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.

Unsurprisingly, the conversation surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in aviation has resurfaced. But is DEI truly a factor in this disaster?

In this newsletter, we aim to review the facts as they stand approximately one week after the tragedy. While some are discussing a change in FAA hiring standards for air traffic controllers, with claims that traditional hiring qualifications were adjusted and more qualified individuals were rejected in favor of DEI-based hiring policies, we will focus on the available facts before drawing conclusions.

For reference, here are links to some of the ongoing reports on FAA hiring practices:

• Newsweek: FAA Rejects Air Traffic Controllers Based on Race?
• NY Post: FAA Lawsuit on Alleged Race-Based Hiring
• ICLG: Class Action Lawsuit Against the FAA

Get Involved: Who do you believe is ultimately at fault for this tragedy? Pilot error? ATC mismanagement? A systemic failure? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Now, let’s examine the facts of the accident as they stand today.

What Happened?

On January 29, 2025, a PSA Airlines CRJ-700 regional jet (operating for American Eagle) collided mid-air with a U.S. Army National Guard UH-60 or VH-60 Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). The crash occurred at approximately 400 feet above the ground while the CRJ-700 was on final approach to Runway 33 at DCA.

A Breakdown of the Events

• The Regional Jet's Approach: The CRJ-700 was flying a sidestep maneuver from Runway 1 to Runway 33—a standard but demanding approach at DCA. The aircraft was performing a stabilized approach and was where it was supposed to be.
• The Helicopter's Route: The National Guard helicopter was operating out of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and crossing the Potomac River as per a published and approved helicopter transit procedure.
• Air Traffic Control (ATC) Interaction:
• The Collision:

Analyzing the Possible Causes

Investigators are examining several critical factors that may have contributed to the crash:

Did the Helicopter Misjudge the Situation?

Despite confirming that it had the CRJ-700 in sight, the helicopter did not successfully pass behind the jet as instructed. Possible contributing factors include:

• Background Lighting Issues: Nighttime conditions can camouflage an aircraft’s lights against city lights, making detection difficult.
• Aircraft Confusion: The helicopter crew may have mistakenly tracked the wrong aircraft (another American Airlines jet was also in the vicinity).
• Limited Situational Awareness: Helicopters and commercial jets were operating on separate radio frequencies, reducing the ability to hear each other’s communications.

The Role of Night Vision Goggles (NVGs)

Reports suggest that the helicopter crew was using NVGs during the flight. While NVGs enhance vision in low-light conditions, they also:

• Restrict peripheral vision, making it harder to spot nearby aircraft.
• Reduce depth perception, complicating the ability to judge distance and trajectory accurately.
• May have contributed to the misjudgment of the CRJ’s position.

Air Traffic Control and Procedural Factors

• Runway Change: The CRJ was originally cleared for Runway 1 but was asked to circle and land on Runway 33, potentially increasing the risk of conflict.
• Tightly Controlled Airspace: Washington, DC’s airspace is one of the most restrictive and congested in the world, with numerous aircraft operating in close proximity.

The Limitations of TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System)

• TCAS does not issue a resolution advisory (RA) below 1,000 feet, meaning that:
• If the helicopter did not have its transponder on, it may not have been visible to the CRJ’s TCAS system.

The DEI Debate: Fact or Speculation?

There has been speculation that FAA hiring practices influenced air traffic control decisions leading up to the accident. What do we know?

• There is an ongoing lawsuit alleging that the FAA changed hiring criteria for air traffic controllers, rejecting some traditionally qualified candidates in favor of DEI-based selections.
• However, there is no direct evidence linking this policy change to the Potomac mid-air collision.
• The FAA’s role in this specific incident remains under investigation and should not be prematurely linked to DEI without concrete findings.

On Aviation™ Note: At this time, no peer-reviewed research or official investigation has confirmed that DEI initiatives contributed to this accident. While the FAA’s hiring policies deserve scrutiny, it is essential to rely on facts and data rather than speculation.

Conclusion

This tragic accident has shaken the aviation industry, marking the first major airline accident in the U.S. since 2009. As investigations unfold, key questions remain: Did the helicopter misjudge the CRJ’s position? Did night vision goggles play a role in obscuring the pilot’s depth perception? Was there a failure in air traffic control procedures? Was there an issue with TCAS or transponder functionality? While some are quick to blame FAA hiring policies and DEI initiatives, the actual causes are still under investigation. It is essential to wait for the full NTSB report before making definitive conclusions.

Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. Who do you believe is ultimately at fault for this tragedy? Pilot error? ATC mismanagement? A systemic failure? 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

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.