logo
Inside the LA ‘psychic reset' bootcamp that promises happiness

Inside the LA ‘psychic reset' bootcamp that promises happiness

The Guardian15-05-2025
On a Saturday in March in a conference room with ugly carpeting near Los Angeles international airport, I meekly muttered 'thank you' as a group of six people – all strangers until the day before – enumerated my deepest flaws.
'I see you, Katherine, as inauthentic,' led the charge.
'I see you, Katherine, as a self-fulfilling prophecy of disappointment.'
'I see you, Katherine, as closed off to intimacy.'
Each person stood before me, stared into my eyes, and rattled off my defects: I was cynical, guarded, deaf to my inner needs.
I was there to take part in a mindset-reset bootcamp offered by Mastery in Transformational Training, a Los Angeles county-based company better known as MITT. Around the room, roughly 120 other people huddled in their own small groups, variously weeping, giggling and shuffling in discomfort.
They came in every shade, from Burning Man devotee to buttoned CPA. They were barbers and brokers, kids with neck tattoos, tradwives and titans in the making. What they held in common was that everyone had declared they were 'all in' to realizing the life of their dreams.
As a recent New York City to Los Angeles transplant, I had observed the glinting cheerfulness of my new Angeleno friends with an almost anthropological remove. In the weeks after fires torched the hills of Los Angeles and political conflagrations began to threaten democracy, the conversations I had with folks around town centered on horror, yes, but also – and to my consistent bafflement – on optimism.
My new neighbors repeatedly enjoined me to stay positive. 'Well,' one earnest-eyed mother on the schoolyard told me, 'we just have to believe that everything will work out.' Another insisted: 'It's up to you to be the light.'
I would hear this refrain often. If California is the epicenter of the revolution from within, Los Angeles is its most fevered expression. To stroll around the west side, where I live, is to take in a world of relentless self-tinkering, of inner truths pursued through cold plunges and adaptogenic smoothies. There are crystals everywhere, and palmists at the ready 24/7.
Everyone I talk to is in therapy or becoming a therapist themselves, practicing alongside an ever-widening pool of spiritual gurus, psychedelic guides, past-life whisperers and wellness visionaries, many of whom recirculate that central message: be the light.
My default mood is wary but intrigued – I'm a New Yorker after all – and I was curious to see if MITT's intensive programs could help me tap into the well of positivity.
I was grabbing a post-pilates coffee with a Venice artist and chatting about feeling like a local misfit when my ears perked up. 'You should try a masterclass in psychic recalibration,' she said. She couldn't explain what it entailed, but said that if I could 'trust the process', I would step into a world of benefit.
I noticed that she referred to her life as if it were composed of distinct epochs. Before the training, she said, 'it was like I had been in a coma.' Now, she said, she experienced more joy and realized, 'I am in the driver's seat.'
Those new to MITT begin with 'basic' training, a three-day immersion that costs about $700 and promises 'discovery in the most crucial aspects of your life'. The next step is the 'advanced' course, which runs about $1,400, and, for the bold, a four-month 'legacy' program.
Before I even set foot in the conference room, I was encouraged to sign up for further training. In my required pre-interview call, a staff member, Marilyn, assured me that advanced would bring me 'answers to everything' and that she was 'so excited' about my potential growth she was going to strike the outstanding $300 balance from my account so that I could invest it in my future.
The greater part of our call was devoted to going over sensitive mental health questions covering addiction, suicidality, depression, ADHD and prescription medications. Marilyn stressed that no one on the staff was a trained mental health professional or equipped to provide treatment to distressed persons.
Nonetheless, the course was likely at times to arouse discomfort, even touch on past traumas. It was, by design, intended to be 'extremely triggering'.
In the conference room, Chris Lee, master trainer, spoke in expletive-studded listicles.
'Who wants their fucking life back? Who wants to experience rebirth? Who wants to get back the passion, the power, the sexy, the light? Who wants to clear away the fucking shit that's getting in the way of getting shit done?'
(Part of trusting the process meant refraining from note taking; it was forbidden. I translated my observations as voice memos after the sessions were over.)
It was day two of a three-day program that ran from morning until deep into the night, structured around immersive exercises, lectures and possibly deliberate caloric deprivation: we did not break for lunch until 4pm and then went on until 11pm without pausing for dinner. But shame on anyone who dared to protest. Discomfort is a choice, Lee told us. Feeling tired is a choice.
'Katherine', my group continued to chronicle my shortcomings, 'I see you as judgmental.'
I'd like to believe that under normal circumstances, comments lobbed by strangers would not faze me unduly. But these little bombs detonated deep within.
In the preceding exercise, Lee had instructed us to share our deepest traumas, and only minutes prior I had been gasping for dear life as I described pains I've guarded even from my dearest friends. Tearing up as I mumbled my thanks, I felt capsized by vulnerability.
