Jump to content

Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name of commercial airline flight

It appears that there is disagreement on whether '''PSA Airlines Flight 5342''' should be included in the lead. I take the position that it should, while others (like @Astropulse), through their edits, have taken the position that it should not.

I will note that, to the extent of my knowledge, the flight was legally PSA Airlines Flight 5342, as evidenced by its call sign, "Blue Streak 5342".

I have used all three of my reverts on this article, so I will take a break from editing the article itself for a while.

b3stJ (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like i noted in edit - PSA Airlines Flight 5342 is operational name ( used internally ). American Eagle Flight 5342 is what it is known to public ( what they see on airline website and when they buy tickets ). Even in official announcement AA has used the name American Eagle Flight 5342 . Therefore lead should reflect it. There isn't a concept of legal name. We should use the name, what people knew it as. Internal or operational name is of less significance Astropulse (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cc @GalacticOrbits Astropulse (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The media is notoriously unreliable when it comes to reporting the name of the airline for regional flights. American Airlines has used "American Eagle Flight 5342" since PSA Airlines is a subsidiary of American Airlines and you can buy tickets for a PSA flight through the American Airlines website (but yet again, the loophole here is that you also technically can't buy an American Eagle ticket since it is merely an operating name for the regional flights of American Airlines). The NTSB and FAA are both calling it a PSA Airlines flight since American Eagle technically can't operate flights since it isn't an airline. The media calls it both but the earlier lead already clarified that PSA Airlines is a regional subsidiary of American Airlines. Further, the earlier lead is consistent with other accident articles such as Comair Flight 5191 or Colgan Air Flight 3407. Plus, you don't need a kajillion different footnotes near "PSA Airlines" to clarify it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA25MA108.aspx on here NTSB also call it as American Airlines Flight 5342 We should use whats widely recognized Astropulse (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this (https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2025/Information-regarding-American-Eagle-Flight-5342/default.aspx)? This is the official press statement from American Airlines. And what about similar descriptions, like American Eagle Flight 4184? In any aspect, it shouldn't be Americam Airlines Flight 5342. Awdqmb (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was initially written like this. However there were dispute and some editors wanted it to call PSA. Therefore going with NTSB and FAA to find compromise. Its not good to mention all names it lead. Astropulse (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AA 5342 is most news website calling it. as do NTSB and FAA. wsj article [1] Astropulse (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because American Eagle is not a independent operater, thus also not have IATA/ICAO code or AOC. Just like the infobox said, they used "AA" as IATA code for the flight number, but it's more like a codeshare, instead of really operating the flight. If we don't discuss about the difference about regional brand and operator, this dispute will simply fall into no end. Awdqmb (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that terms like “codeshare” and other technical jargon can confuse many people. It’s important to clearly display the flight number, the operator, and, most importantly, the owning/parent airline (here, American Airlines). The current lede presents this information in the simplest possible way, while additional details can be provided in the body text. Astropulse (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I think my previous change is enough. And use existing quote to explain further. But since it has been reversed, I won't try again for now.
Which, it will be like as I suggest:

PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (operated as American Eagle Flight 5342)[a]

Awdqmb (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there’s a strong argument that most customers would see it not as American Eagle but as American Airlines. The US carriers have really muddied the waters when it comes to regional flights… and that’s largely by design. Sure the aircraft says American Eagle… but most people never see that as they walk down the jet bridge. When they bought the ticket there was a disclosure to the effect of “Operated by PSA Airlines dba American Eagle” but it was in tiny type that’s easily overlook. However customers were bombarded by American Airlines branding when they booked the ticket, on the app they used, the baggage check counters, airport information screens and at the boarding gate. It’s entirely designed to surround passengers with American Airlines branding, while allowing the company to reduce its costs. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No argument with any of that, other than the fact that "Operated by PSA Airlines as American Eagle" is shown on the booking site in the same size, perfectly legible, type as the AA flight number and the aircraft type. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appending my original statement, you can purchase a PSA Airlines ticket either on its own website or on American Airlines's website. However, you can't purchase an "American Eagle" flight ticket. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the short term, I'm fine with either "PSA Airlines 5342 marketed as American Eagle 5342" or "American Eagle 5342 operated by PSA Airlines" to satisfy both camps. In the long term, I think we all need to build broader WP:AV consensus about this issue due to the muddy waters described by @RickyCourtney. All that being said, I do object to explicitly mentioning codeshare agreements or the companies' corporate structure in the lead. It strikes me as kludgy, no matter how it's worded. The footnote is adequate to explain this. Carguychris (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also American airlines took down PSA airlines website. They are owning the accident,calling it one of their planes. The current lead ( my version ) mention it is operated by PSA in second para. I also dont support code sharing agreements and mentioning two names in opening sentence Astropulse (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the Colgan Air article handles this best…
Colgan Air Flight 3407 (marketed as Continental Connection Flight 3407) was a…
The second sentence unpacks the relationships…
Colgan Air staffed and maintained the aircraft used on the flight that was scheduled, marketed, and sold by Continental Airlines under its Continental Connection brand.
In this case, however, there are two added complexities: this is not a single aircraft incident and PSA Airlines is owned by the same parent company as American Airlines. Because of that, I am okay with putting the relationships in an explanatory footnote and unpacking it further in the main body of the article. However the question is, is this critical information for readers who won’t go past the intro of the article. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I work in the US transportation industry, and we track every flight by their registered name and number with the knowledge that they are often marketed differently. For example, SkyWest owns and operates aircraft for regional service for both Delta Air Lines and United Airlines with specific aircraft painted in each mainline airline's livery; those flights are marketed as Delta or United, respectively, but flight plans are filed as SkyWest. Other carriers (British Airways comes to mind immediately) will file a flight plan using a flight number completely unrelated to the marketed flight number (i.e. British Airways 19W could be the filed flight that was marketed as British Airways 262). I agree that both should be used, and Colgan Air Flight 3407 is a good precedent:
PSA Airlines flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle flight 5342) ...
Being owned by the same parent company has no bearing on the fact that PSA and American are two legally distinct entities. Perhaps we could also mention that the Blackhawk was operating under the callsign PAT25. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, with one small revision regarding capitalization.

PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342)

b3stJ (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Comair Flight 5191 also follows this format. BlahVlah (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not just the matter of American Eagle. Both their major rivals have similar brands for regional flights, like United Express and Delta Connection. I think that's because the regulation problem and unions, like the infamous Scope clause. Awdqmb (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the actual reason you should include both in the statement:
PSA Airlines Flight 5342(marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342)
The American aviation landscape is full of those Scope clause agreement. PSA is remain contracted to AA in this clause despite PSA is majorly owned by AA themselves. The crews and pilots all came from PSA, not AA but they fly under AA (or in this case, AE brand).as Lowyat Slyder (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I used incorrect terminology. Though thanks for pointing it out.
The reason that I take my position, however, still stands. I think that we should adopt naming its operational name as it has been so in earlier articles about crashes in the same situation. That is also how the NTSB and the FAA refer to it.
Since you mentioned American Airlines owning the crash, instead of dumping on the subsidiary, that's commendable. But I am not advocating for the removal of the mention of the American Airlines/American Eagle flight number.
As to American Airlines' owning of PSA Airlines, I'd argue that doesn't matter. PSA Airlines is still listed separately from American Airlines as PSA Airlines d/b/a American Eagle in this list of carriers in the United States.
b3stJ (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section should be concise and brief with only the top details provided. The call sign it was flying under code sharing belongs in the body. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision&oldid=1273303357 this is the edit version id recommend Astropulse (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I object to describing it as an "American Airlines plane" because, strictly speaking, it's not true—it's a PSA Airlines plane, and I don't want to reintroduce the long-winded corporate relationship explanation. I like the current wording, although I'd prefer deleting the bit about the codeshare and leaving that in the footnote:

...PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342 by American Airlines)...

Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I sympathize with the desire to be accurate but think the more common American eagle should referenced. Dw31415 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that here we're (mostly) talking about the commercial rather than operational aspects of the service, it would be interesting to see how OAG and the GDS's portray it. As one might expect, there are a bunch of fields in the IATA Schedules Information spec (SSIM) relating to codesharing, operating vs marketing carrier, aircraft owner, etc. Does anyone have access to the relevant data for 5342 ? DaveReidUK (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
American Airlines - Many, many articles refer to the flight as American Airlines. To try to go out of our way to avoid mentioning AA is not good.
(marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342) should be changed to (marketed by American Airlines as American Eagle Flight 5342) is better. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree, or it should be simply say operated as American Airlines 5342 as per NTSB and FAA Astropulse (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colgan Air 3407 Ref?

