Anonymous wrote:I still really want to know who the high level government official was who necessitated this flight and why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

The copilot told her TWICE.

She ignored orders both times.

They keep mass reporting posts here as if that changes the facts. President Trump was obvi briefed right after this happened that it was her fault.

And all the other near misses from 2011 to 2024? Where they all inferior women too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

The copilot told her TWICE.

She ignored orders both times.

+1
Pilot was at wrong altitude and wrong river positioning despite ATC warnings/directions and Copilot warnings/direction.

Anonymous wrote:I still really want to know who the high level government official was who necessitated this flight and why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

But it may have been averted if there was regular ATC stafffing. With regular ATC staffing, maybe the ATC would have been able to tell “get down! You’re about to collide!l in that 15 seconds. Maybe it would have made a difference. This is why you have redundancies — so when one person or system fails, ideally there is backup.

It's clear that poster either didn't read or can't comprehend the NYT article.

DP. The article does indicate possible deficiencies of the ATC, whether due to short staffing and or inexperience. It does not lay responsibility only on the pilot, although pilot error was one factor. The article outlines multiple failures - pilot, ATC, tracking turned off on helicopter. Wrt pilot error - it’s pointed out that pilot thought they were flying at a lower altitude, co pilot did not point out that error. Also not understood is why pilot replied affirmative to turn left but did not. The co pilot was her instructor. Yet it seemed as though there was hesitancy to correct her when she got the altitude wrong. I think more needs to be understood re their instructor/student relationship, which might have been awkward because she was of higher military rank than he.

But back to ATC.

ATC- why did they shift to 1 controller earlier than typical? 3:40 pm instead of 9:30 pm when traffic is lighter.
And why didn’t ATC issue another urgent warning of the potential collision?

“Still, some regulators and controllers said that the controller in this case could have done more.

He could have told the Black Hawk crew where Flight 5342 was positioned and which way it was bound. (The F.A.A. manual instructions direct controllers to use the hours of a clock in describing locations.) He could have provided the jet’s distance from the helicopter in nautical miles or feet.

But one thing is critical. When two aircraft are on a collision course, the controller’s top priority must be to warn both sets of pilots.

“Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge,” F.A.A. regulations state.

That did not happen.“

ATC was operating at approved numbers. There is nothing else to debate about that. And the ATC asked the helicopter if they saw the plane, told them what course to take, and helicopter confirmed. I really don’t see how you can possibly blame ATC. These were supposed to be the best trained war pilots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

But it may have been averted if there was regular ATC stafffing. With regular ATC staffing, maybe the ATC would have been able to tell “get down! You’re about to collide!l in that 15 seconds. Maybe it would have made a difference. This is why you have redundancies — so when one person or system fails, ideally there is backup.

It's clear that poster either didn't read or can't comprehend the NYT article.

DP. The article does indicate possible deficiencies of the ATC, whether due to short staffing and or inexperience. It does not lay responsibility only on the pilot, although pilot error was one factor. The article outlines multiple failures - pilot, ATC, tracking turned off on helicopter. Wrt pilot error - it’s pointed out that pilot thought they were flying at a lower altitude, co pilot did not point out that error. Also not understood is why pilot replied affirmative to turn left but did not. The co pilot was her instructor. Yet it seemed as though there was hesitancy to correct her when she got the altitude wrong. I think more needs to be understood re their instructor/student relationship, which might have been awkward because she was of higher military rank than he.

But back to ATC.

ATC- why did they shift to 1 controller earlier than typical? 3:40 pm instead of 9:30 pm when traffic is lighter.
And why didn’t ATC issue another urgent warning of the potential collision?

“Still, some regulators and controllers said that the controller in this case could have done more.

He could have told the Black Hawk crew where Flight 5342 was positioned and which way it was bound. (The F.A.A. manual instructions direct controllers to use the hours of a clock in describing locations.) He could have provided the jet’s distance from the helicopter in nautical miles or feet.

But one thing is critical. When two aircraft are on a collision course, the controller’s top priority must be to warn both sets of pilots.

“Advise the pilots if the targets appear likely to merge,” F.A.A. regulations state.

That did not happen.“

I still really want to know who the high level government official was who necessitated this flight and why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

But it may have been averted if there was regular ATC stafffing. With regular ATC staffing, maybe the ATC would have been able to tell “get down! You’re about to collide!l in that 15 seconds. Maybe it would have made a difference. This is why you have redundancies — so when one person or system fails, ideally there is backup.

It's clear that poster either didn't read or can't comprehend the NYT article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

The copilot told her TWICE.

She ignored orders both times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions

But it may have been averted if there was regular ATC stafffing. With regular ATC staffing, maybe the ATC would have been able to tell “get down! You’re about to collide!l in that 15 seconds. Maybe it would have made a difference. This is why you have redundancies — so when one person or system fails, ideally there is backup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two startling and unexplained things were that there was only one controller in the tower (and no one will say why) and the female helicopter pilot flew straight toward the plane.

They’re not unexplained. The one controller thing was not unusual. They’re stretched and people get sick etc. It’s not the level they’re aiming for, but it is (or was) considered okay and approved.

She flew toward the plane because neither one saw it. Whatever that last comment was from the instructor, it wasn’t someone who knew they were about to hit a plane.

This happened because the military takes a lot of risks. The airlines are going for zero fatalities and on time performance. The military is going for war readiness, or whatever. Zero fatalities is not their top priority. The pilots are inexperienced relative to airline pilots, and the safety rules are fewer and loosely enforced.

Here is what the article said about ATC staffing that night. It IS unexplained. I still mostly blame the Helo, but you can’t ignore this (bold by me):

“But after a co-worker left the control hub at 3:40 p.m., some controllers began to assume combined duties. The controller who ended up directing the Black Hawk took over combined duties at roughly 7 p.m., according to the government document. An N.T.S.B. spokesman declined to confirm how long the controller operated in both roles.

Such a combination was not unusual, and was approved that evening by a tower supervisor, according to a person briefed on the staffing. But the roles were not typically combined until traffic slowed many hours later, around 9:30 p.m.

Though the reasons why the supervisor combined the duties so early are still not clear, the F.A.A. would later say in an internal report that staffing was “not normal” that evening.“

Irrelevant. Air traffic control was still staffed at approved safe numbers. The co-pilot was heard telling the pilot that air traffic control wants her to turn left toward the east river bank, which if she did, the crash wouldn’t have happened. But she didn’t do this, for whatever reason. But we do know air traffic control communicated with the plane appropriately and that they heard the instructions