Tagged: life
“…Hold Short of Runway Three One Center”
Way back in Iraq, our squadron commander told us (as crews of a helicopter that would nightly fly America’s special operations forces to their nighttime raids), “If any of you were to crash, it’d headline international news.”
I took his meaning to be, “I know this seems routine, and that routine can seem insignificant, but it’s not. You’re doing good work for America.” In short, he was keeping the troops motivated.
Naturally, it was also a true claim. If 30+ special operations troops crashed and died, that would be international news. This is true to this day.
But today, even aviation events where no one has died are making the news cycle.
For you, the non-pilot, I want to offer two pieces of perspective. Firstly, how would you like it if every single mistake you made on the job went viral? That’s right. And that’s why you’re not a pilot. And you shouldn’t be one.
Secondly, this near-miss at Midway has the same feature as the mid-air in DC. The pilot said he would do the right thing but he did not. How should this be accounted for?
For me it is simple. I have to maintain a hyper-sensitive honesty.
In the case of the DC mid-air, after I (in role of BH pilot) had said, “Traffic in Sight” the first time, if I found myself queried a second time (which is what happened), I’d have to trust that my well-honed honesty would have pricked my snowflakely-sensitive conscience as usual and then I would have said to tower, “Ahh, actually I am not sure what traffic you’re referring to. Can you point him out?” (I mean to bring to bear that I would intentionally use those non-standard phrases to call to Tower’s attention that the situation is abnormal and needing renewed attention, even as the words also suggest as much.)
In this case, at Midway, given the extreme situation of the news hyping every single aviation procedural aberration they catch wind of, the minute my clearance had changed (to be sure, there was some totally normal, but not strictly necessary, back-and-forth clarification between the pilot and Ground Control), I would have made the decision to stop prior to every runway and double-check if I was cleared across. This would be totally unnecessary and actually annoying and that is the point. The Ground guy would, then, display his hatred of me as he cleared me individually like I was a child (but apparently capable of being a pilot), but it would have pricked his conscience that I thought something was needing extra attention—the something being either 1. a weak pilot, 2. a weak controller, or 3. some as of yet uncommunicated circumstance.
Generally, aviation communication requires extreme eloquence and purpose—which amounts to an exceedingly small and standard vocabulary. Because of this fact, simply using plain language is a tool the pilot and ATC can employ without blatantly calling each other names when the situation arises. I’m not kidding. Believe you, me, when life and death are at stake, the desire to jump to full throttle on some moron, who is sitting in an air conditioned room totally free from danger, at the slightest unnecessary increase of risk with, “Go eff yourself!”, or conversely, the desire to put a supposed demi-god who believes himself to be the spiritual offspring of Maverick in place with, “I used English and you speak English!” or similar, is very real. (And I would argue appropriate and inescapable given the stakes.) The point here is demi-gods who are, in fact, the spiritual offspring of Maverick know how to use subtle and nuanced methods to get the attention they most assuredly deserve. And as you groundlings highlight to the world every day, we deserve a lot of your attention.
****
The last thing that you need to know is while parts of the media coverage emphasize the fact that the two planes were not on the same channel, this is fake news. Don’t be stupid people. Ground handles traffic on the ground, and Tower handles traffic in the air, and other channels handle other parts of the airspace system.
The problem of radio communication is it requires “one at a time”. To imply that everyone needs to be on one channel is completely without forethought.
Urge is Returning
I haven’t felt like writing much of late. It wasn’t writer’s block that stopped me. I always have plenty to say. It was the fact that you’re not supposed/allowed to share patient data and so I couldn’t say much more than I did about my last work week. And then, while I often like myself better because I indulge in providing the forever internet precise examples of the terrible realities of marriage, sometimes I just can’t keep sharing them, which, yes, implies last week was doubly rough. So those two things kept me quiet.
But.
I just clicked on a video of Kamala stumping to some thespians and the way she gets to her point is to say, “Nature abhors a vacuum.”
I mentioned in earlier posts that I would someday give my reasons for reading the Great Books of the Western World (and classics in general). Immediately, then, fulfilling my vow came to mind. After all, Pascal is the “great” who singlehandedly took down this claim that “nature abhors a vacuum.” How? By treating it earnestly. He merely asked, “How can nature have a feeling?” (It is totally appropriate to think, “That’s it?” Yes. That’s it. We, all of us, have a duty to call out confusing assertions—though giving the benefit of the doubt to the author is always the best until you are certain they mean what you initially thought.)
See how that works?
But then (getting back to me and my desire to make a small contribution to this world) I thought, “So what are you trying to say? That the Great Books are necessary to know she is a moron?” To which I answered, “Good point.”
I don’t know how any knowledge of Pascal is needed to recognize how stupid Kamala Harris is. However, if pressed, I could admit that knowing Pascal and how that particular phrase really did motivate him to end one strain of stupidity may be valuable when talking to an educated (at least a proper Bachelor’s) Harris supporter. The tactic being, “You know Pascal destroyed that notion which was previously holding science back, right? Nature doesn’t love or hate. It doesn’t emote or have purpose. You do know that, right?”
But on the whole, I can admit I just get excited when I see morons more clearly than before. It’s like the clarity is exciting, not the ugly picture.
Anyhow. The urge to write is returning. Not quite back. But this is feeling good.
As a parting gift, here is some Pascal.
Rougher Work Week
In Heat, the cop played by Pacino returns late to the ritzy bar his wife lingered at and she starts in with, “And I bought into sharing. But this isn’t sharing. This is leftovers.” (Or what is the same.)
Pacino responds, “Oh I get it. You want me to come home and tell you that some junkie just put his baby in the microwave because it was crying too much. And somehow this will…” and on and on. (Or similar.)
Later in the movie while desperately trying to keep someone he knows alive, he says, “Not you, baby.”
Suffice it to say, these scenes, not the particulars but the emotions and complications, come straight from real life—which I would say is exactly why I love that movie and have always loved that movie.
In real life, as I have written before, my own reaction is a sudden and unaccounted for need to cry. I didn’t this time. But all the necessary variables were in play.
There is a great desire to ask, “What can fix the scene(s)?” Or “How can we help people?”
But I have come to believe, “This is the scene. You don’t fix it. You don’t help. You just play your role. And you hope that your society has good roles.”
From the earliest age I knew my role was “anonymous, systematized, called-in relief”.
It’s mostly rewarding.
The Left’s Only Sound Play
Like how comedians must stick to particulars to be funny, the Left must stick to generalities to regain power.
The Left’s only sound play is to claim as a baseline, “Well, whichever Republican was elected after Biden would be perceived as doing well, comparatively.”
This is sound because it is essentially true, it concedes reality, and, importantly, it provides the currently missing foundation for the future. It also undercuts the “cult of Trump” with exacting precision, no small desire of the Left, though not essential to the cause. For readers with the ability to see nuance, it also offers a distracting element. No one is talking anymore about whether Trump is even a Republican. But the Left should want that debate to resume because any interruption of focus counts in the quest for power.
Will the Left use such sage advice? Of course not. Why not? Because they, as we all saw for four years, are not of sound mind.
****
Why share such sage advice? Why spend time considering it? Because I desire the history books (which will draw heavily from this blog…) to show how even the meekest of those with common sense knew what the Left needed to do, but the Left was intrinsically weak.
Examples of Good Obituary Lines (Fiction)
He could go weeks without eating a vegetable or piece of fruit, and I don’t believe he ever ate more than two whole apples, bananas, or any other fruit in a single day for his entire life.
When she was four, she developed a habit of interrupting every member of her family—and most strangers—whenever she felt like it.
He could read the comments on YouTube for hours without ever finding motivation to give more than a thumbs up.
After graduating college and getting a job, he found it impossible to order from Subway without getting cookies.
Sometimes, when reading a book by himself, he would laugh out loud at an irrelevant idea that came to mind.
He never wore a hat in the sanctuary.
She often got irrationally angry the moment someone started talking—and sometimes just at the sight of certain people.
He could not leave a campground without uttering, “How can you tell the Boy Scouts have been here? You can’t!”
She hated being reminded of anything she ever said.
Nobody who had received a gift from her would have guessed it, but she was never taught how to wrap presents.
Not long after hearing a good idea, he routinely could be found sharing it, along with an original—and untrue—story behind how he thought of it, with others.
He started his habit of daily exercise the same week that he ended it—and was happier for it.
****
Do you see? The obituaries or eulogies need to be filled with love. When you say something that is A. Untrue and B. General (like, “He loved life” or “He was loved by all”) you merely show that you didn’t even know the deceased, that you didn’t ever notice them even.
Do better. We all deserve it.
Reading Log and a Note on the Most Important Part of an Immigrant’s Education
I’ve completed these since the last group, but also have been reading math essays and have begun Milton’s Paradise Lost (which so far is much more palatable than Dante’s Divine Comedy).
****
As to the education of immigrants, I can’t help but think as I read American history (mostly pre-20th century), “I have literally no connection to these events that stir my feelings so.”
And that’s when it hits me. As I, like you, am constantly bombarded with all this “immigrant immigrant immigrant” news, as I, very different from you, have married an immigrant and have an immigrant step-son, I cannot but conclude that the most important part of their training must be American history. Stop filling someone’s life with the nonsense about “you’re not from here” or “you should be proud of whichever country you left”. Instead, fill it with American History in a, “This is who you are,” mindset. America is unique. They need to know what that means—and it isn’t obvious or intuitive.
Naturally, a marketable skill should be taught as well, but even then, I cannot place this skill above learning who you are—an American.
We Must Do Better at Describing the Dead
Anyone else absolutely annoyed at the statements about the recently deceased pilots?
I have posted on this topic many times and my dander is up again, naturally.
There is a paradox. We seem afraid of telling a lie about a dead person, presumably because it would be unfair, and at precisely the same time, we have no sense of fairness.
“He was young.” Wow!
“He was an amazing person.” By golly!
“She was a bright star.” No shit!
“No one dreamed bigger or worked harder.” Truly!
Here’s my ask: please talk with people who may feel like describing you after you die. Give them some boundaries. I am not kidding. I have written out something and given it to my mom.
I refuse to believe this paradox and other difficulties are based on the whiny, “It’s uncomfortable to talk about.” No, it’s not. You’re just out of touch in the main and think you are somehow exempt from the only sure thing—another paradox.
In short, we mortals, all of us, live in a world where Michael Jackson and a lesbo DEI nut that crashed into an enormous and well-lit plane (located where every swinging dick on the earth would be right to always expect a plane to be ((final approach to a runway))) are both described as celestial matter. How ‘bout, no.
On the Mid-Air in DC
Tragic. It is tragic. Utterly tragic.
From a pilot, from your trusted pilot, here’s how this happens.
Firstly, I was taught very early on, “100% of mid-air collisions never see each other.” (If you’re slow—this witty math-based proverb merely implies there are no kamikaze’s.)
Secondly, I have been on flights where the aircraft commander has said, “*Visual* (meaning “I have the traffic/plane/helicopter in sight)” but he DID NOT YET have the traffic in sight. One was in Balad, Iraq, then the second busiest airspace in Earth, and we “split” a formation of Chinooks (which any pilot knows is a clear display of utter incompetence as well as lucky as all hell to have survived). In other words, there is some great temptation to trust the system so completely, trust the “big sky” theory so wholly, trust the historical data of one’s experience that shows every single other time the situation resolves harmlessly so blindly, that you conclude to just “fib” a little (because you will see it ((and avoid it)) in short order) rather than inconvenience anyone. Seriously, the options are A. death or B. inconvenience.
And now they’re all dead.
