9 ms·
Not that being near DC affords me any kind of right to an opinion, but: Given the uptick in near miss incidents across the US the last few years, this is the k
by bryant 2y ago
Not that being near DC affords me any kind of right to an opinion, but:
Given the uptick in near miss incidents across the US the last few years, this is the kind of incident that should've been entirely avoidable through changes in policy from these past events but is also apparently the only kind that can spur along policy changes. I can see a world where the fault is on the VH-60, but absent more information, it would surprise me less to hear that it's the fault of the tower.
Knowing where AA5342 was in its approach, I see no possibility of the jet being at fault.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL5342 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL5342
I'm drawing a lot of early conclusions but it's mostly because I'm just not surprised. Angry as someone who flies a bunch, but not surprised.
- unsnap_biceps 2y agoRegulations are written in blood, which is why it's such a disservice to indiscriminately tear it all down. We will re-learn the same lessons and people will pay for those lessons with their lives.
- derektank 2y agoSome regulations are written and blood but some regulations are written to cover someone's ass and the two should not be treated equally. We shouldn't give equal respect to the Federal Aviation Regulations and to OPM's Qualification Standards for Federal Jobs; doing so deligitamizes the importance of the former.
- unsnap_biceps 2y agoThat's entirely true. Thank you for the correction. I spoke overly broadly.
- rayiner 2y agoIf everyone writing regulations were as rigorous as the FAA people wouldn’t be clamoring to reduce regulations.
- dylan604 2y agoYou mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? The FAA is not spotless. I can only imagine how much worse air travel would be without them, but they are only run by humans trying to work in a political controlled environment.
- camgunz 2y agoThe FAA is pretty bonkers; Rayiner is right here. Besides, what other system beyond "humans trying to work in a political controlled environment" are you advocating here?
- craftsman 2y agoCongress directed the FAA--by law--to delegate certain aspects of certification to non-FAA entities. This directive was issued by H.R. 302 - FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, 115th Congress.
- Brybry 2y agoIs that the 49 USC 44736 Organization designation authorizations part?[1] [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text/enr#:~:text=%60%60Sec.%2044736.%20Organization%20designation%20authorizations https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...
- craftsman 2y agoYes, the ODAs. I'm not making a value judgement that this is good, bad, or indifferent. I'm just trying to provide factual context to understand when and why the delegation of certain aspects of certification has occurred.
- throw0101d 2y ago> You mean the same FAA people that allowed Boeing to self certify? Reputation lags reality. Boeing used to be a product-first organization, and the FAA relied on that. However Boeing changed and put other priorities first and started cutting corners but their reputation was still good. After all, why would Boeing (unlike, say, tobacco) sell products that would kill their customers: it would be against Boeing's own interests. In the 1980s and 1990s Boeing could be trusted to have less oversight, but since the 2000s that was no longer true, but no one noticed that. Now everyone recognizes that Boeing needs a babysitter.
- randerson 2y agoFAA is however an agency that regularly tangles with SpaceX and could be seen as slowing them down. Seems like a conflict of interest for the guy tasked with government efficiency.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- addicted 2y agoWhy don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? There’s a whole YIMBY movement, for example, that has identified specific regulations that are no longer valid and have made tremendous strides in proving and changing these regulations for almost universally better outcomes. So where are all these specific regulations that are so terrible and the evidence that they are indeed net negatives. I absolutely believe such regulations exist. But that’s not what these people care about. They simply care about trashing the govt to make it easier to drown, otherwise they would actually act like the YIMBY movement and identify specific regulations and work on changing those.
- WillPostForFood 2y agoThere was an awful lot of complaining about rolling back regulations in the first Trump term, so maybe the administration does care about it. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-envir... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-second-trump-administration/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-chang... ^^ includes Trump's first term and Biden's term.
- RHSeeger 2y ago> Why don’t you identify all these easily found regulations then? That was rude, and didn't at all speak to OP's point. They indicated that not all regulations are equal. Some are important and put into place because people died without them. Others are put into place for less important reasons. And the fact that _some_ regulations were removed doesn't mean that "ones written in blood" necessarily were. There are definitely regulations out there written by people that have no idea what they are talking about, and that are a net negative on the area(s) they impact. Does that mean we should remove Chesterton's Fence? No. But it does mean that, if you see someone removing a fence, you shouldn't immediately accuse them of causing harm.
- aklemm 2y agoNot as rude as ignorant indiscriminate knee-jerk criticism of government work.
