Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Time of collision

Flightradar24 says the CRJ encountered a rapid loss of altitude on approach (moment of collision) at 01:47 UTC.

The aircraft location was still being recorded as the time changed to 01:48, however there is probably a delay between the location being recorded and when Flightradar24 uploads the data, so the aircraft most likely collided a few seconds earlier in real life before it is shown on Flightradar24. TheHolyCessna553 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

FR24 uploaded the mode s data for the helo. The timestamp of the last data point from that is probably the most accurate, as that timestamp won't have upload delay. » Bray _talk 10:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Mode S data doesn't contain timestamps. Any timestamps in the FR24 data are theirs, and subject to any delay/latency that that involves (though probably not much). DaveReidUK (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Would we want or need to show the time to the exact second? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Four Maryland Labor Union members among the dead.

Baltimore's WJZ-TV reported that four members of a Prince George's County-based labor union were onboard the Eagle that collided with the Black Hawk, and are now presumed dead, union leaders said in a social media post. The Maryland Department of Emergency Management raised the state's activation level to "partial" early Thursday morning and Maryland State Police deployed divers to help. Anne Arundel County Fire officials said that they sent 15 members and two boats to the scene, including divers, special operators and administrative staff. 2600:1702:5225:C010:E424:11D1:DE1F:4C49 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

References

The title should be mentioned in the lead.

"2025 Potomac River mid-air collision" should be mentioned in bold under the lead section. This article isn't just about the passenger plane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done (partially). We don't need to mention the title directly in the lead, but it should summarise the scope of the article and as such a bolded link isn't necessary. I've reworded so that the first sentence mentions both aircraft and focuses on the incident.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks! There is also an WP:UNDUE concern about only highlighting one aircraft as well. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  On the other hand, WP:RASTONISH requires a bold link for the target of American Eagle Flight 5342. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How the Plane and Helicopter Collided in Washington: Maps and Graphics (NYT)

If this is of any help to the graphics wizards around here, here's an article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/30/us/washington-dc-plane-crash-helicopter-maps-photos.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tE4.-2kp.9xUaROrZjqIt&smid=url-share JayCubby 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior commercial crash in US was in 2013, not 2009. Last domestic carrier crash was 2009.

This portion of the article is factually incorrect, and the news articles cited are factually incorrect: "first fatal incident for American Airlines since the crash of Flight 587 on November 12, 2001, and the first major commercial plane crash in the US since Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009."

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed in 2013 in San Francisco, and had fatalities.

This should either be changed to "first major crash in the US since 2013" or "first major crash involving a US domestic carrier since 2009" or similar to make it accurate. 199.184.81.5 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually that crash only killed 3 people and 304 survived. The last fatal plane crash in American soil that ended with no survivors was Colgan 3407 on February 12, 2009. 2600:1702:5225:C010:E424:11D1:DE1F:4C49 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that Asiana 214 was a major crash of a commercial flight on US soil. There were fatalities, and hull loss. Just because most survived does not make it a minor event. 199.184.81.5 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it does. An accident that has the same number of fatalities as a Cessna 172 crash and a 99% survival rate generally is not classified as a major accident. If you have a problem with that, you will have to bring it up with the sources in question. Wikipedia is not a place to righting great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

But to every reader, 'major' is subjective. I don't see why this sentence even needs to be on the page at all when everyone will interpret it differently. Cubnorth (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How is there a such thing as a 'minor' plane crash? Asiana was the last major airline crash with fatalities in the United States, that should be the line. Anything else is misleading. BiscuitsUndGravy (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is rapidly turning into an argument about definitions, which rarely ends well. FWIW, in my book (commercial airliner destroyed)+([any] fatalities) = Major accident. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There were 187 injuries on that flight, and it was a commercially operated passenger flight. Comparing it to a Cessna 172 is ridiculous. I am not trying to right a "great wrong" I am pointing out that this should be written for concision and accuracy, which it is not. It looks like someone has now edited that sentence to "and was the first major commercial plane crash involving multiple fatalities in the US since Colgan Air Flight 3407" which is even less accurate, since there were multiple fatalities on Asiana 214.

Again, this should either clarify that it is referring to US domestic carriers, or US airliner (probably best), or mention 214. Even the contents of two of the three citations state "The last fatal crash of a U.S. commercial airliner" "first fatal U.S. passenger airplane accident since February 2009" which is not the same as saying "IN the us" or on US soil. Only the ABC article seems to be trying to classify this as "major" and then it references Asiana 214.

Aviation-specific news articles are also referring to this correctly such as https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2025-01-30/us-army-helicopter-american-airlines-flight-collide

"the first crash involving a commercial U.S. airline since"

I haven't memorized the wikipedia rules but I have to imagine that subjectively categorizing a fatal accident based off the headline of a single article or opinion of a random wikipedia editor which stands in opposition to multiple other news articles, and by which there is no standardized scale, is not in the interest of accurate, objective information. 199.184.81.5 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Current: "and was the first major commercial plane crash involving multiple fatalities in the US since Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009."

Could be either "and was the first crash of a US commercial airliner involving multiple fatalities since Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009."

or "and was the first major commercial plane crash involving multiple fatalities in the US since Asiana Airlines Flight 214 on July 6, 2013."

This is a small change for accuracy. It shouldn't be difficult. 199.184.81.5 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources confirming this, then by all means go for it. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There's also Atlas Air Flight 3591 in Feb 2019, widebody commercial jet with multiple fatalities, but it was a cargo flight carrying only the two flying pilots and a non-revenue deadheading pilot from another airline. It sounds to me like whatever we ultimately decide to use, it will require attribution in the text. Carguychris (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Owned by, marketed by, sold by, oh my!

Before this devolves into an edit war: I strongly feel that the lead should specify that this was a PSA Airlines flight marketed by American Airlines under the American Eagle brand, or some variation that says the same thing (e.g., an American Eagle flight operated by PSA). The casual reader looking for a brief summary of the accident is unlikely to care who owns PSA, but may be confused by varying news sources describing this as a PSA, American Airlines, or American Eagle accident. I feel it is off-topic to explain who owns PSA in the lead, or to fully explain the background of American Eagle brand in the main text; this is why I created a footnote. Pinging user @Astropulse. Carguychris (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

whats the question here? PSA wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines. it is written in psa website before they took the whole website down. AA Ceo also say the same in official video announcement. Official announcement also American Eagle Flight 5342 not a PSA Flight 5342 Astropulse (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

