Sutely, when there is a head of the FAA, that person occasionally takes a vacation or other time off. These plane crashes are totally unrelated to politics or staffing.
Staffing Was ‘Not Normal’ at Reagan Airport Tower, According to F.A.A. Report
The report, reviewed by The New York Times, said that one controller was communicating with both helicopters and planes. Those jobs are typically assigned to two people, not one.
So are you saying is the FAA didn't have enough controllers to keep the skies safe, ultimately leading to this week's collision? That sounds like a very strong reason to fire whoever is the head of that agency.
How about the guy who was in the White House for the last 4 years? The guy who passed a so-called infrastructure bill? No responsibility for ensuring air safety in there?
Today the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that it exceeded its goal of hiring 1,800 air traffic controllers in 2024, with a final total of 1,811 for Fiscal Year 2024. As the largest number of hires in nearly a decade, this marks important progress in the FAA’s work to reverse the decades-long air traffic controller staffing level decline.
Training controllers takes 2-4 years.
Are we just gonna go from one debunkable claim to another all evening?
No, we're not. A plane went down, it's an absolutely tragic event, doesnt matter what you believe politically. I specifically avoided pointing fingers by stating this event wasn't a political issue. Does it expose the fact that our air traffic control system needs more attention and funding? Yes - and hopefully that will become a priority of the current leadership. But did this event occur because one FAA head was recently fired, or because a new president just took office? No. It's actually quite offensive that people feel it is necessary to blame these deaths on a political enemy just to make some point.
These plane crashes are totally unrelated to politics or staffing.
Which the FAA preliminary report says is untrue. The resignations thing will only make the understaffing worse.
Subsequently, you pointed fingers at the outgoing FAA head and the outgoing President.
There are few scenarios where throwing a 2M person organization into chaos doesn't have some impact on the employees. It is too early to assign conclusive blame; it is also too early to be conclusively absolving anyone.
In this case you are trying to make a connection where it doesn’t exist. This isn’t a courthouse, and we can reasonably assume that there weren’t any changes to ATC protocol in the minuscule amount of time between the new administration assuming their positions and this incident.
Put another way, it seems like you are assuming that drawing a connection between politics and reality is an obvious first step, when it’s not, at least in this case.
Vacations are often planned with responsibilities delegated.
If the head of a company gets pushed out because the richest man in the world has a vendetta against that company (in this case the FAA was trying to fine SpaceX and upset Musk) that can cause strife within in the company, especially when that same person writes an email (fork in the road is language Musk used in very similar emails he's sent in the past) telling you that you should quit.
I'd agree, if there was no head of the agency for many months, confusion and lack of direction would drift down and be disruptive. But 8 days after he left? That's equivalent to a vacation, and, as you noted, people manage just fine.
I'll revise my earlier statement. It has nothing to do with the staffing of the agency's head. Yes, if there were not enough traffic controllers, that's indeed a staffing problem. But if the former head of the agency let that go on, putting air safety at risk, then he deserved to be fired.
The problem with ATC is that they changed from a skills based assessment to a biographical one. This is no joke. They had an explicit goal of increasing ATC diversity so they passed over hundreds of people who took the previously traditional route and graduated from FAA Air Traffic University Programs.
Those candidates still had to pass the training but they have had a much higher attrition rate. So despite increased hiring ATC continues to be understaffed.
Me. I'm the citation. It is not the FAA chief's fault - nor is it because there was no FAA chief for 8 days - that a rogue military helicopter was flying above its well-defined airspace ceiling.
Then your claim lacks any supporting evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I can think of about 10 different ways that the information in your YouTube video could be 100% true and correct, and the FAA could still be at fault. You do not have enough evidence to claim what you're saying.
The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence? I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other. I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?
The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence?
I did not make this claim. I’ll restate my position so we’re clear: I have no idea whether they’re connected.
I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other.
This is still a claim which requires evidence.
I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?
In general, evidence is required for any claim, yes. But in this case, something like “The Philadelphia Eagles are a football team, without any responsibility over airline safety” is probably enough evidence.
If the CEO of a corporation is absent does all the mid and bottom level stuff just stop working? FAA may have been headless but the head never really had anything to do with the people getting stuff done.
Below is the email that was sent to federal employees on January 28, 2025 presenting a deferred resignation offer. If you did not respond to that email and wish to accept the deferred resignation offer, you may do so by following these steps.
The White House expects up to 10% of federal employees to quit in September in a program meant to end work-from-home practices, senior administration officials told CBS News.
Yes, I understand that. ATC was woefully understaffed and overworked long before Trump was in office. It would be really hard to definitively tie Trump actions to a particular incident.
Yes, that’s tough, like tracking deaths back to coal plants. We know it happens, we just can’t really say which specific ones, so it’s “cost of doing business” instead of murder.
At the very least, extending resignation offers to 2M federal employees, including at the FAA, seems likely to exacerbate the problem going forwards.
You are trying to rhetorically connect these issues when they are unrelated. You can be appalled by the state of US ATC and appalled by the new administration without looking for a non existent reason to connect the two.
By real knowledge of the problem domain. I know that sort of argumentation is unpopular, but it’s genuinely correct in this case.
If anything, this incident has been predicted and warned for years and years and years, and is an indictment of FAA and ATC policy over the last couple decades, accelerating over the last 2-8 years or so.
The reason we can assume there’s no connection between the new administration and this incident is… because there’s no reason to make that assumption, based on the reality of ATC policy, (lack of) changes in the problem domain, and longstanding known risks in the status quo.
That this has been a known problem for a while (which I agree with) does not necessarily mean that recent actions haven’t made the problem worse. The parent asked how you can know it’s “definitely unrelated,” which seems like a pretty high bar that you haven’t come close to meeting.
Comments
Sutely, when there is a head of the FAA, that person occasionally takes a vacation or other time off. These plane crashes are totally unrelated to politics or staffing.
“These plane crashes are totally unrelated to politics or staffing.”
The FAA seems to disagree.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/business/air-traffic-cont...
So are you saying is the FAA didn't have enough controllers to keep the skies safe, ultimately leading to this week's collision? That sounds like a very strong reason to fire whoever is the head of that agency.
The likely culprit for the understaffing is Congress.
The pandemic also messed with training new ones for a while.
And congress added ten new slots to DCA in last year's FAA re-authorization act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3935...
SEC. 502.
Introduced by Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6], passed with veto-proof bipartisan support.
Dollars to donuts congresscritters wanted the ability to fly to/fro DCA vs Dulles to save themselves time.
How about the guy who was in the White House for the last 4 years? The guy who passed a so-called infrastructure bill? No responsibility for ensuring air safety in there?
The guy they ramped up hiring under post-pandemic? https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-hits-air-traffic-controller...
Training controllers takes 2-4 years.
Are we just gonna go from one debunkable claim to another all evening?
If we’re doling out responsibility, hoping 10% of them resign probably won’t help. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-offers-incentiv...
No, we're not. A plane went down, it's an absolutely tragic event, doesnt matter what you believe politically. I specifically avoided pointing fingers by stating this event wasn't a political issue. Does it expose the fact that our air traffic control system needs more attention and funding? Yes - and hopefully that will become a priority of the current leadership. But did this event occur because one FAA head was recently fired, or because a new president just took office? No. It's actually quite offensive that people feel it is necessary to blame these deaths on a political enemy just to make some point.
Again, you said:
Which the FAA preliminary report says is untrue. The resignations thing will only make the understaffing worse.
Subsequently, you pointed fingers at the outgoing FAA head and the outgoing President.
There are few scenarios where throwing a 2M person organization into chaos doesn't have some impact on the employees. It is too early to assign conclusive blame; it is also too early to be conclusively absolving anyone.
In this case you are trying to make a connection where it doesn’t exist. This isn’t a courthouse, and we can reasonably assume that there weren’t any changes to ATC protocol in the minuscule amount of time between the new administration assuming their positions and this incident.
Put another way, it seems like you are assuming that drawing a connection between politics and reality is an obvious first step, when it’s not, at least in this case.
Alternatively you could say this is furter proof the agency needs a thorough shakeup as things cleary went down the gutter.
Maybe collaborating on a solution to get it out of this mess is better than playing politics no matter what?
It’s been like this long before the current guy took control last week.
Here’s a write up from 2023 for example, they’re all over the internet from the last decade:
https://www.kreindler.com/articles/understaffed-and-undertra...
One article cited it’s been a concern since Bush was in office.
Vacations are often planned with responsibilities delegated.
If the head of a company gets pushed out because the richest man in the world has a vendetta against that company (in this case the FAA was trying to fine SpaceX and upset Musk) that can cause strife within in the company, especially when that same person writes an email (fork in the road is language Musk used in very similar emails he's sent in the past) telling you that you should quit.
What does that have to do with anything? My boss takes vacations too, but if my team didn’t have a manager we would surely be worse off.
Please provide a citation for this claim.
I'd agree, if there was no head of the agency for many months, confusion and lack of direction would drift down and be disruptive. But 8 days after he left? That's equivalent to a vacation, and, as you noted, people manage just fine.
I'll revise my earlier statement. It has nothing to do with the staffing of the agency's head. Yes, if there were not enough traffic controllers, that's indeed a staffing problem. But if the former head of the agency let that go on, putting air safety at risk, then he deserved to be fired.
The problem with ATC is that they changed from a skills based assessment to a biographical one. This is no joke. They had an explicit goal of increasing ATC diversity so they passed over hundreds of people who took the previously traditional route and graduated from FAA Air Traffic University Programs.
Those candidates still had to pass the training but they have had a much higher attrition rate. So despite increased hiring ATC continues to be understaffed.
https://viewfromthewing.com/diversity-in-the-skies-faas-cont...
And that policy directly led to the deaths earlier this week. The ATC was clearly not a White male from the audio.
Please provide a citation for this claim.
Me. I'm the citation. It is not the FAA chief's fault - nor is it because there was no FAA chief for 8 days - that a rogue military helicopter was flying above its well-defined airspace ceiling.
https://youtu.be/uFc6JFb2MqY
Then your claim lacks any supporting evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I can think of about 10 different ways that the information in your YouTube video could be 100% true and correct, and the FAA could still be at fault. You do not have enough evidence to claim what you're saying.
The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence? I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other. I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?
I did not make this claim. I’ll restate my position so we’re clear: I have no idea whether they’re connected.
This is still a claim which requires evidence.
In general, evidence is required for any claim, yes. But in this case, something like “The Philadelphia Eagles are a football team, without any responsibility over airline safety” is probably enough evidence.
If the CEO of a corporation is absent does all the mid and bottom level stuff just stop working? FAA may have been headless but the head never really had anything to do with the people getting stuff done.
If everyone in the company gets a “consider resigning” email, though? Probably some mayhem.
https://www.opm.gov/fork
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-administration-offeri...
Yes, I understand that. ATC was woefully understaffed and overworked long before Trump was in office. It would be really hard to definitively tie Trump actions to a particular incident.
Yes, that’s tough, like tracking deaths back to coal plants. We know it happens, we just can’t really say which specific ones, so it’s “cost of doing business” instead of murder.
At the very least, extending resignation offers to 2M federal employees, including at the FAA, seems likely to exacerbate the problem going forwards.
You are trying to rhetorically connect these issues when they are unrelated. You can be appalled by the state of US ATC and appalled by the new administration without looking for a non existent reason to connect the two.
“We have a huge staffing problem. We are hoping 5-10% of our staff quit, it will save billions!”
They seem a tiny bit connected.
If they leave abruptly without planning for their absence? Yes, quite possibly.
How can you know it's totally unrelated any more than somebody can know it's definitely related?
By real knowledge of the problem domain. I know that sort of argumentation is unpopular, but it’s genuinely correct in this case.
If anything, this incident has been predicted and warned for years and years and years, and is an indictment of FAA and ATC policy over the last couple decades, accelerating over the last 2-8 years or so.
The reason we can assume there’s no connection between the new administration and this incident is… because there’s no reason to make that assumption, based on the reality of ATC policy, (lack of) changes in the problem domain, and longstanding known risks in the status quo.
That this has been a known problem for a while (which I agree with) does not necessarily mean that recent actions haven’t made the problem worse. The parent asked how you can know it’s “definitely unrelated,” which seems like a pretty high bar that you haven’t come close to meeting.