politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I take extreme issue with you claiming primarily. It is ALL on the military pilots. As you stated. They didn't respond properly. Were in an area that was not allowed. And lied twice to air traffic control because of their lack of knowledge.
We do not have the full evidence available. I am comfortable at this time assigning primary responsibility to the helicopter pilot only because they specifically accepted that responsibility by requesting (and accepting) permission to maintain visual separation.
I cannot rule out contributing factors. For example, the jet might have been below the glideslope; they might have both been in the wrong place. I don't have the information one way or another to confirm that.
There could be regulatory factors: it might have been improper for the FAA to establish that area as a helicopter route. It might have been improper for the ATC to grant permission for the helicopter to maintain visual separation under these conditions. There might have been electronic failures, preventing the aircraft from being aware of eachother. There could have been mechanical failures at a critical moment. The TCAS system might have recognized the conflict, but it is automatically inhibited below 1000 feet. The decision to inhibit TCAS RAs at 1000 feet instead of, say, 600 feet might have contributed.
With all the possible contributory factors, I cannot agree with your conclusion that it is "ALL on the military pilots."
This is a fair and valid assessment. Sorry for my callousness.
Not a problem. FWIW, I'm not trying to excuse the pilots. The purpose of an FAA/NTSB investigation shouldn't be to assign blame, but to prevent future incidents. Preventing the type of error the helicopter pilots made is probably not possible, which means it's either going to happen again the next time such an error is made, or we make it so that making such an error doesn't result in a collision.
Safety and prevention are matters for the FAA and NTSB. Blame and liability are matters for the courts.
There's still an NTSB?
(Not sure if serious.)