"All the talk about meritocracy, but it wasn't one of the many qualified black military leaders in actual leadership positions that was hired to run the military, it was a low grade news "personality" that got the position because he was a white man and a Trump loyalist!"
1. Why would or should "black" enter the discussion when searching for a SecDef?
2. I love how Dan denigrates Hegseth by ignoring his distinguished military service as a field grade officer.
3. Generally the leap from O6-07 is as much about political connection as it is about leadership or military prowess. To assume that there is some magic transformation that happens once one achieves flag rank demonstrates ignorance of the military.
4. The US military is actually set up so that it is under civilian control. Selecting an active duty officer would require that the officer retire from their position.
I haven't seen what's been said about the helicopter/plane crash or the F-35 crash, that's got Dan's panties in a wad. But, if the cause is pilot error because an inadequately trained pilot was flying in DCA airspace, (or an inadequately trained pilot in the F-35) then the process that put that pilot in the left seat should absolutely be scrutinized.
Personally, it seems like Trump might have said something out of ignorance which led Dan to conclude that his best option was to reply out of ignorance as well.
In both cases, I'd suggest that it would be wise for everyone to put aside using these tragedies to score cheap political points and allow the process to play out.
23 comments:
The suggestion that DEI might play a role in this disaster is not so outrageous, given the ubiquitous nature of DEI in our society up until now. Most likely is the problem is from the control tower, which was poorly staffed for the traffic common at that airport. The other possibility is that there were two planes near the chopper and the chopper pilot thought the tower was referencing the one not in its path. So the question is why did it happen and until we get as many facts as possible, we can only speculate. One question which needs to be answered is why was that tower understaffed?
Your reference to Dan denigrating Hegseth (what a f**king surprise!) led me to look at Dan's blog, but I don't know where he made those comments. But suffice it to say, Dan is unqualified to comment on who might be qualified for any federal position given he's said nothing positive OR negative about any of Biden's appointments, regardless of qualification. This is true of the a$$hole Dem Senators trying to find fault in any of Trump's selections, so it's a given that Dan would be the same way.
As we get further information, it does sound like the DEI factor was potentially the control tower. I'm seeing multiple reports of the P-BO and Biden administration having sacrificed qualified applicants to be controllers, so that they could increase minority hiring. Not that minorities can't be controllers, but it seems inevitable when hiring primarily based on race, that you might leave out some more qualified candidates.
I've seen reports that the helicopter pilots were wearing NVG's. This seems strange to me for a couple of reasons. Most NVG's amplify available light and the airspace over a major city and airport would seem to make NVG's both a strange choice as well as increasing the effects of moving from looking at lights to looking in darker areas. NVG's also, from what I've been told, mess with things like depth perception. Seems like having impaired depth perception in high traffic, well lighted, airspace might not be a good idea. NVG's are amazing tools, and military pilots should be proficient in their use, yet this seems like the totally wrong situation to be using them.
The comment was in the sixth paragraph of his post titled "We will overcome, and We WILL NOT Go Back!".
POTUS has pretty wide latitude when picking these positions, and it seems strange to deny any president the ability to pick the cabinet members he wants. Watching clips from yesterday, the DFL senators came off looking pretty stupid, unhinged, and partisan. It's strange to think that these same people had no problems with many of Biden's bizarre choices. Especially his first try at the FAA position, who looked like an idiot when asked some very basic questions bout how the FAA system works, and flight protocols in general.
I heard a recording of the communications. Black Hawk pilot said he saw the jet and asked for visual separation, which was approved, with instructions to pass behind the jet. News also said they were wearing night vision goggles. I know from experience flying over the Chicago area at night that all the lights of the city can make it difficult to see the lights of a plane, depending on relative altitudes (for those who don't know, I hold a commercial pilot license, multi-engine rated, instrument rated and helicopter rated). So I’m wondering if the B.H. pilot saw something else and didn’t notice what was just off his left front before hitting it. Also, he was wearing night vision goggles; we tested those in the tower where I used to work and we didn’t like them. They accentuated all the lights around and also reduced our peripheral vision. The last thing I read was that the helo was supposed to be no higher than 200’ yet he was above that altitude, putting himself on the collision course.