And its important to show the association of American Airlines between PSA - as reported in news. Its need to be clear in the lead. i think Astropulse (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse, I'm not debating whether it's factual that PSA is owned by AA, I'm debating whether it's relevant in the lead. What's important to the casual reader (someone who's not an aviation or business nerd) is that PSA was operating the flight on AA's behalf under the American Eagle brand. Who owns PSA is trivial and can be explained adequately in a footnote. Carguychris (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I just noted this in the #American Eagle vs. PSA section above, but I'm thinking that everyone seems to be referring to it as AA Flight not AE flight, and we should do the same in the lead. meamemg (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Victims vs Passengers and Crew

With no survivors expected, the "Victims" section and the "Passengers and Crew" subsection of the background will become essentially the same. Any opinions on where to consolidate the information to? (Or anyone want to argue why they should stay separate)? meamemg (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly not the only Wikipedia entry for an accident where all on board perished. AA191, for example, lists totals for Occupants/Passengers/Crew/Fatalities/Survivors. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable approach. DaveReidUK (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, @DaveReidUK. I'm just saying we don't need, for example, two different sections of the article discussing the occupations of the passengers, as it is now. meamemg (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Insecurity About Lead Edit

As there has been so much discussion about the lead, I’d like to discuss my idea here first: I’d like to change the lead to feature that the plane was comming from Wichita, Kansas, and going to Washington, D.C. Squawk7700 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't it currently say that? "was en route from Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport in Wichita, Kansas" "while on final approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport near Washington, D.C." What specific language are you proposing? (And note it was going to DCA which is in Arlington, VA near Washington, DC not to Washington DC itself)meamemg (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I was a bit hasty, I thought about adding it at the very beginning right after "scheduled flight" but after reading through the whole thing again I think it's best if it stays the way it is. Squawk7700 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

American Eagle vs. PSA

For anyone changing the lead sentence to say PSA Airlines instead of American Eagle, see American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and Incidents. All other incidents use the American Eagle name. Electricmemory (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I support the use of American Eagle, I don't think that American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and Incidents saying that matters at all. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It does matter, for consistency, and because that's how it's been done in the past on Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this but the actual articles in the list you mention are not consistant whether or not they use American Eagle. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going off the titles. Electricmemory (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No objections but I see no consistency here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just leave it as it is for now. Electricmemory (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not even trying to change it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't say you were. Electricmemory (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

"Just leave it as it is for now." Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say you were. Apologies. Electricmemory (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for background, PSA is the operating certificate holder, the airline operating the accident aircraft. PSA was operating the flight as American Eagle, how American Airlines brands their regional airline contractors. 2600:1700:36A0:BC80:99B7:61F2:715F:E3CA (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The article says this. The debate is over whether the first sentence should say PSA Airlines Flight 5342 or American Eagle Flight 5342. There are arguments for both. Electricmemory (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It could also be “called” American Airlines flight 5342, because American brands their regional contractors and paints their regional planes so customers feel a blurred brand image when they fly on an “American Eagle” regional jet. On the flight trackers it will show the American Airlines prefix to the callsign: “AA5342.” On FAA websites, and ATC radar scopes, it will be depicted as a PSA aircraft: JIA5342, callsign “blue streak 5342.” If anything bad ever happens, major carriers who contract with other airlines for their flying, distance themselves by using the other airline’s name or if absolutely necessary “American Eagle.” This has happened before in other crashes. ECAMpapa (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe any other American Eagle-related articles are titled as "American Airlines". Electricmemory (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing American Airlines 5342 is the predominant way the news is referring to the flight. See

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/30/dc-plane-crash-helicopter-passengers-victims/78046561007/

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/plane-crash-dca-potomac-washington-dc-01-29-25

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kdgzj91o

for example. This suggests that WP:COMMONNAME would have us change from American Eagle to American Airlines in the lead. meamemg (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

One problem is with good news, the big airlines claims credit and for bad news, they blame the regional airline. Already in Wikipedia, there is a group of editors which have taken control of articles so that all Alaska Airlines as well as Skywest and Horizon flights are listed as Alaska but the same treatment is not given to United, American, Delta, etc. This happens mostly in airport articles in the airline destination section. I do not want to fight but someone should stop this collusion that is done that benefits only Alaska Airlines. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Electricmemory, @Ivebeenhacked, for what it's worth, I got sucked into a similar dispute over CommutAir Flight 4933, and I strongly believe that a formal WP:AV consensus needs to be reached about aircrash articles involving branded regional codeshare flights, but my previous proposal on the topic went nowhere. Carguychris (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Same deal with Colgan Air Flight 3407 (vs Continental Connection), the last fatal accident of a US-registered commercial aircraft. Aydoh8^[contribs] 01:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

First fatal CRJ-700 family accident

Hi, Just want to point it out that this accident is the first fatal crash involving a CRJ-700 series since it first rolled out in 1999. I think this hasn't been highlighted yet, but it should be put right there with the US first fatal accident in 15 years, and AAL first fatal accident in 23 years, due to a great safety record of this airliner. Jacxgarrett (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source? PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 06:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The source itself is on the wikipedia page of the airliner family series. The series only went through 2 minor incidents. As i say, no source has been highlighting this feat. and i've been scouring thru the net to find one as well. But i guaranteed you, this is the airliner first fatal accident. Jacxgarrett (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jacxgarrett: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

how about this. not a news source but an aviation safety database.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/database/types/Bombardier-CRJ700/statistics Jacxgarrett (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there is no mention of this accident in the statistics. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

because it just recently happened? and the investigation hasn't been conducted yet. but inside of those data there's a conclusive report of the incident that ever happened to CRJ-700 . it's fairly trustable and usable source. Jacxgarrett (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ASN is user generated content Timtjtim (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ASN is identified as a very useful Aviation Resource, passes WP:RS, and is quoted in countless accident articles. WP:AIRSOURCE

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. it’s been updated now and i hope it stays the same way. Jacxgarrett (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason this crash is not listed on /database/types/Bombardier-CRJ700/statistics is that it is listed on /asndb/type/CRJ7 instead, among a total of 97 occurrences. /database/types/Bombardier-CRJ700/index also mentions two hull losses, although overall, ASN seems to support the claim that this was the model's first fatal accident. Another source that supports this is the below:

Everstine, Brian (30 January 2025). "American Airlines Flight, U.S. Army Helo Collide Near Washington, D.C., Airport". Aviation Week Network. Retrieved 2025-01-31. This is the first fatal incident involving a CRJ-700.

However, I would dispute the claim that this was "the first US fatal accident in 15 years". Although I have seen this claim circulated in the media, the article "List of fatal accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft in the United States" lists numerous more recent fatal accidents in commercial aviation in the US, some of which, like PenAir Flight 3296, involved carriers operating under FAA Part 121 or, in common parlance, airliners. —79.163.222.20 (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't recall a helicopter-airliner collision ever. Something to keep an eye on. kencf0618 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Fourth such incident that we have an article for. Others are 1981 Zheleznogorsk mid-air collision, 1986 Grand Canyon mid-air collision, and 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove Presumed Death Count?

After the first official Accident and Incident Notification by the FAA (https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:96:10656613121312::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_FATAL_FLG:30-JAN-25,YES) which lists the death counts as certain, could we perhaps already remove the presumed in brackets (at least for the plane)? Squawk7700 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think people have slowly been doing so (it was in a few places) meamemg (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I've BOLDly removed it from the infobox. Will see if this decision gets flak. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

More stable sources?

It seems a lot of the sources we have on these are "live updates" pages on news sites. One downside is that any time we site these, the relevant information gets buried under later updates. Are there more stable sources we could use? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

More lead issues

This article is currently titled about the collision, not the airplane flight. The edit at [[1]] changed the first sentence to describe the flight not the collision. Should this be reverted? Paging @Astropulse and @Dcspotter21. meamemg (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

yes Astropulse (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

its because it involves two airlines Astropulse (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ASAC

I removed the oft-repeated, but irrelevant information about the Aviation Security Advisory Committee as it is completely unrelated to this incident. To note:

Established in 1989 after a terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103, the Aviation Security Advisory Committee provides advice to the TSA administrator on aviation security matters, including the development, refinement, and implementation of policies, programs, rulemaking, and security directives pertaining to aviation security.

Their charter is:

The Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2014 established an advisory committee to make recommendations on issues related to aviation security to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The ASAC is required to submit to the TSA Administrator an Annual Report containing information on its activities, findings, and recommendations. To bring focus to particular aviation security challenges, the ASAC subcommittees are directed to provide information and recommendations to the ASAC for inclusion in the Annual Report. At a minimum, the ASAC must have four subcommittees consisting of individuals with specialized knowledge in the following areas: (1) air cargo security; (2) general aviation security; (3) perimeter and access control; and (4) security technology. Additional subcommittees may be established.

None of that is related to airline safety. Nothing this committee has, will, or would have done would have any bearing on this accidently happening or not. The board was a TSA group, not an FAA group. Q ^{T C} 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Single Eyewitnesses Testimony

The eyewitnesses mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be backed up by others, should we remove it as it's basically hearsay? Squawk7700 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Simplifying leads

Rather than entering all the details about the flight and both aircraft up front, couldn't we use lettered notes instead? Maybe like this:

On January 29, 2025, American Eagle Flight 5342[a] collided mid-air with a United States Army helicopter[b] at Ronald Reagan Airport, crashing both aircraft into the Potomac River and killing all 67 people on board both flights. Flight 5342 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport in Kansas to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport near Washington, D.C.

[a] a Bombardier CRJ701ER, operated by PSA Airlines, a wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines

[b] a Sikorsky VH-60M Black Hawk

In this way, the important stuff comes first, especially for novices, who don't care about the corporate setup of AA or what make of helicopter is involved. Just a suggestion. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

i have never heard American Eagle or PSA in my life. AA immediately took down the whole PSA website following the accident. I think its important for people to know who owns the airlines. Its not something to be buried in footnote. We are not lawyers. Astropulse (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

But why do you think that's the first fact readers need to know about the collision? meamemg (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

American airline is a top airline in USA. Fact that one of its plane is in a crash is a big deal. Everyone care's about that. Not something that is irrelevant even if crash is no fault of theirs or whose fault it is Astropulse (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

we can remove operated by PSA to make things simple ? cc @Carguychris Astropulse (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Astropulse, no we should not remove that because PSA held the AOC for the flight, thus they are the legal operator. In short, this was a flight sold by AA, but it was not operated by AA. Carguychris (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Carguychris, I'll ask the same question I asked @Astropulse. Why do you think that the company that held the AOC is the very first thing the read should know/wants to know? meamemg (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

i like the latest revision which address your concern Astropulse (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems really dense to me. Just about everything there is covered by the very next section. Why not shorten to:

On January 29, 2025, American Eagle Flight 5342 (also referred to as American Airlines Flight 5342), collided mid-air with a United States Army helicopter on final approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport near Washington, D.C. Both aircraft crashed into the Potomac River after the collision, and all 67 people onboard both flights were presumably killed.

(with links as appropriate) meamemg (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

i dont like (also referred to as... ) in opening. i splitted the para. Astropulse (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we are getting there.

I think since the press is generally referring to the flight as "American Airlines 5342", we should too (instead of or in addition to AE 5342). Do you have language you prefer to "referred to as"? I think it's common to list alternative names in a lead in parenthetical.

Why list the aircraft make/model in the first sentence? If we do, is "operated by" CRJ710. I thought it was operated by PSA, and "on"(?) a CRJ, but I'm not sure if that's the right nomenclature.

I'd personally drop the second paragraph altogether, but willing to compromise there.

meamemg (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

yes, it is also reffered as American Airlines 5342 according to https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL5342 Im not sure, which one to use. It will be heavily debated

instead of specific model, we can say Bombardier CRJ700 - aircraft involved in the crash is also relevance to readers Astropulse (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, Bombardier CRJ701ER is unnecessarly complex for the general audience we're writing for. Plus if we want to be really pedantic (and I don't) it's legally known as the "Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 701)". -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto discuss here, instead of edit war Astropulse (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. @Astropulse & @RickyCourtney. Thoughts on whether it should be "operated by" a CRJ or "operated on" or something else? The current language sounds off to me. meamemg (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

operated using - sounds better ? Astropulse (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

much. Changed. meamemg (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't we use the {{note}} template to clarify this in the lede? We already did it to collapse the history of PSA.

As I'm looking over the article, there's a bit of redundancy between the lede and first couple of paragraphs. I also feel the lede could be expanded. JayCubby 21:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

lede is supposed to be a short version of body. redundancy is not a concern here Astropulse (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's since been changed. I can no longer locate the section, but no matter. JayCubby 22:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

can you clarify what you want to say in note and what you want removed ? Astropulse (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarity on this discussion: PSA Airlines, is not a wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines. PSA Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Airlines Group, which is also the parent company of American Airlines.

I agonized over this description a few years back for the regional airline pages, and I think it summarizes the relationships pretty succinctly: PSA Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Airlines Group and it is paid by fellow group member American Airlines to staff, operate and maintain aircraft used on American Eagle flights that are scheduled, marketed and sold by American Airlines.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

we can say PSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Airlines and part of American Airlines Group https://web.archive.org/web/20250119105920/https://www.psaairlines.com/about/ Astropulse (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the American Airlines Group's most recent annual filing with the SEC: American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG), a Delaware corporation, is a holding company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiaries are American Airlines, Inc. (American), Envoy Aviation Group Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA) and Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (Piedmont). -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Superfluous (?) biographical info on victims

No disrespect to the dead, but do we really need to know which high school a flight crew member attended years ago? Seems like an excessive and unnecessary detail, bordering on cruft. Ereb0r (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah probably excessive and irrelevant. If anything, digging that far could be more disrespectful. Keita2282 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please add category

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2025 needs to be added. 46.205.198.118 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is already categorized in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2025, which would make it redundant. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2025 is listed under Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2025.

