The aviation industry is at a crossroads. As enthusiasts and active practitioners in this space, we want nothing but the best for aviation. However, to secure its future, we must address the challenges and flaws currently affecting the industry. Over the years, this newsletter has warned of rising inflation, airline bankruptcies, layoffs, and more—many of which are now playing out.

In this article, we focus on three key factors that will have a significant impact on the aviation industry moving forward. These are issues that we, as practitioners, must remain vigilant about to safeguard our work, our livelihoods, and the future of the industry.

• Inflation is increasing, and economic conditions are worsening, making it difficult for airlines to maintain revenue while facing rising operational costs.
• The U.S. air traffic control system is outdated, with antiquated technologies and procedures that are contributing to high-profile aviation incidents.
• Regulatory burdens are increasing, especially in the EU, potentially harming the industry more than they help.

With these major issues looming over aviation, the question remains: Can DOGE, the FED, or aviation regulators actually solve them?

Get Involved: What do you think? Are these the biggest challenges facing aviation today? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Rising Inflation and Worsening Economic Conditions

For the past two years, this newsletter has repeatedly warned that inflation—though momentarily subdued—would rise again. While many believed inflation had been tamed after peaking at 9.1% in 2022, our prediction has remained consistent: inflation will surpass previous highs in the coming years.

Despite DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts within the federal government, the underlying economic forces remain unchanged. Low interest rates, an increasing money supply, and looming trade wars are fueling inflation and worsening economic conditions. The aviation industry is feeling the impact in several key ways.

Airline Mergers and Restructuring

The past few years have seen major airline merger attempts blocked by the federal government. The failed Spirit-JetBlue and Hawaiian-Alaska mergers are prime examples. These airlines sought mergers to achieve synergies, reduce costs, and remain competitive. However, the DOJ’s intervention left them in precarious financial positions—particularly Spirit Airlines, which ultimately had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Layoffs Are Here

We have long predicted that airlines and aviation businesses would be forced to lay off employees en masse. Other industries—such as tech and grocery chains—have already undergone massive layoffs, and the same trend is now hitting aviation.

On February 17, 2025, Southwest Airlines’ CEO Bob Jordan sent a memo to employees announcing a 15% reduction in corporate positions, affecting 1,750 jobs. This marks a historic shift for Southwest, which has prided itself on avoiding large scale layoffs for over 53 years.

"We have made the very tough decision to move forward with a reduction in our workforce, focused almost entirely on Corporate and Leadership positions. This reduction affects approximately 1,750 Employee roles, or 15% of Corporate positions." —Bob Jordan, President & CEO, Southwest Airlines, 2025

If Southwest Airlines—a historically profitable carrier—is forced to cut jobs, we can expect other airlines to follow suit. Some may announce large-scale layoffs, while others may opt for “quiet layoffs”, reducing staff through attrition, reduced hours, and internal reorganizations.

On Aviation™ Note: Airlines have avoided major layoffs until now because of massive government support during economic downturns. However, government assistance has limits. As economic conditions deteriorate, airlines must take action to ensure their survival..

Outdated ATC Technology and Procedures

For years, aviation practitioners have criticized outdated air traffic control (ATC) systems in the U.S. and Canada. These antiquated technologies and inefficient procedures have contributed to serious aviation incidents.

A recent GAO report highlighted the dire state of U.S. ATC infrastructure:

"A federal watchdog raised concerns about the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic controller systems, saying that many are critically outdated and that the agency’s heavy reliance on them could jeopardize the safety and efficiency of the nation’s airspace."

The report found that:

• 37% of ATC systems are “unsustainable” due to aging technology.
• Many lack spare parts, making repairs difficult and expensive.
• Staffing shortages are reaching crisis levels, with 90% of U.S. ATC facilities operating below FAA-recommended staffing levels.

Despite political debates over FAA hiring policies, the real issue is that the FAA operates as a bureaucratic entity, not a profit-driven organization. This means that economic calculations—such as return on investment and risk assessment—are not factored into FAA decision-making.

"Long before DEI hiring, the U.S. ATC system was already one of the worst in the developed world. The recent rash of near-collisions is the result of chronic mismanagement that has left the system with too few controllers using absurdly antiquated technology." —John Tierney, Aviation Analyst

On Aviation™ Note: Many argue that government oversight is necessary for managing large aviation operations. However, the privately managed Heathrow Airport in the UK is a prime example of how a private entity can efficiently run a major international airport.

