Posted On: Wednesday - April 30th 2025 8:04PM MST
In Topics: Political Correctness Feminism Anti-Social Media
No, it's an expression from the days of paper newspapers. Please don't fold your computer screen. Peak Stupidity takes no responsibility for this or any other stupidity recommended on this blog. [Ker-ching!! - PS Legal Dept.]
We got hung up on this story on Monday with that old-timey but still very stupid and confusing Feminist-implemented grammatical stupidity. Before we move on, let me restate from Adam Smith's comments (also mentioned by ZH commenters) that it was NOT the NY Times doing this stupidity.
Moving on, this post is written to start to answer the question posed a week after the Army UH-60 Blackhawk/Canadair* CRJ-700 jet mid-air crash in the terminal area of Ronald Reagan Field (aka, Reagan National, code KDCA**), Did D.I.E. cause 67 people to die?. The next day we discussed the D.I.E. factors in regard to the helo crew, who, even at that point, were known to be THE cause of the crash
Let me paste in a bit from that post, and then we'll add some more based on that NY Times article that Gateway Pundit and ZeroHedge referred to. (BTW, thank you so much, Adam Smith, for the links! One link is to the article on the web archive site, so I didn't even have to click on the NYT website, something I'm loath to do.)
I don't know how the relationship would have been between a higher ranking officer getting trained and her instructor. I emphasized her, notice, because I can see that being a part of a problem.
I talked to a former Army helicopter pilot today who assured me that, no, there's no big deal about a higher-ranking officer receiving instruction from a lower one. Each knows where he stands. Oh, that was he. I don't know the guy well enough to ask him about problems with the sexes in said situation. Some would say it's a bad idea to have women involved in military combat roles period. I would tend to agree.
Rebecca Lobach, using her leverage as a member of the IN crowd during the Bai Dien Reign Administration, moved up the ranks to Captain very quickly. I imagine the whole "Grrrylll Power" thing took with her. What could go wrong, indeed? What kind of attitude did she have that night when flying with a lower-ranking man? She'd broken that plexiglas ceiling. Was Andrew Eaves, still Pilot in Command of the flight, as the instructor, a little bit wary of being too tough on his student? There'd be a number of social factors at work. Again, I don't know, and nobody can be sure, until the pertinent parts of the voice recorder transcript are released. Will the military ever release that?The 2 NYT reporters, Kate Kelly and Mark Walker's discuss 5 "takeaways" (can't stand that term) from "The Times investigation". What? I was expecting it to say the "NTSB Investigation", as that's where the info is coming from. What the NY Times DOES have, rather than an investigation, is apparently access to the Blackhawk's (and possibly CRJ's too) Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript. I'd like to see that too, as I can only get so much from Kelly's and Walker's last, 5th, takeaway, the one that has the important information on what the helo crew did that night.
The other "takeaways" show the 2 authors slight ignorance about aviation, as much as they try to understand things. We'll have more on this stuff, just for the record in an other post. This last one, The Black Hawk pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot to change course., is that key point held for the end, cause, yes, shhhhh, Diversity Hire. Rebecca Lobach was one. Even after her name was withheld for a couple of days so that her anti-Social Media self could be scrubbed, we all found out that she had become a Brandon Administration political figure, until, sucks to be her, Trump won the '24 election and she had to go back to just old flying helicopters (something some guys might have loved to have GOTTEN to do to fulfill their dreams, but for Diversity).
What happened, as gleaned from the NY Times writers' summary of the CVR transcript? As we had thought happened, in contradiction to the claims of former helo pilot I'd talked. To be fair, I didn't bring up the sex/diversity angle, just the conflict between rank and instructor/student relationship. I'd say commenter Alarmist summed up the problem succinctly on Monday:
I missed the part where he called out "My Aircraft" and took control to avert disaster.
I guess you don't interrupt girl-bosses in the New US Army.
Right, hopeful suggestions don't cut it after a while. "Take us down to 100 ft radar alt, now." might have been said, but, otherwise, yes "My aircraft!" or "I got it", and do what needs to be done. That's an important part of an instructor's job. NY Times "investigators" Kelly&Walker - LLC, two hundred dollars a day... PLUS EXPENSES - either don't understand this or could not shake that PC/Wokeness, being worried about the NY Times editor in chief calling out "My newspaper!"
Of course, this lady pilot was not up for the job, but I put more blame than that above on the Warrant Officer Eaves, the Instructor pilot too, than just what was written above.
