Eisspeedway

Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

speculative parts should be removed

The situation described in the section titled Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is speculatively linked to the cause of the collision. There is zero evidence whatsoever so far that suggests a link. The section should be removed. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removing the entire section, but agree it should be edited to reduce the hyperbole. The “most dangerous” part is not support d by the linked source. Dw31415 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out the cause was pilot visual error, for example, how busy the airport is on a daily basis doesn't matter to this article. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to refrain from making speculative comments. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the section should be removed or greatly reduced. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an airport is not busy, it's very unlikely for visual separation to be needed, so decreases the chances of a visual error occuring. Still sounds like it would be relevant to me. Timtjtim (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no 'speculation' involved. That the airport and surrounding space are considered "dangerous" is simply accepted as objective fact in the aviation community.[1][2]. It is, arguably, the "most" dangerous in America. If I may be so callous, the airport and area surrounding it are one of the players in the drama ("Dramatis Personae") and a sentence introducing it and its nature to the reader is appropriate. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation part is including it in this article. Putting in the article about the airport is fine, but adding in here implies it is linked to the cause of the incident. Including it in this article implies to the reader that it is related to the event. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Kingturtle adding back the sentence that there is "no indication" of tower staffing as a factor. That seems like an editorial comment to me that excludes staffing as a possible factor.
There is no indication thus far that the airspace or air traffic control staffing issues played any role in this collision.
I propose:
The union that represents air traffic controllers cautioned against assuming that the combined role would make conditions unsafe[1]. The NTSB said they will investigate all human, mechanical, and environmental factors.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/31/us/black-hawk-helicopter-plane-collision-investigation-wwk/index.html Dw31415 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. We need to make sure that this article doesn't have readers think there is a link. Because, as of now, there is no link. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Squawk7700 , @Carguychris, is this proposal good with you? Dw31415 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, would this be an amendment or a part wise replacement? Otherwise that seems totally fine for me. Squawk7700 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... is this the correct section? Weren't we here? Squawk7700 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was first and the two topics overlap. I wish it were easier to keep track. Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following:
————
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
The airspace around Reagan National Airport is among the world's most complex and closely monitored; it is restricted on both sides of the Potomac River to protect government buildings in Washington, D.C. Efforts have been made to reduce its congestion, but Congress approved more flights in 2024. Military helicopter operations add to the complexity and include a helicopter corridor that passes within 100 vertical feet of the approach for runway 33 (Wa Post citation).
On the night of the collision, staffing at the tower was "not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic," according to an internal preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety report about the collision (NYTimes citation). A single controller handled helicopters in and around the airport and instructed landing and departing planes at the time of the accident. "Those jobs typically are assigned to two controllers, rather than one" at that time of day. The duties are normally combined at 9:30 p.m., when traffic has slackened. But before the accident, an air controller supervisor combined the duties, to allow one air traffic controller to leave early. The union that represents air traffic controllers cautioned against assuming that the combined role would make conditions unsafe.
As of September 2023, the tower at Reagan airport was nearly a third below targeted staffing levels. The staffing shortage has forced many controllers to work up to six days a week and 10 hours per day (NYT Citation). Dw31415 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just published this edit. @Kingturtle, I'd appreciate your review to make sure it is not too speculative. Dw31415 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pilots have long worried about DC's complex airspace contributing to a catastrophe". Associated PRess.
  2. ^ "Politicians Warned About Dangers Presented by Reagan Airport Months Before American Airlines Crash". People.

which airports are worse?

"The airspace around Reagan National Airport is among the world's most controlled" - best controlled? There were usually 2 controllers, and during the disaster only one Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally, not necessarily at the time of the collision. Also, according to sources I've seen, there were five additional controllers on duty in the tower at the time, but the others four were attending to other duties, and one of them was a trainee under the supervision of another. Carguychris (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar plane collision over Überlingen in Germany (2002) - limited number of controllers (one person, standardly two) on night shift in the air traffic control center. Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to wait for more information to emerge before speculating implicitly by comparing the accident to others where ATC staffing was found to be a factor. As stated above, I've seen sources stating that there were other controllers in the tower overseeing other traffic at the time, I just can't track down the reference I saw that gave a specific number. Carguychris (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see related conversation above in “Speculative Parts”. Dw31415 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose changes to that part as: according to the NTSB there were 5 people physically in the tower, so I think this is still quite unclear until further insights into the investigation. But manly I think the statement is more about restrictions: "[...] The airspace around Reagan National Airport is among the world's most controlled; it is restricted on both sides of the Potomac River [...]" rather than the act of controlling by the controllers. Squawk7700 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of there being 5 people, the only relevant limitation was one controller temporarily doing to two jobs in the sector that included the CRJ and the helicopter? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in normal staffing for that time of day, helicopters are assigned a dedicated controller. I think that’s already referenced in the section. Dw31415 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very poorly worded because someone changed it to the passive voice. I will try to rephrase it to remove the passive voice. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the Washington National section per above conversation in "Speculative Parts". It's overlapping with this conversation so mentioning it hear for @Mir.Nalezinski, @Carguychris, and @Martinevans123 in case they are not following that original conversation. I'll appreciate any feedback. Dw31415 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nicely done. 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Kingturtle = (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Move?

I know we have already been through this, but the outcome was wait and I think now is the time to start discussing it again. before I start the whole thing, what are your toughs. I don't have a specific title idea, but even the NTSB calls it "mid-air collision at Ronald Reagan National Airport" and no one refers to it by Potomac river mid-air collision. Squawk7700 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the reliable sources Google and Google News find from the past week when I search 29 January mid air collision -Wikipedia there is no single obvious common name. The top four most common are (in approximate order):
  • DC plane crash (mainly US sources, although some UK plus Al Jazeera and the IOC)
  • Washington DC plane crash (mainly UK sources, but also NBC)
  • Washington mid-air collision (mostly specialist aviation sources, but also the Hindustan Times; "midair" is preferred by some sources)
  • D.C. mid-air collision (exclusively US and Australian specialist aviation sources)
Other things of note:
  • I did not attempt to remove personalised results nor disguise that I'm searching from the UK.
  • "Potomac crash" and "Potomac plane crash" are used, but with one exception exclusively by local news sources in the Washington area. The one exception was NBC Boston.
  • Several sources use purely descriptive names (e.g. "American Airlines and Black Hawk Helicopter collision", "Plane and chopper collision near DC")
Based on this I'd say it's still too early for another RM, but things might be starting to coalesce around "(Washington) DC plane crash", however it's worth noting there was a strong preference in the last RM for "mid-air collision". I have a strong preference for "Washington DC" over "DC" if either are used the former feels more encyclopaedic and is likely to be clearer to a global audience. Thryduulf (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting "2025" - because of Eastern Air Lines Flight 537 - which BTW would rather be 1949 Washington National mid-air collision -- Df (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Df, I think that article needs to be moved for consistency with other mid-air collision articles. I would add "Airport" so as not to confuse the location with other places of a "National" nature in the D.C. area. I might just RM it, actually. Carguychris (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your replies I have to agree. What is your opinion on adapting it to the title of the official NTSB report once it releases? Squawk7700 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving later to 1997 2025 Washington, D.C. mid-air collision per @Thryduulf's reasoning. I don't like "plane crash" because there were two aircraft involved; fails WP:CONCISE. "Ronald Reagan National Airport mid-air collision" seems clunky and the location isn't as easily understood by the uninitiated. (A redirect would be smart.) "Washington mid-air collision" risks confusion with an event in the Pacific Northwest. All that being said, to prevent too much controversy with an RM, I suggest waiting at least 2-3 weeks for the presently furious pace of updates and editorial disputes to abate. Carguychris (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear me up, why 1997 and not 2025? Squawk7700 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Squawk7700, because my brain confused it with something else I was doing! LOL. Of course I meant 2025. Carguychris (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris Saying "support per Thryduulf" is incorrect, as my comment is not supportive of a move at the present time - it's still too early for another RM - nor of a specific title. 21:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf pardon my loss of situational awareness due to IMC in my brain. Trying to do too many things at once. I meant that I agreed with you about not moving the page yet. That post was a muddle. LOL. Carguychris (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either wait or “2025 mid-air collision in Washington DC” Dw31415 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the current title is by far the most precise description of what happened. OsageOrange (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Site" of accident

The article uses the phrase "site of" the accident, and "crash site" several times. It is not clear what this means, since it appears to refer to the location in the Potomac River where the aircraft impacted, but I heard the plane and the helicopter debris fell about 600 ft apart from one another. This point (about there being two separate locations in the river where most of the debris ended up) is not clarified in the article. I don't have the reference so I'm not going to make the edit. But I am merely pointing out that the use of "site" instead of "sites" when referring to the accident may make the reader think it is a reference to the point of collision instead of the points of impact with the ground.Roricka (talk) Roricka (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I agree that "crash site" is a little awkward when discussing a mid-air collision but oppose using "sites" unless and until multiple sources start referring to it like that. Dw31415 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are correct. We'll need to wait until the full story is told, since there must have been some issues about dealing with multiple sites in the initial search. The media kept showing pictures of the Blackhawk because it was visible, but rarely made it clear there was another emergency a couple football fields away. In all the discussion about "divers in shallow water," etc. it was rarely clarified how operations were different at the two sites. When that all comes out it should be a part of the story. It vaguely reminds me of the Tenerife collision where the initial responders were unaware of a second site on the ground. Roricka (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ATC Control in introduction

I edited @Aviationwikiflight new sentences (thanks!) in introduction paragraph. I still think it can be improved but I wonder if it's already too much detail for the introductory paragraph.