Perhaps it was the relative anonymity of the room that led me to divulge my demons with so little prodding. But if I'm being honest, it was the cumulative pressure to share that forced me to open up. The point of this soul-baring was to identify how our foundational wounds had mottled the stories we tell ourselves and, consequently, derailed us from the better, more prosperous life we could be living.
'Self-worth is net worth,' Lee had lectured. No matter how harrowing your past, to be a victim is a choice. Every trigger is a teacher. Every breakdown is a blessing.
I thought to myself: 'Uh-oh. This weekend was not headed in the direction I'd planned.'
Stress, it turns out, is the point. The program is designed to ferry participants through a prescribed emotional course, from agitation to catharsis and ultimately to feelings of love and identification with the group.
However, this emotional flooding, induced over a compressed period of time, may be hazardous for some. The potential problems arising were the undoing of MITT's precursor, Lifespring, a for-profit personal development company that ceased operations in the mid-1990s following a series of lawsuits from participants alleging psychological distress and physical harm.
Lifespring was one of several companies to emerge from the fertile soils of the mid-20th century's human potential movement that aimed to help individuals experience a 'breakthrough'. An underpinning theory, which has not been borne out by science, was that the majority of people use only 10% of their brains. The right training, it was theorized, could unlock stores of talent and alchemize middle-class malaise into greatness.
'Certain aspects of human beings can't change,' John Hanley, one of the founders of Lifespring wrote in 1989. 'Therein lies the power of transformation: the possibility of looking at yourself and the world in a new way can liberate you from a fixed, rigid sense of reality – even the aspects of reality that are, in fact, unchangeable.'
In the early 1970s, Hanley, then a recent college graduate, attended a breakthrough seminar, which offered military-style trainings that relied on a number of abusive practices to effect transformation – including beatings, sexual humiliation, food deprivation and stringing attendees up on crosses. When Hanley, as part of his training, was stuffed inside a coffin for 14 hours, he responded by falling asleep. His trainers were so impressed that they invited him to join their staff.
Hanley soon started to elaborate his own 'technologies' for self-discovery and in 1974 launched Lifespring, which was based on three successive levels of training to bolster personal effectiveness. The company was enormously successful. Over two decades, offices across the country enrolled roughly 400,000 participants. Lifespring relied on enrollees to get their friends and colleagues to sign up; sometimes entire families participated. Proponents spoke of gains across their careers and personal lives, and of finding liberation from self-defeating patterns.
However, by the 1980s, a number of court battles painted a different picture – one marred by manipulation, abuse and even death. In 1987, journalist Marc Fisher wrote an exposé of the company for the Washington Post magazine, in which he noted: 'At least five lawyers around the country specialize in suing Lifespring on behalf of trainees who have had psychotic episodes or other emotional strains they attribute to the training.'
At the time of the article's publication, six trainees had died and there were about 35 lawsuits. Among the more sensational cases was that of a 27-year-old woman from Seattle who suffered an asthma attack during basic training in 1979, fell into a coma and eventually died. The trainers, who held on to her medications, had told her that her problem was 'self-caused'. Lifespring denied responsibility and in 1980 settled with the family for $450,000.
In the matter of the death of Artie Barnett, a man who could not swim but had been persuaded to jump into the Willamette river to overcome his fears, Lifespring denied any responsibility. Fisher quotes Hanley as saying at the time: 'The training doesn't cause anything. Life causes stuff.'
After Lifespring was shuttered in the mid-1990s, a former trainee and owner of a Beverly Hills spa named Margo Majdi bought the rights to the trainings and relaunched the enterprise as MITT.
Roger Morgan, the co-founder and CEO of MITT, told me that while 'times have changed' and the training is 'less militant', it is essentially the same. 'We empower people to be abundant,' he said.
Then, as now, a banner hanging above the stage asks: 'What are you pretending not to know?'
Saturday afternoon found me sitting in my chair with my eyes closed, flailing my arms above my head and screaming at my father. A terrifying noise issued from my mouth and joined the other chilling sounds that filled the room and doubtlessly frightened the other guests of the hotel.
Lee was leading us in a guided meditation to help us reconnect with our innate potential. Earlier he had drawn a crude picture of a smiling baby's face on a sheet of easel pad. This, he said, was how we entered the world, happy and trusting. But then came sadness and disappointment.
As he said this, Lee slashed at the face with his marker. Mean words from mom or dad. Slash, slash. The teacher who didn't believe in you, the sweetheart who betrayed you. Culture. Religion. The word 'no'. Soon the baby's face was all but obscured.
