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
The controller advised PAT25 (helicopter) to pass behind the CRJ. The controller then asked PAT25 to confirm visual of the CRJ, and stated the CRJ's height and vector (I believe it was descending through 1,400 ft at that point in a circling approach to runway 33).
The pilot of PAT25 confirmed visual of the CRJ. Once the pilot confirmed visual of the other aircraft, it was on her to avoid it.
Unfortunately, she was obviously looking at a different aircraft in the landing sequence, because she flew directly into the path of the CRJ instead of waiting for it to pass as instructed.
Possible the pilot misunderstood the ATC instruction, but it seems like she just was looking at the wrong aircraft.
Was another aircraft in the area? (possibly, it's even more reason to be angry that a busy airport like this with very specific guidelines is understaffed) I haven't looked at the radar at the time. If this was the initial error that led to the crash, the followup error possibly was that the single ATC person at the time was not able to go back and confirm that the helicopter was on a path that showed them understanding the correct plane and action to take. One or more assumptions led to the crash.
Yes there was another aircraft. Current speculation is that the helicopter pilot gave visual confirmation but was looking at the wrong plane. And further, because of the area they were in, the lights were blending in with the lights from the buildings on the ground in the background. Which would be an explanation as to why the correct plane was not identified. If that’s all true, and Trump is going to continue with this DEI shit, then the next argument will probably be that a male pilot would have had better vision to identify the correct plane despite the lights blending in with the city lights below. Because eyes.