Heavy and Increasing Regulations

Many equate regulations with safety. However, history has shown that overregulation can lead to unintended consequences, such as regulatory capture—where major corporations manipulate regulations to stifle competition rather than improve safety.

One of the latest examples of burdensome aviation regulations comes from the European Union’s ReFuelEU Aviation initiative.

The ReFuelEU policy:

• Mandates the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), which cost 250% more than conventional jet fuel.
• Bans fuel tankering, a practice airlines use to reduce costs by refueling at cheaper airports.
• Forces airlines to purchase expensive SAF, driving up ticket prices for consumers.

As fuel accounts for 25-30% of an airline’s operating costs, these policies significantly impact airline profitability. Moreover, EU airlines must compete with U.S. and Gulf carriers—which do not face similar regulations—placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

On Aviation™ Note: While regulations have their place, poorly designed policies can harm both airlines and consumers. Instead of fostering competition and efficiency, overregulation often leads to higher costs, reduced competition, and fewer choices for passengers.

Conclusion: The Future of Aviation Remains Uncertain

The aviation industry faces three critical challenges: rising inflation, outdated ATC infrastructure, and burdensome regulations. These factors are converging, creating serious risks for airlines, passengers, and industry stakeholders.

Can DOGE, the FED, or regulators solve these problems? History suggests otherwise. Government interventions often fail to address core inefficiencies and instead create additional problems.

For aviation to thrive, it must adapt. Privatization of critical infrastructure, regulatory reform, and strategic cost-cutting will be essential for ensuring long-term sustainability.

Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. What do you think? Are these the biggest challenges facing aviation today? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Remember to check out our On Aviation™ Podcast and continue the conversation on our Twitter and Instagram.

Orlando Spencer - On Aviation™

References

Southwest Airlines. (2025, February 17). Message from Southwest CEO Bob Jordan. https://www.swamedia.com/news-and-stories/news-release/message-from-southwest-ceo-and-president-bob-jordan

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024). FAA Actions Are Urgently Needed to Modernize Aging Systems (GAO-24-107001). Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-107001.pdf

European Commission. (2025). ReFuelEU Aviation – Sustainable aviation fuel initiative. Retrieved fromhttps://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/air/environment/refueleu-aviation_en

In today's polarized climate, it has become almost instinctive to attribute aviation accidents to either DEI-driven hiring practices or efforts to improve government inefficiencies, depending on which side of the political spectrum you lean toward. However, while these debates are often heated, they may not always be grounded in fact. The reality is that aviation is an incredibly complex system, involving numerous factors that contribute to incidents and accidents.

While it is understandable that emotions are high and that political narratives often shape public perception, it is essential to base our conclusions on factual, verifiable information. In the case of the Delta Connection CRJ-900 operated by Endeavor Air, which crashed upon landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport, preliminary evidence suggests that the cause of this accident had little to do with DEI or DOGE.

Thus, before rushing to judgment, let’s examine what actually happened, using open-source information and expert analysis, to piece together a probable cause. Ultimately, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) will release its official findings, but we can already draw important insights based on what is currently known.

Get Involved: Do you believe structural fatigue played a role in this crash? Could crosswind mismanagement have been a factor? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

On Aviation™ Note: Once again, we must underscore the need for peer-reviewed research to determine whether DEI initiatives have impacted aviation safety trends. What we do know is that becoming an airline pilot remains one of the most rigorously regulated professions in the world, with stringent training and qualification requirements reviewed every six months. Additionally, as financial pressures mount on airlines, maintenance concerns have become an increasingly relevant factor in aviation safety investigations. For this accident, investigators will be scrutinizing maintenance records to determine why the right wing detached so easily upon impact.

With that in mind, let’s examine the known facts surrounding this incident.

What Happened?

On February 17, 2025, a Delta Connection CRJ-900 operated by Endeavor Air suffered a hard landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ). The aircraft was carrying 80 passengers and crew, and while there were no fatalities, 18 individuals sustained injuries.

Key Facts About the Incident

• The aircraft was on final approach to Runway 23 at 2:12 PM local time.
• Winds at the time of landing were reported as 270° at 23 knots, gusting to 33 knots, creating a right-quartering crosswind.
• The aircraft landed hard, causing the right wing to detach, flipping the aircraft onto its roof.
• The crash resulted in a fire, but prompt emergency response ensured all passengers were evacuated safely.
• There was blowing snow reported at the time of landing, but it was less than 1/8 of an inch.

One of the most critical questions investigators are asking is: Did the aircraft impact the runway with such force that it snapped the wing, or was there an existing structural weakness?

