Turns out that F16 is a correct again.Ellis Wyatt said:
I know I'm shocked that the original suspicions turned out to be true.
regional jet crash? (American Airlines) at Reagan (DCA)
216,912 Views |
1632 Replies |
Last: 15 days ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
Life experience allows some of us to correctly interpret the things we see around us. Others are ruled by their emotions.
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
DrEvazanPhD said:TriAg2010 said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Just arrogance and incompetence. Pretty much standard operating procedure for women who worked with Joe Biden.
Seesh.
What did he say that was incorrect?
I think it's incorrect to conclude the "standard operating procedure [of] women" as arrogant and incompetent based on the mistake of this female pilot. I also think it's really weird to characterize a junior officer (male or female) as someone who "worked with Joe Biden," or any president for that matter.
As Ellis Wyatt said two months ago, this was a Swiss Cheese accident. There was no one person at sole fault and there isn't a broader gender or political commentary. To the extent the female PF didn't correct the flightpath in response to the instructor, we can reasonably conclude the instructor never perceived they were in danger. If he had, then procedure is for the pilot monitoring to take immediate action.
You're still blaming the instructor?? Unbelievable!
jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.
I didn't say the SOP of women is arrogant and incompetent.
I said that's the SOP of women who worked with Joe Biden, as did this woman who arrogantly killed 70 people because she refused to do what the instructor told her to do.
I said that's the SOP of women who worked with Joe Biden, as did this woman who arrogantly killed 70 people because she refused to do what the instructor told her to do.
that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****ArmyAg2002 said:jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.
There seems to be a lot of concern regarding the pilot and her family's feelings. What about the instructor and his family? He provided the correct instructions (twice) and the pilot heard the same thing he heard from ATC. Trying to partially blame him is just wrong.
Aston04 said:that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****ArmyAg2002 said:jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.
You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.
But DEI isn't going to lead to more crashes! That is ridiculous!
In this instance there was a male in the copilot seat. If he had just kept his mouth shut she could have concentrated and the crash wouldn't have happened.
Totally the man's fault.
^^libs and feminists everywhere^^
In this instance there was a male in the copilot seat. If he had just kept his mouth shut she could have concentrated and the crash wouldn't have happened.
Totally the man's fault.
^^libs and feminists everywhere^^
ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****ArmyAg2002 said:jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.
You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.
Why do I get the feeling that if the sexes were reversed, you would be blaming the man for being the one on the controls?
I have never been a pilot, but I was in the army. I understand the idea of the CO being responsible for their soldiers, but it does relieve the person who did something of actually doing the thing.
jeremiahjt said:ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:that is an absurd premise if she literally is ignoring his instructions. That'd be like blaming me (the parent) if my daughter (permit driver) drove into oncoming traffic and ignored my commands to correct. That's bull****ArmyAg2002 said:jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
That is correct. As the aircraft commander he is ultimately responsible for anything that happens with that aircraft.
You have a right to your opinion. As the aircraft commander he is responsible for the aircraft and the actions of his crew.
Unlike your daughter's driving in the car both pilots have access to the flight controls.
Why do I get the feeling that if the sexes were reversed, you would be blaming the man for being the one on the controls?
I have never been a pilot, but I was in the army. I understand the idea of the CO being responsible for their soldiers, but it does relieve the person who did something of actually doing the thing.
I know very good pilots of both sexes and barley adequte ones. It would not matter who was the aircraft commander, the aircarft commander is responsible. This is one of the key points impressed upon pilots as they become aircraft commanders. Due to this, when deciding who and when a pilot will be selected as an aircraft commander many criteria are taken into consideration beyond their flying ability...such as maturity and ability to command.
jeremiahjt said:
If I remember correctly, a lot of pilots spent a lot of time in this thread telling everybody how the fault lies with the male co-pilot because he was the instructor pilot. I wonder if they still believe that.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the aircraft commander.
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
I guess we'll never know why the female pilot ignored instructions. Needless deaths.
Aston04 said:
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.
You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.
Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.
Who was actually PIC? IP is not necessarily in command, especially if the student / evaluee is already rated and qualified in the aircraft, which she was.
ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.
You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.
Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.
I second ArmyAg2002. The instructor was the pilot in command and is ultimately responsible for the aircraft. What should have happened when she ignored his instructions was him saying, "I have the controls", and performing an immediate descending left turn. Yes, it can happen that fast and it should have. Doesn't matter that she was a Captain and he was a WO, he was in command.
If the IP had grabbed the controls from that politically connected split tail and the situation had not merited it, it could have come at a cost to him professionally. The fact that that is even a possibility is why we are sitting here.
coconutED said:
Who was actually PIC? IP is not necessarily in command, especially if the student / evaluee is already rated and qualified in the aircraft, which she was.
In the Army, if an IP is at the controls, he/she will be the aircraft commander.
ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.
You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.
Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.
And in a politicized military just like any other job, men who have been told to sit down and let women **** it up may be punished for following those rules if the female in question makes a complaint after the man follows procedure.
The tricky part is that we will never know if there were extenuating circumstances that made this instructor reluctant to take over.
There is a chance there were none.
But based on the military has been operating lately there is just as good a chance that were some.
Ags4DaWin said:ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.