Keita2282 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Accident timeline is misleading

The beginning of the accident section says atc notified the helicopter of aa5342 less than 30 seconds before the accident. That is inaccurate, as it was the second time the pat25 was notified. Atc notified pat25 a minute before the accident, pat25 confirmed aircraft in sight and requested visual separation, which was granted. Atc again notified pat25 just before the accident. That interaction is described accurately in the article. Mouseketeer25 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2025 (3)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropulse (talk • contribs) 02:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision → 2025 Washington National Airport mid-air collision – Media is calling it collision in Washington dc. Potomac River is not very well known. See other article names 1990 Wayne County Airport runway collision 1991 Los Angeles airport runway collision 1938 Jersey Airport disaster Astropulse (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait - We have already had two move request today and there has not been nearly enough time for sources to settle on a WP:COMMONNAME. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait -- but the argument that the Potomac River is not very well known doesn't hold water. This isn't even the first plane crash in the Potomac River either, see Air Florida Flight 90 (aka the 14th Street Bridge crash). We'll have to wait to see what RS say. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The first two incidents are both on the airport property, not in the vicinity. Third incident, besides not having very much information, seems to me to be named after the airport because there's no other major landmark to go off of in the vicinity. It basically just crashed into a building

This incident has (and landed in) a major landmark in the vicinity, not directly in the airport premises. The river is also a significant and relevant factor as far as I can tell.

We've already had like two move requests and the situation's still developing. There's barely been any time to even settle on a lot of the facts. Keita2282 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE, and per above saying it's not in the airport.

Also, this RM's nominator is the same as that of the first RM, and it's not even 24 hours. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait and speedy close. Three RMs in 24 hours is borderline disruptive. It's a developing and extremely high profile story so rapid change is to be expected but we simply cannot establish a stable common name so soon. Editors should consider the guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Aviation_incidents for future RMs but a clear common name would take precedent. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2025 (2)

Change the "a scheduled domestic passenger flight operating a Bombardier CRJ700 airliner" to "a scheduled domestic passenger flight operating a Bombardier CRJ700 (more specifically a CRJ701-ER), airliner"

Source:https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa5342#38ecc36f B0oredman (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done I'll add the phrase "series" to the article, but I don't think the parenthetical you suggest reads well. Thanks for pointing it out though. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Final sentence of domestic response is unclear

Who is "Sullenberger"? SequoiaTrees (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That would be Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger, the famous pilot who safely landed a disabled plane in the Hudson River, whose full name is given just above the "Domestic" subsection in the "Aviation" subsection. NME Frigate (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Should also add that is is a renowned airline safety expert. 38.15.254.172 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Figured as much - and somehow I'm not surprised that I didn't see that. Great day to make a fool of myself on the internet :) SequoiaTrees (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it was unreasonable of you to ask. The name appeared in a different section. NME Frigate (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ATC audio

I added the audio footage at File:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision ATC.ogg. If someone could check my NFCC rationale and the captions, that would be great. The latter looks OK to me, but it's hard to make out some of the words. JayCubby 15:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your (WP:NFCC#2) doesn't look right. Timtjtim (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, the upload wizard seems to have prefilled NFCC2. JayCubby 16:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

At 00:12 I doubt it's supposed to be 'circle' - not sure what's correct though.

Is the clip multiple sections cut together? It seems to be missing a lot compared to [2] and [3] Timtjtim (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that audio does not match the one on the video by a long way. It makes it seem as though the ATC instruction to pass behind was given less than a second before the collision? That's really very misleading. There must have been some editing / compression there? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Fox News just cut the audio. Will try to find the original source. JayCubby 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That would have been incredibly irresponsible if they did. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

the original source is almost certainly LiveATC.net. Timtjtim (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I've found it, presently transcribing it with a rather sketchy service. (last time I ran Whisper locally, it took 40 minutes on a three-minute file...) It's 30 minutes, so by no means can we post the whole thing. That is assuming the ATC recording is under copyright. It's the first file at https://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php.

Though I think there's a reasonable chance that ATC recordings are not considered 'creative works'. Off to consult Commons and/or a lawyer I go. JayCubby 17:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that the audio version currently included in the article deserves to be there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Crap, I gave it a second listen, and there's a whole lot of detail omitted. I'll see what I can do.

I think it's better than nothing, but I'll add a mention of it being partial. JayCubby 17:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's wholly misleading. I'm sorry that you've put so much work into it. And we certainly won't want a 30 minute audio; I would have thought 3 or 4 minutes at most? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a YouTube video with comms from the heli on a separate frequency, thought you might want to know. The video seems to have no omissions and is already transcribed on the screen, for reference during own transcribing. —83.8.40.238 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The ATC should be redone with the helicopter pilot's audio included since it exists. I'm already seeing news articles claiming the helicopter pilot didn't respond to ATC. He said "has the aircraft in sight" moments before crashing into it which is an important detail. Seems obvious to me the helicopter pilot must have been looking at the wrong aircraft as the "traffic" and didn't see the one right on top of him. 216.26.121.176 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

IP, thanks! I'll look into it later today (as it's after midnight). JayCubby 05:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this really copyrighted? ATC communications are created by employees of the US Government in the course of their official duties (at least with respect to the ATC controller), and otherwise, they are merely an automated recording of a radio frequency. I can't imagine that it has to be fair use when sites like liveatc.net publish the recordings and archives in their entirety. Probably a better question for Commons, but I can't see any copyright here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons says that controllers are federal employees, (PD there), but whether the recording is copyrightable and if not, whether the CRJ pilot's words are protectable. Again, I might consult a lawyer. Copyright law got messy with the audio recording acts, URAA, digital era, and whatnot. JayCubby 05:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2025

Would like to add the black boxes were found under investigation. At the end of last wording. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/30/plane-crashes-near-washington-dc-after-mid-air-collision-with-military-helicopter-follow-live Grffffff (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The article already addresses that the flight data recorders were found. I'll try to figure out a way to clarify this if it reads well, but no promises. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does it say? Grffffff (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Found it I summited this before it was added I think. Grffffff (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grffffff: no worries :) Articles change frequently and it's entirely possible that you did submit this request before it was added. No harm no foul :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Deadliest US Air Crash since 2001

It looks apparent that this is the deadliest US aviation accident since American Airlines Flight 587 in 2001 which had 265 casualties. I think that factoid deserves mentioning in the "context" section of this article. In my opinion, it should replace "The accident was the first fatal incident for American Airlines since the crash of Flight 587 on November 12, 2001" due to the high death toll count for an US commercial flight. It should also be the first fact mentioned in the paragraph. This fact is very unique given that an US civilian airline has not had this many deaths in over 23 years.