People have made a big noise about the helo being on a different frequency (UHF vs VHF); that doesn’t matter—the controller talks on both of them the same time.
It was plainly the fault of the helo but there are questions as to how he didn’t see the jet.
Interesting commentary by Captain Sully, pointing out the problem with lights in determining aircraft position.
https://www.westernjournal.com/captain-sully-speaks-dc-air-disaster/
Glenn,
I agree that it looks like the helo was at fault, based on what we know now. I simply don't understand why they would be wearing NVG's in such a relatively well lighted area. We've all seen runway lights, as well as how well lit DC is and it seems like NVG's would actually make it harder to see for the exact reason you gave. Add in the depth perception issue and it makes no sense.
I agree that the radio frequency shouldn't have made much difference, although it does seem strange that military aircraft only have one frequency range available.
Interesting piece. You'd think that pilots flying into Regan would be aware of the uniqueness of the airport and be prepared to accommodate the situation.
There's clearly something that we don't know yet in terms of what happened. Obviously thousands of aircraft make thousands of takeoffs and landings at night all over the world despite the difficulty Sully mentions. Which is a testament to their skill and training that they do so with so little problem.
There is something missing in the story and hopefully they'll figure it out relatively soon.
SOME military aircraft had only UHF back in my days controlling but I'm guessing most if not all would have VHF also. So I'm curious why he'd be on UHF in that area, although it has no bearing on anything.
Given how relatively inexpensive radio equipment is at this point, it doesn't make much sense to me that they wouldn't.
I'd think that it would be somewhat helpful to be on the same frequency range as other aircraft in the vicinity so that you'd hear the cross talk. I'm not a pilot, and could be wrong about that.
Nah, hearing cross-talk isn't all that important. You hear the controller all the time so you hear that he's talking to someone and giving instructions, etc.
That makes sense. Thanks.
I can see cross talk going both ways as well. It could be helpful or distracting.
In my 30 years as a controller, I never had a problem in any fashion with working multiple frequencies. Extremely common is when working both ground control and tower control you always have people on both frequencies and that's VHF!
I'm sure that's the case. I suspect that it's a learned or acquired skill and that not everyone reacts the same way.
Thanks for your expertise.
I just listened to a guy in what looks like a pilot's uniform going through the entirety of the back and forth between the tower and aircraft prior to the crash. He stopped in often to explain to we lay people what was being said...i.e. their jargon and such. Despite claims the tower was operating with fewer people than was proper, he spoke of those present as being very professional.
He described that the helo requested responsibility for determining their position and when affirming they saw "the plane", they were actually affirming they had visuals of the plane behind the one they hit, never actually seeing the one they hit. By that point, the tower had acknowledged responsibility was in the hands of the helo.
Perhaps Glenn can weigh in on this, while I try to figure the best way to get that video over here.
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfgllf1L9_4
Perhaps Glenn can weigh in.
Thanks. It'll be interesting to see how this all comes out.
That's what I was describing--the helo pilot said he saw the plane and asked to maintain visual separation and wa approved to do so. That makes the responsibility his. If there was another plane behind, the controller should have pointed out both of them so as to avoid confusion. If he only pointed out one and the chopper picked the wrong one, that's a problem.
i'll go look at the video.
I think ATC should have pointed out both inbound aircraft since there's always the chance, especially at night, to pick out the wrong one to pass behind,
It sounds more and more like the helo pilot screwed up.
To err on the side of caution is usually a good default. I do keep hearing that the tower was understaffed as well. It seems like that could be an issue as well.
Another video I watched...this one hosted by a guy in a military uniform...mentioned the tower never made any mention of the position of the plane the helo should have been watching, such as "the plane at 4:00", which would have directed the helo to look in the right direction to spot the plane the tower was referencing, rather than possibly looking at the wrong plane, which seems to have been the case. I thought that was a good point.
Art, sounds reasonable. While I agree with Glenn that the helo pilot probably has ultimate responsibility, it seems like the controller could bear some responsibility as well.
I feel like it is more likely that we'll get a good explanation under this administration that the previous one.
OOPPSS. The co-pilot (1st officer) was female.
Post a Comment