Genuinely a bit confused as to why any reference to this accident was removed. I read the previous discussion on classifying XYZ as a more recent 'major accident' and I agree that definition is vague and requires better language, but it significantly was the most recent commercial aviation accident of its type (which resulted in total destruction of the aircraft/total fatalities/mass fatalities) on U.S. soil, and is important in the context of American aviation. IMHO a reference to it should be made in some shape or form. Xanblu (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find an WP:RS sensibly describing it - but "was the most recent commercial aviation accident of its type" is a very wooly statement - what's it's "type"? Timtjtim (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's a part 121 passenger operation. There hasn't been a crash of that type since Colgan (you can maybe argue PenAir, but the plane wasn't destroyed and there was one fatality. Not trying to say it should be discounted because of that, but I think it's clear that crash just isn't comparable to this), and a good number of sources have used that as the marker in their initial reporting. BlahVlah (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. I didn't really know the correct technical way to describe it; just that I know it was significant enough to warrant a mention. Xanblu (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping the reference in the introductory paragraph. Dw31415 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colgan 3407 was, until last week, the last fatal crash [other than incidents like SWA1380] involving a major US airline. Now it isn't.
Obviously Colgan has its own Wikipedia article - I can see the logic in recording there (as has been done) that it's the last-but-one US airline fatal crash. But I can't see any need to refer to that fact in the Potomac accident article. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable that between that crash and this, there is a nearly 16 year gap. BlahVlah (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection (and after a cup of tea!), I've changed my mind.
The relevant section in the article is mostly of the form "It was the (first/deadliest) (category of event) since (whatever was the last instance) ...".
So "It was the first fatal crash involving a major US airline since Colgan Flight 3407 in 2009" fits that format exactly and is clearly of significance.
Or are we suggesting that it wouldn't be reasonable for anyone reading the article to wonder "when was the last time a US major killed a plane-load of people?" DaveReidUK (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts! And that's also the way it's being covered for the most part in the media. BlahVlah (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my comments here per suggestion. I would argue the fact that no part 121 passenger operation in the U.S. has crashed since Colgan, almost 16 years ago, is very noteworthy. The U.S. has a longstanding reputation for being the gold standard when it comes to aviation, so breaking a 16-year streak of no major crashes is, in my opinion, noteworthy enough to be in the lead. BlahVlah (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to anyone concerned about the verbiage, neither the NTSB report nor Wikipedia’s own article refers to the PenAir incident as a “crash.” Runway excursions are their own category, therefore I think this is a factual way to describe this incident. BlahVlah (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If RSs differ about this, WP:DUE should be considered. Perhaps the assertion not mentioning PenAir should be footnoted mentioning PenAir Flight 3296 and briefly explaining why the article does not consider that to be a "fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline" (as I understand it, the reason is that PenAir is a regional airline, but so is Colgan Air). Perhaps also a similar explanation should be added to the PenAir crash article, or perhaps not. You say, "The U.S. has a longstanding reputation for being the gold standard when it comes to aviation"; granted, but perhaps WP articles should not rely on technicalities to justify not mentioning incidents that to the nonexpert mind might reflect unfavorably on that reputation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 airlines (PSA, Colgan, PenAir) would be considered regional airlines, which is why I purposely said involving a major U.S. airline and not of a major U.S. airline. I don't think anyone disagrees (if you do, please say so here!) that in terms of severity and the overall circumstances, Colgan really was the last major incident like this. That being said, I may be using a technicality here, so I don't necessarily disagree with you and I'm not opposed to someone adding a footnote if they believe it's necessary. As far as I can see, no notable sources mention the PenAir incident in their coverage of this. BlahVlah (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that "last major crash" has not been well defined by the sources that stated it. Several use different criteria ("US airline" with no clarity on exactly why PenAir is excluded, domestic flight of a US airline, "deadliest since" which is unspecified as this crash had more fatalities than Colgan, one just said "in the US" which likely wrongly excludes Asiana Airlines Flight 214, etc). We can't really say in wikivoice "last major crash" when sources dispute it and some sources even had made clear errors in a rush to publish (several of the sources originally cited have since updated or removed the language they had). We need to know what "major" means and define it in the article (or attribute it to the sources). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on: the PenAir flight had a codeshare with Alaska Airlines, so I'm really unclear how "involving a major US airline" is defined to exclude it. Maybe "involving a Big 4 US airline" but at that point it seems the criteria is being intentionally stretched to get to Colgan. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am being intentional with my verbiage when I say 'crash' and not 'accident.' A runway excursion and a plane crash mean two separate things, which is why if you read the official NTSB report for PenAir, the Wikipedia article for PenAir, or any of the sources that cover PenAir (aside from some blog which is somehow considered a credible source), nowhere does it say the plane 'crashed.' I am also a part of this industry, and I know for a fact that runway excursions and plane crashes are considered different in the eyes of the NTSB and FAA. Am I being overly technical here? Probably yes. But it's very clear to see PenAir just doesn't fall into the same category. Speaking of sources by the way:
From NPR: "The crash could be the most significant disaster in U.S. airspace in at least 15 years." (Clearly referencing Colgan)
From CNN: "The latest fatal commercial plane crashes in the United States include: Feb. 12, 2009 – Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, NY. 50 people died."
From ABC: "This is the first major commercial airplane crash in the United States since the Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, New York, in 2009."
CNN did also mention Asiana, but I think that's reasonably excludable by only considering U.S. airlines. But more notably, not a single source I could find mentions PenAir anywhere. Going off what I've seen, there seems to be about an equal number of sources that mention Colgan and American 587, a few that mention Asiana, and none that mention PenAir. If you have one, I would love to see it. BlahVlah (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment of sources, which is why I readded the sentence to the article. The sources that were there at the time I removed it didn't mention Colgan at all (probably caused by rapidly shifting information in the lede and not intentional, but it still wasn't clearly tied to sources). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure there is enough consensus on this, so I'm calling for a vote. There is also a user here who very strongly advocates the lead should only reference the American Airlines 587 crash in November 2001, as this would be the deadliest crash since then. I personally disagree, and think referencing the Colgan crash is far more appropriate. It's very natural to wonder what was the last fatal crash of a major U.S. airline, and the fact it was 16 years ago makes it quite notable. Not only does this avoid comparison, but it does an equally good job of expressing the significance of an event like this. I'm advocating the last sentence of the first paragraph be written like this:

"It was the first fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline in nearly 16 years following Colgan Air Flight 3407."

Let me know what you guys think, thanks! BlahVlah (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is the deadliest U.S. aviation accident since the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001"
this is my proposal in lead because i think fatality rate is more important that being the first crash since 16 years ago.
Also both planes involved as AA which makes it a interesting fact Astropulse (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point but Colgan Air Flight 3407, though not as deadly, was still a major event in the U.S. aviation history. I don't think we could simply overlap that event. Wouldn't it be a good idea to just mention both the accidents? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
mentioning both makes it bit crowded in lead. also not in spirit of Wikipedia:AVILAYOUT-WW Astropulse (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, mentioning American 587 isn't in the spirit of WP:AVILAYOUT-WW. By mentioning "deadliest accident since," you are making a direct comparison based on number of fatalities. That being said, comparison isn't necessarily bad, and I'm not opposed to including both. However, American 587 is referenced later in the article anyways, and if picking one of these to make the point, the 16 years between Colgan and this is a lot more significant. American 587 had over 260 fatalities, even though this is technically the deadliest crash since then, this crash comes nowhere near that. BlahVlah (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note: purpose of lead is to summertime whats in body. not introduce new facts. question here which is most worthy to show in lead. if you get consensus - choose that one. Astropulse (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is the deadliest U.S. aviation accident since the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001.
2) It was the first fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline in nearly 16 years following Colgan Air Flight 3407
choose one plz @Ivebeenhacked @Wtmitchell @DaveReidUK @Xanblu @Timtjtim Astropulse (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse: I don't see what's wrong with mentioning both. Something along the following should work: "The accident was the first fatal crash in the U.S. involving a major U.S. airline since Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009, and the deadliest since American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001." The two sources verifying the information for Colgan Air Flight 3407: [2] [3] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think this is okay with me. previous edit to include both was too big Astropulse (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I would prefer stating the gap between Colgan and this rather than the exact date. BlahVlah (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be happy. You got what you wanted Astropulse (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ahhh.. u made it worse. plz revert back to what is agreed Astropulse (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
never mind. fixed it Astropulse (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioning the year of the Colgan accident seems daft to me. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlahVlah do not change wiki after consensus is formed. you are starting edit war Astropulse (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse, cc @Aviationwikiflight I'm pushing back on : It was the first fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline in nearly 16 years following Colgan Air Flight 3407 because PenAir Flight 3296 was marketed as an Alaska Airlines flight, just as Colgan Air Flight 3407 was under the Continental Connection branding, and PSA Airlines Flight 5342 was under American Eagle / American Airlines...
We've got 3 crashes involving airlines of essentially the same "category" and branding system, but we continue to ignore PenAir.
I do acknowledge that PenAir only involved 1 fatality, so it's not as easily comparable, but I'd love to be precise here.
Maximum precision is It was the first crash involving a flight operating under a major U.S. airline *brand* which resulted in *multiple* fatalities since the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash almost 16 years before.
Or we could mention both It was the first fatal crash involving a major U.S. airline brand since PenAir Flight 3296 in 2019 and the first with multiple fatalities since the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash 16 years before?
I'm sort of leaning towards the latter? Thoughts? Timtjtim (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think I agree with @DaveReidUK and we should just write the years, not the time period? Timtjtim (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cc @Dylnuge too - they also mentioned the fact that PenAir was a code share Timtjtim (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PenAir is not a crash. It is a runway excursion. Maybe instead of using the word crash in general we can find another term, but PenAir is in a separate category and should not be grouped in with these two accidents. BlahVlah (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In fact, the NTSB don't use the word at all. They're all accidents.
"PenAir is in a separate category" please define that category. It was a fatal accident of an airliner operated by a U.S. airline under the branding of a major U.S. airline on U.S. soil. Ignoring it is silly. Timtjtim (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NTSB's final report for Colgan 3407: "On February 12, 2009, about 2217 eastern standard time, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC-8-400 (Q400), N200WQ, operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, was on an instrument approach to Buffalo-Niagara International Airport (BUF), Buffalo, New York, when it crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 nautical miles (nm) northeast of the airport." [4]
NTSB's final report for PenAir 3296: "On October 17, 2019, about 1740 Alaska daylight time, Peninsula Aviation Services Inc. d.b.a. PenAir flight 3296, a Saab SA-2000, N686PA, was landing at Unalaska Airport (DUT), Unalaska, Alaska, when the airplane overran the end of the runway, passed through the airport perimeter fence, crossed a road, and pitched down over shoreline rocks with its nosewheel coming to rest at the edge of Dutch Harbor." [5]
BlahVlah (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlahVlah I will say, though, that in common parlance, this image looks like a crash to me!
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/PenAir_Flight_3296#/media/File:PenAir_Flight_3296%EF%BC%88N686PA%EF%BC%89_after_crash_landing.jpg Timtjtim (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a single reliable source that mentions PenAir being the last major crash before this, I'll agree with you. BlahVlah (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the last "major" U.S. airline accident in 2019? PenAir Flight 3296? Although it was a PenAir aircraft and PenAir is not really a major airline, it was doing business as Alaska Airlines and Alaska Airlines is a major airline. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read my earlier comments. BlahVlah (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further my argument, there has never been a gap between two major U.S. airline crashes nearly as long as this. The longest gap before this was between American 587 and Comair 5191, about 5 years. Before that, it was unfortunately common to have a major crash every 3 years or so. The reason I am so heavily advocating to talk about the 16 year gap between Colgan and this is because it emphasizes how safe aviation had become in the U.S. that it was almost inconceivable there would ever be a crash like this. Overall, it is way more significant and notable than essentially doing a direct comparison of fatalities. BlahVlah (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am so heavily advocating to talk about the 16 year gap between Colgan and this is because it emphasizes how safe aviation had become in the U.S.... <snark> sure, it was safe if you ignore all the intervening fatalities. </snark>
Look, I get it - PenAir was a single fatality, as was the Southwest window incident. And yes, U.S. (commercial airliner) aviation has generally become a lot safer in the time. But that doesn't mean we get to just drop some incidents off. Heck, when you add in all Part 121 (commercial) flights, it's actually not improved as much.
I sort of think what you're wanting to show is that between e.g. 2005 and now, there have been only a few crashes of U.S. airline airliners (so excluding small aircraft) that causes a large loss of life, and a large gap since 2009. In some ways that's better represented with a chart that would look a bit like this:
 |                                         X
 |                                         X
 |   X     X                               X
 |   X     X                               X
 | X X     X                               X
 | X X     X                               X
 | X X     X                 X X           X
 |-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
  2005      2010      2015      2020      2025
 X = 10, numbers rounded up
Would this accurately communicate your point, instead of trying to express it based on comparisons between past accidents by skipping incidents with fewer fatalities? Timtjtim (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That graph does communicate my point well, however a lot of what you said doesn't really make sense either.
"Heck, when you add in all Part 121 (commercial) flights, it's actually not improved as much."
For the sake of argument, lets even consider part 121 cargo ops. In total, between the Colgan accident and this one, across ALL U.S. part 121 operations, there have been 11 fatalities, and only 2 of those fatalities were passengers. Across 16 years. How is that not "improved as much"? And I think this is even more impressive when you consider the volume of U.S. commercial flights. The U.S. has more airline passenger service than any other country in the world by a mile. And that includes all of Europe combined. Now unfortunately, accidents at some point or another are inevitable because it's impossible to stop everything. But U.S. passenger flights had become so safe to the point that there was legitimately a belief an accident could never happen again here. I'm not trying to make this a whole thing of "U.S. is better," but rather explain why going 16 years without a major crash is particularly significant here. And I've already explained why I don't consider PenAir to be a crash. BlahVlah (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something - is 2022 Mutiny Bay DHC-3 Otter crash not part 121?
"But U.S. passenger flights had become so safe to the point that there was legitimately a belief an accident could never happen again here" - strongly doubt anyone believed that, and if that truly is the case, no wonder things got so lax.
"but rather explain why going 16 years without a major crash is particularly significant here" - we continue to disagree on what a "major crash" is I suppose. I don't see how someone being killed isn't "major". To be honest I think crashes with lots of injuries, or where the plane was written off should also count. Timtjtim (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. No it's not. It was part 135.
2. Do you think the average person would've known what the last accident in the U.S. was before this? I'd argue most likely not, because the last notable one was so long ago. Maybe I misspoke that people thought it would "never happen again," what I'm trying to say is the general public in the U.S. likely never thought about a fatal airplane crash as a possibility for scheduled airliners. Obviously those of us in the industry take it very very seriously, which is why aviation is particularly very safe in the U.S. (and why the FAA is such a pain in the ass).
3. You and I are free to disagree what a 'major crash' is. The reliable sources covering this crash do not disagree that the last major commercial crash was Colgan.
This has already turned into a very bad faith argument, so I'll just agree to disagree. BlahVlah (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to mention the air ambulance crash?

The aftermath section briefly mentions the crash in PA two days later - Does this really need to be included? It's completely unrelated to this accident and in my opinion should either be omitted or better tied together to the wider public perception on aviation safety surrounding these crashes. Marsroverr (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the mention of the Pennsylvanian plane crash because of the reason above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There actually exists consensus to not mention any of the late January crashes here as they would or could imply a not coincidental relation, so feel free to remove these mentions :) Squawk7700 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion similar to this that got hatted a few days ago. I will say that the situation seems similar to the East Palestine train crash where there was an uptick in coverage of train derailments across the US: AP, Miami Herald. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Let's not be a part of repeating that mistake as we aren't a newspaper. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Horizontal & Vertical separation

Has anyone mentioned FAA rules such as 1000 feet horizontal & 500 feet vertical separation between airplanes and helicopters in flight? By "anyone" I mean oficial investigators, pilots associations, etc.


Also, who authorized the helicopter to fly UNDER an airliner on its final landing approach? If the plane is at 500 or 600 feet altitude, is a helicopter ALLOWED to cross its path at 200 feet? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOBODY instructed the helicopter to fly under the airliner.
What part of "Cross behind the CRJ" are you having trouble understanding? DaveReidUK (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone mentioned FAA rules such as 1000 feet horizontal & 500 feet vertical separation between airplanes and helicopters in flight? No, because we don't have enough information to know whether it's relevant, so posting it now would be implicit speculation. Based on available information, the helicopter pilot said they could see the CRJ and was told to pass behind it (see previous reply), so it does not seem there was an intentional and knowing violation of FARs regarding separation. Carguychris (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does a FAR even specify minimum separation under VFR? The only thing I know from training is that you need to report near misses, which is less than 500 feet to another aircraft. Maybe helis have a different rule? BlahVlah (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to add bloat here and this is mostly bloat info but it might lead to useful info. I was a CFI(AI but not Rotorcraft) a long time ago and don't remember details. I did some searching and found the following items which contain info that is interesxing but old, and/or unciteable and/or not directly relevant to the article: [6][7][8][9]][10][11][12]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still instruct? I’m actually looking for a CFI currently. BlahVlah (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article in Washington Post. I propose it is included.
The charted approach for that alternative landing takes jets within 15 feet of the top of the Route 4 helicopter corridor as it is depicted in navigation maps, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Aviation Administration documentation.
…
If [helicopter pilot can see the traffic], controllers ask the pilot to maintain “visual separation,” meaning they will keep the plane in sight and use their own discretion to avoid a collision. Helicopter pilots who cannot see a jet on final approach are asked to hold at points north or south of the crossing, they said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2025/02/04/dca-close-calls-plane-collisions-history/ Dw31415 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka Capital-Journal, February 3, 2025: Why Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall thinks DEI programs contributed to D.C. plane crash

All I'm doing this time is posting the link. I'll let everyone else decide if this should be included or not.

Please post your opinion, and form a consensus.

Thank you.

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2025/02/03/u-s-sen-roger-marshall-r-kansas-pins-plane-crash-on-dei-and-biden/78182048007/

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Senator Marshall a Republican by any chance? I'd be interested to know the source of his claim that, in the 4 years of the Biden administration, "near misses increased by 70%". Apparently that means (to the non-experts among us) that they "nearly doubled". He also starts to stray off into the suggestion that, like ATC, the recruitment policies for airline pilots have also been polluted by Democratic DEI initiatives. To me it looks like a load of old political posturing, that has very little to do with reliable facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question. I don't know the source of his claim. I just knew that he said it.
I recently created Brigida v. FAA, which cites several sources on this same topic, although it does not mention Senator Marshall. It's just a stub article, and I'm happy for any changes that anyone might like to make to it.
A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps provide a Wayback machine link as I can't read the article due to geo blocking. Squawk7700 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://archive.ph/ZuOnL Marcus Markup (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perfect, thanks Squawk7700 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose adding this in because of two reasons: 1. Absolutely not supported by any facts, I know that that's what this is about but to me it makes it meaningless; just another politicians unsourced opinions. 2. Relevancy, I don't think every politicians opinion is relevant for the matter of this crash, AAMOF I think we already have too many unrelevant responses. Squawk7700 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting on this. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by regional carrier PSA Airlines under the American Eagle brand)

On January 29, 2025, American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by regional carrier PSA Airlines under the American Eagle brand)

I think this is a better opening as it signifies it is a American airline plane operated by PSA under American eagle branding.

Media heavily calls it a American Airlines plane. Even FAA and NTSB briefing does the same.

I think we should not hide the fact that it is AA plane. Many people do not know PSA ans American eagle is 100% owned by AA (or its parent company) Astropulse (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support. I support using American Airlines Flight 5342 as the only flight number. There is much discussion on this above in “Name of…” Why did you start a new section? Dw31415 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I initially opposed this version (I supported putting PSA first), but this seems to have become the predominant WP:COMMONNAME used by media sources. However, I would omit "regional carrier"—it's clunky. Let's leave that in the footnote.

American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by PSA Airlines under the American Eagle brand)[a]

Just for the record, I still oppose changing the article title. Carguychris (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An even simpler form would be:
American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by PSA Airlines as American Eagle)[a]
That also matches with how American Airlines marketed this flight and the explanatory footnote goes into the details. — RickyCourtney (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im okay with this Astropulse (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terrible at WP:MOS, but should the footnote go inside the parenthesis, since it applies mainly to the word "American Eagle"? meamemg (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for consistency, it should be American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated as PSA Airlines Flight 5342). All wiki articles about aviation incidents involving regional a/c follow this format. BlahVlah (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support per WP:COMMONNAME in media references. meamemg (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support all of this… in the second sentence, or later in the first. The way it’s currently written makes it sound like the CRJ collided with the helicopter, when it was really the other way around. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should probably just rearrange the two. BlahVlah (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d reformat it as:
On January 29, 2025, a United States Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter collided mid-air with American Airlines Flight 5342 (operated by PSA Airlines as American Eagle),[a] a Bombardier CRJ700 airliner, over the Potomac River, about one-half mile (800 m) short of runway 33 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia.
-- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, except the PSA flight number should be stated, it is general practice to do that for all aviation wiki articles when the flight's marketed designation differs from the operational one. BlahVlah (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
omg... this again. it doesn't matter. people doesn't care. its repetitive and totally unnecessary. its not a useful info to quote Astropulse (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose having 5342 appear twice in the introduction. Dw31415 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - @BlahVlah have been very adamant on and starting edit war's on this issue. These is consensus here. Please don't act in bad faith and disrupt wiki @BlahVlah Astropulse (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ill update to this Astropulse (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support.
I emphasize that '''PSA Airlines Flight 5342''' must be included in the lead body sentence. Though yes, WP:COMMONNAME means we now have to place prominence on '''American Airlines Flight 5342''', because PSA Airlines is a separate air carrier, as shown here, it must be mentioned there.
I believe that any conciseness lost to repeating the flight number is made back by emphasizing the operator of the flight.
b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 02:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this page includes two aircraft, I think the enumeration of all flight info, if required, should be in the first paragraph dedicated to 5342. I’d be more sympathetic to PSA 5342 if it appeared in sources. Does it? Dw31415 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the NTSB report on Continental does not refer to "Colgan Flight 3407".
Loss of Control on Approach
Colgan Air, Inc.
Operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407
Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1001.pdf Dw31415 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the FAA Report does refer to "Colgan Air Flight 3407": "On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air, a regional air carrier, was operating a Bombardier DHC-8-400 turboprop (Q-400) as Continental Connection 3407 from Newark, New Jersey to Buffalo, New York." https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N200WQ Dw31415 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, maybe not, however it will eventually. This is such a huge media event, which is probably why it's still mostly being called American Airlines/American Eagle even in media reports from the govt. However, there's no dispute that in an official sense, it is a PSA Airlines flight. This is emphasized by the fact that the official flight number uses PSA's code (OH/JIA), the flight's callsign was "Blue Streak" as heard on ATC recordings, and ADS-B data. Some refs: [13][14][15][16]. BlahVlah (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you google American AA 5342 - you can see google flight widget for this flight. This says to me its shown to customer as American airline plane. Im thinking in airport and airline website while booking- they show it as American AA 5342 Astropulse (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I still do support PSA Airlines Flight 5342 as the lead name as I'm still not convinced that this flight should be called as American Airlines Flight 5342 in the long run. The Flight 3407 accident was being referred to as Continental Airlines in the first few weeks before drifting to Continental Connection Flight 3407 and finally Colgan Air Flight 3407. Not sure if the same will happen here or not. I guess we will zero-in on whatever the Federal Aviation Administration or the National Transportation Safety Board calls it. Since the NTSB calls it "American Airlines Flight 5342", I guess we'll stick with that? It's worth mentioning that both the NTSB and FAA refer to this as a "PSA Airlines jet" and not an "American Airlines jet". In fact, either source barely uses American Airlines outside its operational code with PSA Airlines. They barely even list "American Airlines" in their accident briefings. I do oppose the usage of the common name in this instance as the media gets a lot of stuff wrong with the operator. Doubt this will ever be corrected.
So, just to summarise, I'm fine with the accident being called "American Airlines Flight 5342" solely because the NTSB is currently calling it so and not because it's inline with it being a commonly used name. As far as I know, no other Wikipedia article calls a regional flight by its mainstream carrier and I strongly oppose that. We'll see what the FAA & the NTSB call it in the future. GalacticOrbits (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is consensus that American Airlines Flight 5342 appear in the first sentence. The proposal from @B3stJ is that both American Airlines Flight 5342 and PSA Airlines Flight 5342 appear in the first sentence of the article. Most editors oppose this. What's your take? Dw31415 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, this should be called "PSA Airlines Flight 5342" in the lead with a footnote that references that this was marketed as "American Eagle Flight 5342". This will significantly reduce the amount of janky and kludgy clutter and confusion regarding the operator caused in that first sentence which no one wants. Redirects for American Eagle Flight 5342, PSA Airlines Flight 5342, and American Airlines Flight 5342 have already been created to this page so there's no visible possibility of confusion in navigation to this article. Also, as I said earlier, after listening to some of the briefings, the NTSB almost never uses "American Airlines" or "American Eagle" and calls the accident by "PSA Airlines". It references several times that this is a PSA Airlines jet (indicating that the aircraft was owned and operated by PSA Airlines). I strongly oppose this being called "American Airlines Flight 5342" in the lead (or anywhere else for that matter) as this has mainly been exaggerated by media outlets to garner attention and I suspect that's why this the NTSB decided to call it "American Airlines Flight 5342". The American Airlines website calls this "American Eagle Flight 5342". GalacticOrbits (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude

We currently have:

The helicopter was flying anywhere between 251 feet and 349 feet whereas the passenger plane was flying at 325

Had there been a 74-foot separation between the aircraft, this sorry event would not have occurred.

The plane was not "at" 325 feet, but was descending through that altitude.

What should we say, instead?

The earlier:

Preliminary data shows the collision likely occurred at an altitude of 325 feet (99 m), plus or minus 25 feet (7.6 m)

seems far less clumsy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The airliner was at approximately 325 feet, but was certainly descending. The helicopter may have been ascending, but it's not clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say for now to just write it as how the NTSB described it during [17]. BlahVlah (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wrote that earlier revision, and per the NTSB it seems to be accurate. For some reason, the editor who rewrote it decided to use the New York Post (which is certainly very reliable and trustworthy) as their source. I have not reversed their edits so far because they have been very combative, particularly with me, and I don't wanna start another edit war. BlahVlah (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that earlier version is less clumsy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly disappointed you didn't catch onto my sarcasm, haha. I would love for someone to rewrite it to be accurate and well-written, but I'm not gonna be the one to do it. I'm avoiding engaging with that editor at all. BlahVlah (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the earlier text. Dw31415 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the accident part of the article currently includes these words: "(at its last tracking point, the plane was below 300 feet)". What does that suggest: 290 feet, 200 feet, 190 feet? Could this "last tracking point" height figure please be supported by a current valid reference, and if possible the precision of the figure also be stated? [At an early stage the last known height of the aircraft was being quoted as 325 feet ± 25 feet.] Geek987 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That part should be rewritten imo. BlahVlah (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and should be consistent with other parts of the article. The Investigations part of the article currently includes these words: "According to the NTSB, preliminary data shows that, at the moment of impact, the airplane was likely at an altitude of 325 feet (99 m) plus or minus 25 feet (7.6 m), and the radar display of the control tower indicated the helicopter at an altitude of 300 feet (91 m). Altitude information on the air traffic control tower display is rounded to the nearest 100 feet." Geek987 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small edit for clarity:
According to the NTSB, preliminary data shows that, at the moment of impact, the airplane was likely at an altitude of 325 feet (99 m) plus or minus 25 feet (7.6 m). The radar display in the control tower indicated the helicopter at an altitude of 300 feet (91 m). The control tower display is rounded to the nearest 100 feet. Dw31415 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that the helicopter is changed to both aircraft if supported by the sources. Dw31415 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what you edited! I note that the part of the article headed Accident remains unchanged. It still contains the unreferenced -- and in my opinion not particularly helpful (and not necessarily accurate) -- words: "below 300 feet". [If I were more familiar with aviation, I'd try editing the Accident section myself.] Geek987 (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ATC audio

Why is:

<!-- [[File:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision ATC.ogg|thumb|Partial air traffic control audio between the helicopter, regional jet, and [[Air traffic control|ground control]]]] -->

commented out? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out because I think it's misleading and because there was no conclusion to the discussion about it, which has since been archived. I have opened a new thread for discussion above: see "Partial air traffic control audio". It might be better to remove it altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this statement makes no sense.

"This was the first mid-air collision in the United States involving a jet airliner since Aeroméxico Flight 498 in 1986, and the first fatal mid-air collision in the United States since 2023."

If the incident was the first mid-air collision involving a jet airliner since 1986, but there was another fatal mid-air collision in 2023, then the statement doesn't make sense. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The important part is the “involving a jet airliner” the other mid air collision did not involve an airliner. Squawk7700 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be phrased a little better. :/ Kingturtle = (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't really understand why mention the 2023 mid-air collision. It's not a significantly long time ago, it was between two GA aircraft, and overall wasn't a very notable event. Mentioning Aeromexico makes sense, but I would say to just get rid of the 2023 mention entirely. BlahVlah (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add the word "commercial" before the words "jet airliner" as a further means of clarification. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter route

In the lede:

"The Federal Aviation Administration requires helicopters on that route to stay at or below 200 feet (61 m)."

Which route? Should be clarified and maybe not mentioned in the lede. Is it confirmed heli was supposed to be on Route 4? BlahVlah (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeromxico flight 498 ref

can someone confirm that this is the first Mid-air collision to happen in the United States involving a [Jet Airliner] since Aeroméxico Flight 498? I don't get why its being removed Ryke001 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Sounds like a way of getting Mexico into the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I added this due to it being an accident very similar to the recent one that just occurred days ago, so it does matter to an extent. Ryke001 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned later in the article. BlahVlah (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please make a proposal that we can react to? I oppose mentioning more or different flights in the introduction. Dw31415 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But its still worth noting since this accident is very similar to the recent one that just occurred days ago. Should we might as well make a page dedicated to mentioning the different flights that were relevant? Ryke001 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision&oldid=1274300605"