There are multiple news sources confirming this fact:

• Per Reuters, "It was the deadliest U.S. air disaster since November 2001, when an American Airlines jet crashed after departing from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, killing all 260 people onboard and five people on the ground."[4]
• Per The Times, "The midair collision over the Potomac is the deadliest airliner accident in the United States in more than two decades. On November 12, 2001, American Airlines flight 587 crashed in Belle Harbour, New York, killing all 260 people on board and five people on the ground. [5]
• Per Associated Press via WTOP, Wednesday’s crash was the deadliest in the U.S. since Nov. 12, 2001, when an American Airlines flight slammed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, just after takeoff from Kennedy Airport, killing all 260 people aboard and five people on the ground.

If Jeju Air Flight 2216 article mentions that it was the deadliest accident involving a South Korean airliner since Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1997, then this fact that Flight 5342 is the deadliest since Flight 587 in 2001 should as well.

--Birdienest81talk 06:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As long as reliable sources make this specific analysis, and it is not original synthesis, I would support this wording. Melmann 08:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick Source Question

I've read the talk page and I'm at a bit of a loss — why does a claim as innocuous as The airport remained closed until 11:00 a.m. on January 30. feature five citations in the article? I would typically be WP:BOLD and fix it but given this is Wikipedia:In_the_news I figure prudence is in order. BeReasonabl (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree - I've been WP:BOLD :) Timtjtim (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think for the moment this is good but later on we might replace it with a proper investigation source as the sources at the moment are just news tickers… Squawk7700 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Accident

The Bombardier was doing 206kph at the collision. This is surely well below stall speed, & must be in error. Thanks Mickey Smiths (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Stall speed is expressed as indicated airspeed (IAS), which at low level is pretty much the same as true airspeed (TAS), whereas the flight trackers report speed over the ground - the difference being the wind, which according to the METAR was peaking at 33 kts. So no inconsistency there. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Thanks for tuning me in Mickey Smiths (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Helicopter hit location

Is there any info where the helicopter hit Grffffff (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing earlier today; where did they actually hit each other? We'll know soon enough. Mickey Smiths (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Near Misses

"In the months leading up to the accident, several near-miss incidents were reported at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport"

Only two are mentioned at all. None of the sources provided say "several". Saying 'several' when there are only two is sensationalism.

Also, if there were only two within the last year, and none within the past 6 months, is this really something that should be in the article? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Many years back I was in a near miss on takeoff. After slamming on the brakes, the pilot laughed and said “Ever been in a Volkswagen when a semi went through a red light in front of you?” I don’t think such things are worth mentioning in an article about a disaster like this. If added, it would have to be over time and in the context of causes, frequencies vs. flight volumes, etc. as otherwise the reader will likely draw all manner of conclusions. That would be better kept in a separate article, consisting of not just a list. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

all indications are that there were more than 2 near misses. There were two missed attributed to mid-air collisions with helicopters alone, and a very significant near-miss on the tarmac a few months ago. 38.15.254.172 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Nationality Distribution

I don’t think there is enough data, yet. But as soon as there is enough I’d like to add an Nationality distribution chart of the victims, would this be in the interest of the article / the editors? Squawk7700 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Location section

Would it be best for the article to give information about where the crash occurred? It might also be a good place to add a map about where the crash occurred. I haven't ever added a section to a article before so I am asking beforehand Caleb's World11 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and it would be appropriate, but the fly in the ointment is creating a map without using any licensed graphics. Typically, it's easier to wait for the preliminary NTSB report and swipe the map from there (U.S. gov't works are generally not covered by copyright). Carguychris (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a map that we can use hosted on wikimedia like this one. I believe that these would be a much more usable source Caleb's World11 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That map was actually in the article until it was recently deleted because of the WP:WATERMARK policy. I tried to add a similar good map without the watermark issue, but I apparently triggered a "private edit filter". Maybe you'll have better luck than I did. At the top of the Accident section, try adding: [[File:Approximate collision location for American Eagle Flight 5342.png|thumb|Approximate flight paths and collision location]]

Best of luck! —173.56.111.206 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I triggered the filter too. I am going to try to submit a false positive report, but it might fail. Caleb's World11 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

the "Context" section is not encyclopedic

The "context" section contains theories posited by news organizations and has no justification at all. Let's wait for official reports and conclusions from the agencies looking at data, much of which these news organizations do not have. It doesn't matter if NPR or NYT are trying to attribute some facts to this tragedy. Neither of them have all the details. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What in that section is inaccurate? NME Frigate (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

While it’s true that DCA has a complex airspace, this information isn't directly tied to the accident unless investigators cited it as a contributing factor.

The mention of FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker resigning due to a reported conflict with Elon Musk is irrelevant to the accident. Unless there's a direct connection between leadership changes and this specific incident, it’s extraneous.

The staffing issue is more relevant, as it could be a factor in the collision, but the way it's written makes it feel like a broader critique of FAA management rather than a neutral statement of fact.

The article needs to focus on what happened, why it happened, and what investigators are saying about it, rather than adding unnecessary historical context or speculation. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

How is the fact that DCA has a complex airspace, not relevant when we're talking about a mid-air collision? That's an extremely unique attribute of the regional airspace and without a doubt a contributing factor. Andrew-bcd (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I Disagree. Historical context is extremely important and relevant. The nature of the airspace is important to understanding how the accident occurred. Moreover, the airport is notable for having numerous near-miss incidents leading up to the accident, and has been constantly critiqued for exceeding capacity. Andrew-bcd (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The complexity of DCA's airspace is a general characteristic, but that alone doesn’t establish it as a contributing factor to this specific collision. Unless investigators have explicitly cited airspace congestion or restrictions as a causal element, mentioning it in the article injects speculation rather than reporting verified facts. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For example, London Heathrow has a hugely complex airspace too, but British Airways Flight 38 had nothing to do with the complex airspace, so it's not mentioned on the article.

Until investigators make that connection, we shouldn't engage in WP:SYNTH Timtjtim (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to what the context section is meant for. Some people seem to have broader or narrower ideas about its scope. NME Frigate (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

DCA Congestion

I've been hearing on the news that RWY 33 is the busiest single runway in USA, with 800 daily takeoff and landing procedures. (source: [6]) And apparently DCA is in a talks of lobbying with the congress to add 5 more flight to the airport (source: [7]).