The air traffic controller informed the helicopter crew twice about the approaching airliner, with the first alert issued two minutes before the collision. The controller asked if they had an incoming CRJ700 regional jet in sight. The helicopter crew confirmed visual contact and explicitly requested a visual separation, meaning they would maintain separation from the aircraft themselves. This request was approved by the controller shortly before the collision occurred.

Thoughts? Dw31415 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be too much detail for the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: Air Traffic Control was communicating with both aircraft prior to the collision.
… in the opening paragraph with the detail above in the Accident section Dw31415 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or The air traffic controller informed the helicopter crew about the approaching airliner, the helicopter crew confirmed visual contact and were cleared to a visual separation, meaning they would maintain separation from the aircraft themselves. Df (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will edit with something like: Both aircraft were communicating with Air Traffic Control. The helicopter crew reported twice that they could see the jet and would maintain separation from it. Dw31415 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As doubts have been raised concerning which CRJ the helicopter pilots were monitoring, would it not be more appropriate to say "a jet" rather than "the jet" at this point in the investigation. I accept that I may have missed something which confirms conclusively that they were actually monitoring Flight 5342, so I'm happy to be advised on this point. Hank2011 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I chose “reported they could see the jet” to avoid saying they “did” see the jet. I think saying they saw “a jet” is awkward because the controller was asking about a jet in a specific position. This will be a key part of the investigation clearly. I’m reluctant to chant it to “a jet” because the controller wouldn’t have approved visual separation unless the helicopter reported he had the specific traffic in sight. Any suggestions besides “a jet”? Dw31415 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your point. Probably best left as you have it... unless soemne else can think of something better. But, on reflecion, I think it's best left as it is. Thanks for considering. Hank2011 (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
someone* reflection* If only I could spell! Hank2011 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why not say "they had traffic in sight and would maintain [visual] separation" they did not say anything about what they were seeing, or where it was. Df (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, so “the helicopter reported they had visual contact with the jet and would maintain separation from it” Dw31415 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think “traffic” is jargon and would require more context but happy to hear what others think. Dw31415 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listened to the audio recording of the ATC-PAT25 interchange again. The words used by the helicopter responder were: "The aircraft is in sight. Requesting visual separation". Would it be more appropriate to use the term "the aircraft" rather than "the jet"? Hank2011 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe “had visual contact with the airliner” to use the same noun as earlier in the introduction. Or “with the other aircraft” to avoid any ambiguity. Dw31415 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sugestion seems good to me. Hank2011 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Made the change. Dw31415 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PRRfan lots of discussion here about the sentences you removed but were reverted. Dw31415 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeromexico Flight 498 ref

why would people remove this? considering it was the last instance of a jet airliner being involved in a mid-air collision in the U.S., making it a significant event worthy of mention. Ryke001 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Model dispute

I have noticed that the article currently lists the helicopter involved in the collision as a UH‑60L. However, several initial reports and independent sources indicate that the correct model is a UH‑60M. I would like to propose that we review the evidence and consider updating the model identification accordingly, as the variant has significant implications regarding the equipment on board.

  • FlightGlobal Reporting: A recent FlightGlobal article clearly indicates that the helicopter was involved in a night proficiency flight and that the unit (the Army’s 12th Aviation Battalion) operates newer UH‑60M “gold top” helicopters for VIP air transport missions. (Source: FlightGlobal)
  • NTSB Rotor Blade Imagery: I have seen NTSB-provided photographs of the rotor blades, which are made of composite material. This construction is consistent with the UH‑60M rather than the older UH‑60L variant.
  • Role and Mission Requirements: Given that the helicopter was operating on a VIP air transport mission (part of the Continuity of Government Plan), it would be logical for the Army to use the UH‑60M. The M model is equipped with more advanced avionics and modern materials that are critical when transporting high-value passengers.
  • Additional Source – DefenseScoop: An article from DefenseScoop also lists the helicopter as a UH‑60M rather than a UH‑60L, reinforcing the identification provided by FlightGlobal. (Source: DefenseScoop)

Because the model number affects the interpretation of the equipment on board—which may have contributed to the tragic outcome—I believe it is important to ensure accuracy in this article.

