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.

The 47th president, Donald Trump, signed over three dozen executive orders in his first and second days in office following his inauguration. These policies range from border security to gender ideology, as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government. This latter policy directly impacts hiring and training personnel in the aviation industry, particularly in air traffic control, which is governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Apart from some hype surrounding two meme coins—reportedly affiliated with the president and first lady, Melania Trump ($Trump and $Melania, respectively)—there has not been, to the best of our knowledge, any executive orders addressing the economy, particularly on inflation and boosting prosperity within the aviation industry. While there is optimism surrounding the president’s executive actions and what may come, here are some considerations about what truly matters in the real economy, particularly in aviation:

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is a central focus for some, with supporters believing these initiatives have contributed to aviation challenges, while others strongly disagree.
• Concrete fiscal and monetary policies are needed to foster productivity, real investments (not stock market speculation), and inflation reduction to truly aid the aviation industry and beyond.
• When it comes to economic prosperity, the power of the executive pen is limited. Below, we’ll explain why.

Get Involved: Do you believe that the president’s executive orders can benefit the aviation industry economically and promote prosperity? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

The Focus on Rolling Back DEI Initiatives

One of the most talked-about executive orders is the rollback of all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government. This directive affects all agencies and departments, including the FAA. While some agencies may resist this move, the executive order is explicit in its demands. Only time will reveal how this resistance plays out.

Here are some considerations:

• DEI’s Role in Aviation Challenges: As we’ve stated in previous articles, there is no conclusive, peer-reviewed research showing that DEI efforts directly lead to increased incidents or accidents in the aviation industry. Without such evidence, it is difficult to predict the impact of rolling back DEI initiatives within FAA activities.
• Hard to Measure: The effects of DEI—positive or negative—are difficult to measure without comprehensive data. As such, any conclusions about its success or failure, or about the consequences of the rollback, would be anecdotal at best. Nonetheless, for some, anecdotal evidence is sufficient to either justify or criticize DEI efforts.
• Private Players Are Independent: The rollback applies primarily to the federal government. Private companies such as airlines, aircraft manufacturers, maintenance operators, and managers are free to set their own policies. However, if recent trends are any indication, private players may also reduce DEI initiatives, citing cost and a lack of direct profit from these activities.

On Aviation™ Note: To be clear, we neither advocate for nor oppose DEI. What we do advocate for is good people doing good work that drives industries, countries, and humanity forward.

Aviation Needs Concrete Fiscal and Monetary Policies

The Trump administration is still in its early days, and we anticipate additional executive orders, congressional acts, and Federal Reserve actions. However, concrete fiscal and monetary policies remain critical to resolving the challenges facing the aviation industry.

• Fiscal Policy: The federal government, Treasury, and Congress should implement bold policies to reduce inflation and boost productivity in the economy. Such measures would provide significant relief to the aviation industry.
• Monetary Policy: While painful, the Federal Reserve must continue its fight against inflation. Inflation appears poised to rise again, and the Federal Reserve must utilize all tools at its disposal to combat it.

On Aviation™ Note: While we are optimistic about the aviation industry’s future, many of its challenges are already "baked into the cake." There are no current indications of major shifts in monetary or fiscal policy, likely due to political considerations.

Economic Challenges Are Too Complex for the Executive Pen

While the executive pen holds tremendous power, it cannot singlehandedly address the multifaceted economic challenges facing the aviation industry.

• Longstanding Issues: The economic conditions affecting aviation have been building since the early 2000s, particularly following the dot-com bubble and bust during Alan Greenspan’s tenure as Federal Reserve Chairman. Nearly 25 years of fiscal and monetary policies have fostered economic instability, higher inflation, and mounting debt.
• Political Expedience: Addressing these challenges requires political courage. For example, raising interest rates to combat inflation would undoubtedly cause a recession. Given the reliance of businesses, credit markets, and individuals on a low-interest-rate environment, this action would trigger economic pain that most politicians would prefer to avoid during their tenure. Similarly, reigning in government deficits and spending on entitlements like Social Security is politically unpalatable.
• Complexity: The economy—and the aviation industry—are inherently complex systems. Actions aimed at solving one problem often lead to unintended consequences. In such systems, the best approach may involve reducing intervention and allowing the free market to operate naturally.

On Aviation™ Note: While this discussion focuses on the U.S. economy, these principles apply to economies worldwide.

Conclusion

While the executive pen holds significant power, it is insufficient to address the massive challenges faced by the economy and the aviation industry today. In fact, we’ve yet to see concrete executive orders directly targeting these economic issues, likely because such actions would be futile given the complexity of the problems.

The solution lies in freeing the market and reducing government intervention, allowing for spontaneous order and human ingenuity to drive productivity and prosperity. Alas, this approach is unlikely to be adopted, as the political cost would be immense. As a result, we predict inflation will continue to rise, economic conditions will grow more unstable, and leaders will persist with interventions that often exacerbate the issues they aim to solve.

Thank you for reading this week's On Aviation™ full article. Do you believe that the president’s executive orders can benefit the aviation industry economically and promote prosperity? Why or why not? 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™