- freen 2y agoOoh… which ones? Classic Edgerton’s Fence: If you don’t know why someone put up a fence, don’t take it down.
- bobnamob 2y agoChesterton's Fence
- freen 2y agoOof. Correct.
- llamaimperative 2y agoTypically, the ones that protect me are good, the ones that slow me down are bad. Easy!
- freen 2y agoFrank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
- ty6853 2y ago[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y agoThis Waco? --- PBS: > Rumors about Koresh's sexual practices with girls persisted for years prior to the ATF raid. > Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives" who were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant. --- Seattle Times: > Children who left the Branch Davidian cult compound said David Koresh gave girls as young as 11 plastic Stars of David that signified they were ready to have sex with him. ----- PBS: > About six hours after the tear gassing began, flames simultaneously erupted at three separate locations on the compound. Audio recorded by the milk-carton bugs suggests the Davidians started the fires, acting on orders from Koresh. > 1st DAVIDIAN: [surveillance tape] Start the fire? > 2nd DAVIDIAN: Got some fuel around here? > 3rd DAVIDIAN: Right here. Can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compound-reveal-talk-of-setting-fire.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/us/tapes-from-sect-compou...
- massysett 2y agoThe latter is how you get a workforce qualified to write the former, rather than a bunch of hacks who know nothing about aviation safety.
- xienze 2y ago> Regulations are written in blood, which is why it's such a disservice to indiscriminately tear it all down. We will re-learn the same lessons and people will pay for those lessons with their lives. And which regulation was eliminated that caused this?
- coddingtonbear 2y agoThis would, if the system is working, be the blood that future regulations are written in. That these kinds of things happen so rarely came to us at a cost of past lives.
- xienze 2y agoOK then, what regulation do you think was missing that could have prevented this
- bsder 2y agoReagan should have been shut down for commercial use many moons ago. It will never be shut down because it's got all the exceptions so that Congresscritters don't have to be treated the same as us plebians.
- LeafItAlone 2y ago>It will never be shut down because it's got all the exceptions so that Congresscritters don't have to be treated the same as us plebians. DCA is open to the public.
- bsder 2y agoDCA is open to the public. But it has lots of ways for Congressmen to avoid the inconveniences that you and I have to endure. The other airports in the area do not have those.
- LeafItAlone 2y agoPlease expand. I fly out of DCA and IAD frequently (and JFK and LGA). I’ve gone through the process next to politicians, though I’ve never recognized any highly ranked ones (e.g. Pelosi, McConnell, etc.). What’s the difference they experience?
- atlasunshrugged 2y agoNot OP but the only thing I'm aware of is new Senator Jim Justice who seems to use a private plane to get to the airport which seems relatively rare. https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/jim-justice-takes-private-jet-to-work-in-dc/ https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/jim-justice-takes-priv...
- wildzzz 2y agoI watched Warren and some of her staff cut the entire pre-check line at BOS. They still had to walk through the metal detectors but without any bags, they whisked through. I got to cut the line at security once because I was on the job, I was completely embarrassed.
- _yb2s 2y agoI have a feeling from your comment that you know more about aviation than you are letting on, and the part about being in DC not giving you a right to an opinion seems pretty silly in that context.
- idlewords 2y ago[flagged]
- numba888 2y ago[flagged]
- affinepplan 2y agowhat a revolting comment.
- numba888 2y ago[flagged]
- boringg 2y agoThis seems to be a resolved problem and one that we shouldn't have in this era. An unnecessary tragedy.
- huijzer 2y agoblancolirio (active pilot who regularly makes videos about crahses with the aim of improving safety) just released a new video on this accident: https://youtu.be/_3gD_lnBNu0 https://youtu.be/_3gD_lnBNu0 Summary: The helicopter might have been a little bit too high. The night vision goggles might have negatively affected the vision. The two aircraft were probably on different frequencies so didn’t hear each other. And the helicopter might have focused on the wrong plane to avoid because they didn’t see the right one thanks to the city skyline. It looks like the classic swiss cheese where multiple problems stacked up to cause the collision. See the video for details.
- Aeolun 2y agoWouldn’t the aircraft see the helicopter?
- gomijacogeo 2y agoUnlikely; the pilots are (correctly) following the approach controller's direction. It's approach's responsibility to keep them clear of other traffic. Also they just got handed a different runway to land on that's a lot shorter and in one of the more complex airspaces of the planet; they're busy.
- datavirtue 2y agoAir traffic controllers are staffed at 65% across the US. Budget cuts and turnover are cited. Meanwhile the FAA is being rattled to its core by the Orange One.