https://www.nbcboston.com/news/loca...parting-plane-at-washington-national/3642229/
Flight from Boston discontinues landing to avoid departing plane at Washington National

An American Airlines plane arriving at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport discontinued its landing, performing a go-around at an air traffic controller’s instruction to avoid getting too close to another aircraft departing from the same runway, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The maneuver involving American Flight 2246 from Boston happened about 8:20 a.m. Tuesday, less than two hours before another plane attempting to land at Chicago’s Midway Airport was forced to climb back into the sky to avoid another aircraft crossing the runway. Southwest said Flight 2504 from Omaha, Nebraska, safely landed “after the crew performed a precautionary go-around to avoid a possible conflict with another aircraft that entered the runway,” an airline spokesperson said in an email. “The crew followed safety procedures and the flight landed without incident.”

Not very close on this one.

 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/loca...parting-plane-at-washington-national/3642229/
Flight from Boston discontinues landing to avoid departing plane at Washington National


Not very close on this one.

This is the first I've heard of either event and I haven't read the articles yet.

What little is there about the DCA event strikes me as a non-event. When you are cleared to land, that is not a blanket permission to ignore what is going on. There is quite possibly an aircraft ahead of you that is either taking off or landing on the same runway. Your clearance is predicated on that aircraft clearing the runway before you touchdown and the controllers grant you your landing clearance based on a reasonable belief that that is going to happen. Sometimes it doesn't. The aircraft ahead of you might slow down more than expected or might miss their anticipated turnout and take more time to clear the runway that was anticipated. In that case, the controller will simply tell the plane on final to go-around and set up for another approach. If the controller doesn't do it, the pilot is responsible for deciding that the runway won't be cleared in time and so they execute a go-around and inform the controller that they are doing so. It's pretty routine. I've had it happen to me both ways on a number of occasions.

I think we are seeing the routine reaction of the media and that they are now overreporting events because they don't know what is and isn't newsworthy, but their antenna are up, so anything that they hear about they assume is abnormal and story-worthy.

 

I think we are seeing the routine reaction of the media and that they are now overreporting events because they don't know what is and isn't newsworthy, but their antenna are up, so anything that they hear about they assume is abnormal and story-worthy.

That's what the media actually sells: Worry and Anxiety, so as to keep your attention focused on what they have to say whilst constantly flashing their sponsors into your brain ...

 

That's what the media actually sells: Worry and Anxiety, so as to keep your attention focused on what they have to say whilst constantly flashing their sponsors into your brain ...

Currently, they're trying to find a way to blame a certain someone.

 

Currently, they're trying to find a way to blame a certain someone.

I know.

The fish

 

https://www.kptv.com/2025/02/27/dri...d-hurt-crash-between-fedex-truck-suv-gresham/
17-year-old dies, another teen and 2nd driver hurt in crash between FedEx truck, pickup in Fairview

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...with-fallout-huge-us-factory-fire-2025-02-27/

Feb 27 (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab and other top aerospace firms are scouring their supply chains to determine their exposure to a major fire last week at a Philadelphia-area parts factory that has set off alarm bells across the industry, people familiar with the matter said.
The days-long fire at SPS Technologies' century-old factory could put pressure on the industry's already strapped supply chain.

 

 

This guy is the best.

 

​

 

Like I said earlier about this. When you are in "Weapons Free", if you meet the current attack profile, you get shot at unless directly ordered to hold fire.
The systems are hot, the weapons are hot and the people are hot, hot not to be on the receiving side of an enemy missile on the ship.

The 'fog' of war really sucks for those in accidental shootdowns like this.

I suspect radio jamming was happening, likely from an Iranian source IMO, likely of the kind source that coordinates with the locals on the ground by giving ship targeting data to the missile sites on the coast.

 

Like I said earlier about this. When you are in "Weapons Free", if you meet the current attack profile, you get shot at unless directly ordered to hold fire.
The systems are hot, the weapons are hot and the people are hot, hot not to be on the receiving side of an enemy missile on the ship.

The 'fog' of war really sucks for those in accidental shootdowns like this.

I suspect radio jamming was happening, likely from an Iranian source IMO, likely of the kind source that coordinates with the locals on the ground by giving ship targeting data to the missile sites on the coast.

Sounds like another Swiss Cheese event.

I've already had two people, when we were discussing this shootdown, ask why they didn't just send the self-destruct to the missile.

I just had to shake my head.

Two reasons. First, at these ranges, the time from firing to impact is way too short for that. Depending on the missile used and the exact range involved, that time is a few seconds, perhaps a dozen or so. That is just too small a time window to make the necessary decisions and take action.

But even if that weren't the case, it likely doesn't matter. Unlike all the movies and TV shows everyone watches, there generally aren't command-destruct signals on operational birds, though this is not universal with SAMs and torpedoes. (it is with things like nuclear weapons). The worst thing that could happen would be for an enemy to compromise your security and get those codes without your knowledge, since that would render your system completely useless while you still think it is secure. With SAMs and torpedoes, this isn't as much a risk and the consequences if they are compromised are not nearly as big as if your ICBMs are compromised, so some systems accept the risk in exchange for having the ability to execute a command destruct, but that is usually intended to minimize collateral damage in case of a miss. In the case of nukes, you don't launch them unless you have really decided to make very large holes in the ground, because once launched, barring a systems failure, it is going to it's target and it is going to go boom.

 

Sounds like another Swiss Cheese event.

I've already had two people, when we were discussing this shootdown, ask why they didn't just send the self-destruct to the missile.

I just had to shake my head.

Two reasons. First, at these ranges, the time from firing to impact is way too short for that. Depending on the missile used and the exact range involved, that time is a few seconds, perhaps a dozen or so. That is just too small a time window to make the necessary decisions and take action.

But even if that weren't the case, it likely doesn't matter. Unlike all the movies and TV shows everyone watches, there generally aren't command-destruct signals on operational birds, though this is not universal with SAMs and torpedoes. (it is with things like nuclear weapons). The worst thing that could happen would be for an enemy to compromise your security and get those codes without your knowledge, since that would render your system completely useless while you still think it is secure. With SAMs and torpedoes, this isn't as much a risk and the consequences if they are compromised are not nearly as big as if your ICBMs are compromised, so some systems accept the risk in exchange for having the ability to execute a command destruct, but that is usually intended to minimize collateral damage in case of a miss. In the case of nukes, you don't launch them unless you have really decided to make very large holes in the ground, because once launched, barring a systems failure, it is going to it's target and it is going to go boom.

Yes. Here the default is missiles away unless a slice is a blocker. IFF has always been filled with holes because radio is not perfect. There are ducting effects at low altitudes that do strange things to RF that can block or cause remote aircraft to respond. Nothing was directly said (the slq 'slick' 32 can also jam while detecting threats) in that video (that IMO was approved by officials on the details released) but there is lots of scuttlebutt about active jamming and spoofing happening on all sides during these operations.

https://www.armadainternational.com/2024/12/slq32-update-electronic-warfare/

The baseline Raytheon AN/SLQ-32(V)1 detects and engages signals across wavebands of five gigahertz/MHz to 20 gigahertz/GHz. These wavebands were later expanded downwards to 250MHz for the AN/SLQ-32(V)2/3/4 variants. In its original form the AN/SLQ-32(V) generated decoy waveforms for jamming. These waveforms would spoof the radar seeker of an incoming anti-ship missile regarding the target’s location. The AN/SLQ-32(V)2 contains additional capabilities to detect threats emitting across Very/Ultra High Frequency (V/UHF) wavebands of 250MHz to three gigahertz. The AN/SLQ-32(V)3 configuration added a jamming capability to engage threats transmitting across a five gigahertz to 20GHz waveband. The AN/SLQ-32(V)4 configuration was designed for aircraft carriers. The AN/SLQ-32(V)5 was a jamming module added to the AN/SLQ-32(V)1/2 to enhance these systems’ jamming capabilities.


https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/iran-s-shadow-hand-houthi-red-sea-attacks
Iran’s shadow hand in
Houthi Red Sea attacks
Jonathan Campbell-James
How the Houthis and Iranians work together
isn’t absolutely clear – but stopping the threat
to shipping requires more than shooting
down incoming missiles and extends to
disrupting an intelligence and targeting system.
...
The intelligence role of the Behshad appeared to be confirmed when Iran’s permanent representative at the UN in New York warned the United States against any form of attack on the vessel, while a video distributed by Iranian military described the ship as a “floating armoury”.
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-spy-ship-behshad-washington-retaliation-huthis/32803034.html

Built in 1999, the Behshad was constructed as a cargo ship. But it only attracted wider attention in 2021, when it replaced another vessel -- the Saviz -- in the Red Sea.

The Saviz had long been suspected of helping to smuggle weapons and provide intelligence to the Huthis, but it had to be towed back to Iran after a mysterious explosion.

Aurora Intel, an open-source intelligence group that monitors the Behshad via satellite imagery, told RFE/RL that the vessel has remained largely stationery in the Red Sea since it replaced the Saviz.

The group said the Behshad had switched off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) -- meaning it was not broadcasting its location -- and was being guarded by Iranian Navy vessels.

 

 

 

 

I couldn't force myself to keep watching beyond the first couple minutes because it didn't seem to be going anywhere beyond promoting herself.

Does she ever back up her claim that more than 50% of commercial airline pilots have avoided seeking necessary mental health care?

Which is not to say that I don't agree with the need to change policies that discourage people from getting treatment that they need (or could benefit from). It's not just mental health, either, but also a host of medical conditions. Until very recently, a pilot that didn't want to lose their medical better not get prescribed insulin for diabetes, so they would let their diabetes worsen and go untreated because doing so would ground them. Same with cardio issues. Have a mile heart attack or a mini-stroke? Don't get it checked out because it will likely mean the end of your flying career.

 

The 'wine' is deep in this one.

The two incidents don't compare. The CV incident was a failure of safe navigation of the seas. The CG incident was in battle in a 'war zone'. The intentional ramming of another ship and hitting another while maneuvering are desperate but approved tactics in battle when circumstances justify.

The much older tradition in the Navy than these, 'What About Me' flyboys are talking about, is you don't trash a CO for saving (or the CO "by the book" thinking they were saving) the ship/fleet in combat. In the classic WW2 kamikaze attacks, one US ship would straff (by combat necessity) another US ship in the field of fire if they could stop that flying bomb from hitting a member of the fleet.
This is what can happen of that bomb makes it in.

Ammunition Ship SS John Burke
"Don't worry about the ship going down boys - but it could go up."

It's a team, where in the classic words of Mr Spock.

https://news.usni.org/2025/02/24/uss-harry-s-truman-back-underway-after-repairs-following-collision

That's not battle damage, that's safe sailing, hitting another ship damage. Nice picture. On the superstructure I can see the HF wire fan antenna, the communications satcom dish, TACAN, IFF, weather download system and various UHF/UHF/SHF antennas on the mast. Those guys have a nice flat platform to walk on for antenna access, we only had the structural steel members to hang on to during underway repairs.

Truman entered the emergent repair availability in Souda Bay, Greece, on Feb. 16, four days after the aircraft carrier collided with a merchant vessel near Port Said, Egypt, damaging a sponson to the rear of Truman’s aft starboard aircraft elevator and also piercing the hull above the waterline farther down the ship. Capt. Christopher “Chowdah” Hill, who previously commanded USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), is now leading Truman‘s crew after the Navy relieved the former commanding officer following the collision.

https://news.usni.org/2025/02/20/us...emoved-following-collision-with-merchant-ship

Capt. Dave Snowden was removed from command of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) on Thursday, according to a Congressional notification reviewed by USNI News and confirmed by a Navy official.

According to the notification, Snowden was removed due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command following the Feb. 12 collision between Truman and the merchant vessel MV Besiktas-M off the coast Egypt, near the entrance to the Suez Canal.

The retirement check of a USN Capt. is pretty nice, he will be OK.

 

 

Texas man accused of violent assault on American Airlines flight from Wichita to D.C. referenced Trump to FBI


​

Charging documents alleged Rulamka approached one of the passengers who was recording a video and began attacking him, grabbing his arms and verbally threatening him as he did the flight attendant. "At one point, he struck (the victim) in the face near his left eye, causing bruising and a bloodshot eye," the documents said.