You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.
Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.
And in a politicized military just like any other job, men who have been told to sit down and let women **** it up may be punished for following those rules if the female in question makes a complaint after the man follows procedure.
The tricky part is that we will never know if there were extenuating circumstances that made this instructor reluctant to take over.
There is a chance there were none.
But based on the military has been operating lately there is just as good a chance that were some.
Not dying is all the circumstance he needed. Political BS goes out the door when faced with your own mortality.
A Captain, that's a brazen butthole, won't pull rank on a WO? Happens all the time.TriAg2010 said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Just arrogance and incompetence. Pretty much standard operating procedure for women who worked with Joe Biden.
Seesh.
But the political BS is why he hesitated, and it cost lives.ArmyAg2002 said:Ags4DaWin said:ArmyAg2002 said:Aston04 said:
but in a situation where seconds count, that's an extremely unreasonable to expect the first officer (within seconds) to make a command, realize she won't follow it and take control and fix the situation. That's not reasonable. A reasonable person would expect his commands to be followed and not grab control immediately. Her lack of following commands made them unable to see the dire nature of the situation (ironically if she had followed commands, he could have seen the dire situation and would have likely taken control out of precaution.
At the instructor pilot course you are taught to assume that everyone you fly with is trying to kill you. There is what is known as the "IP ready position." You spend the majority of any flight shadowing the controls and when things get stressful or dangerous, you have your hands at the controls, ready to take them at any moment. In the briefs for all Army aircrews we talk about the two challenge rule and the no challenge rule. In two challenge I tell you twice about an obstacle/danger in no challenge I just take the controls because there is not time to tell you of danger.
You may consider this expectation to be unreasonable, but military aircrews operate in situations that people.would consider unreasonable on a regular basis.
Again, if you are in command, you are responsible for the aircraft and crew. It is no different than when the Navy relieves a ship's captian for the failures of his/her crew.
And in a politicized military just like any other job, men who have been told to sit down and let women **** it up may be punished for following those rules if the female in question makes a complaint after the man follows procedure.
The tricky part is that we will never know if there were extenuating circumstances that made this instructor reluctant to take over.
There is a chance there were none.
But based on the military has been operating lately there is just as good a chance that were some.
Not dying is all the circumstance he needed. Political BS goes out the door when faced with your own mortality.
Incredible to see people trying to blame the IP and defend this woman
She ignored his command and got everyone killed because of it
She ignored his command and got everyone killed because of it
I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.
An investigation has revealed that the female pilot who killed 67 people after crashing a Black Hawk into a passenger plane in DC in January was told repeatedly by her male co-pilot to turn before the collision, but she did not heed his warnings.
— AF Post (@AFpost) April 28, 2025
Not only did she ignore her more… pic.twitter.com/AnghMpLbQQ
Wild part is, this the type of person that will sit in the passenger seat and argue with google maps while you trying to drive.
GAC06 said:
I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.
Because it sounds like you're doing everything possible to give her a pass and put the blame on the IP even though everyone would be alive if she had done as commanded
Part of that may be the difference between a checkout flight for an experienced pilot versus actual instruction of a trainee pilot. He was dealing with a superior officer and was trying to give her information to make the correct decision so he could sign off on her flying instead of telling her directly what to do. Had he seen the approaching jet, I have no doubt he would have been much more forceful.GAC06 said:
I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:An investigation has revealed that the female pilot who killed 67 people after crashing a Black Hawk into a passenger plane in DC in January was told repeatedly by her male co-pilot to turn before the collision, but she did not heed his warnings.
— AF Post (@AFpost) April 28, 2025
Not only did she ignore her more… pic.twitter.com/AnghMpLbQQ
Wild part is, this the type of person that will sit in the passenger seat and argue with google maps while you trying to drive.
That tweet is BS. They didn't ignore ATC, they said they had the plane in sight. It's not the deadliest (even US) mishap since 9/11
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
Maroon Dawn said:GAC06 said:
I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.
Because it sounds like you're doing everything possible to give her a pass and put the blame on the IP even though everyone would be alive if she had done as commanded
Maybe re-read what you just quoted.
GAC06 said:Maroon Dawn said:GAC06 said:
I don't think anyone (at least in the last couple pages) is defending the female pilot, she clearly screwed up. It's also clear that neither pilot saw the CRJ. If he had, the IP wouldn't have been reminding her of the proper altitude and saying "I think they want us over that bank of the river", he would have been making directive statements or taking the controls. He failed to do that though, and the pilot in command is ultimately responsible even though the pilot flying put them there.
Because it sounds like you're doing everything possible to give her a pass and put the blame on the IP even though everyone would be alive if she had done as commanded
Maybe re-read what you just quoted.
And it still sounds like you're trying to give her a pass and blame the IP even though he commanded her to make the turn that would have saved everyone and she refused
But prove me wrong and complete this sentence:
The person who got everyone killed was: _______________
Well I'm not sure how saying "she clearly screwed up" is giving her a pass. I haven't seen the transcript but the article says that at 15 seconds before the collision he stated that he thought ATC wanted them on the other side of the river. 15 seconds is a long time to not follow up with an actual command like "come left" or to take the controls.
Annnnnnd we rest our case.