Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was such a perfect pilot let’s see her military records and all of her flight history. When was the last time she flew before the night in question? And who was the VIP they just dropped off?

What difference does the VIP make? This question keeps getting asked but I don't get how it would matter in the sequence of events that led to the cash.

How would the crash have happened at all if a VIP didn’t not want a ride? Not sure how you can’t see that.

No one onboard the BH made that decision. They took orders.

See posts above if you really want to know why it matters to know the VIP.

Stop with the VIP. It really doesn’t matter. The flight that caused the crash was a part of annual training they were required to do annually. The VIP transport prior is irrelevant. Being evaluated on that particular route at night was a required sign off- if not that particular night, another night.

Those are Black Hawk pilots that are supposed to be able to fly in battle- with enemy aircraft around and while attempts are being made to shoot them down. No air traffic control telling them where other aircraft is and where they need to go. The fact that several HUGE errors were made in such controlled conditions with explicit instructions is troubling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was such a perfect pilot let’s see her military records and all of her flight history. When was the last time she flew before the night in question? And who was the VIP they just dropped off?

What difference does the VIP make? This question keeps getting asked but I don't get how it would matter in the sequence of events that led to the cash.

I think the problem is that the military appears to be trying to hide/obscure that a VIP was dropped off. It raises the possibility that there was something improper about the flight -- that the VIP might be someone the general public would consider not worth an expensive trip in a Black Hawk (like what if it's not a military or high level government official, but instead someone's kid or spouse getting a birthday ride, or some billionaire being rewarded for financial donations, or a way to wine and dine a bigwig at a major defense contractor).

Also because there is an emerging narrative that airspace around National is overcrowded and that there is a specific problem with military helicopters causing near collisions in the recent past, it is causing people to question why this helicopter was there at all, and what decision making was involved in putting this helicopter on that flight path at that exact time (a very busy time for arrivals at National).

It's also possible that the military is obscuring the identity of the VIP for national security reasons. But trust in government is at an all-time low, so even if this is the case, people will continue to ask this question. People don't trust the military to make that call and there are too many recent examples of national security being used as a shield for government activity that endangers or harms American citizens (for example NSA spying on US citizens).

I suppose there is also some chance the military is being honest and this was purely a training mission that was given the PAT call sign because the goal of the mission was to simulate a VIP extraction under night conditions. However, if that were true, I think the military would have revealed more information to make that obvious. Like for instance stating where the flight originated (it's quite obvious it was Langley but the military won't say this) and where the helicopter was prior to this leg of the flight. How did it get to Langley? Where was it earlier in the day? These should be easy things to find out and will be part of the investigation, which will include service records on the helicopter to figure out if there might have been a mechanical failure that could have contributed to the collision. Yet the military has said nothing and instead put forth a narrative that doesn't quite sit right with people who are familiar with these sorts of flights. It is much more likely that it was a VIP flight with a training added on return, and it's weird the military won't just say that's what it is, if everything about the VIP flight is on the up and up (a justifiable transport of a high ranking official between military locations for important government purposes).

Presumably the answers will be in the preliminary and final NTSB reports. And because Trump has promised increased transparency, presumably we will find out the truth, correct?

The two major NTSB press talks thus far have been transparent, detailed and educational. He’s a good speaker too, of tough and emotional info. Monday sounds like another deadline of processed info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that some people on here really want to blame the female pilot, but I ask you to ask yourselves if you were training someone and they were taking risks you weren’t comfortable with, isn’t it your responsibility to get them back into the realm of safety? And if the ATC is trying to make both pilots aware of a risk they are encountering, and you are in charge of answering, isn’t it your job to make sure you and the other pilot are aware of the risk the ATC is alerting you to before you answer in the affirmative and take responsibility for that risk?

Not trying to throw all the blame at the trainer, just think there was more than one failure here. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation.

And again, just to echo what other folks are saying, if this training was really just the return trip of the helo necessitated by some initial (and perhaps not really necessary) VIP trip, we deserve to know that, too.

