Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

Proposal of summary in infobox

The NTSB hearings have wrapped up, and a press release by the NTSB just happened today. While the final report is due to be released in about two weeks, I think we should consider revising the summary of the crash that is within the infobox. Below is my proposal for the summary:

Mid-air collision; failure of a local controller under operational stress to provide the CRJ notice of the incoming helicopter, compounded by lack of activated collision avoidance technology, overreliance on visual separation, and deficiencies by the FAA to review the intersection of a helicopter route with a runway approach path.[1][2]

Again, the proposal above is not final. I encourage users to provide feedback on creating an adequate summary for the Potomac collision. CastleFort1 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (initially): the statement above puts a lot of focus on the controller. The linked report says the probable cause was the route itself. Thanks for asking here.

Probab​​​le Cause: We determined that the probable cause of this accident was the FAA’s placement of a helicopter route in close proximity to a runway approach path; their failure to regularly review and evaluate helicopter routes and available data, and their failure to act on recommendations to mitigate the risk of a midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; as well as the air traffic system’s overreliance on visual separation in order to promote efficient traffic flow without consideration for the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept.

Dw31415 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. The green box by Dw31415 says it all. Strongly agree. Westwind273 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the probable causes in the "Findings and recommendations" section and agree with the editors opposing. The report squarely blames the FAA, with secondary emphasis on helicopter crew, traffic control, and the Army training (in this order). The new summary should follow the NTSB prioritization, IMHO. Викидим (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken into account the recent feedback. An amended proposal for the summary in the infobox is below:

Mid-air collision; systemic failures by the FAA to review the intersection of a helicopter route with a runway approach path and implement recommendations intended to mitigate midair collision risks near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.[2] Compounded with limitations of see-and-avoid brought by overreliance on visual separation by the helicopter crew, degraded performance in the Air Traffic Control tower team due to high workload in combining helicopter and local control positions, and failures by the US Army to ensure pilot awareness regarding barometric altimeter error tolerances.[1]

@Dw31415 @Westwind273 @Викидим Review the amended proposed summary above and provide feedback where needed. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about: NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the FAA’s placement of a helicopter route in close proximity to a runway approach path; and their failure to review and mitigate the risk of a midair collision. Dw31415 (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Midair Collision PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 Airplane and Sikorsky UH-60 Military Helicopter". NTSB. Archived from the original on January 29, 2026. Retrieved January 28, 2026. Also causal was the lack of effective pilot-applied visual separation by the helicopter crew, which resulted in a midair collision. Additional causal factors were the tower team's loss of situation awareness and degraded performance due to the high workload of the combined helicopter and local control positions and the absence of a risk assessment process to identify and mitigate real-time operational risk factors, which resulted in misprioritization of duties, inadequate traffic advisories, and the lack of safety alerts to both flight crews.
  2. ^ a b "Systemic Failures Led to Midair Collision Over Potomac River in Washington". NTSB. January 28, 2026. Archived from the original on January 29, 2026. Retrieved January 28, 2026. The NTSB said that the FAA lacked effective strategies to identify, assess, and reduce recurring midair collision hazards in the skies around Reagan National. Despite available safety data showing repeated close encounters between helicopters and airplanes near the airport, the FAA did not conduct sufficient safety analysis or take timely corrective action. The agency also did not act on recommendations from local air traffic control personnel and other helicopter operators who raised concerns about known conflict areas.

Incorrect sentences in Accident section

There are two sentences in the Accident section that are incorrect. They read "Fifteen seconds before the crash, flight instructor and co-pilot Chief Warrant Officer 2 Andrew Loyd Eaves asked the pilot, Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach, to change course by making a sharp left to the east river bank. Lobach did not do so." This is not correct. The Independent article misquotes the NY Times article (which does not contain the word "sharp"), and in turn the 9-month-old NY Times article misinterpreted the cockpit conversation, as we can now see from the recent NTSB report. To understand this context, it is important to understand that the NTSB has reported that the Blackhawk crew thought the RJ for which they were to have visual separation was likely a plane landing on Runway 1, not Runway 33. So when the DCA tower said "Pass behind the RJ", it was confusing to both pilots. The instructor pilot offered his view of what the tower might be saying, which was "I think he wants us closer to the left bank", which is very far from an instruction to make a sharp left turn. It is simply the instructor pilot offering his advice to the pilot flying of what he thinks the tower might be saying. In any case, the plane landing on Runway 1 was relatively far away, so there was plenty of time to gradually bring the helicopter over to the left bank. So "Lobach did not do so" is a pretty significant mischaracterization of what happened, given that the collision was just 15 seconds later. Also, keep in mind that the pilots are trying to balance risk. While the tower might be saying "get closer to the left bank", there are also risks with flying closer to the left bank, which brings them closer to towers and buildings along the river, some of which are higher than 200 feet. Westwind273 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds correct. I recommend an edit and mention this talk section in the edit summary Dw31415 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ATC staffing

Our article says,

  • The New York Times reported that as of September 2023, the tower at Reagan Airport was nearly a third below targeted staffing levels. The staffing shortage has forced many controllers to work up to six days a week and 10 hours daily.
  • On the night of the collision, air traffic control (ATC) staffing was below the typical level for that time and traffic volume, according to a preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety report. Normally, the tower had six controllers: assistant local control, ground control, clearance delivery, local control, and an operations supervisor.