The 2nd big mistake he made was something I have gleaned from this article, but this, along with the 1st point would be clearer had I the CVR transcript. It really sounds like this pilot's use of the visual separation exception to other air traffic control methods was a quick crutch for him, requested a couple of times quickly recklessly as a way to continue the trip down the Potomac on that Helicopter Route 1 without hassle. It's a published procedure that they were not following anyway***. The Tower had told the helicopter (as in the 2 crew members both listening to the radio, one would think. where this traffic was and that they were coming around to land on 33. Some of this may have been missed, as in "stepped on" (on Live ATC, one cannot detect the reception, only the transmissions), but that does't excuse anything. You either positively see the specific aircraft in question or you don't claim you can maintain a visual on it.
It's likely that neither pilot had the PSA flight in sight when they needed to, and it's possible they didn't even try looking for it. That would explain why the instructor wanted to go down and left besides just for compliance's sake. It's also very possible that neither of them knew the layout of Reagan Field enough to understand that an approach to runway 33 would put a jet just over their heads coming from the left, if they were where they were SUPPOSED to be, even.
Until we read the CVR transcripts, we can't be sure what as said between the lower-ranking and White male instructor pilot and the woke Diversity hire token pilot during those critical moments. How hesitant was this instructor to take charge due to worries about being written up later as a bigot or male chauvinist pig? (Haha, it's That '70s Show here at Peak Stupidity. Maude is on next.****) A few extra seconds of hesitation can get lots of people killed.
This team of 2 from the "Paper of Record" sure didn't want to get into THAT part. It was just that she wasn't doing what she was told, that's all. What would be the NTSB recommendations to prevent that sort of thing? That it shows the very real dangers of D.I.E., when push comes to shove, well, will there be some recommendations based on THAT? I believe that's a bridge too far, even for the NTSB, one of the few organizations in the US Gov't that I support and appreciate.
We'll have more to say based on the first 4 takeaways (ugghhh!) from this article, but our conclusions won't be much different from before.
* The news"papers" use Mitsubishi now, but they bought out that particular part of the Canadian conglomerate Bombardier ("Bombadeer" in English), who had bought out Canadair a few decades back.
** The "K" is the international code for US airports, and DCA is District of Criminals Aerodrome, if I'm not mistaken.
*** That the geometry for use of that helo route at the same time traffic was landing on runway 33 (or T/O on 15 for that matter, but I think that'd be rare) doesn't work is something to be explained in the next couple of posts on this accident.
**** Thanks go to my friend for remember these terms as I had a Brandon moment in progress.
Comments:
Moderator
Thursday - May 1st 2025 4:53PM MST
PS: OK, that was too easy, so Air Force guys. I do know what a BUFF is, at least. Thanks for the reply.
The Alarmist
Thursday - May 1st 2025 3:23PM MST
PS
It was a dude. Very few female Generals in the '80s, and I'm not aware of any of those being rated.
WBY ... Wild Blue Yonder. The guys I flew with were SAC, and more than a few were BUFF-Drivers during the American War in SE Asia.
🕉️
It was a dude. Very few female Generals in the '80s, and I'm not aware of any of those being rated.
WBY ... Wild Blue Yonder. The guys I flew with were SAC, and more than a few were BUFF-Drivers during the American War in SE Asia.
🕉️
Moderator
Thursday - May 1st 2025 2:32PM MST
PS: Off the internet for 1/2 a day folks - little delay here.
Was that 1-Star General a man or woman, Alarmist. I assume man, but then I also figure if you needed to take control, you did. What is WBY, "World Before..." something?
I agree with your 2nd paragraph completely. Without hearing the CVRecording or reading the transcript of the few minutes in question, who knows what they were each looking at.
Right, I maintain that when the controller said something about their traffic coming around to land on 33, they didn't picture this and where he'd be. Their situational awareness was not good.. They may not have even known the DCA airport layout.
Yes, the tower could have done that, even after (a couple of times) the helo crew said they would maintain a visual. In hindsight, yeah, "Listen, I'm gonna have you hold at ABC [some spot they would know] anyway, Sir, and I'll get you going after that traffic lands" would have save the day. However, when the guy says he's got the traffic, you figure he's not making that up, and it's easy for an airplane, much more for a helicopter to pass behind and below.... IF you really see the right one!
I don't put any blame on the controller. The article and NTSB say that there is often a specific helicopter traffic controller, and he was doing both jobs. I think he did both jobs well. At that last few seconds, he did get worried and told them (yes, I mean"them", haha) "Pass behind the jet." If he had added "at your 10 O'clock 1/4 mile, same altitude" that may have helped though too, but again, if the IP told him he had the traffic...