Dead, Lee pronounced.
But now, we were on a journey of resurrection. Lee had led us up a mountain, down a corridor, in and out of closed doors, and we had come at last to a room filled with coffins and there, inside of one, lay our inner child, whom we were called upon to reanimate.
When Lee had presented the idea of rebirth, he had flipped to a clean page on the easel pad. This big white blank represented 'limitless potential'. Maybe it's just the writer in me, but I found the symbol disconcerting: a void of history, social ties and shared meaning. To me, that seemed like the basis of a nervous breakdown, but here it signaled a fresh start. 'Breakthrough occurs through inventing your identity from nothing,' Hanley had wrote, 'not through improving your already entrenched image'.
Our inner children regained, we were prepared to move towards the pinnacle of the training: manifestation. The concept of resurrection is, of course, rich with Christian meaning, but it was the subsequent sessions that bled religiosity. Lee stood on top of a chair with his arms outspread, calling on the room to call in the good life. We should let go and let God, he said. The universe would provide. We all deserve an upgrade, he boomed into the mic while the room snapped their fingers. We are all worthy of first class.
One phrase that got a lot of airtime was the Rumi-attributed quote: 'Live life as if everything is rigged in your favor.' This strand, embraced by 'law of attraction' enthusiasts, has been refashioned as the declarative: 'The universe is rigged in your favor,' and it was repeated with sufficient frequency that by the end of the weekend it was being uttered as a sort of call and response. Lee: 'the universe is …' Cheering participants: ' … rigged in your favor'!
What follows is the faith that you, yes you, can realize whatever love, wealth and opportunity you can dream up. It all boils down to mindset.
It is, on the one hand, a potentially powerful exercise to claim that you deserve more than you have – the raise, the romance, the admiration of peers. But it contains a downright dangerous edge. It's not just the magical thinking (the unemployed 19-year-old telling the room that he's going to 'make a mil' by the end of the year), it is the insistence that if you're not crushing your goals, if the heavens are not raining dollar bills, it is the result of your own lack of faith.
You don't want it strongly enough. You're still bogged down by doubts, fears and cowardice. In other words, you need further training.
On Sunday, the mood in the room was elation. Smiles were wide, guards were down. Strangers no more, it was a room filled with friends and everyone was primed to hear about what was coming next.
'The most important five days of your life', was how advanced training was presented in the course of a two-hour pitch. Everyone was encouraged to sign up then and there – the next round was beginning the following week – and those who did were given the mic to belt out their commitment.
Those who declined or deferred were met with an interrogation. 'Why are you standing in your way?' Lee asked the defectors. Even if you don't have the time off from work, or the childcare, or the money. What was a little debt when you were investing in the rest of your life?
When I first spoke with Morgan, the MITT CEO, he asked that I refrain from writing this piece until I took the advanced course. 'You will write a different story after the advanced training,' he told me. 'You will be a different person.' By foregoing the experience I was foreclosing on joy. 'Trust the old man,' he said, 'Run, don't walk, to advanced.'
The hardest push, to my surprise, came from the leader of my small group, a 27-year-old who impressed me with his unflappable calm and aura of integrity. Now he badgered us to sign on. I realized only after the fact that this was a feature of his role. Those participating in the legacy program and beyond are required to recruit new participants. When they graduate, they are encouraged to staff the trainings.
Morgan described this to me as the gift of service. Staffing, he said, was really the second half of the training.
When I mentioned this to Devin, a 41-year-old I had connected with over social media, who went all the way through the program in 2018, he scoffed. While he had derived a lot of value from the sessions, he disliked the compulsory recruitment and the pressure to work for the company. He had agreed to staff numerous trainings, until that became too time-consuming, 'irritating' and 'exploitive'. The last time Morgan asked him to staff, Devin said: 'I told him to fuck off.'
The resentment is understandable given that all staffers are volunteers, putting in marathon hours for days at a time, with nary so much as a comped lunch. In the room, we were encouraged to applaud the selfless service of the two dozen-odd men and women helping Lee, the master trainer, manage the group. But this is not a scrappy all-hands-on-deck organization. This is a for-profit entity.
Assuming all participants in my basic program paid the standard enrollment fee, the weekend brought in more than $80,000.
In the days after the training, I continued to communicate with my small group and other participants from the course. The collective high was initially palpable. Everyone was going to achieve it all. But as the days passed, the general mood drifted back down to earth, and gradually these channels fell silent.
