Appallingly slanted reporting from the Guardian -- DC plane crash

[GeneralPeter]

This article describes Trump's theory that DEI had something to do with the crash using debunking words throughout. 'Baselessly', 'without providing evidence' etc etc.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/trump-washington-dc-plane-crash-dei

The thing is, this isn't 'baseless'.

The FAA has said that the tower was understaffed. We don't know if that was relevant or has not. We do know that FAA recruitment cratered because of a (very well-evidenced) extremely crude attempt at DEI. There is a long-running class action lawsuit that is on public record and not made up. The test really did award points for saying you had more Ds than Cs at school, for saying science was your weakest subject, etc etc and they did then give the answers to candidates of a particular race before the test.

Sometimes things that sound like loonish right-wing conspiracy theories actually turn out to be true. If you think I must be a right-wing loon, please read this thread first (and many others out there -- this is all public record in court documents and not denied by the FAA).

x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

You would not know any of this if you read the Guardian article. Their reporter must surely know this stuff. So it's another attempt to bury with slurs an ideologically inconvenient actual truth. We've seen this before with sex-based rights, and the Guardian should stop it.

(Obligatory: I'm not a Trump fan, think he is appalling in many respects, several of them disqualifying for the presidency. But while comment is free, facts should be sacred).

The verdict on the cause of the Leicester City case that happened in 2018 has only just been released. I'm not sure how the cause of the recent crash could even be identified until a full investigation is undertaken. At the time Trump flapped his gums the black box hadn't even be found.

Using the deaths as a political point is beneath contempt any more than condolences at this point is pure speculation. His comments on visiting the crash site speak for themselves. Inciting hatred at a time when so many are mourning not exactly the calm and level headed leader needed at the time of a national tragedy.

There is currently no evidence for any scenario = baseless.

This is however a nakedly opportunistic political attempt to push Trump’s anti-DEI agenda and it is grim. This will be the reason attached to every bad thing and failure that happens over the next few years in the US.

Let’s just ignore the fact that just last week Trump threw ATC into chaos by sacking around 400 senior leaders in the TSA and Coastguard, sacking the head head of the FAA, and handing ‘comply or quit’ notices to ATC operators.

Not that The Donald could ever be said to be someone who deflects blame….

@GeneralPeter I was watching CNN a few minutes ago. Note the headline.

Exactly this. What a disgusting man.

Actually outside the simplistic media world "pilot error" as the single cause of an accident got consigned to the bin years ago.

Thats because often as not there were a whole load of factors upstream of pilot decisions that contributed to a crash..e.g. poor equipment design, poor procedures etc etc..sadly oft as not the crew carry the can, certainly in the media, for making the final decision and being first on the scene of the accident.

I am desperately sad for the ATCO involved. I can't imagine how scared and devastated he or she must feel. Trump is honestly a monster, heaping yet more pain on someone surely already suffering terribly.

And yes, it sounds like an awfully tricky area. I hope they will make changes. I've flown (as pax obviously) in and out of Dulles by night and moaned about the longish journey but knowing what I know now, would not fly into DCA.

Can you not see that chronic understaffing is irrelevant if the crash was caused by technology failure or pilot error? (this is what I meant by deliberate actions of the pilot but I can see why you thought I meant murder/suicide -apologies for unclear wording)

I'm not saying chronic understaffing isn't true or that there wasn't an air traffic mistake. There wasn't a link to the crash being caused by air traffic control failures at the time of the conference. So speculation on staffing levels was irrelevant.

What reporting do you mean? The Guardian's reporting of what Trump said, or the unsourced and contextless quote you posted?

Actually he drew it to people's attention which is a positive thing.

And as president he might have been made aware of more info than us normal folk.

I heard there is a lot of pressure to assign blame on the pilots? (not here but in the past)

@Begsthequestion

That's fine. You don't need to report back to me. But I think if you haven't read the linked report you can't have a very good basis for your view.

