot is believed to have been commanding the helicopter, her name is being intentionally withheld

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision

Per family request.

They are no doubt worried about death threats and other violence.

Can you blame them? Trump and his followers will cry "DEI hire" because a woman was flying the helicopter.

Anonymous wrote:Look, if a BH pilots cannot see a plane when they are specifically looking at one (which is what they should do as they are crossing the runway path), then we've got a real problem. BHs should not be flying anywhere.