Thursday 30th January 2025 Reagan Airport Washington DC – Fatal Mid Air collision.
At around 8.50 pm, an American Airlines Bombardier CRJ regional jet on approach to Reagan airport, was involved in a collision with a US Army Blackhawk helicopter. Both aircraft crashed into the cold Potomac river; there are no survivors. We await the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary report, which will follow within 30 days but information available now, suggests that the cause involved the mixing of radar controlled civil airline traffic, with visually separated military traffic.
Information emerging from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suggests that staffing levels at the Air Traffic Control (ATC) centre was below normal levels for the time of day and traffic levels. If, as is suggested, that that means one controller was handling two functions, then it would impose a much higher workload on the controller on duty, who was already dealing with a complex situation.
It is common at this airport to have multiple runways in operation for arrivals and departures whilst other aircraft are positioning to land, with a possible landing runway change during a late stage of the approach. Whist all this is in progress, low level helicopter traffic passes through the area to and from the Pentagon and other nearby US government facilities. There are designated routes and altitude limits to allow the heli traffic to operate whilst airliners land and depart the airport runways, which should ensure safe seperation.
What we hear on the recording of the ATC transmissions is the military helicopter crew saying, “requesting visual separation,” after being told of the CRJ on approach to runway 33. This was granted by the controller and in principle this reduces his workload in doing so, as responsibility for separation now passes to the Helicopter crew.
The Heli crew were apparently on a routine night operations qualification renewal and may have been using Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) which provide enhanced light reception but may limit field of vision and are usually monochrome. Useful for a pilot attempting to land in a dark field but overwhelmingly bright in a well lit environment. I tried a pair many years ago whilst flying over the Saudi desert at night, supporting the British army in Iraq, when a heli pilot riding with us offered me his NVGs to try. I was astonished at the number of lights that leaped into view that had previously been invisible but to look into the cockpit, with its normal light levels, was overwhelming. Possibly that was part of the training exercise – if indeed they were in use – but I have to wonder if this, as well as distraction in a training environment, helped to confuse what the Heli pilots thought they saw?
Aside from this however, is the general principle of mixing visual traffic with instrument (under radar control) traffic, especially in high density environments. It is all too common in the US and has resulted in accidents in the past; this practice is rare in Europe. Throw in night operations and we then add another layer of difficulty and therefore risk. What the Heli pilots were attempting to do, was to firstly identify the jet traffic they are trying to stay clear of and then judge, visually, where they needed to put themselves to be a safe distance from it. Altitude and distance is notoriously difficult to judge at night, as many relative visual clues are absent.
The heli pilots would have to base their identification of the CRJ firstly on where ATC told them it was and then acquire the traffic visually against a mass of other lights; on the ground and other aircraft joining and departing Reagan’s runways. They would not see the outline of the CRJ, just it’s lights and if they were already on a collision course towards it, they would be on a constant bearing. One thing that pilots and mariners learn early on, is that if you have another vessel that remains on a constant bearing relative to you, then you will eventually meet at the same point. The important factor in this case, is that that would make the CRJ stationary in their field of vision, similar to lights on the ground.
Did the Heli pilots ,“identify,” the wrong aircraft? Then hold the course they thought would obey the ATC instruction to, “pass behind….” Only to find at the last second that the conflicting traffic suddenly fills the windshield? Also, training flights can involve distraction as the instructor interacts with the trainee and this has been a factor in other crashes. Pure speculation of course but it should be considered. All those involved will have been highly trained individuals and probably very experienced as well and so we can dismiss the moronic suggestion made by president Trump that people of poor ability due to FAA hiring policies, for what it is. Base ignorance of the subject and political point scoring of a very dubious nature that pre-judges the victims of this tragedy. And I count the controller in this category, as it will be a life changing event for him. I hope he is treated fairly and not made a scapegoat. You do not qualify as a controller without meeting very demanding criteria.
If staffing levels were an issue, then it is an indication that an old problem is yet to be resolved. In my book “Confessions of an Airline pilot – Why Planes Crash” there is a whole chapter on ATC and tragically, it describes two other examples of understaffed ATC facilities and a controller who was overloaded with the resultant tragedy of many deaths. It is all the more poignant when we remember that these two events took place in 2002 and 2006, the latter also in the USA.
One reason – out of many – that makes flying so safe, is that commercial aircraft usually operate in controlled airspace that is not open to any other aircraft. All traffic in that area – be it a long distance airway or a terminal area at an airport – is both on a flight plan notified to the controller/s in advance, displays the required information to the radar system via the aircraft transponder and that the controller will ensure their safe separation from other traffic and in certain circumstances, like approach, safe separation from terrain as well.
In cases where an airliner needs to land or take off at an airport that is not in protected airspace, usually a radar service will still be available as well as other procedures to protect heavier, faster aircraft. Airports such as that, will be unlikely to be very busy anyway and so it is a different set of circumstances to this case. Using see and avoid is a crude method and can surprise even light aircraft pilots flying at low speed.
The NTSB will produce a preliminary report fairly soon but it will take much longer for the full and detailed report. The fact that the flight recorders have been recovered, will probably only provide part of the picture as it is quite possible that the CRJ crew were unaware that the heli was so close and probably never saw it. What is recorded on the Blackhawk I cannot say. Military operators do not always advertise what is fitted to their aircraft and they are not subject to the requirement to have voice and data recorders that civil airliners must. The radar trace and the recording of the ATC conversation will be of great interest to investigators.
The NTSB will make recommendations in their report, as they have many times on other issues over the years. Sadly these recommendations are not always followed up or enacted; especially on pilot fatigue and rules governing their working hours. This would incur extra costs to the airlines in hiring the number of crews per aircraft for their operations and the US is a free market environment, where restrictive rules on business are not welcomed.. ATC controllers are mostly hired by the FAA and am I cynical to wonder if cost may also be a factor here as well? The FAA is a government body and so funding for controllers must come from them.
I have written at length on the subject of US ATC and it gives me no pleasure to be recounting this sorry tale, as I increasingly get the feeling that we have been here before.