If you think Trump is only as bad as me, then I also think you have a pretty rosy picture of him. (Perhaps I'm flattering myself! But posting measured takes on an online message board, with evidence, for discussion, is not what makes Trump a monstrous man and unfit president).

@Caplin There is evidence. You are actively refusing to look at the evidence that exists because you don't want to engage with the crash, you just want to complain about Trump.

I hate Trump too, but I don't think it makes you look good to deny reality about the current state of the facts about this crash in which many people died.

Pathetic attempt to excuse a pos.

So many pompous, ignorant men flapping their gums these days.

@HowardTJMoon I mean the report I made up on Bridget Phillipson to illustrate why I think the Guardian report on Trump is poor reporting. I thought it was self-evident that it was not an actual report, but if I didn't make that clear enough then I apologize. I used the same adjectives and elements from the Guardian piece in a different context, based on a scenario you had proposed as an analogy.

Two different issues here. Issue one is the fault of the crash in relation to which I couldn't comment. Issue two would be the huge problems which are emerging around DEI.

I note you say "women" - why just "women"? Are any of the serious anomolies a result of millions in terms of funding to certain social groups, some of which relate to "feminism" (in the loosest sense), which has thrown things askew all over the place, behind the scenes?

If you look at the Twitter link in the OP, you'll see that it's arguable that ATC did lower standards, to get increased 'diversity'.

Selection by marks on a very difficult aptitude test was changed to selection by 'biographical questionnaire'. The questionnaire was designed to select a high percentage of minority candidates.

You scored more marks on this questionnaire if your worst subject in school was science.

Using the deaths as a political point is beneath contempt

Posters are incredibly naive or disingenuous. Deaths are always a political point even if you are ‘only’ offering condolences. Military deaths even more so. Indeed criticism of Trump over his talk is using these deaths to score political points just as much as anything Trump says.

As a president he should know better than to speak out until a full and fair investigation has taken place by experts. That is not done in 24 hours.

@GelatoPistacchio I see what you're saying, but from my perspective it seems very, very unlikely to be mechanical. There's nothing currently to suggest that. You're right that we can't know 100% for certain, but we are all only discussing based on what we know, and nothing supports that conjecture, whereas a lot supports other possibilities.

Pilot error as one contributing factor is likely too, but that doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's something that happens as a result of how the whole airspace is managed, how aircraft are meant to safely keep apart from each other, and the role ATC plays in that. Essentially what I'm saying is that I don't personally believe the role the helicopter crew player and the role ATC likely played can be extricated from each other in this situation. If the airport wasn't suffering both chronic and acute understaffing (both of which we do know for sure), then that might have been one "hole in the cheese" that was removed. Maybe. And we only need one of those holes to be removed for it to be a near miss (like the many other near misses) rather than a tragedy.

As it was, the reliance on the human eye was too great (ie this is a built in issue with the US aviation system), and the ATC may have been under too much pressure (perhaps chronic stress? we don't know, but we do know he or she was working two frequencies and the craft couldn't hear each other), and the landing is a difficult one for the jet (another situational factor that can't be changed) so they were in a set course once they moved from 1 to 33. The only way to avoid the crash would have been the helicopter crew seeing the jet correctly and moving, so it was (1) on them for not doing this, and/or (2) on ATC for not seeing this risk and averting it. The risk itself is built into the aviation space and how that space is run.

How rude.

Better to be rude and honest than a heartless fascist supporting pos.

I really couldn't comment on what is or is not known and neither can you. But this thread is about the Guardian reporting, isn't it? And the real DEI issues?

So why are speculating? Because you are with him.

Yep, pilot error was an easy "cop out", for example why spend money redesigning crappy instruments or systems if you can just keep blaming the pilots for bending metal or worse.

Same might apply to the ATCO in this case..they might be working in really badly thought out airspace with crap procedures but changing that (for example restricting operations at DCA or by helicopters) might be unpopular, especially with the political class, so the easy option might be to claim ATC error and throw the controller under the bus.