Could we discuss updating the helicopter model from “UH‑60L” to “UH‑60M” in light of these sources? I appreciate your thoughts and any further evidence on this matter. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our source for the registration number says “M”, but there is consensus in an archived discussion that it was a “UH” not “VH”
US Army helicopter: The second aircraft was a Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, specifically a VH-60M variant (registration 00-26860) Dw31415 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain about the details of the different models, but you're right that the NTSB pictures show failed composite rotor blades. The fibres are clearly visible. OsageOrange (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Proposed Addition: Information on PAT11 and Related Incidents ==

I would like to propose that we add a section (or incorporate additional details) regarding the involvement of the “PAT11” aircraft in events preceding the fatal collision. I have gathered multiple pieces of evidence indicating that PAT11 – a priority air transport helicopter – was active in the local airspace during the period leading up to the collision. Here are the key points:

  • NTSB Press Briefing Quote: At 11:10 minutes into this YouTube video, an NTSB official stated:

    "We can confirm that we are looking into a priority air transport – and that's where you hear PAT – that on the prior day, PAT11, was in close contact with a Republic Air flight. The Republic Air flight rejected the landing, and did a go around. The reason we are bringing this up is our data currently shows over 1,000 feet of separation between those two aircraft. 1,000 feet is a good safety barrier; obviously the pilot made its own decision in rejecting the landing. We just wanted to bring that fact out. It will be considered in the overall evaluation of this accident." This quote suggests that the flight designated PAT11 was operating on a priority air transport mission and that its interactions with another aircraft were noted by investigators. The 1,000‐foot separation is highlighted as a significant safety metric.

  • Additional Incident Report: An article from The New York Post reports that another American Airlines flight was forced into a last‑second redirect at Reagan National Airport only 24 hours before the fatal collision. This piece of evidence suggests that PAT11 was active in the area and may have been involved in additional unusual flight events on the day prior to the accident.
  • ATC Communications & Radar Data: I have reviewed a YouTube video showing radar and ATC communications indicating that PAT11 was flying at an altitude of approximately 300 feet—well above the standard 200‑foot ceiling for rotorcraft in that airspace. This discrepancy in altitude could be a contributing factor to safety issues in the area.
  • Implications for the Article: Including this information is important because:
    • It provides context regarding additional aircraft operations (specifically PAT11) in the critical airspace near Ronald Reagan National Airport.
    • It may shed light on whether the airspace was more congested than previously thought or if there were deviations from standard procedures.
    • The model and operational details (such as altitude behavior) could have implications for understanding factors that contributed to the tragedy.

== Request for Feedback ==

I propose that we add a new section titled “Additional Information on PAT11 and Preceding Incidents” or incorporate these details into an existing “Investigation” section. I’d appreciate feedback on the following points:

  • Do others agree that the evidence supports noting PAT11’s involvement in prior incidents?
  • Is the wording clear and does it meet our sourcing requirements?
  • Should this information be integrated into another section (such as “Investigation”) or presented separately?

Thank you for considering this addition. I believe that including these details will help provide a fuller picture of the events leading up to the crash and may assist in understanding the broader operational context. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially in the Reagan airport section near the information about the complexity of the airspace. Maybe a short paragraph describing the rejected landing.
note a pilot in the Washington post citation about the runway 33 approach called the proximity “insane”.
that said caution should be used to avoid implying causality beyond what reliable sources have done Dw31415 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I particularly agree with your last assertion. In my own research, I confirmed the radar data shows the plane mentioned in the NYPost article (American Airlines Flight 5210) is forced to go around. PAT11 lifts off at approximately the moment that this aircraft crosses the Potomac river, to the south of the DCA. As soon as the American Airlines flight is forced to abort their landing and begins to loop around, PAT11 lands back at Fort Belvoir.
I am including two images which I have screenshotted, regarding what I am referring to:
Image 1: 5210 crosses Potomac
https://ibb.co/C5PWZW7W
Image 2: 5210 performing their GA, due to a helicopter flying too high near the runway.
https://ibb.co/SDG5CzpW
This information can be verified by others, as the UTC timestamp is provided in the first image for reference.
I mention this additional information, in the interest of providing additional context regarding NYPost article I had originally shared, which included a passengers account of their experience on that flight near the runway.
Personally, I feel that there are enough events regarding PAT11 on the previous day that it warrants a dedicated section. The fact that it was specifically named by NTSB as being involved in their investigation, and the amount of incidents it was involved with on the preceding evening should be included in detail, while insuring care is taken in the way the information is presented to the reader. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of details I'm not sure about here: what was the time at which the plane was forced to go around on 28th January, and was this also a landing onto runway 33? OsageOrange (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OsageOrange,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
So, regarding the exact time of the GA, it is very shortly after the time stamp in the provided image. Unfortunately, that service only offers free tier users playback up to one week ago, and so I am unable to go back to that exact time and location currently.
The same is true for the FlightAware service. I checked the flight history on 5210, and the cutoff for free tier users is January 29th.
I would be willing to start a subscription on the service in the images, so I could get those exact times potentially. Now I regret not recording my screen as a video, instead of taking individual screen shots.
Regarding which runway 5210 was landing on, I can't say definitively, but since it was approaching from the south, it is possible. I believe this information is available through on of these services as well, however. Just also behind a paywall at this point.
It is also interesting to note that 5210 was operated by PSA/American Eagle. That is the same as the airliner involved in the collision the next day.
The timestamps provided in the video show separate incidents involving PAT11 on January 28th. So that will give accurate timing for the 1 cautionary advisory, 2 resolution advisories, and 1 GA it caused in that event.
In total it was involved in 3 RA's, leading to 2 GA's on January 28th. It was flying too high near the runways for each one, which is relevant. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your text looks to be generated using an AI (see WP:LLM). To address your points, no, this shouldn't be included. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses these points beyond what the NTSB stated and your own original research, I don't see this as fit for inclusion (note that the New York Post is unreliable). We don't know whether or not both events are connected and we don't want to add information that could potentially be misleading or unrelated. Yes, a near miss occurred but I'm unable to find any news agencies reporting on the incident other than forums, and at this point, we've yet to see the significance of the near miss in relation to the collision in question other than a brief NTSB that stated that "It [the incident] will be considered in the overall evaluation of this accident." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aviationwikiflight, a few quick points:
"We don't know whether or not both events are connected"
As the NTSB has specifically named the helicopter as involved in their investigation regarding the collision, that alone creates a connection, officially and without speculation.
"Yes, a near miss occurred but I'm unable to find any news agencies reporting on the incident other than forums, and at this point, we've yet to see the significance of the near miss"
To clarify, there were 3 RA's, and 2 GA's with PAT11, not a single near miss. Perhaps that is why the investigators are including them, despite the fact that they were not causing incidents on the day of the collision? 2 of the RA's and one go around, with ATC + radar data + timestamps, are available in the video which was shared previously. I am willing to go back and retrieve the exact timestamps for the other incident involving 5210. The ATC recordings may be difficult for me to retrieve now, as LiveATC.net also paywalls recordings after a certain period of time.
I only want the relevant, verifiable facts to be easily accessible to readers, without additional commentary. I do not seek to include anything that is untrue, in the interest of accuracy. I understand NYPost is not a reliable source, however the event that is mentioned in the article is verifiable with radar data. That plane was forced to GA by a helicopter after it was cleared for landing.
At the very least, the NTSB quote naming this helicopter can be included, as there is no better source. The exact timestamps of the incidents it was involved with can also be verified and included as factual information (not opinion) to provide additional context as to why it is included in the investigation. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur mostly with @Aviationwikiflight that much of what you describe is primary research so not allowed. There is a lot of information in the cited WaPo article about the separation. You may want to give that a scan to see if there are points you think should be included. WaPo Close Calls. Dw31415 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting, but given the gaps in our knowledge of what happened with PAT11, I think that it can only be fairly stated that "there have been previous near misses involving military helicopters and commercial airliners at Ronald Reagan airport". So far, I cannot see that PAT11 has a special significance. However, I would likely see this differently if it turned out that the PAT11 incidents were a very close match to what happened with PAT25, i.e., the same time of night, the same runway, and especially the same helicopter crew. OsageOrange (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again OsageOrange,
There were 2 separate incidents with PAT11 on January 28th, involving 4 different landing aircraft. The first one was earlier in the afternoon, but the one in the video was later in the day, ~24 hours before the collision. Video shows 1:02 UTC, the collision the next day was at 1:48UTC. So these incidents occurred 24 hours and 36 minutes apart. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: 24 hours and 46 minutes apart. It is relevant because this means PAT11 was flying a night mission, just like PAT25 the next day. SmartChimpanzee (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision