Tagged: news

“…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.

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.

Re: The Drones. I Told You So!

I was right, naturally, but it wasn’t because I am a pilot. It was because I know how to listen. Here’s the original post that called ya’ll out as suckers. (It’s a pretty funny approach to the subject to me still; read it!)

https://petedeakon.com/2024/12/18/the-drones-are-operated-by-trolls/

And the important words from today, “…were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones were also hobbyists—recreational and private individuals that enjoy flying drones. In time it got worse due to curiosity.”

I mean, I still feel like a million bucks cuz I was right!—especially because it sounds like I may be the lead writer on the conspiracy theory squad who gave her the script. I literally wrote, “And at this point I would drive out there and have a little fun with the morons, if only I had a drone.” Or as I decided to frame it for the MAGA crowd: “In time, it got worse due to curiosity.”

Quite the Troll

So a comment in this morning’s paper on the “DEI Employees Placed on Leave” article said, “How does he plan to determine which employees are DEI hires?”

The rest of the commenters (glass half-empty) lambasted the poor soul for not having read the article. But I (glass half-full) found it hilarious, found it to be quite the troll.

Running with the theme, I want to add that it is rather funny to me to consider that in all likelihood there were many DEI hires (those unqualified but hired) who are also unqualified in words and so honestly feared they might be going on leave today. Ha. Think of it. Like nature’s biggest gag. Just considering the time and energy it took to get to the point that a punchline was possible makes me chuckle. So funny.

The Drones Are Operated By Trolls

Sometimes my wife doesn’t even have to say a word to “warm me” in the 19th century adventures-for-boys books’ sense. Anyone know what I mean?

The other night I came home from my week at work as a professional pilot and found her watching news clips on the drones. Now, any mortal’s wife who watches news clips on drones is just behaving like a woman. But a pilot’s wife who gets caught up in the story without asking her divine husband about it? That’s worse than calling a fella a liar to his face.

As I said, it warms me. No words necessary. No tumbling around necessary.

It isn’t just the disrespect which accompanies the fact that I would have some insight because it’s my job, that gets me going. It isn’t just that the people talking to the news reporters she is watching are less qualified to know anything about aviation in 2024 than I am. It isn’t just that she is the same woman who would blame my job’s schedule for most of the current and constant marital discord and yet cannot seem to piece together that “I have someone I can ask”, no. It’s that even after all the fake news and bad reporting of the last, I don’t know, 10 years, she is still willing to consider that “they don’t know what they are.”

Well, honey, they’re drones operated by trolls. And at this point I would drive out there and have a little fun with the morons, if only I had a drone.

As far as national security is related, I will tell you confidently, and not confidentially, that the only threat to national security these drones possess is revealing to the occupants of the universe that the USA is populated by morons. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we’re tops at the moment. So the threat isn’t grave. Carry on.

Three Pointed Feelings On Political Violence in the USA, 2028 POTUS and Nuclear Bombs

Still riding the high of having correctly *felt* Trump was the clear winner long before election night, I want to share three more *feelings*.

****

First, I have already mentioned that the next bout of political violence will be at the public funeral of a certain folk savior. Nothing new to say; I am just collecting it in one post.

Second, in the exact same manner and for the exact same reason as America loved itself for electing Obama (both shameless fantasy), in 2028, America will once again engage in a shameless fantasy act of self-love as it elects a woman to the office of President of the United States. I have long chuckled that the most bluntly misogynistic man defeated the first two legitimate female candidates. But fate can only laugh for so long. The mood is changing and the next president will be a woman.

Third, you, me, our children—everyone—needs to be ready for the news cycle to breeze past the first use of nuclear weapons. The “breaking news” will move on to “developing story” and finally be replaced by celebrity gossip or palace intrigue in precisely the same manner with which it breezes past every story. To be clear, someone is going to use a nuke. The fact will be hyped beyond belief with a fever pitch rarely able to be achieved, but there will be no actual mutually assured destruction or end of nations or shift in power balance. And, again, the proof in the pudding of my *feeling* (the way you know you heard it hear first) will be when the news cycle drops the story within the same time period as Oct 7, or the invasion of Ukraine etc. Nuclear war is here to stay and the idea that it was a “one off” or “we learned from the first use” is childish.

Nothing Surprises

It’s all hype. There are no surprises.

I really want to say something about the content of Jack Smith’s “motion for immunity determinations”, but the truth is that the only thing that bothers me about it is that it is being hyped as “October Surprise!” I’m bothered because it isn’t a surprise! In fact, nothing surprises.

Nothing surprised because the news cycle is not 24/7, the cycle is perpetual. In fact, there is no cycle anymore. Also, there are no journalists. Instead, there are varying levels of paid hype-snitches.

We are suckers when we insist that there is such a thing as news and journalists. There used to be news and journalists. But today there are only empty forms. There is no substance. Something new is occurring, some new kind of communication. And the way to keep the upper hand, the way to stay true to yourself, is to admit it. And then train yourself to be as discerning as possible.

Example:

“October surprise! October surprise!” says the news.

You think, “Next!”

Got it?

The Image of a Microscope which Accompanied the Science Article—That’s What Bothered Me Today

The Sunday paper had an interesting article about the current war with China. Interesting as it was, there was no call to action. Or at least not a memorable one. There certainly was nothing for citizens to do. I think what I’m suggesting about the op/ed was that the scale wasn’t appropriate.

On the other hand, there was an article suggesting two “Life Science” bills be voted down. One of the two stock “science-y” images the paper used was of a microscope. Of all the articles and opinions in today’s paper, this irked me the most. Why? Because unlike the other author’s claim that China is an existential threat to America (the sky is a-falling!), this image is one which an individual—likely an editor—can do something about.

“Science” is not merely tool use. If anything, science is to tool (science:tool) as man is to wheel (science:tool::man:wheel). Science invents tools; science is never the process of using tools.

And an editor should know this—could know this. And that editor would be doing a service to truth, and his bottom line, if they put a bit more reason into their product.

What image should the editor use to capture science?

There are many that would work. But an easy one would be of someone writing an excellently organized paper, with a title which sufficiently describes the paper’s purpose.