Mid-Air Collision in DC

[nunya]

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think airline Management is suspiciously quiet on age 65 because they know, especially with the new contracts and generous LTD plans

Kirby publicly voiced that concern.

Quote

But United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has said lifting the retirement age would not solve the pilot shortage. Last year, he said 36% of the company's pilots aged 64 were out on sick, long-term, or short-term medical leave.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-airline-pilots-fight-their-unions-increase-retirement-age-2023-08-22/

 

[SocialD]

22 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

They really all want to be on LTD, that’s the real deal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

 

 

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

[SocialD]

6 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

 

Ours is worded that it continue to "mandatory retirement age."  While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think that would be legal, though I'm certainly no lawyer.  

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

They may end up on LTD, but this is not the case. I don't know if you're an airline guy or not, but the number of guys I hear raging against age 65 because it is a direct attack on their perception of their own status and money making ability.

I think airline Management is suspiciously quiet on age 65 because they know, especially with the new contracts and generous LTD plans, that they are going to pay a fortune to 65, 66, and 67-year-olds who did not realize how weak their bodies had become. It'll be the widebody captains who don't have a real job anyways who stick around until they look like the crypt keeper 🤣😂

Yup at a 121, you might be right but I suspect there’s more than a few with no concern or shame for that who will suddenly develop problems 

Their potential LTD payments are a threat to my potential XX percent raise in a new contract, Lord willing, take it to the house gramps.

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

Might be, all the more reason to hell no

[Vetter]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

 

 

Therein lies the issue.  It will likely become very hard to maintain that good LTD program if the age increases.  Here's hoping it never becomes an issue.  

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

Keeping the retirement age at 65 would be more beneficial to my career than extending it and keeping the LTD in play forever. It's an insurance policy. The older the people on it, the more expensive it is. 

 

Furthermore, long-term disability is to protect your earning capacity till retirement. I do not concur with the notion that retirement needs to extend beyond 65, therefore neither does the insurance for it.

 

Airline pilots are obsessed with making LTD some sort of moral imperative. It's just actuarial. You can have a more generous system the lower the maximum age is. I have no sympathy for people who want to work past 65, and so I see no need to create a disability system for them. Are the extra earning years not enough?

 

I am one vote, and like the old guys begging for an extension to the retirement age, voting directly against my interests, I am happy to vote against theirs. 

[Springer]

On 2/3/2025 at 8:49 PM, Smokin said:

The only CAs I've considered putting on my no fly list have all been 64.  Coincidence?

Interesting comment about no fly list.  It is an important tool to use.  This is going way back in time but do any of you know who Lyle Prouse is?  Although I never flew with him, word was out and several of us were proactive by adding his name.  May have saved our careers.

BTW, I retired at 59.  Enjoyed it but never looked back.

Edited February 5 by Springer

[M2]

Hopefully now the families can start getting some closure...

Remains of all 67 victims of the midair collision near DC recovered as NTSB probes altitude data

 

[TreeA10]

Okay, that cut and paste kind of went bigger than expected.   ADMIN NOTE:  Fixed it for you!

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/02/05/the_armys_special_treatment_of_capt_rebecca_lobach_1089352.html

The Army’s Special Treatment of Capt. Rebecca Lobach
February 05, 2025

Favoritism Inevitably Draws Scrutiny: The Army’s Special Treatment of Capt. Rebecca Lobach Fuels Speculation and Dishonors all Who Perished in the Recent DC Air Collision

On Saturday the U.S. Army released the name of the second pilot—reported to have been pilot in command—of the Blackhawk helicopter that collided with American Airlines flight 5342 over the Potomac River, killing 67 people. This was a marked departure from Army policy that states “Names, city, and state of deceased will be withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification.” This was the standard process used to identify the other two members of the Army’s flight crew, Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Eaves, and Staff Sgt. Ryan O'Hara. It is the same process used to identify soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan—a process I followed as a military public affairs officer for over 20 years. Army public affairs officials followed the same procedures to publicly identify soldiers who died in not-too-distant helicopter crashes in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alaska. Yet, in an unusual deviation, the Army selectively withheld Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach’s identity for an additional two days. When her name was finally released over the weekend, the Army included a family statement of eulogy that praised Lobach and requested privacy. Army officials claim that violating its own rules was done to respect Lobach’s family’s wishes, but that decision casts an unnecessary shadow over her service and memory.

Working a casualty release is a difficult task. I remember each one that had to be done when deployed to Afghanistan as public affairs director for the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division. Each time while combing through a fallen soldier’s deployment photo and service record, there was a painful awareness that I was handling information that would soon devastate this fellow paratrooper’s loved ones back home in the U.S. The entire brigade would be placed under an internet blackout to ensure the news did not leak out before the family was notified in person. This practice is taken seriously, and rightly so. Much of its dignity comes from its predictability and equal application. No matter the rank or position of a deceased soldier, the notification process is supposed to be the same for all—and was until now.

The crash over the Potomac is a very unusual tragedy for many reasons that are being unraveled by investigators. The Army’s special treatment of Capt. Lobach adds to that complexity. The information shared by the Army and Lobach’s friends indicate that she was a stellar soldier. However, stellar soldiers do not ask for special consideration—they demand equal treatment to prove that they are one among a team. Yet we now see a movement to essentially canonize Lobach as a hero while civilian remains are still being recoveredfrom the submerged and fragmented passenger jet that her aircraft knocked from the sky. Army officials rushed to defend a single pilot among a flight crew of three and 64 dead civilians. This treatment echoes a 2015 Army study warning that male soldiers are driven instinctively to protect female colleagues over mission completion. In this instance, we see that tendency strangely playing out in a way that reflects allegiance to intersectional theories and bandwagon effect as much as complementarian instinct.

Over the weekend, several Army public affairs officers and Pentagon reporters expressed heartbreak over Lobach’s passing, implying she was uniquely victimized above the 66 others killed. In contrast, they were largely silent when the identities of the other soldiers and jet passengers were released. Some narratives even suggested that the president was to blame for the Army’s deviation from standard protocol. Army officials surely knew the risk of this event becoming politicized and encouraged it through their unprecedented actions.

Beyond violating military regulations, the Army strategically released Lobach’s identification on a Saturday—a classic public relations tactic used to bury news. Meanwhile, it appears her social media history was erased, despite the insistence that she was an admirable public servant. The inclusion of a family eulogy in the Army’s announcement further signaled that her passing was somehow more profound than the rest. Why? The Army’s actions invite speculation. The best way to honor Capt. Lobach as a soldier would have been to treat her like any other. Instead, by attempting to craft a heroic top gun narrative around her, Army officials took a path that increased concerns about the circumstances of the crash. This is a textbook example of the "celebration parallax"—as if the Army intends to prove that women receive no special treatment by giving one woman special treatment.

I have followed air crash investigations for decades, worked numerous crisis communication initiatives since 2005, and teach crisis communication at the collegiate level. Never have I seen an airline spin a tragedy into an opportunity to highlight the greatness of a pilot when pilot error was likely involved. American Airlines is focusing its response on caring for the families of the 64 passengers lost on flight 5342, while the Army appears preoccupied with nurturing a politicized narrative. Early evidence suggests that cockpit mistakes contributed to the collision. Yet, in no prior case have I seen an airline or government agency publicly promote a downed pilot as a hero within 96 hours of an accident. Something is very different about this case.

The point of this essay is not to ascribe blame. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board will get to the bottom of what is likely a complex set of factors that passed 67 lives into eternity. Rather than rushing to offer one pilot as above question in that investigative process, Army officials should focus on following their own regulations, addressing systemic safety issuesin Army aviation, and prioritizing public service over institutional image protection. Now is the time for introspection and hard questions—not attempting a flags of our fathers public relations play.

If the Army wanted to lessen the grief suffered by Capt. Lobach’s family, it used the worst tactics possible. Those who deliberately hid, and are hiding, information from public view activated the Streisand Effect, drawing further attention to what they want to hide. Unfortunately, such malpractice is characteristic of the Army’s public affairs apparatus at top levels. This is the same field that resisted recent guidance from the acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD) to implement a social media pause. It is the same group that failed to address false rumors about the paternity of Master Sgt. Matthew Livelsberger’s daughter after his tragic suicide in front of Trump Tower on January 1st. It is the same military career field that ignored an admonition from then Secretary of the Army Mark Esper that the Army is the slowest branch to respond to press inquiries. The Army’s public affairs code of "Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay" is often cited but never enforced. This is a well-known problem that refuses to self-correct. It will demand attention from the Pentagon’s new leadership to force a solution.

Regulations lose legitimacy when selectively enforced. Lobach’s family is not the first to request privacy, but they are the first to receive such overt preferential treatment in recent military history. This sets a precedent that will make the jobs of commanders, public affairs officers, and casualty notification officers more difficult going forward.

I feel tremendous sympathy for the family of each soul on both aircraft and cannot begin to imagine the pain each one feels. That pain was not lightened for any of them by the Army’s agenda-based actions since. I call on top public affairs officials across the Army to remember your oaths, and put them into practice.

Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years. Among other pursuits, he enjoys writing about courage, civil-military relations, communication ethics, and policy. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, where his research focused on the political realities of military norms and actions. He can be found on X, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Substack at @drchasespears.

[17D_guy]

Either way, she was going to be accused of being a DEI hire no matter what her history/performance. We can crow about how rules should always be followed, but then get pissed when we/family/friends don't get "exceptions" when we feel they're warranted.

I feel like giving the family time to lock down the social media from the coming onslaught was warranted. Highly likely the family has already been doxed on some forum/site and is starting to receive threats. Or not, can't know for sure.

I can't speak for the process, or reasons by the CC's/big army. I assume good intentions by default, worked well when I was in charge (and still does). Same as allowing exceptions when I could was a good tactic.

Just trying to be empathetic to a family who's daughter/sister was a pilot who's now dead and being looked at as the cause of the worst air disaster in decades. Shit just sucks all around.

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Either way, she was going to be accused of being a DEI hire no matter what her history/performance. 

And this is why DEI is toxic, but moving on...

I get your overall point about empathy for the young Capt-- but how do you suppose her unusual treatment is perceived by passenger families? I'm sorry for the family of Capt Lobach, it's terrible to lose a child and especially so having to hear her service disparaged.  But if she did in fact cause this collision her privacy concerns are subordinate to victim family rights for accountability and Army transparency.  We'll cross that bridge if the investigation validates what's been publicly released so far.  I think it was a mistake for the Army to deviate from SOP.

[M2]

The US military has been favoring/helping certain demographics for years before DEI was even a thing...

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, M2 said:

The US military has been favoring/helping certain demographics for years before DEI was even a thing...

Yeap

[raimius]

If only we had an office to ensure everyone had equal opportunities.  /S

[Pooter]

15 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

And this is why DEI is toxic, but moving on...

I get your overall point about empathy for the young Capt-- but how do you suppose her unusual treatment is perceived by passenger families? I'm sorry for the family of Capt Lobach, it's terrible to lose a child and especially so having to hear her service disparaged.  But if she did in fact cause this collision her privacy concerns are subordinate to victim family rights for accountability and Army transparency.  We'll cross that bridge if the investigation validates what's been publicly released so far.  I think it was a mistake for the Army to deviate from SOP.

I have zero issues whatsoever with the army response. There wouldn't have been the need for the Army to withhold the name to give the family time for damage control if Trump hadn't painted them into a corner with his completely out of line comments.  Everyone else is still trying to get the facts straight and pull bodies out of the Potomac, and we have the leader of the free world talking out of his ass in the least possible productive way during a crisis. 

DEI is toxic, but even more toxic than that is blaming a crash on DEI less than 24 hours from the accident when you have zero facts to support it.

[disgruntledemployee]

I dislike that when a tragedy occurs, the first thing the media does, besides mess up the facts, is go calling to politicians for comment.  It's just part of their shock value to a story.

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, raimius said:

If only we had an office to ensure everyone had equal opportunities.  /S

Might be in the minority here, but the EEO office complaints I dealt with were

#1 - Civilians usually complaining about BS; but often on some legit things. Got a buddy now the CC legit did some illegal items to fire him and the EEO office helped.

#3 - Racism items against white/Caucasian members

#2 - Brutal climate surveys

Anecdotal of course, I was surprised my career had that exp. Also, dealt with a lot of "rapes" that turned out not to be. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and I think a lot of good came out of the SARC programs...but damn if I wasn't in a weird nexus of false allegations against my Amn for a couple of years.

[17D_guy]

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

And this is why DEI is toxic, but moving on...

I get your overall point about empathy for the young Capt-- but how do you suppose her unusual treatment is perceived by passenger families? I'm sorry for the family of Capt Lobach, it's terrible to lose a child and especially so having to hear her service disparaged.  But if she did in fact cause this collision her privacy concerns are subordinate to victim family rights for accountability and Army transparency.  We'll cross that bridge if the investigation validates what's been publicly released so far.  I think it was a mistake for the Army to deviate from SOP.

I think the accountability will come since it's the NTSB's job and not the Army's. If it was the Army's I'd have a pitchfork with you guys. They've covered up so much corruption I'd have a hard time with them saying it was "an accident."

Not sure on passenger families perception, but again it sucks all the way around.

[Duck]

I just read an article stating she had 450 total flight hours. For you helo guys and gals is that in line with what a PIC has?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Day Man]

2 hours ago, Pooter said:

DEI is toxic, but even more toxic than that is blaming a crash on DEI less than 24 hours from the accident when you have zero facts to support it.

it was closer to 3 hours when he started his BS assumptions

[Lawman]

I just read an article stating she had 450 total flight hours. For you helo guys and gals is that in line with what a PIC has?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

With current Army hour trends that absolutely tracks within the normal.

We don’t have 1000 hour deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as the norm anymore to skew the normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

A new twist was just released. 

Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Cruz told reporters "the Black Hawk helicopter had turned off its automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), which is permitted for military aircraft."

"In the deadliest U.S. air disaster in more than 20 years, the aircraft collided last week, with both aircraft plunging into the Potomac River. The helicopter was flying about 100 feet (30.5 m) over the maximum allowed for that route, the NTSB said earlier."

Break break referencing some of the discussion above about ADS-B and its benefits I am curious what some of the others fly with.  The Gunpig was steam gauges although we eventually got a scrolling PFPS laptop map but all SA was from visual scanning and input from controllers.  When I got back into GA I was shocked to see how much SA ADS-B gives you.  I took the picture below earlier this week as a quick example.    I fly down to South Florida a lot and this display has saved me more than once.  Landing at X51 the landing pattern had 8 different student aircraft, a dude flying a practice RNAV from he west and NOT talking to anyone,  Gliders landing on the parallel grass runway, a freaking paraglider and as I turned final a jump plane dumping a bunch of skydivers over the field (they land on the south side of the airport)...there WILL be an accident there some day.  On my screen I gets ADS-B data with altitude (I also get weather), and I have the ability to scroll around the map and see targets up to 50NM out.

Curious what some of you fly with.

 

[Pitt4401]

50 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

A new twist was just released. 

Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Cruz told reporters "the Black Hawk helicopter had turned off its automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), which is permitted for military aircraft."

....

Read that same news article, the dildo of consequence is about to arrive to Army aviation