Posts by user "Musician" [Posts: 26 Total up-votes: 19 Page: 2 of 2]¶

It was probably brought to his attention after the vote? especially if it was a last-minute addition.

Though in hindsight, his initial comment "This legislation restores our military\x92s focus on lethality" is a bit on the nose.

It's just baffling why the Army doesn't keep the ADS-B equipment on their helicopters operable, it'd be safer at any altitude when they're sharing airspace with civilians.
I can only imagine someone thinking, "well we can't stop doing training flights when the equipment isn't working" (and Homendy glaring at them "then get it fixed").

Thank you! That's the press briefing I posted a clip of earlier, minus 30 seconds of opening, but with the Q&A (starts at 4:00) that my clip did not have.
It's always good to see these first hand.

Looks basically correct, though I would add some points.

- The bill mandates a "risk assessment", but does not explain what that entails, or how the person making that assessment should be qualifed. A simple check box on the waiver form, "I assessed the risk to civil aviation", would presumably suffice.

- The civil aviation authorities (DOT, FAA, airlines) have no input on these assessments. This is why Homendy calls it a "whitewash", because it sounds like someone cares about risk, but there's no actual assurance the risk would be managed.

- Because these and other important provisions are so poorly defined, Homendy called the section badly written, and she's right. You need to know what the bill is talking about, or the ambiguity leads to court cases.

- we have seen a legislative effort to mandate ADS-B IN, which may be ongoing behind the scenes, and possibly scheduled to a push with the release of the final report. However, ADS-B IN is useless (in this context) if the military doesn't send ADS-B. I think that explains Homendy's level of anger.

I believe, without this provision, the Army needs to fix their ADS-B gear, and go to the FAA if they need a waiver for those top secret missions.

The official announcement is at https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...A20260112.aspx . It mentions the meeting is set to start Tuesday, Jan. 27 at 9 a.m. Eastern time, and has a link to their live webcast. In my experience, the meetings are usually also available on Youtube.

The docket at https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA25MA108 is unchanged from the previous hearing, with the exception of some personal items that have been removed.

I don't see a livestream on youtube, but they have some supporting animations.
The caption/transcript is at https://transcript.verbit.co/?transc...WidthMode=true
The docket has had more than 60 items added. https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA25MA108

Boardmeeting Overview Animation

Aircraft Visibility Study

Control Tower Visibility Study

A lot of what you guys are complaining about was in fact adressed by the hearing, and will be addressed by the final report.