Air Traffic Control DEI and the Mid-Air Collision: So Where's the Black Dwarf?

[BillsFanNC]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

SO WHERE'S THE BLACK DWARF  ?

 

Oh there she is.

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Libs:

 

 

 

 

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

SO WHERE'S THE BLACK DWARF  ?

 

Oh there she is.

 

 

 

No offense intended, but this is an incorrect conclusion from the reality.

It was a checkride.

You don't "refuse" on a checkride.

She simply didn't respond immediately.

 

It was a stupid process, but the reason was the switch to a different runway and not holding the helo at that point, well out of the way.

It wasn't "her." 

[CoudyBills]

On 1/31/2025 at 12:23 AM, The Frankish Reich said:

I just got a look at one of the Blackhawk pilots. White guy (RIP).

 

I don't know the race of the air traffic controller in the DCA tower, but sounds like a white standard American English male voice.

 

DEI "may" have something to do with the horrible accident says President Trump. He cited all the disabilities one may have and still be eligible to serve as an air traffic controller. Hell, even dwarfism! When pressed about any connection to DEI, he says it's just "common sense."

 

How so? He didn't even go to the classic fallback: "the focus on DEI caused the FAA to lose sight of it's critical mission." So no fair giving me that.

 

Can any Trump supporter provide an explanation? Are they furiously looking for a black dwarf to be the fall guy?

No black dwarf, just Captain Rebecca Lobach refusing to obey a command to change course.  

[sherpa]

On 4/27/2025 at 8:15 PM, CoudyBills said:

No black dwarf, just Captain Rebecca Lobach refusing to obey a command to change course.  

 

No offense to you because you are just reiterating what the NY Times reported after "investigating."

 

What they "concluded," and what was linked to above, is completely false, and totally not supported by the voice recorder.

 

That is what happens when you get people "investigating" something they know nothing about.

This crap happens all the time.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

No offense to you because you are just reiterating what the NY Times reported after "investigating."

 

What they "concluded," and what was linked to above, is completely false, and totally not supported by the voice recorder.

 

That is what happens when you get people "investigating" something they know nothing about.

This crap happens all the time.

It’s incredible to me that the window between life and death was 15 seconds.  Rationally, we know that many tragedies result from people doing/failing to do something in a very short period of time, but when you consider a collision between an airplane and helicopter it seems almost incomprehensible.  
 

Thanks for the continued feedback on this horrible tragedy.  

[The Frankish Reich]

@sherpa, a bit off topic, but I would be interested in your (still semi-hot at this point) take on the loss of the fighter jet in the Red Sea. Thanks.

[sherpa]

44 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

@sherpa, a bit off topic, but I would be interested in your (still semi-hot at this point) take on the loss of the fighter jet in the Red Sea. Thanks.

 

Sure.

I guess you're referring to the Truman based F-18 that went overboard.

At sea, airplanes are chained to the deck on the flight deck, anywhere from a four point to a twelve point tie down. So four to 12 chains, depending on sea state.

When they go below to the hangar deck they are also chained. 

When they have to be re-spotted, (moved), without the engine running, they put a maintenance guy in the seat as the "brakerider."

The problem is that if the engine isn't running, they have no hydraulic power, and thus, no airplane brakes.

They use a "tug," which is a big low built byt very heavy vehicle to tow them, connected through a tow bar which hooks to the nose gear.

 

To re-spot an airplane to the flight deck from the hangar deck, it is towed to one of three elevators, goes outboard to that elevator and is raised to to the flight deck. They don't do this in heavy seas for obvious reasons.

 

Anyway, it looks like calm seas, a re-spot tow underway and the ship, for some reason, Truman an abrupt maneuver, which caused a significant list which was enough to exceed the braking capacity of the tug, which is significant.

Tug driver and brake rider bot jumped out and remained aboard. Tug, tow bar and F-18 deep sixed.

 

As an aside, after about two months at sea, the flight deck loses a good deal of it's "non skid," which is a thin layer of abrasive material to give ample traction to the steel deck.

After a time, this wears off and the combination of small jet fuel leaks, hydraulic fluid and other  lubricants can make the flight deck quite slippery.

When you launch, you man a chained up airplane and the chains don't come off until taxi to the catapult.

If this ship is moving because of sea state or turn, this can get quite interesting. That's why we always arm the ejection seat when getting in. 

I can clearly remember one day at sea and the deck was quite slippery. I was taxiing to cat 4 for launce and the ship started it's pre-launch turn into the wind. Airplane started slipping sideways and there was nothing I could do to stop it.

Fortunately, whoever was at the helm eased the turn and all turned out well.

Next day they cancelled the morning schedule and hosed the flight deck using sea water.

They always apply new non skid during port calls at places that have the stuff.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

Sure.

I guess you're referring to the Truman based F-18 that went overboard.

At sea, airplanes are chained to the deck on the flight deck, anywhere from a four point to a twelve point tie down. So four to 12 chains, depending on sea state.

When they go below to the hangar deck they are also chained. 

When they have to be re-spotted, (moved), without the engine running, they put a maintenance guy in the seat as the "brakerider."

The problem is that if the engine isn't running, they have no hydraulic power, and thus, no airplane brakes.

They use a "tug," which is a big low built byt very heavy vehicle to tow them, connected through a tow bar which hooks to the nose gear.

 

To re-spot an airplane to the flight deck from the hangar deck, it is towed to one of three elevators, goes outboard to that elevator and is raised to to the flight deck. They don't do this in heavy seas for obvious reasons.