Keen to understand what I had just gone through, I reached out to John Hunter, a research psychologist at Varsity College in South Africa, who studies what's known as large group awareness trainings (LGATs), such as MITT.
Hunter maintains that even though there are 'hundreds' of LGATs around the world, 'most can be traced back to Lifespring' and its contemporaries. They hinge, he says, on significant stress followed by a social reward, and it is this process that generates the 'transient experience of transformation'.
While most studies of LGATs suggest there are no long-term benefits derived from such trainings, I spoke with several graduates of MITT who felt they had reaped lasting rewards. Many of the benefits they described were intangibles, like confidence and positivity. But they also shared achievements that they linked directly to the training: getting a promotion, leaving an unsatisfying marriage, reconnecting with an estranged sibling.
Kamal, a 42-year-old from Orange county, said MITT gave him 'the confidence to venture into the unknown'. He said that the training exercises served as mirrors. 'Any reservations you're experiencing [in the training] have to do with how you're approaching life. The challenge is to push past the discomfort. You relearn to respond to life rather than react to it.'
I also spoke with those who took issue with the courses. The criticism I heard most often was that any fault found in the program was recast as an individual problem. It was not, for instance, that the trainer was picking on you, it was that you were disengaged and undermining your own development. It was not that the content bordered on woo-woo, it was that you were too jaded to revel in the miracle on offer.
Jose (who requested a pseudonym for privacy) recalled an exercise from his advanced training in which he had to circulate through the room while different groups of people shouted insults at him. 'They were calling me lazy and arrogant and unmotivated,' he said. 'Afterwards I think my guard was up a bit, I was defensive, and my group became relentless in breaking me down. Anything I did, I couldn't be vulnerable enough.'
While Lifespring was swamped by lawsuits, few legal complaints have been lodged against MITT. This might have to do with the fact that the company requires participants to sign a 'hold harmless agreement', in which they agree not to sue MITT and to settle any disputes that arise out of court.
Though the majority of participants appear to emerge unscathed, if not necessarily enlightened, some experts believe that these transformational programs pose real hazards to the psyche. An early assessment of a Lifespring basic by a clinical psychologist and a sociologist concluded that the training was 'essentially pathological'.
Another psychological study of LGAT structures, ominously titled Iron fists/velvet gloves, concluded that the dynamic amounted to an 'attack on the self' and that the resulting 'identity impasse' was resolved only by converting to the organisation.
Hunter, the LGAT researcher, has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Following his own participation in an LGAT, he recognized that it elicited features similar to a hypomanic episode. For some, this looks like elevated mood and ebullient feelings of love and universality. Under adverse conditions, however, these swells can become grandiosity, impulsivity and psychosis.
'You can't just count the hits and ignore the misses,' he said. For the person successfully negotiating a raise or getting a date with someone they admire, 'that's a wonderful story', he said. 'But you've also got to acknowledge that the nature of people taking risks is that some are not going to pay off.'
Vee went through the trainings a decade ago. At the end of the basic course she said she 'noticed the hard sell', but said, 'you're in a dopamine rush by that last day, and everyone is telling you to commit with your group, to not let your group down. They really push you. It's like a timeshare sell.'
She credits MITT with helping her re-evaluate certain behaviors and strengthen her primary relationship. However, after several years of therapy she now believes the program was 'extremely dangerous' and often left people 'raw and open and vulnerable' without proper support. 'I'm so upset thinking about it even now,' she told me. 'All the people I know who ended up in a worse place. The broken relationships, broken marriages.'
In the end, she believes the main motive is profit. There were no true believers at the top. 'They break you down, then bring you back up, so you can give them money.'
Indeed, when my basic cohort was talking about what they wished to manifest, several people said that what they wanted above all was to be the coach in that very same room. Throughout the weekend, coaches were presented as though deities; Tony Robbins was invoked in the same breath as Martin Luther King Jr.
Ostensibly, the role of the coach is to empower people. But as my weekend peers proclaimed their dreams, I stumbled over the underlying irony. To be convinced that you should reach for your untapped greatness, you have to first be convinced of your existing lack.
When I asked Hunter whether it was all about money, he said that profit was part of it, but so was power. 'I think if you want to be seen as a god, then there's no better way than to be a leader in one of these organizations.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I've moved 28 times in my lifetime. This is the story of a new America
I've moved 28 times in my lifetime. This is the story of a new America

The Guardian

time4 hours ago

  • The Guardian

I've moved 28 times in my lifetime. This is the story of a new America

My special talent: I can survey any room in a house and accurately estimate how many cardboard boxes and spools of bubble wrap are needed to efficiently contain its contents. I wish it wasn't a personal point of distinction, but I can't escape it: I've lived in 28 homes in 46 years. In my middle-class midwestern family, two rules reigned: you never questioned going to Catholic Mass on Sundays, and you never asked why we kept moving – the only answer was always the same: 'It's for your dad's job.' And so we followed him, the car-top carrier on our wood-trimmed station wagon bursting with clothing, mix tapes and soccer cleats as our eyes fixed on passing cornfields. Being jostled between addresses became the defining characteristic of my coming-of-age 1990s girlhood. I'm now 46, and I can't seem to stay in one home longer than a handful of years. That same geographical stability I craved as a child has become an emotional confinement. I'm terrified to make an offer on another house; it would signal permanence in a body pulsating with restlessness. I used to think our constant moves were just a quirk of my family – but we were part of something bigger. In the 1970s and 1980s, Americans were on the move. A shifting economy, two-income pressures, and corporate relocations made motion feel like progress. We weren't just packing boxes – we were absorbing a national ethos that told us movement was advancement, even if it left us unmoored. My story started in seventh grade. I was a target for bullies with a pimpled face and thick, frizzy hair. Puberty shot me into a frame like my grandma's – 5ft9in, solid bones, size 10 shoes – so when my parents sat us down on the couch for a 'family meeting' the summer before eighth grade and said we were moving from rural Missouri to suburban Chicago, I was excited to escape the ridicule of the popular boys. Mom was a homemaker and Dad the breadwinner; she didn't put up a fuss about the move. My parents married days after they graduated from Ohio State because Dad had a job offer in Baltimore and Mom couldn't go unless they wed. They never had time for wanderlust, and I now sometimes wonder if she wanted an adventure or loathed it. As I started in my new school, my parents blessed me with prescription-strength face cream and let me throw a party in our basement. I invited all 59 kids in the eighth grade class – branding myself the 'fun new girl'. It worked and soon I found myself singing Soul Asylum lyrics into a hairbrush along with my new besties at a sleepover. Meanwhile, my mom became obsessed with our new neighborhood in Naperville, an idyllic suburb of Chicago. She raved about the riverwalk and every other upper-middle class touch we hadn't experienced previously. I loved it too. I started high school the following year with a large contingent of friends, playing basketball and soccer. Then, the summer before sophomore year: another family meeting. We were moving back to Missouri. I sobbed for weeks, devastated to leave the first life that felt like mine. I still remember looking out the back window of our minivan as my mom blasted Carole King's Tapestry as we headed south on I-55. The cumulative stress of relocating during critical developmental stages can impact kids later in life, according to a 2024 study published by JAMA Psychiatry. People who moved more than once between the ages of 10 and 15 were 61% more likely to experience depression in adulthood. This data wasn't just inked in journals; it lived in me. And like a suitcase full of unresolved attachment issues, at 14 I carried these experiences with cramped hands. It informed my understanding of permanence: that true safety was an illusion, that stability was always conditional, that the only reliable way to cope with discomfort was to disappear from it. The day before senior year started, I walked into the house to my mom frantically packing boxes. After two years of trying desperately to get us back to Naperville, my dad had a new job there and we needed to leave later that day – in time for my brother to start his freshman year of high school in the morning. I can still feel myself hyperventilating between the kitchen table and the bay window, wedging myself metaphorically into that house during an epic meltdown. But, the family motto, though never stated, was clear: keep moving. Between ages 13 and 18, I went to five schools in five years and lived in even more houses. My reality was a microcosm of a broader psychological truth: that instability during formative years can shape how we see ourselves long after the packing tape is ripped off the last box. Other longterm studies have found similar links to lower life satisfaction. Beyond being more prone to depression, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that people who moved frequently as children tended to have lower life satisfaction and poorer psychological well-being as adults. The research, which followed over 7,000 American adults for 10 years, found a direct link between the number of childhood moves and lower reported well-being, even when accounting for other factors like age and education. In young adulthood, my instincts gravitated toward fierce friendships – the chosen family that defined my college years and early 20s. Earning an entry-level wage I expected impermanence in the big city, although while scraping together rent with my friends, my singular dream was a husband, kids, and the white picket fence I never claimed in youth. I was determined to affix myself to a permanent address. I married the first man who asked at age 29. I bought us a condo in 2007, six months before we got divorced and a minute before the infamous 'big short' caused the housing market to burst. Everyone had said real estate was a sure-fire investment for the long term, but living in my one-bedroom marital condo alone felt like PTSD. I eventually saved enough to sell in 2014, bringing money to the closing table just to get out of the 'investment' meant to be a stepping stone to suburbia. By the early 2000s, job transfers and economic instability had made geographic permanence feel almost quaint. Raised on the promise of 'Home Sweet Home,' my generation entered adulthood expecting sanctuary and instead dodged stereotypical landmines of economic precarity and unbalanced cognitive labor. According to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, homebuying rates for Gen X and older millennials have lagged behind previous generations, squeezed today by high interest rates and low desirable inventory. The dual-income household, framed as a pragmatic necessity, has metastasized into a common storyline on a TV series – one where home functions less as a haven and more as a finely-tuned productivity engine, but with an abundance of decorative throw pillows for aesthetics. It's not that the dream of the stable home disappeared – it just started charging an untenable monthly rent. In my mid-30s I faced the unstable market by renting a no-frills, fourth-floor walk-up whose memory still charms. My second husband wooed me away four years later, and this time to the state of nirvana I'd always wanted: the 'forever' home in the suburban cul-de-sac perfectly perched up on that hill. So, we overpaid, and I affixed his kids' artwork to the fridge with magnets that boasted 'Home Sweet Home' and 'family forever'. The marriage wouldn't last. Within three years the 'for sale' sign erected in the front yard would again be a marker that I failed to do the one thing in life I wanted more than anything: to stay. I didn't know how to pack the feeling of loss, so I took it with me after draining my savings account once more for an unfavorable sale to a new family. I inked a deal in 2018 on a condo in downtown Chicago, on the same street of my former favorite apartment. But the pandemic, losing my cat, getting laid off, and miscarrying the one successful pregnancy I ever had all within six months led me to sell the condo I had mortgaged at a sub-3% interest rate so I could lower my expenses. Today I live in a dark, garden-level apartment, contemplating what Sigmund Freud called 'repetition compulsion' – the tendency to unconsciously repeat traumatic events or patterns of behavior from the past even if they are unfulfilling. I seem to be pining for a life I can't materialize. It is my pre-move childhood: the stale smell of the rarely-washed couch blanket we all used, the sound of my friends bouncing a basketball on the driveway, the waft of cigarette smoke from the kitchen when my parents had their friends over for cards. If the walls had veins they'd pulse to the energy of pizza night, intermittent shouts of 'Uno!' and that indescribable chaos when the only thing that outnumbers the dishwasher cycles are the friends and neighbors stepping through the foyer. But every attempt to find this pulls me further away from settling into the present. I can't imagine how to create a happy life for myself without that feeling of family I've been trying to replicate. I've lost tens of thousands of dollars on real estate and even more in self-assurance. My body carries every goodbye out a minivan window more acutely than my conscious mind. If I do emotionally commit again to an address, it might be ripped away. I want to know that true belonging isn't a myth. I often wonder what affixing my restless energy to another permanent address will do to the animal living inside of me – all she knows how to do is advance! advance! advance! What if, like motherhood, I simply missed out on the American dream? Is home ownership another childhood entitlement I need to blow into an imaginary balloon and watch gently float above my open hand? As I face a housing market with low inventory at high prices and outrageous interest rates, I consider the paradox of my packing talent. It's easy for me to stow things away, but I need courage for an internal move – to fully unpack where I am right now and finally just build a life already.

Broken altimeter, ignored warnings: Hearings reveal what went wrong in DC crash that killed 67
Broken altimeter, ignored warnings: Hearings reveal what went wrong in DC crash that killed 67

The Independent

time8 hours ago

  • The Independent

Broken altimeter, ignored warnings: Hearings reveal what went wrong in DC crash that killed 67

Over three days of sometimes contentious hearings this week, the National Transportation Safety Board interrogated Federal Aviation Administration and Army officials about a list of things that went wrong and contributed to a Black Hawk helicopter and a passenger jet colliding over Washington, D.C., killing 67 people. The biggest revelations: The helicopter's altimeter gauge was broken, and controllers warned the FAA years earlier about the dangers that helicopters presented. At one point NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy scolded the FAA for not addressing safety concerns. 'Are you kidding me? Sixty-seven people are dead! How do you explain that? Our bureaucratic process?' she said. 'Fix it. Do better.' Victims of the January crash included a group of elite young figure skaters, their parents and coaches and four union steamfitters from the Washington area. Here is a look at the major takeaways from the hearings about the collision, which alarmed travelers before a string of other crashes and close calls this year added to their worries about flying: The helicopter's altimeter was wrong The helicopter was flying at 278 feet (85 meters) — well above the 200-foot (61-meter) ceiling on that route — when it collided with the airliner. But investigators said the pilots might not have realized that because the barometric altimeter they were relying on was reading 80 to 100 feet (24 to 30 meters) lower than the altitude registered by the flight data recorder. The NTSB subsequently found similar discrepancies in the altimeters of three other helicopters from the same unit. An expert with Sikorsky, which makes the Black Hawks, said the one that crashed was an older model that lacked the air data computers that make for more accurate altitude readings in newer versions. Army Chief Warrant Officer Kylene Lewis told the board that an 80- to 100-foot (24- to 30-meter) discrepancy between the different altimeters on a helicopter would not be alarming, because at lower altitudes she would be relying more on the radar altimeter than the barometric altimeter. Plus Army pilots strive to stay within 100 feet (30 meters) of target altitude on flights, so they could still do that even with their altimeters that far off. But Rick Dressler of medevac operator Metro Aviation told the NTSB that imprecision would not fly with his helicopters. When a helicopter route like the one the Black Hawk was flying that night includes an altitude limit, Dressler said, his pilots consider that a hard ceiling. FAA and Army defend actions, shift blame Both tried to deflect responsibility for the crash, but the testimony highlighted plenty of things that might have been done differently. The NTSB's final report will be done next year, but there likely will not be one single cause identified for the crash. 'I think it was a week of reckoning for the FAA and the U.S. Army in this accident,' aviation safety consultant and former crash investigator Jeff Guzzetti said. Army officials said the greater concern is that the FAA approved routes around Ronald Reagan International Airport with separation distances as small as 75 feet (23 meters) between helicopters and planes when planes are landing on a certain runway at Reagan. 'The fact that we have less than 500-foot separation is a concern for me,' said Scott Rosengren, chief engineer in the office that manages the Army's utility helicopters. Army Chief Warrant Officer David Van Vechten said he was surprised the air traffic controller let the helicopter proceed while the airliner was circling to land at Reagan's secondary runway, which is used when traffic for the main runway stacks up and accounts for about 5% of flights. Van Vechten said he was never allowed to fly under a landing plane as the Black Hawk did, but only a handful of the hundreds of times he flew that route involved planes landing on that runway. Other pilots in the unit told crash investigators it was routine to be directed to fly under landing planes, and they believed that was safe if they stuck to the approved route. Frank McIntosh, the head of the FAA's air traffic control organization, said he thinks controllers at Reagan 'were really dependent upon the use of visual separation' to keep traffic moving through the busy airspace. The NTSB said controllers repeatedly said they would just 'make it work.' They sometimes used 'squeeze plays' to land planes with minimal separation. On the night of the crash, a controller twice asked the helicopter pilots whether they had the jet in sight, and the pilots said they did and asked for visual separation approval so they could use their own eyes to maintain distance. Testimony at the hearing raised serious questions about how well the crew could spot the plane while wearing night vision goggles and whether the pilots were even looking in the right spot. The controller acknowledged in an interview that the plane's pilots were never warned when the helicopter was on a collision path, but controllers did not think telling the plane would have made a difference at that point. The plane was descending to land and tried to pull up at the last second after getting a warning in the cockpit, but it was too late. FAA was warned about the dangers of helicopter traffic in D.C. An FAA working group tried to get a warning added to helicopter charts back in 2022 urging pilots to use caution whenever the secondary runway was in use, but the agency refused. The working group said 'helicopter operations are occurring in a proximity that has triggered safety events. These events have been trending in the wrong direction and increasing year over year.' Separately, a different group at the airport discussed moving the helicopter route, but those discussions did not go anywhere. And a manager at a regional radar facility in the area urged the FAA in writing to reduce the number of planes taking off and landing at Reagan because of safety concerns. The NTSB has also said the FAA failed to recognize a troubling history of 85 near misses around Reagan in the three years before the collision, NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said 'every sign was there that there was a safety risk and the tower was telling you that.' But after the accident, the FAA transferred managers out of the airport instead of acknowledging that they had been warned. 'What you did is you transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem,' Homendy said. 'But you guys are pointing out, 'Welp, our bureaucratic process. Somebody should have brought it up at some other symposium.'' ___

The 5 signs your marriage is failing – and how to save it, from a top divorce lawyer
The 5 signs your marriage is failing – and how to save it, from a top divorce lawyer

The Sun

time9 hours ago

  • The Sun

The 5 signs your marriage is failing – and how to save it, from a top divorce lawyer

In the UK, around 42% of marriages end in divorce.* Knowing the warning signs while things are still unravelling can make the difference between beating those odds or your relationship coming to an end. 6 "You can learn a lot about keeping things together by watching how they fall apart," says James Sexton, New York divorce lawyer and author of How Not To F**k Up Your Marriage. "I've had hundreds of people sitting across from me telling me very candidly what went wrong in their marriage." Through decades of conversations with divorcing clients, James has identified ways to "reverse-engineer" failing relationships and bring back the joy that first sparked them. Of course, for some married people, he admits divorce can be the best option. "The goal isn't to stay miserably married," he says. "I don't see marriage as an endurance race. "The goal is for marriage to add value to us, to help deepen our connection to ourselves, to the world, to each other, to our family." Here, James shares his biggest predictors that your marriage will fail, and tells you exactly what to do to save it. You've stopped noticing your partner 6 "If I could give one piece of advice to anyone in relationships, it would be two words: pay attention," says James. "It's so easy to stop seeing your partner because they're there all the time, and to stop hearing them because they're always talking around you." When we stop noticing our partners, we don't show them they're appreciated. "Feeling love towards someone is great, but acting towards that person with love is important." Relationship expert shares three tell-tale signs your relationship is falling apart James uses the example of a client who realised her relationship was over when her husband stopped buying her favourite granola, which was only available in one shop. "Every time I ran out, there would just be a new bag," James' client told him, explaining that she felt loved every time she saw it. "Then, one day, the granola ran out. He didn't replace it." How to fix it: Only you know – or should do – the small things your partner loves. Keep doing them to show your other half you always remember them. For James, that means sprinkling cinnamon on his partner's morning coffee. For her, it means sharing a picture with James whenever she lands at the airport after a trip. It could be leaving a thoughtful note in the morning before leaving for work. "This tells someone: 'I still like you, I'm thinking of you.' It's such a low-percentage investment," says James. Plus, it often leads to reciprocity. Criticism is a reflex 6 Criticism makes your partner clam up and get defensive. It can cause any problem to snowball – and that includes constructive criticism. James says: "I'm not saying that when our partner is doing something we think should be changed for their good, or for the good of the relationship, that we shouldn't do something about it." However, being able to see your partner as your own personal cheerleader and a safe space from the daily criticisms of the workplace or general hardship, is how relationships thrive. How to fix it: "Raise the positive," says James. "Try to shift your partner's behaviour or perspective in a way that doesn't feel like criticism." That means reinforcing positive behaviour through compliments, rather than focusing on the negative behaviour you want to see altered. James gives the example that if you prefer your partner freshly shaven, rather than endlessly telling them how much you hate their stubble, wait until they have just shaved and pile on the compliments, avoiding criticism and creating a sense of closeness. You've lost yourself 6 Something James always hears people say when they're getting divorced is: "I lost myself in this relationship, I don't remember who I am any more." When we spend all our time with one person or only act in one role (as a wife and/or a mother), it is easy to lose sight of our own wants and needs. Long-term, this can fuel resentment and complacency. "Part of the fun of another person is the mystery of them," says James. "It's really fun to be interested and interesting." Maintaining a life and identity outside your relationship can help keep this interest alive and build deeper connections. How to fix it: Dedicate time to yourself. "Learn something from happily divorced people – there is time when you're the parent, time when you're a single person, time for all those multitudes inside you. You don't have to give up a relationship to have that." Allow yourself that Saturday once a month to go and do the thing you love. Monogamy has become monotonous 6 You know what you like, and you do it every time – is it any wonder you don't do it that much then? "Even with good intentions, people ruin their own sex lives when they are monogamous," says James. "I'm a fan of monogamy, but I think that people unintentionally make monogamy into monotony." When you figure out what your partner enjoys in the bedroom, things become more "efficient" and sex becomes routine. How to fix it: Switching things up sexually can be tricky when you've already established the script of your relationship. James says that telling your partner outright what you wish you had more of in bed can feel like criticism. Instead, he suggests finding ways to talk about your sex life indirectly. "One of the things I suggest is saying: 'Oh my god! I had a sex dream about you last night,'" says James. And using that as a way to share your fantasy. If your partner doesn't seem on board, this also gives you space to backtrack. "It's a dishonesty, but one with really honest intentions – the intention is deepening connection, sharing our authenticity with our partner in a strategic way." You're not doing relationship maintenance 6 Amid the gestures of goodwill and intimacy chats, James says the strongest marriages also continuously evaluate and address any issues as they arise. Otherwise, you run the risk of letting things reach crisis point before realising a lot of work needs to be done. "Preventative maintenance is everything, it should really be the subtitle for my book," says James. "It's a whole lot easier to keep something good than it is to let it fall apart and then try to fix it. "It's really easy to maintain your weight, it's much harder to gain a load of weight then try to lose it. "Think of it like having the oil changed on your car – it's not sexy, it's not complicated." How to fix it: You can make working on your relationship a conscious practice by checking in with one another on a regular basis, and being curious about what role you can play in improving your relationship. James suggests going on a "walk and talk" regularly with your partner, where you can share things that made you feel loved that week and any issues that arose. "It's kind of a praise sandwich, with some good alongside things to work on," he says.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store