Considering that DCA is a very busy airport with shared airspace with nearby military bases and tight corridors for takeoff and descent. With the two near misses at DCA in April and May last year, congestion should be up there in the background of this crash. Jacxgarrett (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope - the statistics are for RWY 01/19, not 33 (which is much shorter). NSX-Racer (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There have been a number of news articles over the years about the airport having too many flights because it's the most convenient departure point for members of Congress.

A new article in The Guardian is titled "Alarms were raised about ‘congested’ airspace before fatal Washington crash", with the subhed "Crash called ‘avoidable’, with lawmakers and residents previously sounding alarm about region’s crowded skies".

Alarms were raised about ‘congested’ airspace before fatal Washington crash | Washington DC plane crash | The Guardian

Here are some key paragraphs:

"Federal lawmakers from Virginia and Maryland have also issued warnings about the excessive number of aircraft flying near each other over the country’s capital.

But last year year, a bipartisan body of congressional officials approved the addition of 10 additional commercial flights into DCA, over their objections.

'As we have said countless times before, DCA's runway is already the busiest in the country,' Virginia US senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen and then senator Ben Cardin, all Democrats, said in a joint statement months before the law was passed. 'Forcing the airport to cram additional flights in its already crowded schedule will further strain its resources at a time when air traffic controllers are overburdened and exhausted, working 10-hour days, six days a week.'

The group of lawmakers filed an amendment to the proposal to block the increased flights into Reagan, but the original bill pased that May despite their protests.

The bill, Texas senator Ted Cruz at the time, 'ultimately gives the FAA the stability it needs to fulfill its primary mission – advancing aviation safety – while also making travel more convenient and accessible'." NME Frigate (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Helicopter crew

The ranks were: Captain Chief Warrant Officer 2 = Andrew Eaves Staff Sergeant

One pilot, Andrew Eaves, Chief Warrant Officer 2 (per WCBI in Mississippi -- https://www.wcbi.com/a-pilot-killed-in-d-c-crash-confirmed-to-be-from-noxubee-co/ ) has been named. Black Hawks have two pilots. The other pilot (a female, apparently) hasn't been named. It seems that crew chief O'Hara was sitting in the back ( https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/experienced-pilots-were-on-routine-flight-before-washington-crash-army ):

WASHINGTON - The US Army Black Hawk helicopter that collided with a passenger jet over Washington on Jan 29 evening was manned by an experienced three-person crew conducting a routine training flight over familiar territory, a service official told reporters on Jan 30.

The instructor pilot conducting the evaluation, and who had command of the aircraft, had about 1,000 hours of flying time, said Mr Jonathan Koziol, chief of staff for the Army’s aviation directorate. He added that’s a significant amount given the helicopters generally fly for about two hours at a time.

The co-pilot undergoing assessment was also experienced with 500 flying hours, he said. Even the crew chief in the back was “very familiar with the area, very familiar with the routing structure,” Koziol said.

END OF CITATION

Per Chron (https://work.chron.com/army-black-hawk-crew-chief-job-description-17991.html),

About Helicopter Crew Chiefs

The position of crew chief on a helicopter is held by a specialist rather than by an officer or NCO, but it is a position of great responsibility. The crew chief is in charge of the entire helicopter crew and is considered responsible for everything that happens in or to the helicopter. U.S. Army crew chiefs have the authority to tell anyone getting on the helicopter where to sit and where any cargo should be loaded. They give instructions to the pilots, operate the machine gun, drop smoke grenades to mark landing zones, and help to maintain the helicopter.

END OF CITATION

Ryan O’Hara should be identified as the crew chief. 73.142.13.139 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source? meamemg (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sources.

Also, Andrew Eaves was said to have been a pilot.

According to wlbt.com (https://www.wlbt.com/2025/01/30/mississippi-man-among-those-killed-dc-air-disaster/),

BROOKSVILLE, Miss. (WLBT/WTVA) — One of the military pilots who died in Wednesday night’s midair collision near Washington is from Noxubee County, Mississippi.

The Macon Beacon reports Andrew Eaves grew up in the Brooksville area and is a graduate of Central Academy.

Eaves’ wife posted on Facebook that her husband was among the three on the Black Hawk helicopter that crashed into an American Eagle jet about to land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

END OF CITATION

As indicated above, Eaves graduated from Central Academy. Google's AI search results (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+the+the+Central+Academy+in+brooksville+mississippi) indicate that:

Central Academy in Brooksville, Mississippi was a white segregation academy that closed in 2017. It was originally opened in 1968 and was known for its racist policies.

END OF CITATION

Both crew chief and one copilot were male Caucasians. One crew member is said to have been a male staff sergeant -- O'Hara? Or an unnamed female?

You mean crew chief and copilot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.119.5.96 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, yes: Ryan was crew chief and Eaves was whatever the copilot is called in Army parlance. It's been impossible so far to identify the third crewmember -- female? Name isn't being made available.

That said, their identities should be live on the Wikipedia page. 73.142.13.139 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Eaves may end up being the pilot because most other sources say the co pilot was the female

https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-shows-dc-plane-crash-involving-american-airlines-flight-black-hawk-helicopter 166.181.84.249 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

They're saying there was a male staff sergeant -- was that O'Hara? Eaves was Chief Warrant Officer 2.

ALSO, WHEN WILL CREW IDENTITIES BE POSTED TO THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE? WHAT'S THE HOLDUP? We have O'Hara and Eaves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.142.13.139 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

(section break)

As indicated above, Eaves graduated from Central Academy. Google's AI search results indicate that:

Central Academy in Brooksville, Mississippi was a white segregation academy that closed in 2017. It was originally opened in 1968 and was known for its racist policies.

- What. the. fuck. In almost 20 years here, this has to be one the most disgusting comments, in this context, that I have seen here. The. Guy. Just. Died. Only hours ago. In uniform, btw, in service to his country. People that know him, that are grieving for him, will see this. Like friends, family... or maybe his children?? Or how about the media? Here's a headline: "Wikipedia editors peg helo pilot as racist p.o.s., just hours after his death in a mid-air collision."

Did any of this occur to any of you that are trying to jam in whatever policitcal angles you can, as the article is still in it's infancy? But, hey... it's ok to drag this guy's name through the mud, as long as it's part of some payback at big orange clown for whatever mindless shit he's been spewing, right? This is unreal, it should stop, and an admin should nuke any mention of this as soon as possible. - \\'cLf 23:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hold on, it's factual, and DEI is being raised by POTUS. And it's published online already anyway. 73.142.13.139 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think that's offensive, wait until you hear what the President of the United States of America said about the problem being hiring after someone decided that air traffic controllers was too white! Obviously comments that are much less (if at all) racist in tone compared to the esteemed and well considered words of the top of the military chain-of-command. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Jeezz-zuzz... since when are we in a competition with Trump? - (and I figured you'd know better...) - \\'cLf 00:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wonder how long til traffic controllers name released? 166.181.84.249 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't give a shit, why do you? We can't control what Trump does, or what is published elsewhere. But we can control what kind of content we post here, in articles (in the Wikipedia voice), and on publicly-accessible WP talk pages. We are not a news organization, we aren't competing with other media sites, there is no big hurry for us to get the "big scoop" published as soon as possible, before some other greasy tabloid rag beats us to it. So why are you screaming for someone, anyone!, to give you the crew names, and to get them "LIVE!!" into the article? (Whatever that means...)

This is an encylopaedia, we are building content for the long haul. As such, we don't need to start picking apart the military aircrews past asap, to make them look dirty, to somehow counter any of the typical fiction-vomit we can expect from Trump. Did you not read my comment in full, or did it not click with you? You are labelling a service member as a racist, within hours of his death. And doing so with very tenuous information, and with no regard what-so-ever for his family, his friends, or his colleagues in the military. Does this register with you at all? - \\'cLf 00:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that the history of the school where one of the Black Hawk pilots attended is irrelevant and should not have been included. That said, it's not so much about "being in competition" with Donald Trump as having a moral obligation to note the falsity of his disgusting suggestions that the crash was caused an excess of racial diversity. Mind you, some Trump supporters are already moving their goal posts back from claims that the pilots or air traffic controllers weren't white and thus, in their minds, weren't qualified for their jobs to the claims that because other pilots or air traffic controllers weren't white, etc., that these particular air traffic controllers and pilots were having to pick up the slack for their supposedly deficient colleagues. It's going to be a constant game of slippery racist evasions, I'm afraid. NME Frigate (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Army just announced theyre not releasing the females name at request of her family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.119.5.96 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles from 2014 about cutbacks in air-traffic controllers

These two articles from 2014 are relevant because they explain how it came to be that there is now a shortage of air-traffic controllers.

Wall St. Journal: "FAA Closes a Hiring Runway for Air-Traffic Controllers"

https://archive.ph/nlpF5

Chicago Tribune: "Half of air traffic controller job offers go to people with no aviation experience"

https://archive.ph/1LeDQ

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Those articles might or might not be relevant today. A lot can change in ten years. NME Frigate (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I just wanted to post the links for reference. I have a pretty good memory of things that I had read a long time ago, and I thought these might be relevant. I agree with you that we would need additional sources from after this incident. I thought these older article might be of help too. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless there are sources connecting these events to the accident, we should not speculate about such connections in the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. I recently came across this new article:

Washington Post, January 30, 2025: "Trump launched air controller diversity program that he now decries"

https://archive.ph/Vk5fy

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that I have found that more recent article, I created a new talk section which is focused on it. Any additional comments can be posted in that section:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision#Washington_Post,_January_30,_2025:_%22Trump_launched_air_controller_diversity_program_that_he_now_decries%22

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Issue

“resulting in the deaths of all 67 people on board.”

should be “resulting in the deaths of all 64 on the CRJ-700 and 3 people on the VH-60.” Grffffff (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence already says "Both aircraft crashed..." at the beginning. If that's not clear enough then reword complete sentence. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Though one could make the edit, there is enough information from the article (and cited sources) to show that it involved both aircraft. Perhaps an easier change would be "resulting in the death of all 67 persons from both aircraft." Jurisdicta (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

12th Aviation Battalion

The Black Hawk was assigned the US Army's 12th Aviation Battalion and yesterday I started an article on that unit. Several other editors soon supported the work and the article on the 12th Aviation Battalion was soon expanded. Unfortunately it was moved into the draft namespace at Draft:12th Aviation Battalion (United States). Worse still, it has now gone into a two month (or more!) queue to be reviewed so effectively it has been kicked into the long grass at precisely the time when the information will be of most interest. Since it was moved to draft, I have improved the article with more references and so I want to get it back into the main namespace (and never would have supported moving it to draft anyway). Does anyone know how to sort this out in a timely fashion? Greenshed (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I moved it back per WP:DRAFTOBJECT meamemg (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Last sentence of the intro is false

“First major aviation incident in the U.S. involving a civilian airliner since Colgan Air Flight 3407 in 2009” This appears to be incorrect, as Asiana Airlines Flight 214 happened in 2013. Aaspark27 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "major". The source used for the sentence does mention the Asiana flight, but does not consider it to be a major accident due to the low number of fatalities. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Nearly 200 people injured sounds pretty major to me, but fine. Aaspark27 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we should change or remove the language here. The ABC news source doesn't seem to define major; you're likely right that they're downgrading Asiana 214 due to the fatality count, but they're not clearly stating that this is well-defined terminology like an NTSB accident category. As is, this reads like a colloquial term, and will likely make people wonder why more recent incidents don't qualify. Either we should clarify "according to <categorization standard>" if one exists, or remove it if the categorization standard is unclear. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly removed the "first major" text and replaced with "the first commercial aviation accident in the US with fatalities since Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 in 2018", which is also clear from the source and doesn't seem to be in any dispute. Feel free to revert me if there's disagreement with this change. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No - that's not correct, it's PenAir Flight 3296. And the citation you left doesn't support Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, it claims Colgan Air. Timtjtim (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

oh my bad - the source does incorrectly claim SW 1380... 🙄 Timtjtim (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: it's PenAir Flight 3296 by most recent major or regional airline

It's Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 by major airline

Probably it's 2022 Mutiny Bay DHC-3 Otter crash across all commercial aviation Timtjtim (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

From source: "The last fatality on a commercial plane in the U.S. came in 2018 when a woman was partially sucked out of a Southwest Airlines window". That links to another ABC news article about Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. I think it's clear(er) that the article means "major airliner" and is excluding charter flights, though even by that standard I agree the source is wrong and PenAir Flight 3296 should count. Ultimately I think what's on display here is that this is a weak source and a difficult claim to nail down. I see someone has changed the article text back to Colgan Air Flight 3407, which really can't be claimed in any meaningful way unless there's an official standard for "major crash" that excludes more recent incidents like Asiana 214. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Notifying @The Kip, who restored the original text, of the discussion here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dylnuge I’ve added two other RSes labeling it as such - it’s not just ABC. In addition to the two added, KSNV, aviation news service FlightGlobal, WJLA, Bloomberg, Business Insider, Time Magazine, Aviation Week, and so on. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes - it was @The Kip who last changed it back from my edit, so tagging to include in this discussion.

If we're using the meaning of 'major' from the citation, we should quote it, rather than present it in wikivoice - I don't think Wikipedia considers the Asiana 214 to be a minor accident?

Also note just because an RS claims it, and it becomes verifiable, it doesn't mean it's true. At this point I think we're hitting WP:VNOT and we need to just remove the sentence.

Also see Dylnuge's comments above. Timtjtim (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree on this; I went ahead and BOLDly cut both this and the unsourced claim about it being the first incident for the CRJ700 series. Better we be slow and right. I think your list of potential "last crashes" below is correct, and the ABC News definitions don't seem to be based on any accepted standard. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip please engage here rather than engaging in an edit war, so we can build consensus. Timtjtim (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtjtim There’s nothing to discuss - multiple RSes are labeling the last fatal crash as Colgan, none are doing so for Asiana or any of the more minor ones you list below. It’s WP:OR to insist that ABC is inaccurate based on your own personal knowledge. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It's OR to include something I know to be true without a source. It's certainly not OR to exclude something we know to be untrue.

See WP:NOTFALSE Timtjtim (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

NOTFALSE is an essay, not a PaG, and it remains true that virtually all RSes agree on the Colgan flight. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:TRUTH, we would need a reliable source that disproves the claim even if it is false. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFALSE I don't think we do, but here we go: here's a source stating that Asiana Airlines Flight 214 happened, and it's WP:CALC to see that 2013 is after 2009. Timtjtim (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is disputing it happened. The issue is that reliable sources do not consider three fatalities enough to qualify it as a major commercial crash. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

"a major commercial crash" does not sound encyclopedic to me... Timtjtim (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/when-was-last-major-airplane-crash seems to ignore the PanAir one 🙄

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/30/donald-trump-sean-duffy-major-test-dc-plane-crash/78048396007/ doesn't say major - the problem is "a major commercial crash" is a made up standard.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/american-5342-crash-ends-era-unprecedented-us-airline-safety/, as above

I'm at the 3RR limit so I'm not reverting but @The Kip I've no idea why you think WP:DUE was part of the consensus, we were simply saying WP:VNOT. I've run out of time to check the edit history but I suspect you violated 3RR by just commenting here and then immediately reverting. Pasting your opinion here isn't engaging in discussion / doesn't override the consensus. Timtjtim (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtjtim VNOT is inherently a question of DUE; the idea that something being verifiable does not automatically mean it’s to be included in the article is directly related to the idea of whether something has due weight to include.

While I may have accidentally violated 3RR, the problem remains that your rationale is inherently OR; no RSes mention anything about Asiana, PenAir, etc, while this entire list refers to the Colgan Air crash as the most recent major fatal commercial accident, or some form of that phrase. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the "forms of that phrase" include things like "US airliner" (i.e. excluding Asiana categorically) or "deadliest since" (this is empirically meaningless at the moment, seeing as current sources give more fatalities for this crash than Colgan). NOR does not require us to pretend like we can't read and understand what the sources are saying. If "major crash" has no defined meaning, we'd need to attribute it to define it, e.g. by saying something along the lines of "multiple sources, including ABC News etc, referred to the crash as the first major crash in the US since Colgan 3407". That'd at least be factual and based on sources, though at that point, I'd start to argue it's not particularly noteworthy (i.e. undue). We base articles on sources, but this does not mean we must state everything that appears in every source. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If the source is excluding charter flights, this flight doesn't count either! Timtjtim (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can based it on fatalities OR the airline with US registration. I remember past edit said that PenAir is Alaska involved fatality, but apparently the edit got strucked down Jacxgarrett (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-plane-crash-marks-major-commercial-crash-us/story?id=118250215 is just a full of inaccuracies:

marks the first major commercial crash in the United States since 2009 - major being totally subjective

The last crash took place on Feb. 12, 2009, when Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed - I guess it means last major crash, but alone this sentence is nonsense.

The last fatality on a commercial plane in the U.S. came in 2018 when a woman was partially sucked out of a Southwest Airlines window - very wooly definition of commercial if it excludes PenAir Flight 3296 and 2022 Mutiny Bay DHC-3 Otter crash Timtjtim (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

From Politico "The last major fatal crash aboard a U.S. airline happened in 2009 near Buffalo, New York; it killed 49 people on board a regional jet, as well as one person on the ground." [8]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence in the article doesn't specify it being about US airlines though, it says "in the US". 81.217.134.20 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

From the Washington Post: "The crash of American Eagle Flight 5342 is the first commercial plane crash in the United States in over 15 years." [9]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add to this conversation, “major accident” has a specific ntsb definition: Definitions of NTSB Classifications

Major - an accident in which any of three conditions is met:

a Part 121 aircraft was destroyed, or

there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a Part 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.

sources: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/data/Pages/table2.aspx#:~:text=Definitions%20of%20NTSB%20Classifications,121%20aircraft%20was%20substantially%20damaged.

https://www.flightsafety.org/asw/july07/asw_july07_p50-52.pdf Mouseketeer25 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding here that the even with all the discussion in this thread the current statement in context is still objectively wrong "and the first major commercial plane crash involving multiple fatalities in the United States since Colgan Air Flight 3407" - Asiana 214 had multiple fatalities and per the other poster, meets NTSB standard for major accident. This needs to be either changed to reference Asiana 214, or say that it is the first US airliner crash etc etc instead of saying IN the united states. There is a distinction between a US domestic carrier and in the US. Many of the sources cited in this discussion in fact state some version of US airliner / US airline and are not saying IN the US (although some are, incorrectly). 72.174.79.69 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

All occupants dead?

The FAA is now reporting 64 fatalities aboard the PSA flight: [10] GalacticOrbits (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely yes. But at least i was not confirm yet if there's another survivors in the accident. M.FirasBukhari (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that major news sources have confirmed there are no surviving persons aboard the PSA flight and helicopter. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The CRJ versus A CRJ

The Accident section referenced Flight 5342 but it doesn't look like that's what the tower actually communicated to the Black Hawk. Rather they were advised of a nearby CRJ - meaning American Eagle Flight 5342, however another CRJ had just taken off. Lack of specificity - direction, altitude, course etc, means the helicopter crew may have identified the wrong CRJ and thus their efforts to avoid it may have resulted in the collision with the descending CRJ. I've generalised the details for now but if further details are released that clarify this then specificity will need to be added to the section. 人族 (talk) 人族 (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not true. “Atc call to pat25 said traffic just south of the Woodrow bridge, a CRJ, it’s 1200 ft setting up for runway 33.” I can’t link a YouTube clip of the atc audio, but you can find it easily. The communication happens roughly a minute before the crash. 73.148.46.113 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There was only one CRJ "just south of the Woodrow bridge" at the time the call was made. Regardless, speculating in the causes is not what the talk page is for. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

but it was at more than 6 miles away at that time, no chance for the Black hawk to identify the right plane amidst all planes on final for runway 1 Df (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)