I think the copilot was equally culpable.

Why? Please be specific. And also please tell us your qualifications and experience that give you insight.

He was communicating with ATC and claimed to have eyes on the plane.

And he very well may have. He wasn't the one controlling where the helicopter went.

You have absolutely no idea what was going on in the helicopter. Let the NTSB issue their report and stop this pathological need to blame people before facts are known.

From the ATC video, the copilot, a male voice was reassuring ATC he has things under control. Up until 1-2 secs of the crash.

He sounded calm and clear, not panicked, so I don't think there was any disagreement between him and the pilot.

Not blaming anyone, but if it was some kind of error that led to this, all the three soldiers were equally wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many flight hours did the trainer pilot, who was overseeing and evaluating the female pilot, have? Just asking because someone posted that as a captain she outranked him, and he IS the voice on the recording saying he saw the plane they ultimately ran into. Not trying to vilify him, just looking for perspective.

He had 1,000 hours. She's always going to outrank him, because she's a commissioned officer, but as an older warrant officer it's normal that he had more flight experience.

No. She had 450.

She had 450 hours. HE had 1000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was such a perfect pilot let’s see her military records and all of her flight history. When was the last time she flew before the night in question? And who was the VIP they just dropped off?

What difference does the VIP make? This question keeps getting asked but I don't get how it would matter in the sequence of events that led to the cash.

I think the problem is that the military appears to be trying to hide/obscure that a VIP was dropped off. It raises the possibility that there was something improper about the flight -- that the VIP might be someone the general public would consider not worth an expensive trip in a Black Hawk (like what if it's not a military or high level government official, but instead someone's kid or spouse getting a birthday ride, or some billionaire being rewarded for financial donations, or a way to wine and dine a bigwig at a major defense contractor).

Also because there is an emerging narrative that airspace around National is overcrowded and that there is a specific problem with military helicopters causing near collisions in the recent past, it is causing people to question why this helicopter was there at all, and what decision making was involved in putting this helicopter on that flight path at that exact time (a very busy time for arrivals at National).

It's also possible that the military is obscuring the identity of the VIP for national security reasons. But trust in government is at an all-time low, so even if this is the case, people will continue to ask this question. People don't trust the military to make that call and there are too many recent examples of national security being used as a shield for government activity that endangers or harms American citizens (for example NSA spying on US citizens).

I suppose there is also some chance the military is being honest and this was purely a training mission that was given the PAT call sign because the goal of the mission was to simulate a VIP extraction under night conditions. However, if that were true, I think the military would have revealed more information to make that obvious. Like for instance stating where the flight originated (it's quite obvious it was Langley but the military won't say this) and where the helicopter was prior to this leg of the flight. How did it get to Langley? Where was it earlier in the day? These should be easy things to find out and will be part of the investigation, which will include service records on the helicopter to figure out if there might have been a mechanical failure that could have contributed to the collision. Yet the military has said nothing and instead put forth a narrative that doesn't quite sit right with people who are familiar with these sorts of flights. It is much more likely that it was a VIP flight with a training added on return, and it's weird the military won't just say that's what it is, if everything about the VIP flight is on the up and up (a justifiable transport of a high ranking official between military locations for important government purposes).

Presumably the answers will be in the preliminary and final NTSB reports. And because Trump has promised increased transparency, presumably we will find out the truth, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was such a perfect pilot let’s see her military records and all of her flight history. When was the last time she flew before the night in question? And who was the VIP they just dropped off?

What difference does the VIP make? This question keeps getting asked but I don't get how it would matter in the sequence of events that led to the cash.

How would the crash have happened at all if a VIP didn’t not want a ride? Not sure how you can’t see that.

No one onboard the BH made that decision. They took orders.

See posts above if you really want to know why it matters to know the VIP.

The point is, the 3 onboard did not CHOOSE to get that VIP. they are being vilified.

We want to know who the VIP was to know whether it waa truly an essential VIP trip. No one is
Blaming the crew for following orders. This goes above their heads.

