[listenallyall]

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.

[hattmall]

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...

[somename9]

And that policy directly led to the deaths earlier this week. The ATC was clearly not a White male from the audio.

[angoragoats]

> I'll revise my earlier statement. It has nothing to do with the staffing of the agency's head.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

[listenallyall]

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

[angoragoats]

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.

[listenallyall]

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?

[angoragoats]

> 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.