Analysis of the Approach and Landing

From the available ADS-B flight data, we can reconstruct the aircraft’s final moments before impact.

Was the Approach Stabilized?

A stabilized approach is a critical factor in safe landings. If an approach is unstable—meaning high descent rates, improper speeds, or last-second corrections—it increases the risk of a hard landing.

Examining preliminary flight data, the descent rate in the final moments was:

• 576 feet per minute at 1,725 feet altitude.
• 928 feet per minute at 110 knots (ground speed).
• 672 feet per minute just before touchdown.

A descent rate of 1,000 feet per minute or higher at low altitudes is generally considered unstable, but this data suggests a mostly stabilized approach.

However, the final data point indicates a sudden increase in descent rate. This "sinker" effect—a rapid descent right before landing—may have led to an excessive impact force on touchdown.

The Role of Crosswind Conditions

Crosswind landings require precise handling. In strong gusting winds, pilots must: Keep the upwind wing (right wing, in this case) slightly lower to prevent drift;  Use opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned with the runway; Manage power carefully to avoid a sudden drop in descent rate.

If power was reduced too early, or if gusts shifted suddenly, the aircraft could have suffered a momentary loss of lift, resulting in a sudden, hard impact—a possible contributing factor.

Structural Integrity: Was the Wing Already Compromised?

A major concern in this crash is how easily the right wing detached upon impact. Investigators will be reviewing: Past maintenance records of the aircraft; Structural fatigue or previous damage to the wing; Material failure under stress conditions.

In a similar incident in Scottsdale, Arizona, a Learjet suffered a landing gear collapse, and investigators later found a pre-existing maintenance issue that contributed to the failure.

Was something similar at play here?

The Runway Condition Factor

Another area of focus is the runway condition at the time of landing. The Runway Condition Report (RCR) was rated 5-5-5, meaning the runway was mostly clear with some light frost or snow. However, blowing snow across the surface can create visual illusions, potentially making it difficult for pilots to judge height and distance before landing.

This visual disorientation, combined with gusting winds, may have led to a misjudged flare (the moment before touchdown), increasing the impact force.

Conclusion

Based on available data, the possible contributing factors to this accident are: A sudden sinker effect in the final seconds before landing; Gusty crosswinds affecting the flare and touchdown; Possible pre-existing structural weaknesses in the right wing; Visual disorientation caused by blowing snow.

There is no evidence at this time to suggest that DEI hiring practices or DOGE inefficiencies efforts played a role in this accident. Instead, standard aviation safety factors—such as weather, aircraft integrity, and pilot inputs—appear to be the primary contributors.

On Aviation™ Note: While the public debate around DEI and government efficiency in aviation continues, we must remain grounded in factual analysis rather than political narratives. The NTSB’s final report will provide a definitive cause, but based on preliminary data, this crash appears to be a classic case of environmental challenges, pilot technique, and aircraft integrity.

Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. Do you believe structural fatigue played a role in this crash? Could crosswind mismanagement have been a factor? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Remember to check out our On Aviation™ Podcast and continue the conversation on our Twitter and Instagram.

Orlando Spencer - On Aviation™

References

• Blocolario. (2025, February 18). Delta CRJ-900 Crash Toronto - 17 Feb. 2025 [Video]. YouTube.
• The Aviation Safety Network. (2025, February 17). Delta CRJ-900 Hard Landing, Toronto Pearson. Retrieved from https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/478376
• ADS-B Exchange. (2025, February 17). Delta CRJ-900 Flight Path Data. Retrieved from https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=acef2d&lat=43.692&lon=-79.638&zoom=15.9&showTrace=2025-02-17&leg=4&trackLabels

As new details emerge regarding the Potomac River mid-air collision, we can now establish several key facts that point toward the real cause of this tragic accident. While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will ultimately determine the official cause, open-source information and independent investigators have provided compelling evidence that allows us to piece together the probable cause before the NTSB's final report.

Additionally, it is now believed that there was not just a single controller in the tower that night—multiple controllers, including supervisors and supporting personnel, were present. However, not all were on the radio, which is a standard practice in air traffic control operations.

Key Takeaways:

• ATC initiated "visual separation," reducing safety margins to near zero.
• The controller ignored multiple warning signs that a collision was imminent.
• The helicopter misidentified the CRJ and failed to pass behind it as directed.
• The crash highlights the dangers of transferring separation responsibility in busy airspace.

Get Involved: Do you believe ATC is primarily at fault, or does the helicopter crew bear equal responsibility? Could systemic FAA policies be a factor in this tragedy? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

With this context in mind, let’s take a deeper look into what may have truly caused this disaster.

Was This a Clear Case of ATC Error?

A new analysis by aviation investigator Dan Gryder presents a strong case that this mid-air collision was the result of an Air Traffic Control (ATC) error. Gryder argues that the controller facilitated an unsafe scenario by using a specific ATC provision known as "Visual Separation."

The ATC’s Responsibility: Preventing Collisions

According to the FAA’s ATC manual (7110.65AA), the primary purpose of the Air Traffic Control system is to prevent collisions and ensure separation between aircraft. This separation can be maintained in three ways:

1. Vertical Separation – Keeping aircraft at least 1,000 feet apart.
2. Lateral Separation – Ensuring aircraft remain at least 3 to 5 miles apart.
3. Visual Separation – A special clearance where one aircraft takes responsibility for avoiding another, reducing separation standards to near zero.

ATC must ensure that at least one of these separation standards is always maintained. However, in the case of the Potomac collision, all three failed.

The Critical ATC Communication Breakdown

The "Visual Separation" Loophole

Before the crash, the DCA Tower controller instructed the National Guard helicopter (Pat 25) to confirm it had the regional jet (CRJ-700) in sight and to request visual separation—a critical phrase in ATC terminology.

• The helicopter responded: "Request visual separation."
• The controller approved: "Visual separation approved."

This ATC clearance shifted responsibility from the controller to the helicopter crew. In other words, the controller was no longer responsible for ensuring safe separation—it was entirely up to the helicopter pilot.

This move is technically legal, but as this tragedy demonstrates, it is not always safe.

The Fatal Mistake: The Helicopter’s Misjudgment

Once the controller handed off separation responsibility, the helicopter pilot failed to maintain safe clearance.

Several critical errors likely played a role:

• Misjudged the CRJ's location: The helicopter crew may have mistaken another aircraft for the CRJ, leading them to track the wrong plane.
• Limited visibility at night: City lights can make aircraft difficult to see.
• NVG (Night Vision Goggle) Limitations: The helicopter crew was reportedly using NVGs, which reduce peripheral vision and depth perception.

Could ATC Have Prevented the Crash?

Despite transferring responsibility to the helicopter, the controller still had multiple warnings before impact:

• Visual alarms in the tower indicated the two aircraft were converging.
• Audible collision alerts sounded in the ATC tower.
• The controller had a clear visual of the aircraft through the tower window.

However, instead of issuing an emergency correction—such as ordering the helicopter to turn or descend—the controller simply reaffirmed the "Visual Separation" clearance, making sure it was on record before the crash.

This last-minute confirmation of visual separation suggests the controller was more focused on protecting the legality of the clearance rather than preventing the actual collision.

Conclusion: A Systemic Failure?

The Potomac River collision was likely a preventable ATC failure due to an overreliance on "visual separation" procedures. While the helicopter pilot ultimately failed to avoid the CRJ, the controller’s clearance enabled an unsafe situation to develop. So, ATC initiated "visual separation," reducing safety margins to near zero; the controller ignored multiple warning signs that a collision was imminent; the helicopter misidentified the CRJ and failed to pass behind it as directed; and the crash highlights the dangers of transferring separation responsibility in busy airspace.

On Aviation™ Note: This case underscores a major flaw in ATC procedures—the reliance on "visual separation" in complex, high-risk environments. If an ATC controller can legally absolve themselves of separation responsibility, should this procedure be allowed at all in dense, urban airspace?

Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. Do you believe ATC is primarily at fault, or does the helicopter crew bear equal responsibility? Could systemic FAA policies be a factor in this tragedy? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Remember to check out our On Aviation™ Podcast and continue the conversation on our Twitter and Instagram.

Orlando - On Aviation™

References

• Gryder, D. (2025, February 4). What Caused This? A Deal Was Made [Video]. YouTube.
• Blocolario. (2025, January 29). Potomac Mid-Air Collision DCA 1/29/25 [Video]. YouTube.
• The Aviation Safety Network. (2025). Potomac Mid-Air Collision DCA 1/29/25. Retrieved from https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/474365
• VasAviation. (2025, January 30). Audio of MID-AIR CRASH into Potomac River | Regional Jet and Black Hawk Helicopter [Video]. YouTube.
• VasAviation. (2025, January 30). Audio of MID-AIR CRASH into Potomac River | Regional Jet and Black Hawk Helicopter [Video]. YouTube.