regional jet crash? (American Airlines) at Reagan (DCA)

190,054 Views | 1557 Replies | Last: 18 hrs ago by titan
SirDippinDots
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19a, 1/30/25
To me this is an ATC screw up unless one of the aircraft was violating ATC instructions.

Telling the helicopter to look out for an approaching aircraft is crap.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Reply Quote
6
AviatorAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Marauder Blue 6 • 5:35a, 1/30/25
AG
Marauder Blue 6 said:
Interesting analysis.



This is the most likely scenario. It's a shame that folks want to believe conspiracy instead of logical reasoning but I suppose it is what it is. Once the UH 60 pilot confirmed visual separation, ATC took them at their word and had no need for further guidance regarding this particular interaction. The UH60 likely felt comfortable since they had visual on the traffic. Unfortunately the traffic they had visual on, was wrong.

Of course this is simply conjecture until the final report by FAA and NTSB, but it's what the video, audio, and flight aware data all point toward.
Reply Quote
8
SirDippinDots
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie95 • 5:36a, 1/30/25
Aggie95 said:
bmks270 said:
Webcam filmed the collision.




That video sure makes it look like HC error. Appears hc crossed into landing path. How did they not see the jet


How is ATC not giving the HC instructions with a plane making an approach for landing? This is ATC screw up.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SirDippinDots • 5:38a, 1/30/25
AG
I don't think it's unusual for helicopters to fly that route though, including with visual separation guidance. The airspace around there is incredibly tightly controlled, and flying in and out of Andrews almost necessitates they fly up the Potomac often.

And every time I've ever landed at Reagan (going back over 40+ years) I have never seen the airport until the runway suddenly appears beneath almost instantaneous with touchdown (always as a passenger of course). Partly I think due to the airspace limitations but also for noise abatement they route the planes coming in basically over the river I think for many miles.
Reply Quote
1
fire09
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SirDippinDots • 5:39a, 1/30/25
AG
No. VFR deconflict was confirmed, ATC moves on to the next task. It's pilot's responsibility at that point forward. I just listened to the audio and it's clear that the 60 confirmed separation, meaning his responsibility to maintain.
Reply Quote
6
SirDippinDots
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AviatorAg • 5:40a, 1/30/25
AviatorAg said:
Marauder Blue 6 said:
Interesting analysis.



This is the most likely scenario. It's a shame that folks want to believe conspiracy instead of logical reasoning but I suppose it is what it is. Once the UH 60 pilot confirmed visual separation, ATC took them at their word and had no need for further guidance regarding this particular interaction. The UH60 likely felt comfortable since they had visual on the traffic. Unfortunately the traffic they had visual on, was wrong.

Of course this is simply conjecture until the final report by FAA and NTSB, but it's what the video, audio, and flight aware data all point toward.


ATC has no business taking them at their word. ATC is there to give specific instructions regarding heading, altitude, speed and clearance, their job is not to say lookout and move onto something else.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Reply Quote
2
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AviatorAg • 5:40a, 1/30/25
AviatorAg said:
Marauder Blue 6 said:
Interesting analysis.



This is the most likely scenario. It's a shame that folks want to believe conspiracy instead of logical reasoning but I suppose it is what it is. Once the UH 60 pilot confirmed visual separation, ATC took them at their word and had no need for further guidance regarding this particular interaction. The UH60 likely felt comfortable since they had visual on the traffic. Unfortunately the traffic they had visual on, was wrong.

Of course this is simply conjecture until the final report by FAA and NTSB, but it's what the video, audio, and flight aware data all point toward.


But wouldn't they have been getting the collision alert alarm?
Reply Quote
2
SirDippinDots
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fire09 • 5:44a, 1/30/25
fire09 said:
No. VFR deconflict was confirmed, ATC moves on to the next task. It's pilot's responsibility at that point forward. I just listened to the audio and it's clear that the 60 confirmed separation, meaning his responsibility to maintain.


And that is why this happened. Multiple aircraft from different directions. That is why we have ATC. This is like the SS saying the roof was too sloped or 140 yards was out of their security zone.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Reply Quote
2
jagged
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tramp96 • 5:48a, 1/30/25
AG
Some folks said TCAS may be suppressed at low altitude. Don't know if that is accurate.

For confirming traffic I don't know about them mistaking one flight for another. Those flights would be miles apart to maintain separation and the call would be like 'Traffic is 11 o'clock 2 miles' or whatever.
Reply Quote
fire09
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SirDippinDots • 5:51a, 1/30/25
AG
Not a comparable analogy at all. You seem emotional, suggest you read the CFR rules on separation in controlled airspace under VFR. Once the intersecting pilot confirms visual separation, it falls on him to maintain that. I initially was under the impression that the 60 pilot didn't respond, in which it would have been the responsibility of ATC to deconflict the inbound.
Reply Quote
6
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:53a, 1/30/25
AG

Juan Brown initial analysis video


plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54a, 1/30/25
AG
Quote:
AirlineRatings CEO Sharon Petersen stated, "Airlines are equipped with Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) and in some cases significantly more advanced tools compared to helicopters. In areas where helicopters and airlines operate in close proximity, it is the responsibility of helicopters to avoid the flight paths of airlines, not the other way around. Based on the information available at this time, it appears the incident may have been caused by the helicopter. As such, we will not be lowering the safety rating of American Airlines at this stage."

https://www.airlineratings.com/articles/american-airlines-crash--many-feared-dead
Reply Quote
2
jopatura
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jagged • 5:56a, 1/30/25
AG
The other flight was coming at them almost straight on. 5342 was behind them and the eventual strike path was < shaped. I could easily see the helo getting visual on the wrong plane, assumed the plane was descending for the announced landing, helo pilots gaining altitude to eventually clear them thus smacking into 5342.

Others have said the culture in the area is military helo's do whatever they want within some parameters, so if flying at 350' was the easiest decision, even though it was supposed to be capped at 200', that's what they are going to do.
Reply Quote
5
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:01a, 1/30/25
AG
I'm sorry but that helicopter should have never been on a course to cross that arrival flight path. ATC should have prevented it from taking that course. Period. It's just too busy out there.
Reply Quote
13
Aggie Therapist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:02a, 1/30/25
AG
My buddies and I are in a group chat.

One is a commercial airline Pilot and the other is Blackhawk pilot.

Both agree that the UH/60 pilots were in the wrong on this one. Helo was conducting NVG training.

Some pilots prefer "unaided" visual while going through the city.

Which I can see why, I have done a night mission before on a Blackhawk as an infantryman . I remember throwing my NVGs on and the picture was so blinding.


Reply Quote
16
AviatorAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SirDippinDots • 6:04a, 1/30/25
AG
SirDippinDots said:


ATC has no business taking them at their word.


Oh boy.. yeah I'm not even gonna bother with a response to this. You clearly have no experience piloting an aircraft or working in a control tower.
Reply Quote
61
torrid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 6:15a, 1/30/25
AG
Rockdoc said:
I'm sorry but that helicopter should have never been on a course to cross that arrival flight path. ATC should have prevented it from taking that course. Period. It's just too busy out there.
Juan Brown's video indicates this is a common practice. Maybe not a good one, but not unusual.
Reply Quote
1
jpb1999
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:15a, 1/30/25
AG
So how many people were on the AA flight? Known yet?
_________________________________________

Spane Bohem


Reply Quote
fire09
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jpb1999 • 6:15a, 1/30/25
AG
60+4 crew
Reply Quote
5
panamamyers00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to torrid • 6:19a, 1/30/25
That's the key. Lots of things were common practice at one point that have now been superseded by better practices. I'm afraid this is one of those things this crash will have people taking a look at to see if there is a better practice to make become common.
Reply Quote
3
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to torrid • 6:25a, 1/30/25
AG
torrid said:
Rockdoc said:
I'm sorry but that helicopter should have never been on a course to cross that arrival flight path. ATC should have prevented it from taking that course. Period. It's just too busy out there.
Juan Brown's video indicates this is a common practice. Maybe not a good one, but not unusual.

Helicopter exceeded it's 200' ceiling and crashed into the jet at ~375'. If so it's a stupid 'practice'.
Reply Quote
9
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to torrid • 6:26a, 1/30/25
AG
torrid said:
Rockdoc said:
I'm sorry but that helicopter should have never been on a course to cross that arrival flight path. ATC should have prevented it from taking that course. Period. It's just too busy out there.
Juan Brown's video indicates this is a common practice. Maybe not a good one, but not unusual.

Yes I know. Juan is one of my favorites.
Reply Quote
1
MidlandOil$
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BoxingAg84 • 6:28a, 1/30/25
BoxingAg84 said:


I mean damn…here's the problem right here. Video and all.
Unfortunately this was bound to happen. Preventable absolutely but it's a numbers game. Our skies are crowded and sadly every so often there is going to be an accident.
Reply Quote
8
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Therapist • 6:29a, 1/30/25
Aggie Therapist said:
Helo was conducting NVG training.
I'm sorry - NVG training in proximity of a commercial airport? That is beyond blindingly stupid if true.
Reply Quote
31
Wabs
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Therapist • 6:39a, 1/30/25
AG
Aggie Therapist said:
My buddies and I are in a group chat.

One is a commercial airline Pilot and the other is Blackhawk pilot.

Both agree that the UH/60 pilots were in the wrong on this one. Helo was conducting NVG training.

Some pilots prefer "unaided" visual while going through the city.

Which I can see why, I have done a night mission before on a Blackhawk as an infantryman . I remember throwing my NVGs on and the picture was so blinding.


Former helo pilot (military) here. We ALWAYS took our NVGs off in the city. I've flown in the DC area at night and it's damn near impossible to see anything with NVGs on.
Reply Quote
34
Wearer of the Ring
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:41a, 1/30/25
AG
Maybe a dumb question from an igmo. (me) Why did the ATC ask the helo pilot if he could "see the CJT". I mean think of looking down a road at night at approaching car's head lights. Why ask yourself if you can avoid that Tundra? How could you ever know what it was? Its just a pair of very bright lights? Unless he has some kind of radar screen that ids it that way perhaps? But if they are were doing visual flight training then maybe he's not looking at that screen. I dont know. just seemed odd to me. Why not just tell the guy to turn left?
Reply Quote
sts7049
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to panamamyers00 • 6:51a, 1/30/25
AG
panamamyers00 said:
That's the key. Lots of things were common practice at one point that have now been superseded by better practices. I'm afraid this is one of those things this crash will have people taking a look at to see if there is a better practice to make become common.
this is the only way we adjust, unfortunately. humans fail to truly recognize risk until the unthinkable actually happens
Reply Quote
1
torrid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:59a, 1/30/25
AG
Unfortunately this is just the way DC airspace is. Restricted areas, lots of helicopters shuttling VIPs, and a busy close-in airport which is much more convenient for travelers than Dulles.
Reply Quote
6
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jopatura • 7:06a, 1/30/25
jopatura said:
The other flight was coming at them almost straight on. 5342 was behind them and the eventual strike path was < shaped. I could easily see the helo getting visual on the wrong plane, assumed the plane was descending for the announced landing, helo pilots gaining altitude to eventually clear them thus smacking into 5342.

Others have said the culture in the area is military helo's do whatever they want within some parameters, so if flying at 350' was the easiest decision, even though it was supposed to be capped at 200', that's what they are going to do.


I have no experience flying, but I will say this to your point about military logistics:

When I was in the Merchant Marine, Navy ships didn't give an eff about the navigation rules of the road. They constantly broke rules, threatened vessels that wouldn't move for them, and generally caused mayhem in tight spaces. While I don't know if that's the case here, the "do whatever they want" attitude has led to a lot of problems over the years.
Reply Quote
8
The Kraken
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:06a, 1/30/25
AG
Looking at the video and photos. I find it hard to believe there are any survivors from that crash....not buying the earlier reports in this thread. Not the way that jet hit the water.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Reply Quote
4
akaggie05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Kraken • 7:14a, 1/30/25
AG
No survivors. Everyone on the thread was getting hung up on radio traffic referencing "patients" instead of "bodies," but if you listened closely, the "patients" were all being taken to the "north boathouse" which is a fire station on the airport grounds. It was a morgue staging area.
Reply Quote
7
CDUB98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:17a, 1/30/25
AG
This sucks. Worst case scenario.
Reply Quote
3
infinity ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:20a, 1/30/25
"No survivors expected".

I thought 4 people were saved yesterday according to news reports.
Reply Quote
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to annie88 • 7:22a, 1/30/25
annie88 said:
That's scary. I flew internationally into that airport last year and then down to Houston. I fly a lot and I never really think about the dangers. They're still way less than cars, but it can be scary when they happen.

Actually, no I didn't, sorry I went through Dulles.

But this is horrible.

Correct- Washington Dulles IAD is for international flights.

Washington Reagan National for domestic.

I have flown in and out of there a dozen times over the years and used to live right across the Potomac from the airport in Southwest Marina DC (back when it was crappy)

there was a crash into the Potomac back during Reagan during the winter which was even more awful.
Reply Quote
CDUB98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to infinity ag • 7:24a, 1/30/25
AG
infinity ag said:
"No survivors expected".

I thought 4 people were saved yesterday according to news reports.
Early report. Should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.