On Aviation
Science & Tech • Travel • Business
Aviation; Should We Be Concerned About The Fed’s Actions?
Should the aviation industry be concerned about what the Fed is doing? Are its actions on interest rates and jobs cause for concern at this time? What will they do next, and how will this affect us?
post photo preview
Photo by Joshua Woroniecki on Unsplash

If there’s one thing that readers of this newsletter series understand, it is that the aviation industry does not operate in a bubble. Actions in the wider market space, fiscal policy from the government, and monetary policies from the federal reserve impact the aviation industry in various ways. While we have spent time talking about all these factors, in this newsletter series we want to talk a little bit more about the actions of the Federal Reserve (Fed).

Most of us are aware that the Fed in today’s market controls interest rates. We are also aware that interest rates affect us on the individual level as well as on the business level. For individuals, higher interest rates mean it becomes difficult to buy homes and get credit cards – which it would seem as if a lot of Americans are using these days just to get by. On the business side the higher the interest rates the more difficult it is for businesses to pay their creditors therefore business tends to slow down.

Applying this to the aviation industry; higher interest rates mean that eventually, individuals will not be able to travel as much, and therefore traveling will decline. It also means that aviation businesses will find it more difficult to acquire credit to run their business, which may see businesses decline in the industry.

Since the Fed controls interest rates, and interest rates essentially control the economy – given the kind of economy that we have today that is debt based – then it’s important for us to understand how the federal reserve works, how it would take some of the actions it takes and why it takes them.

In this week's full article, we share a detailed breakdown of Fed actions over the past months, along with some analysis of those actions. Giving the reader some insight as to what the Fed may be thinking and what some of the actions that they have already taken and may take in the future mean for the economy.

For related readings, please see also: ‘3 Ways Aviation Businesses Are Coping With Inflation’, ‘The Aviation Industry and Economic Uncertainties’, ‘Inflation: Higher costs and their effects on Flight Schools’, ‘High Interest Rates/Cost of Borrowing and Their Effects on Aviation Businesses’,’Debt: Its effects on the Aviation Industry’, ‘Economic Crisis and the Aviation Industry’, ‘Inflation and Aviation’, ‘How The Aviation Industry Needs To Look At Inflation’, ‘The Aviation Industry Must Not Mistake A Recession’, ‘Understanding Recessions’, ‘Understanding Inflation’, ‘Money and Recessions.’, ‘Breaking Down Inflation.’ , ‘Inflation: Here we go again...’’, ‘Recession: Should we still be concerned?’, ‘Stagflation: Should the Aviation Industry be Concerned?’ ‘Aviation: Producer and Consumer Prices’, ‘Aviation: Are We In BIG Trouble?’, ‘Aviation: Recession Red Flags?’, ‘Aviation, Pay Attention To The ‘Canary In The Coal Mine’’, ‘The Canaries 'Banks’ Are Dying.’, and ‘Aviation: Inflation, Again…


The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Wednesday left the target policy interest rate (the federal funds rate) unchanged at 5.25 percent. This "pause" in the target rate suggests the FOMC believes it has raised the target rate high enough to rein in price inflation which has run well above the Fed's arbitrary two-percent inflation target since mid-2021. 

Yet, at Wednesday's press conference announcing the FOMC's decision, Fed Chair Jerome Powell also claimed that "Inflation remains well above our longer-run 2 percent goal" and "inflation pressures continue to run high and the process of getting inflation back down to 2 percent has a long way to go."

Moreover, according to Powell, the labor market is red hot, with Powell stating "The labor market remains very tight" and "labor demand still substantially exceeds the supply of available workers."

The Fed Wants It Both Ways 

Both of these sentiments suggest that the Fed should keep allowing the target rate to rise. After all, if job demand is so high, that means continued increases to wage costs for employers plus more consumer demand for goods and services.  That suggests more price inflation. Meanwhile, if measures of price inflation show that we have "a long way to go" that also suggests the Fed should keep allowing rates to rise. 

In other words, all the facts presented by Powell himself point to a need for the Fed to stop pushing down interest rates and let them rise further. Yet, the Fed, for some reason, has decided now is a good time to hold the rate steady at 5.25 percent.

The Fed is certainly sending mixed messages, and apparently wants to have it both ways. Powell wants to announce he and the FOMC are firmly committed to combating price inflation by allowing interest rates to rise—and, by the way, allowing more securities to roll off the Fed's $8.3 trillion balance sheet. At the same time, Powell also wants to claim that now is a good time to pause on rate hikes, even though the Fed's favored PCE measure of price inflation is more than double the Fed's target rate of two percent. 

[Read More: "Powell Explains the Pause" by Robert Aro]

Of course, the reason for muddled messaging is not completely mysterious. The answer lies in examining the political situation. Fantasies about "fed independence" might blind some observers to the reality, but the Fed is a profoundly political institution, and must juggle a variety of political pressures. As it is, the Fed must seem like it is "doing something" about price inflation while simultaneously avoiding any moves that will cause the economy to slow to the point where it becomes politically problematic for the administration. The incoherence we now see from Powell is a direct result of the Fed's desire to send several conflicting messages at once. 

