Sorry, you don’t get to post a piece that implies the fault is on the controller, and then argue that it is “extremely premature” to make any other conclusion.

Why is anyone even talking about the controller?

The controller asked the helicopter pilot if they had the jet in sight. The helicopter pilot said yes, and the helicopter pilot requested permission to maintain visual separation from the traffic. The controller granted that permission. The controller continued to monitor, and again asked the helicopter pilot if they had the jet in sight. The helicopter pilot again informed them that they did, and again requested to maintain their own, visual separation.

Responsibility for this collision is on the helicopter pilot, not the controller.

I only know it because of Kerbal Space Program. :)

The problem will be that the UPS has a charge controller built in, and that charge controller also tests the health of the batteries. It expects battery voltages to rise at specific rates as they charge, and current to match specific patterns. If the charge controller does not see the specific patterns it expects, it will report that the battery is failing.

Charging profiles for Li-ion chemistries are completely different than for lead acid, and the output of the power bank is probably regulated with a boost/buck circuit, which would really confuse the charge controller.

Trying to use 12v power banks to replace UPS batteries is just not a good idea.

Right and left “went quiet”. And by that, I mean that most billionaire-owned media sources are broadly banning commentary.

I have zero reason to believe that conservative acolytes of St. Luigi have actually diminished.

with the death penalty as a potential outcome.

This is how Trump alienates his base.

Ok.

I’m going to be hiking through the jungle. The lions have been counseled on my rights as a person; they know they aren’t supposed to eat me. They know that if they are caught eating me, they are going to spend 3 to 5 years in lion-jail.

Before I walk through the jungle, I’m deciding on what to wear. The choices presented to me are:

1. pants, long sleeve shirt, sturdy boots, wide brimmed hat, and a small backpack with water, first aid kit, radio, and extra batteries

2. 23 pounds of thinly-sliced beef steaks, sewn into a knee-length sundress, and a pair of stiletto-heeled thigh-high boots.

The argument here isn’t which wardrobe option I choose. The argument here is whether you should say anything to me when I come out of my room in my meat-dress.

You cannot positively control the actions of others, and others cannot positively control your actions. You can influence the actions of others, but you can only control your own.

We can influence members of society to “stop taking advantage of people” all day long. But if you want to control whether people are taken advantage of, you have to address the victims rather than the perpetrators.

Society can try to placate perpetrators. There’s little sense stealing something that everyone already has. We can appeal to the perpetrator’s empathy, but that assumes they have some. We can threaten repercussions and hope that has a deterrent effect. But, the final decision as to whether to perpetrate is always in the head of the perpetrator, and outside the reach of anyone else.

If you want greater control over that decision, the only option you have is to take your own action.

Alright, she was eligible to run this time. Can we get her in the white house before she turns 80?

Wasn’t this the plot of a book?

If it’s not tied to any post or comment, is it still the user’s data and subject to the GDPR? What if I were to create a post that linked to that image? Would it become my image?

VARK

You can (theoretically) reach “space” with a single impulse from earth’s surface, but you cannot achieve earth orbit that way. To make orbit, you need a circularization burn at apogee to raise your perigee above the atmosphere. Otherwise, its ballistic trajectory will cause your spacecraft to re-enter the atmosphere.

Censorship isn’t built in to the fediverse. You’re free to create your own instance and publish anything you want, completely exempt from any form of censorship.

Yes, I’m perfectly happy to sell a subscription to iptables for just $3.99/mo. PM me to arrange payment.

I’d rather see JSO cutting valve stems of ICE cars than obstructing traffic.

Not a problem. FWIW, I’m not trying to excuse the pilots. The purpose of an FAA/NTSB investigation shouldn’t be to assign blame, but to prevent future incidents. Preventing the type of error the helicopter pilots made is probably not possible, which means it’s either going to happen again the next time such an error is made, or we make it so that making such an error doesn’t result in a collision.

Safety and prevention are matters for the FAA and NTSB. Blame and liability are matters for the courts.

We do not have the full evidence available. I am comfortable at this time assigning primary responsibility to the helicopter pilot only because they specifically accepted that responsibility by requesting (and accepting) permission to maintain visual separation.

I cannot rule out contributing factors. For example, the jet might have been below the glideslope; they might have both been in the wrong place. I don’t have the information one way or another to confirm that.

There could be regulatory factors: it might have been improper for the FAA to establish that area as a helicopter route. It might have been improper for the ATC to grant permission for the helicopter to maintain visual separation under these conditions. There might have been electronic failures, preventing the aircraft from being aware of eachother. There could have been mechanical failures at a critical moment. The TCAS system might have recognized the conflict, but it is automatically inhibited below 1000 feet. The decision to inhibit TCAS RAs at 1000 feet instead of, say, 600 feet might have contributed.

With all the possible contributory factors, I cannot agree with your conclusion that it is “ALL on the military pilots.”

VASAviation. They put out youtube videos of all kinds of interesting ATC comms and flight tracks.

Technically, I’m a pilot as well, but balloon pilots don’t typically talk to ATC very often.

This one doesn’t look like it’s on the FAA or the controller.

The controller was aware of the possible conflict, informed the helicopter pilot - twice. And twice, the helicopter pilot informed the ATC that they had the conflicting traffic in sight, and requested permission to maintain their own, visual separation from that conflicting traffic.

What seems to have happened is that the helicopter pilots saw a second jet in the distance, landing on another runway. They probably thought that second jet was the conflicting traffic, and they never actually saw the first.

Additionally, the helicopter pilots were supposed to be in an established track on the east side of the river, no higher than 200 feet. Aircraft on final approach descend from east to west as they cross the river; there is more vertical clearance on the east side, but the helicopter was closer to the west side of the river. Further, the helicopter was flying at 300 feet, rather than 200.

I don’t want to disparage the helicopter pilot(s), but from what I see right now, this seems to be primarily on them. They requested permission to (and responsibility for) maintaining separation - twice. This collision is primarily their responsibility.