The NTSB says something different: Although ... air traffic control tower facility was not staffed to its target level ... the number of staff in the tower at the time of the accident was adequate ... The decision to combine the helicopter control and local control positions was not the result of insufficient staffing, and personnel were available to staff the helicopter control and local control positions separately I propose to remove our text (based on an NYT article published immediately after the crash), as it seems to be misleading. Викидим (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising, what section is that in? Dw31415 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, seems you made the change. Dw31415 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, this edit was purely cosmetic and made to improve recently added text. The change being proposed here is in the section "Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport" and the text has been in the article for a long time, Викидим (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support moving everyone including and after “On the night of the collision” to the investigation section and editing heavily to match the recent report. Dw31415 (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final report

The NTSB have published their final report of the investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should it be changed from American Airlines Flight 5342 to American Eagle Flight 5342?

Moved to #Name of Flight 5342 - Feb 2026
 – RfC needs to meet neutral Dw31415 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Malformed RfC: no clear question (where in the article should this be changed?), no brief and neutral statement, and perhaps most importantly no WP:RFCBEFORE. An ordinary talk page discussion ought to be sufficient to resolve this. (non-admin closure) Rosbif73 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should at least change it from American Airlines Flight 5342 to American Eagle Flight 5342 or maybe even PSA Airlines Flight 5342 in the article itself. The main reason it was change to American Airlines was because it was considered recognizable and more sources called it that. My response is that it also called American Eagle in a lot of sources. It was the livery on the plane and even American Airlines itself calls it that: https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2025/Information-regarding-American-Eagle-Flight-5342/default.aspx. It is just as much of a common name as American Airlines. The only reason some sources called it American Airline crash is because American Airlines is more recognizable than American Eagle. It is also why some sources called Delta Connection Flight 4819 "Delta Airlines Plane Crash in Toronto". Sure, American Eagle isn't a real airline's and is just an airline brand, but all the other American Eagle accidents are called American Eagle becuase it is more commonly referred to it. Just because it is just an airline brand doesn't mean we can't use it in the title. If you don't want American Eagle in the title, we can have PSA Airlines. But PSA Airlines isn't as recognizable and is not the common name. Even though "American Airlines Flight 5342" may be the "absolutely utterly unmistakably" commonly used name as determined earlier, the guideline also states that inaccurate names (like American Airlines Flight 5342) should be avoided, even if reliable sources use them more frequently. The operator mentioned in the infobox states, "PSA Airlines dba American Eagle," and not American Airlines, so it doesn't make much sense to call this "American Airlines Flight 5342" if the operator isn't American Airlines. Plus AFAIK, this is the only article in all of the Wikipedia aviation articles to use this unprecedented misuse of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. It didn't take this long for editors on Colgan Air Flight 3407 to reach a consensus that "Continental Airlines Flight 3407" was not the correct name to use. On the contrary, by now, it shouldn't be hard for readers to understand that American Eagle is the regional subsidiary of American Airlines, which addresses most of the problems mentioned earlier. Reliable sources use "American Eagle Flight 5342" too: (see [1], [2], [3]). I still haven't understood why there's still support for keeping the former. Zaptain United (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC should be reformatted to list 3 options. I support American Airlines Flight 5342 because that’s still used by reliable sources like recently in https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/us/politics/dc-plane-crash-government-liability.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Dw31415 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name of Flight 5342 - Feb 2026

@Zaptain United, @Rosbif73, There’s been plenty of RFCBEFORE. The RfC should reference it. The formatting needs to match Wikipedia:RFCNEUTRAL. Zap, your format at the project page was fine. Do you want to take a crack at reformatting below? Dw31415 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which project page was this discussed at? In any case, this doesn't seem like the sort of issue that would need a formal RfC; as I said in my closure above, an ordinary talk page discussion ought to be sufficient to resolve this. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There’s been many edit wars and multiple discussions about this. Searching Flight 5342 in the archive here will yield those. There was a lightly attended RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation Dw31415 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This related RfC may still be open: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#c-Zaptain United-20251101023400-RfC: Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the I Dw31415 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ICAO is a good search term to find the ~4 previous discussions: search ICAO in archive Dw31415 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting links for RFCBEFORE:
Dw31415 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision/Archive 4#American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by regional carrier PSA Airlines under the American Eagle brand) Dw31415 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence and elsewhere, should Flight 5342 be named:

  1. American Airlines Flight 5342 (current consensus)
  2. American Eagle Flight 5342
  3. PSA Airways Flight 5342

(signed by Zap) Dw31415 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which categories, maybe econ and style. Dw31415 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am done. Actually, I realize you started this whole thing by changing it to American Airlines Flight 5342. I have no interest in continuing this. Zaptain United (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision