Rivalarrival

The industrial centers of the US are almost entirely within blue states. It is only through the quirkiness of the Electoral College that the GOP continues to exist.

Trumpler would quickly find himself on the losing side of a civil war.

The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

--Gilmore Conjecture

I have spent about 45 seconds studying the Uberlingen case, so I don't know much about it at all. From what I quickly gathered, the ATC cleared both aircraft to the same altitude and an intersecting course, and didn't realize their mistake. That didn't happen here.

I did not hear communication from the helicopter, but that's not unusual: LiveATC recordings often miss traffic from aircraft in certain situations. Based on the controller's transmissions, I have every reason to believe the controller was in 2-way communication with the helicopter.

The controller asked if the helicopter had the CRJ in sight. The next transmission asked the helicopter to maintain visual separation. This command would only be given if the helicopter had reported the CRJ in sight.

This wasn't an oversight; the ATC's statements indicate they were aware of the conflict and were taking steps to remediate it. That doesn't mean their steps were right; that doesn't mean their steps were wrong. It only means that the radio transmissions indicate the controller was aware of the situation prior to the collision.

I'm quite certain that is the Pareto Principle.

Runways are numbered by their magnetic compass orientation. Runway 33 is a runway oriented on a 330 heading (325 to 335 magnetic). Runway 1 is a runway oriented on a 10 degree heading (5 to 15 magnetic)

Based on the ADS-B track and the tower comms, the CRJ in question was on final approach to runway 33. Another aircraft in the distance was on a long final to runway 1. I think the helicopter pilot saw the distant aircraft on approach to runway 1, and didn't see the CRJ on approach for runway 33.

Night vision goggles might narrow the pilot's field of view, which might have kept them from seeing the aircraft high and to their left. They probably stopped looking for traffic once they saw the distant aircraft they thought that ATC was talking about.

The CRJ probably wouldn't have been able to see the helicopter low and to their right.

I don't see why the controller allowed the helicopter into the approach path at all.

I'd guess the military helicopter didn't have a TCAS transmitter on

TCAS warnings are inhibited below 1000AGL. This collision occurred between 200 and 300' AGL.

Based on the tower communication I listened to, it seemed most traffic was landing on runway 1 (A runway running south to north, oriented along a bearing of 10 degrees). The CRJ was instructed to land on runway 33 (A runway running from southeast to northwest, oriented along a bearing of 330 degrees). The winds favored runway 33, but runway 1 was longer. The initial approach path for both runways roughly followed the river from the south, with runway 1 traffic forking to the west, and runway 33 traffic forking to the east, before turning toward their respective runways.

The helicopter approached from the north, and turned toward the east, following the river.

The tower controller asked if the helicopter had the CRJ in sight. ATC subsequently instructed the helicopter pilot to maintain visual separation with, and to turn behind the CRJ. ATC knew they were getting close to eachother, but this isn't necessarily a problem if the pilots are capable of maintaining their own separation.

I believe what happened is that the helicopter pilot saw a distant aircraft far ahead of their flight path, lined up for runway 1, and assumed that was the aircraft the controller was talking about. The CRJ was off to the left and well above the helicopter, lined up with runway 33. The pilot was maintaining separation with the distant aircraft, and did not see the nearby aircraft.

10 USC 15 does, indeed, allow for the military to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies under specific circumstances. Among other requirements, they have to have an LEO on board the aircraft. The LEO ostensibly supervises the operation: the military members present are operating under the authority of the officer.

Here's the problem: They are trying to argue against birthright citizenship on the basis that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united states (14th Amendment). Diplomats and enemy combatants are not subject to the laws of the united states. They cannot be charged or convicted under US criminal code. They can only be held in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict, and treated as POWs rather than accused criminals. The military can detain people as POWs, but it cannot enforce the law domestically.

As soon as they claim 10 USC 15 justification, or they put an LEO in charge of the operation, the government loses its "subject to the jurisdiction" argument.

The government can't claim justification under 10 USC 15. They need to argue that the immigrants are a category of people that the military can lawfully detain. They need to argue that the immigrants in question are invaders; enemy combatants.

Reddit ended like two years ago.

The military is expressly prohibited from conducting law enforcement activities like deportation under the posse comitatus act.

We should not be talking about costs. We should be talking about prosecuting the entire chain of command between the president and the aircrew who actually performed the mission, in federal court and/or state court of any state they passed through on their way out of the country.

Korea has an interesting system. You pay a single (very large) deposit when you move in, and you get the entire deposit back when you move out. The landlord keeps only the interest on the deposit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI

All you need to do to stop that is make it possible for private individuals to conduct or verify a background check without involving an FFL dealer.

Sellers have a responsibility to sell only to non-prohibited people. Without a public background check option, that means you can't sell if you have reason to believe they are prohibited.

As soon as you provide the option, your refusal to conduct a check stops being exculpatory evidence and starts demonstrating malfeasance.