 

Anyway, it looks like calm seas, a re-spot tow underway and the ship, for some reason, Truman an abrupt maneuver, which caused a significant list which was enough to exceed the braking capacity of the tug, which is significant.

Tug driver and brake rider bot jumped out and remained aboard. Tug, tow bar and F-18 deep sixed.

 

As an aside, after about two months at sea, the flight deck loses a good deal of it's "non skid," which is a thin layer of abrasive material to give ample traction to the steel deck.

After a time, this wears off and the combination of small jet fuel leaks, hydraulic fluid and other  lubricants can make the flight deck quite slippery.

When you launch, you man a chained up airplane and the chains don't come off until taxi to the catapult.

If this ship is moving because of sea state or turn, this can get quite interesting. That's why we always arm the ejection seat when getting in. 

I can clearly remember one day at sea and the deck was quite slippery. I was taxiing to cat 4 for launce and the ship started it's pre-launch turn into the wind. Airplane started slipping sideways and there was nothing I could do to stop it.

Fortunately, whoever was at the helm eased the turn and all turned out well.

Next day they cancelled the morning schedule and hosed the flight deck using sea water.

They always apply new non skid during port calls at places that have the stuff.

Great explanation. You should do some of these expert TV spots! 

So it looks like one of those crap happens, particularly in an extended deployment?

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Great explanation. You should do some of these expert TV spots! 

So it looks like one of those crap happens, particularly in an extended deployment?

 

Almost never.

If they are re-spotting in heavy seas, and they don't unless necessary, they'll put a guy on each wing carrying chocks, and if something goes awry, they run up to the main gear and get the chocks under, hoping to stop it.

I can remember a few times when the deck was really moving and after I landed they had our guys with chocks follow me throughout the entire taxi to a parking spot. Once you park, you are immediately chained, every time.

[sherpa]

Not that anyone cares, but this non skid stuff is kind of interesting.

A friend of mine, also a carrier aviator, was involved as a civilian in the F-35 program.

During testing, the carrier suitability tests are done at Pawtuxet River MD. They do normal carrier landings and very hard ones at the runway there prior to sea trials.

Everything was fine.

When they started sea trials on the F-35 there was an unexplainable and dramatic increase in engine damage because the engine mounts to the airframe were failing. Months and millions spent, and nobody could figure it out.

One day this Navy buddy of mine was working on it and he was watching the carrier landing testing at Pax river.

He mentioned to his cohort that the only thing different in this environment was the lack on non skid on a runway.

 

They did the testing and found that the non skid on the carrier was causing a harmonic through the landing geat that was vibrating the airframe to levels that were causing the engine mounts to fail.

Solved the problem. Saved well over a hundred million bucks.

 

Carrier aviation is weird. There's an old quote from somebody years ago.

"Carrier aviation. It gave me moments of extreme exileration and moments of extreme terror, but either way, it will always be with me." 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by sherpa

[The Frankish Reich]

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Not that anyone cares, but this non skid stuff is kind of interesting.

A friend of mine, also a carrier aviator, was involved as a civilian in the F-35 program.

During testing, the carrier suitability tests are done at Pawtuxet River MD. They do normal carrier landings and very hard ones at the runway there prior to sea trials.

Everything was fine.

When they started sea trials on the F-35 there was an unexplainable and dramatic increase in engine damage because the engine mounts to the airframe were failing. Months and millions spent, and nobody could figure it out.

One day this Navy buddy of mine was working on it and he was watching the carrier landing testing at Pax river.

He mentioned to his cohort that the only thing different in this environment was the lack on non skid on a runway.

 

They did the testing and found that the non skid on the carrier was causing a harmonic through the landing geat that was vibrating the airframe to levels that were causing the engine mounts to fail.

Solved the problem. Saved well over a hundred million bucks.

 

Carrier aviation is weird. There's an old quote from somebody years ago.

"Carrier aviation. It gave me moments of extreme exileration and moments of extreme terror, but either way, it will always be with me." 

 

Great story, thanks. Vibrational physics or whatever they call it. I had a college friend who went to grad school to study this. I guess you never understand why anyone needs it until you need it!

[CoudyBills]

9 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

No offense to you because you are just reiterating what the NY Times reported after "investigating."

 

What they "concluded," and what was linked to above, is completely false, and totally not supported by the voice recorder.

 

That is what happens when you get people "investigating" something they know nothing about.

This crap happens all the time.

Do you have a link to that?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  Perhaps I just dont know where to look.  

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

Do you have a link to that?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  Perhaps I just dont know where to look.  

 

A link to what?

The CVR is quite clear.

She didn't deny anything.

Edited 4 hours ago by sherpa

[CoudyBills]

32 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

A link to what?

The CVR is quite clear.

She didn't deny anything.

Where can one find the cvr

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Great story, thanks. Vibrational physics or whatever they call it. I had a college friend who went to grad school to study this. I guess you never understand why anyone needs it until you need it!

I landed my wife with only a rudimentary understanding of vibrational physics. Had I been completely proficient, I could have ruled the world.  

[CoudyBills]

13 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

No offense to you because you are just reiterating what the NY Times reported after "investigating."

 

What they "concluded," and what was linked to above, is completely false, and totally not supported by the voice recorder.

 

That is what happens when you get people "investigating" something they know nothing about.

This crap happens all the time.

Thank you for encouraging me to read the transcript.  Now I know that twice she was told to get to 200 feet, but didn't do so.  However, there may have been an altimeter issue as she called out a lower altitude than her co-pilot earlier in the flight.