Was that 1-Star General a man or woman, Alarmist. I assume man, but then I also figure if you needed to take control, you did. What is WBY, "World Before..." something?
I agree with your 2nd paragraph completely. Without hearing the CVRecording or reading the transcript of the few minutes in question, who knows what they were each looking at.
Right, I maintain that when the controller said something about their traffic coming around to land on 33, they didn't picture this and where he'd be. Their situational awareness was not good.. They may not have even known the DCA airport layout.
Yes, the tower could have done that, even after (a couple of times) the helo crew said they would maintain a visual. In hindsight, yeah, "Listen, I'm gonna have you hold at ABC [some spot they would know] anyway, Sir, and I'll get you going after that traffic lands" would have save the day. However, when the guy says he's got the traffic, you figure he's not making that up, and it's easy for an airplane, much more for a helicopter to pass behind and below.... IF you really see the right one!
I don't put any blame on the controller. The article and NTSB say that there is often a specific helicopter traffic controller, and he was doing both jobs. I think he did both jobs well. At that last few seconds, he did get worried and told them (yes, I mean"them", haha) "Pass behind the jet." If he had added "at your 10 O'clock 1/4 mile, same altitude" that may have helped though too, but again, if the IP told him he had the traffic...
The Alarmist
Wednesday - April 30th 2025 9:17PM MST
PS
I had no problem taking control from a One-Star logging a few hours, but that was in the '80s. It was part of the rules of play that the AC (the guy who signed for the aircraft, chosen for qualification before rank) was the final arbiter, and most senior officers played nicely by those rules. Honestly, most of those guys were happy to take the stick (ok, yoke) and shoot the breeze about their good old days in the WBY.
The disconnect between her former instantiation as a White House aide and her return to Army Aviation might have contributed to either a girlboss attitude or a severe case of not wanting to look incompetent. This wasn't a pleasant trip down memory lane for her, this was serious business.
My conjecture is that she saw the 2nd aircraft shooting the approach farther down the river, and never saw the aircraft she hit while it circled to land over the Potomac because she was looking at the wrong place in the sky.
In any case, the WO was likely the AC, and he should have taken control without hesitation when it became ambiguous. It was the whole point of him being there, to safely get her requalified without killing the crew and destroying a valuable aircraft, not to mention the innocent civilians, and certainly not to mention the resulting stain on Army Aviation and the US Army.
As for ATC, they could just as easily asked the helo to do a couple 360s to the left to maintain separation. That might have sent a very clear message. But THEY didn't.
I had no problem taking control from a One-Star logging a few hours, but that was in the '80s. It was part of the rules of play that the AC (the guy who signed for the aircraft, chosen for qualification before rank) was the final arbiter, and most senior officers played nicely by those rules. Honestly, most of those guys were happy to take the stick (ok, yoke) and shoot the breeze about their good old days in the WBY.
The disconnect between her former instantiation as a White House aide and her return to Army Aviation might have contributed to either a girlboss attitude or a severe case of not wanting to look incompetent. This wasn't a pleasant trip down memory lane for her, this was serious business.
My conjecture is that she saw the 2nd aircraft shooting the approach farther down the river, and never saw the aircraft she hit while it circled to land over the Potomac because she was looking at the wrong place in the sky.
In any case, the WO was likely the AC, and he should have taken control without hesitation when it became ambiguous. It was the whole point of him being there, to safely get her requalified without killing the crew and destroying a valuable aircraft, not to mention the innocent civilians, and certainly not to mention the resulting stain on Army Aviation and the US Army.
As for ATC, they could just as easily asked the helo to do a couple 360s to the left to maintain separation. That might have sent a very clear message. But THEY didn't.
From the discussion by pilots right after, that wasn't possible, it would be part of pre-flight prep. Plus they'd already flown up the river. The Potomac is fairly wide there, especially compared to the north side of the airport, but they should have sensed the danger even with the goggles. IIRC, the timing didn't make sense that they could have thought the earlier landing plane was the one they were told to go behind, and the next plane was too far down river.
Why keep the goggles on when they have little value and make things more dangerous? There's required goggle training time, but switching back and forth would be a useful skill, too, assuming that is possible. They must be trained to avoid tunnel vision, but it didn't take. I wonder if the ungoggled crew chief was looking forward.
I really want a better answer than sloppy, head-strong lesbian and scaredy man, but that may be all that we can infer, with no confirmation from authority possible. Maybe it was the reverse: she was scared, and he was determined to force her through it for her own good. Equally unconfirmable.