The pilots need to fly regularly to keep their skills and hours up. They need to fly these specific routes regularly too as part of their training- as they were doing and getting signed off on that night. If not flying VIPs they still have to fly the hours and routes needed to keep proficient, even if not flying a VIP. How to do expect them to maintain skills? You think they can just circle over some open fields a few times per week and call it good?

Are you really this dense? No one is saying they don’t need training hours - only that the VIP flight may be the reason this “training” was shoehorned into such a dangerous time and place. The MAGA brain is so low wattage. Unreal.

Are YOU that dense? This particular night route was needed for their annual recertification- with or without the VIP drop off prior. They weren’t learning how to fly, it’s an annual sign off that they should have been able to do with zero issue. There was nothing at all complicated about it, the other plane did what it was supposed to do, ATC did what it was supposed to do. If the helicopter followed the very clear instructions and guidelines, everyone would be fine. But they didn’t. There is no indication of why this was anything but a routine flight

You can do a night route at 11pm though. You don't have to do it at a peak time for the airport. Especially for a training route, you'd think that that whoever assigned this training would have taken into account that this was a less experienced pilot, and especially given the myriad of close calls around National, including some in recent days, involving military helicopters, this particular training should not be scheduled for 8pm.

Unless the training was simply tacked on after a VIP drop off that had to happen at 7pm because the VIP said so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that some people on here really want to blame the female pilot, but I ask you to ask yourselves if you were training someone and they were taking risks you weren’t comfortable with, isn’t it your responsibility to get them back into the realm of safety? And if the ATC is trying to make both pilots aware of a risk they are encountering, and you are in charge of answering, isn’t it your job to make sure you and the other pilot are aware of the risk the ATC is alerting you to before you answer in the affirmative and take responsibility for that risk?

Not trying to throw all the blame at the trainer, just think there was more than one failure here. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation.

And again, just to echo what other folks are saying, if this training was really just the return trip of the helo necessitated by some initial (and perhaps not really necessary) VIP trip, we deserve to know that, too.

I think the copilot was equally culpable.

Why? Please be specific. And also please tell us your qualifications and experience that give you insight.

He was communicating with ATC and claimed to have eyes on the plane.

And he very well may have. He wasn't the one controlling where the helicopter went.

You have absolutely no idea what was going on in the helicopter. Let the NTSB issue their report and stop this pathological need to blame people before facts are known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that some people on here really want to blame the female pilot, but I ask you to ask yourselves if you were training someone and they were taking risks you weren’t comfortable with, isn’t it your responsibility to get them back into the realm of safety? And if the ATC is trying to make both pilots aware of a risk they are encountering, and you are in charge of answering, isn’t it your job to make sure you and the other pilot are aware of the risk the ATC is alerting you to before you answer in the affirmative and take responsibility for that risk?

Not trying to throw all the blame at the trainer, just think there was more than one failure here. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation.

And again, just to echo what other folks are saying, if this training was really just the return trip of the helo necessitated by some initial (and perhaps not really necessary) VIP trip, we deserve to know that, too.

I think the copilot was equally culpable.

Why? Please be specific. And also please tell us your qualifications and experience that give you insight.

He was communicating with ATC and claimed to have eyes on the plane.

And he very well may have. He wasn't the one controlling where the helicopter went.

You have absolutely no idea what was going on in the helicopter. Let the NTSB issue their report and stop this pathological need to blame people before facts are known.

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:

Anonymous wrote:On Reddit, people said the wife of one of the pilots is being treated horribly. She had asked for people to share photos of her husband, and someone replied they should share photos of CRJ victims.

My call to everyone is to do something nice for others.

Text your government friend and let them know you appreciate their work.

Hold the door for someone.

Text a friend or family member, and let them know you love them.

Hope we can preserve aspects of a healthy society where we treat each other well.

It is shockingly insensitive for families of the helicopter pilots to be seeking that kind of attention under the circumstances.

Don’t think those families are less devastated? You suck.

Of course they're probably devastated. But sometimes it is not appropriate to publicly ask others to join in your grieving.

She posted on her personal facebook page. Presumably, the only people that would be looking at it and sharing would be her friends and family. If "the public" doesn't want to share and join in her grieving, they don't need to look at her page.

Or she might not have understood that some posts are set to public. Plenty of people don’t understand the Facebook post settings.

People assuming she set her FB post to public and then trashed her for that are—again—small-minded people who can not envision a variety of possibilities.

So she made a mistake. Just like the helicopter pilots. Luckily her mistake didn't kill 64 innocent people.

The grieving spouse didn't "make a mistake". Bullies targeted her. Don't victim blame here.

And you have no idea what happened on the helicopter or if any "mistakes" were made.

No one is blaming the victims-- the 64 innocent people on the airplane.

Just shut up. The three military members on the plane are victims too who died serving their country. People have accidents all the time. We don't crucify the people involved. You're a toxic ghoul.

If the helicopter crew had survived, what repercussions would they be facing?

They'd almost certainly be court-martialed for flying outside their assigned route. The question is whether they'd face negligent homicide charges.

I'm not even sure they'd be courtmartialed. There would be an investigation. They'd want to rule out aircraft malfunction and other potential explanations first. They don't automatically court martial people when civilians die. A decision would be made based on the results of the investigation, whether or not to prosecute and if so for what (sometimes people are courtmartialed for behavior or lapses in judgment associated with an accident, but not for the accident itself).

What would happen if this accident had been caused by a TV news chopper?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think it’s odd all of the female pilot’s social media was completely scrubbed. But also her siblings and her parents.

Why? It’s the first thing I would do.

Because the other pilots and crew involved were released immediately, either willingly or not, I don’t know. They didn’t take extreme time and measures to erase all traces of them the public could potentially judge. And when you are involved in killing a bunch of people, the public will judge. By them not allowing military to release her name and then scrubbing all traces of narrative about her except what they explicitly publish, it seems like something is being hidden she would be judged harshly for- beyond her gender alone

Rebecca as a Captain outranked the copilot, how does that factor in to decision making?

It may have.

NVGs likely were a factor.

That the plane saw the BH at the last second and tried to evade is sad.

ATC could have been more explicit.

NVGs have been used for decades without this ever happening before now. Helicopters and planes don’t crash into each other weekly, monthly, daily. Stop making up excuses. ATC has been using the same commands and language for decade, as have pilots - this wasn’t invented yesterday.

The issue lies with the three in that helicopter. Full stop. The combination of those three individuals is the variable. That plane route was regular and common and the runways were not new.

Were they paying attention? Were they jacking around? ATC was directing dozens of planes all night without issue.

Helicopter behavior on the night in question is the issue here.

You don't know that.

You don't have all of the informaton.

We know the helicopter flew outside their route and well above their allowed altitude. We know that to them into the path of a landing airplane, when they were told by ATC to wait until it passed before proceeding.

We know the helicopter's behavior caused this. We just don't know why they did it.

Like I said, you know nothing.

This is not a TV episode where the story is wrapped up in 40 minutes.

Real life investigations take a while.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think it’s odd all of the female pilot’s social media was completely scrubbed. But also her siblings and her parents.

Why? It’s the first thing I would do.

Because the other pilots and crew involved were released immediately, either willingly or not, I don’t know. They didn’t take extreme time and measures to erase all traces of them the public could potentially judge. And when you are involved in killing a bunch of people, the public will judge. By them not allowing military to release her name and then scrubbing all traces of narrative about her except what they explicitly publish, it seems like something is being hidden she would be judged harshly for- beyond her gender alone

Rebecca as a Captain outranked the copilot, how does that factor in to decision making?

It may have.

NVGs likely were a factor.

That the plane saw the BH at the last second and tried to evade is sad.

ATC could have been more explicit.

NVGs have been used for decades without this ever happening before now. Helicopters and planes don’t crash into each other weekly, monthly, daily. Stop making up excuses. ATC has been using the same commands and language for decade, as have pilots - this wasn’t invented yesterday.