Lastly, let’s skip to the end—because you faithful deserve the good stuff—the investigation will conclude (correctly) that it was 100% the army pilot’s fault. They may conclude some airspace changes or procedure changes are necessary—but you can’t let that distract you from the actual fault finding. The recording has the army pilot saying, “Have the CRJ in sight.” (You can hear this actual audio for yourself. See this guy at 4:25.)
It’s just tragic.
Just Finished a Book By Einstein; Christopher Nolan is Wrong
The title of the book is The Evolution of Physics.
Given there is still plenty of daylight, but my brain could use a break, I decided to revisit Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Why not, right?
In it, the woman asks, “Can you explain quantum mechanics to me? It seems baffling.”
Nolan has Oppie answer, “It is.”
He continues, “This glass— This drink— Our bodies— are mostly empty space, groupings of tiny energy waves bound together-”
She interrupts, attention laser focused, “By what?”
“Forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”
I do not know where Nolan got his material. I can imagine that he read Oppenheimer’s own writing and deduced this or—cringe—Oppenheimer even said this. I can imagine it, but I don’t believe it.
The problem with that definition is it neglectfully forgets a key point—or two, to be precise.
First, and this is directly from Einstein, it isn’t merely “tiny energy waves” but should say, “empty space, groupings of invisible energy waves.” And second, add “and energy particles”.
In full, and I hope to bring out for us lay folks the full sense of what I read in the clearest possible manner, if defined by Einstein, according the format Nolan introduced, the answer to “What is quantum mechanics?” when asked by a thin woman as a come-on (sapiosexual) at a bar is, “This glass, this drink, our bodies are mostly empty space—groupings of invisible energy waves and energy particles bound together by forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”
Put shorter—for illustrative purposes because I know this is uncommon—“Our bodies are invisible.”
Paraphrasing Einstein, for this claim to be true and/or accurate (the claim that “‘our bodies are invisible’ is quantum mechanics”) this claim must be tempered with, “when moving near the speed of light and observed indirectly.”
Now. You. Know.
Two Ideas For Books
Whether all experience it, or just certain personalities out of those who get the idea to write, I have learned that in the beginning of the career of unsuccessful writers there is a strong desire to not “let the cat out of the bag” too early. There is a belief that “I have a good idea and it is so good that someone else might profit if I share it before it’s for sale by me.”
But I have been blogging for over a decade now, and helped a few others with their books, and I am convinced that all that is hogwash. Life is just too complicated for a single idea, unaccompanied by the innumerable trappings of fate, to succeed.
To prove this, I share that recently I have had two ideas for books. These are prompted by a desire to somehow manifest that reading the classics has tangible results at a level somewhere below “advance of our civilization”. (Implied- civilization definitionally cannot advance if it is built on lies or ignorance of itself—so read the classics! It’s all at stake!)
Firstly, I want to write a book called “Union” that has a chapter for each, of what I have to believe would be at least twenty, type of artificial union between materials that man has developed. Knots, screws, nails, velcro, glue, epoxy etc. When I write it, the descriptions would be quick reads and informative. But the result would be the perfect contemplative admixture of “so what?” with “if we can figure out mating materials, why can’t we figure out relationships?” I have to believe—contrary to all evidence in my life—that we can figure out human relationship/union.
Secondly, I want to write a book—which may be uber short—which highlights a theme which I have seen in the bios of all the authors in my Great Books of the Western World and companion set Gateway to the Great Books. The theme being, the fact that the authors spent the entirety of their lives learning (as opposed to our deeply unreflective “go to college” mindset) coupled with often epic intellectually-based struggles well into old age. Each chapter may just be one page, often only one sentence. IE Hobbes – Forbid from publishing in his mother country from 70 yrs old to 91 yrs old when he died (don’t quote me, this is from memory and may be wrong on all points). The trick to this book is creating knockout punch sentences without getting repetitive.
****
“Go to college.” Ha. What a joke.
If you want to run with this, do it. I dare ya.
Captain’s Log 