The Fed Rarely Resumes Substantial Hikes after a "Pause"

For cynical veteran Fed watchers, the pause immediately raises the question of whether or not this will turn out to be a permanent pause, followed in, say, six months by a drop in the target interest rate. After all, historical experience shows that when the Fed "pauses" it rarely goes back to any sort of sustained period of monetary tightening. 

No alt text provided for this image

Over the past thirty years, there have only been a few occasions during which the Fed paused for more than a single month, and then went back to allowing the target rate to move upward again. This occurred briefly in 2017, and in 1996 and 1997. In the quantitative tightening period between the Dot-com Bust and the Great Recession, however, the Fed never "paused" longer than a single month. If the Fed fails to allow rates to climb again next month, we'll have good reason to suspect that the Fed is done with this current round of rate hikes. 

So, now that the FOMC has "paused," will it ever start up with rate hikes again? The odds are against it, but it is possible. It will all come down to how much the Fed fears that price inflation will again head upward to politically damaging levels. That fear, after all, is the only reason the Fed has ever entertained the idea of allowing rates to rise anywhere near the current level of 5.25 percent. The last decade has shown us that the Fed clings to a bias very much in favor of ramming down interest rates again and again. This is what happened in the ten years of near-zero rates that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Every month, the FOMC would come out and say that the economy was "growing" and was showing "strength" yet repeatedly refused to raise rates.

The Fed Is Making It Up as It Goes

This Fed's contradictory messages are so apparent that even some members of the media asked why the Fed is bothering to pause at all. As one reporter asked at the press conference, "what's the value in pausing and signaling future hikes versus just hiking? … so why not just rip off the Band-Aid and raise rates today?"

Powell's answer was to admit that the Fed and its legions of economists don't actually know what the results will be of the Fed's tightening, so they're just going to take a wait-and-see attitude. This non-response from Powell highlights the fact that the Fed has long since abandoned its claim to have in place some kind of long-term plan for monetary policy. Gone are the days of "forward guidance" and we're now in the days of "we'll tinker with the economy and see what happens next."

This makes sense given that a look back at the FOMC's economic projects have been very, very wrong in recent years. According to the FOMC's Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) from September 2020, for example, every FOMC member but one predicted that the target interest rate in 2022 would remain at 0.25 percent, with only one member venturing to suggest that the rate might get up to 0.75 percent in 2022. Projections for 2023 were not much more accurate with only three FOMC members predicting that the target rate would rise above 0.25 percent. By March 2022, most FOMC members were still predicting that the target rate in 2022 would be below three percent, and only five members guessed the rate might exceed three percent in 2023. Members were also way off on projections about price inflation and GDP growth. 

The Fed Has Kept the Target Interest Rate Very Low for a Very Long Time 

In fact, the Fed was so committed to ultra-low rates between 2008 and 2023 that the mismatch between price inflation rates and the federal funds rate was larger than anything we've ever seen before. That is, if we compare the federal funds rate to the Fed's favored measure of price inflation—PCE inflation—we see that historically, the target rate was usually above the PCE inflation rate. The exceptions were in periods we know to be inflationary, such as in the mid 1970s under the Burns Fed. 

No alt text provided for this image

If we look at this gap between the PCE and the target rate, however, the period between 2008 and 2023 really stands out as a remarkably long period during which the target interest rate remained at rock-bottom levels, well below the official price inflation rate. Indeed, this graph shows that going back at least as far as 1960, no other period comes even close to keeping the target rate so far below the price inflation rate for so long. Out of 177 months since the 2008 financial crisis was revving up in August 2008, only 16 months have seen the target interest rate rise above the official inflation rate. 

No alt text provided for this image

With all that easy money sloshing around for so long, we can see that FOMC members have good reason to fear that inflation has not yet been tamed. 

There Is No Fed "Independence." Politics Is Guiding Fed Policy. 

On the other hand, the Fed will encounter immense opposition to ongoing rate hikes if the economy obviously slows. But how to decide if the economy is getting "bad" or not? A lot will depend on whether or not policymakers at the Fed and in the federal government actually believe that the labor market is as tight as Powell has repeatedly insisted. 

As I noted in a recent article on the jobs data, the Fed only ever refers to the job-growth data from the establishment survey. Powell conveniently ignores the data from the household survey which has actually shown a collapse in self-employment, and several declines in total employed persons in recent months. The establishment survey's job-growth data is among the few economic indicators pointing to a strong economy right now. Numerous other indicators of manufacturing activity, consumer debt, bankruptcies, and the yield curve all point to economic trouble. If we consider these other metrics—and not just the Fed's rosy labor picture—then the Fed pause is more easily explained: the Fed is pausing out of fear of weakening the economy to the point of alarming voters. 

With the Fed, however, what Powell says publicly, and what is actually going on behind the scenes, are two different things. We can only guess what their real motivations are. It is a safe bet, however, that the Fed is trying to thread a needly here in which it somehow manages to bring down price inflation while also allowing the Biden administration to claim that the economy is in great shape. What happens next will depend heavily on what the regime will feel is necessary to buoy public support for the regime and its current ruling party.

 

_________________

Author: 

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is executive editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power and Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has a bachelor's degree in economics and a master's degree in public policy and international relations from the University of Colorado. He was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Breaking Away: The Case of Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities and Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

_____________________

This article was published in the  Mises Wire on June 21, 2023, with the title “Powell Sends Mixed Messages as He Chickens Out on Rate Hikes” The views expressed are the author’s, and do not constitute an endorsement by or necessarily represent the views of On Aviation™ or its affiliates.


Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. Do you think the Fed will keep raising interest rates, pause indefinitely, or start reducing rates soon? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Remember to check out our On Aviation™ Podcast and continue the conversation on our Twitterand Instagram.

Orlando - On Aviation™

community logo
Join the On Aviation Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Deflation and the Aviation Industry

In this episode of the On Aviation™ Podcast, Daniel and Orlando had another Fireside chat. This time focusing on the concept of deflation and what this means for the aviation industry, and the overall economy in general. Ever wonder what is the definition of inflation, deflation, or disinflation? Ever consider what these conditions mean for businesses and individuals? Ever wonder why we end up in these conditions in the first place? In this episode, we discuss all of the above and more.

Deflation and the Aviation Industry
Aviation Fireside Chat

In this episode of the On Aviation™ Podcast, Daniel and Orlando had a Fireside chat about a wide variety of topics within aviation. Touched on disparate topics such as runway incursions, the FAA investing $100M to curb runway incursions, the pilot-in-command being the ultimate authority for the safety of a flight, fractional aircraft ownership and the economy, the aviation industry, and much more.

Related Links:

Pilots Abort Landings At A Few Hundred Feet To Avoid Runway Disaster (SFO and Tenerife mentioned): https://jalopnik.com/pilots-abort-landings-at-a-few-hundred-feet-to-avoid-ru-1850474556

The FAA Investing $100M in a Bid to Curb Runway Incursions: https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-investing-100m-in-bid-to-curb-runway-incursions/

14 CFR § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.3

Fractional Ownership: ...

Aviation Fireside Chat
What’s New In Aviation Tech?

In this week’s On Aviation™ Podcast, we discuss what’s new in aviation technology. We discussed Boeing launching a new data tool for net-zero emissions targeting, the progress of electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles (EVTOL), 5G technology and its effects on airlines, what some companies like Garmin are doing about it, and much more.

What’s New In Aviation Tech?
Sustainable Aviation Fuels: An Update

If you were like us, over the past few months you have not heard as much about sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) as we heard about them in 2021 and 2022. However, from what we’re seeing, the aviation industry is still very much interested in developing SAFs. What we have found is that the information about sustainable aviation fuel is not being picked up as frequently as it used to two years ago by the mainstream.

For those who were wondering what SAFs are exactly. Please see our article ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs): Changing the aviation industry, and its economics’, Where we discuss in detail what SAFs are, some of the benefits, some of the challenges, and speculate on the future of SAFs.

In another article, 'Aviation and Renewable Energy' we share another point of view on sustainable energy as opposed to traditional fossil fuels.

Whatever your point of you on sustainable aviation fuel as opposed to traditional fossil fuels, it is clear that technological advancement can ...

2023: The Year of Job Losses?

We are aware that our readers are well informed and have been keeping up to date with what’s been going on in the economy, the aviation industry, and in particular as it relates to jobs. Here’s an important question: Will 2023 be the year of job losses?

The above question is important for two reasons. First, the Federal Reserve believes that a hot job market (a job market where unemployment is low) helps to cause high inflation. - full disclosure, we disagree with this. Therefore, the Federal Reserve will be doing what it takes to increase unemployment which it believes will reduce inflation. That means many more people will be out of work. Second, there were a lot of malinvestments - investments in businesses and ventures that would not have occurred under normal market conditions - due to the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low. As interest rates rise companies and investors will find it prudent to reduce those prior investments and re-calculate where they put money. This means ...

Aviation Economic Impact

Many times in this newsletter series we have discussed the fragility of the aviation industry, not just here in the United States, but also across the world. Aviation and aerospace is an industry that is highly regulated. In fact, the United States has the least regulated aerospace industry in the world relative to other countries. Yet, it is still very much regulated.

Notwithstanding all these regulations, the industry is still very fragile to economic shocks, as a result, Lawmakers and Regulators tend to anticipate challenges to the industry globally and preempt any foreseen challenges with either fresh regulations or economic support.

Many would argue that a lot of the challenges and fragility within the aviation and aerospace industry is the result of the massive amount of regulations. Yet, others argue that it is the lack of more regulations that are the cause of its fragility. Whatever your thoughts on the matter are, it is clear that the aviation industry is much more efficient and ...

post photo preview
‘It’s DEI!’: ‘Nonsense, It’s DOGE!’
Is it possible that the recent Delta CRJ-900 accident at Toronto Pearson International Airport had nothing to do with either DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)?

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

Read full Article
post photo preview
Potomac Collision: The Real Cause?
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.

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.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Potomac Mid-Air Collision: DEI?
In the aftermath of the mid-air collision over the Potomac River in Washington, DC, many are asking: what caused this tragedy?

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:

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.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals