Does the U.S. Military Do More Harm than Good?
What does it mean that a U.S. Army helicopter killed 64 American civilians on the final approach to Washington Reagan airport?
Scrutiny is currently being placed on the communications issued by Washington Reagan’s air traffic control to the pilot of the U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter that flew into American Airlines flight 5342.
The controller addressed the Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, identified as ‘PAT25,’ instructing it to pass behind the descending jet.
“PAT25, do you have the CRJ [Canadair Regional Jet] [in sight? PAT25, pass behind the CRJ,” the controller said.
According to various media reports, the Black Hawk pilot purportedly responded on different frequency, “PAT 25, has the traffic in sight, request visual separation.” “Visual separation” means the pilot acknowledges that he sees the incoming aircraft and lets the air traffic controller know that he will avoid getting too close to the plane.
However, in this case, because the particular location and heading of the “CRJ” weren’t specified by the controller, it’s unclear if the helicopter pilot was indeed looking at the same plane to which the controller was referring.
To me, the crash raises a much bigger question. What does it mean that a U.S. Army helicopter killed 64 American civilians on the final approach to Washington Reagan airport? To put it more precisely: Is it really necessary for Army Black Hawks to fly across the final approach to Washington Reagan? Could this particular activity be at least reduced in frequency?
Recently a retired U.S. Marine told my younger brother about his adventures delivering aid to earthquake stricken civilians in Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response in 2022. He said that their MV-22 Ospreys —with their immense rotor wash—produced the unfortunate side effect of ripping the roofs off the still standing shelters in the villages to which they delivered aid. The following video illustrates the dangers of Osprey rotor wash.
“Here’s some food and fresh water; sorry we destroyed your home,” was the apparent message that was delivered.
The story reminded me of Mark Bowden’s account of Black Hawk rotor wash ripping the roofs off of homes in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993, which enraged the local inhabitants.
This raises an even bigger question: Does the U.S. military now do more harm than good in the world? I ask not to be flippant. There is always a danger—for all humans and institutions—that arises when we are too active and try to do too many things.
For example, American civilians are constantly being lectured about the need to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions, but I’ve never heard any politicians or mainstream media talk about the U.S. military’s carbon footprint.
A 2019 report released by Durham and Lancaster University found the US military to be “one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.” It determined that if the US military were a nation state, it would be the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.
Maybe President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth should consider the possibility that the U.S. military, with its $876 billion budget, is too big and sprawling and would be a greater force for good by doing less.
One guy in control tower trying to do the job of two men. Why shortage of help? Pete Buttigieg wanted to hire people with seizure disorders, blind, deaf, mentally ill, quadriplegic to hold positions they were not qualified for to demonstrate “ equity”. He’s another one who should be on the short list if he hasn’t been fired yet. You might remember his HUSBAND had twins (adopted) and Pete had to go on an extended.“ paternity” leave. I remember seeing him wearing a maternity bra with a fake breast so he could pretend to breastfeed. Unless the photo was fake, that shows you a lot about the current crop of democRATS.
the collision was caused by the helicopter flying ABOVE its required maximum allowed altitude which is 200 feet as it's going south on this track. If they had stayed below 200 feet, the collision would not have happened. However, as they approached the AA flight, they ascended to 300 feet and above! Their route had the requirement of staying below 200 feet. So it's obvious that the helicopter pilot is at fault. One question I have is this: Does ATC have a secondary responsibility to notice that the helicopter was flying above its maximum allowable altitude and then immediately tell the pilot to DESCEND NOW?