The issue lies with the three in that helicopter. Full stop. The combination of those three individuals is the variable. That plane route was regular and common and the runways were not new.

Were they paying attention? Were they jacking around? ATC was directing dozens of planes all night without issue.

Helicopter behavior on the night in question is the issue here.

You don't know that.

You don't have all of the informaton.

We know the helicopter flew outside their route and well above their allowed altitude. We know that to them into the path of a landing airplane, when they were told by ATC to wait until it passed before proceeding.

We know the helicopter's behavior caused this. We just don't know why they did it.

You just don't know, period.

There's a lot we do know. Why are you ignoring that?

That PP wants to argue that ATC is full of DEI hires

FAA is more than 70% male and 70% white.

What are the names, CV, races and genders of the 3 on duty that night at Reagan? You had a supervisor, an ATC, and an ATC who the supe let go home early.

what were the names races and genders of the people who decided that it is appropriate to have training flights there at all?

+1 What was the name and race of the President who let unelected unofficial Elon Musk run rampant so that he fired the FAA chief on January 20 and pushed for minimal staffing of core government services like FAA.

fired the FAA chief, pushed minimal staffing for government agencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that some people on here really want to blame the female pilot, but I ask you to ask yourselves if you were training someone and they were taking risks you weren’t comfortable with, isn’t it your responsibility to get them back into the realm of safety? And if the ATC is trying to make both pilots aware of a risk they are encountering, and you are in charge of answering, isn’t it your job to make sure you and the other pilot are aware of the risk the ATC is alerting you to before you answer in the affirmative and take responsibility for that risk?

Not trying to throw all the blame at the trainer, just think there was more than one failure here. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation.

And again, just to echo what other folks are saying, if this training was really just the return trip of the helo necessitated by some initial (and perhaps not really necessary) VIP trip, we deserve to know that, too.

I think the copilot was equally culpable.

Why? Please be specific. And also please tell us your qualifications and experience that give you insight.

He was communicating with ATC and claimed to have eyes on the plane.

And he very well may have. He wasn't the one controlling where the helicopter went.

You have absolutely no idea what was going on in the helicopter. Let the NTSB issue their report and stop this pathological need to blame people before facts are known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has been such a tight lid on the VIP leg of this flight.

There is NO WAY the "VIP" request isn't something that is bad optics.

Where are the journaliats who used to lurk around here?

They weren’t on some special unauthorized route for a VIP. The VIP wasn’t part of this crash.

They were flying an authorized route that is frequently flown by helicopters and were getting signed off on their annual night training on this route when the crash occurred. This was a required evaluation they were doing AFTER whatever VIP business was done

The VIP leg is why they were training in the dark during the busiest hour at National. The public deserves to know who the VIP was and the purpose of the VIP trip.

is the implication that they added the training to justify the VIP trip?

They use the return legs of "VIP" trips as "training" legs very frequently.

If people knew how many BS VIP trips there are in the national airspace, it would be a scandal.

More reason to know who the VIP was!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that some people on here really want to blame the female pilot, but I ask you to ask yourselves if you were training someone and they were taking risks you weren’t comfortable with, isn’t it your responsibility to get them back into the realm of safety? And if the ATC is trying to make both pilots aware of a risk they are encountering, and you are in charge of answering, isn’t it your job to make sure you and the other pilot are aware of the risk the ATC is alerting you to before you answer in the affirmative and take responsibility for that risk?

Not trying to throw all the blame at the trainer, just think there was more than one failure here. I feel sorry for everyone involved in this situation.

And again, just to echo what other folks are saying, if this training was really just the return trip of the helo necessitated by some initial (and perhaps not really necessary) VIP trip, we deserve to know that, too.

I think the copilot was equally culpable.

Why? Please be specific. And also please tell us your qualifications and experience that give you insight.

He was communicating with ATC and claimed to have eyes on the plane.

And he very well may have. He wasn't the one controlling where the helicopter went.