Crash at Reagan National Airport, DC. Helicopter crash into airliner.

Although the amount of vertical separation between fixed wing aircraft on short final, and the published rotary route was terribly tight, having the entire crew wearing NVG's made it super dangerous.

Politics was only a casual factor many years ago when the routes were created. IMO, the use of NVG's and allowing visual separations that close to a busy commercial airport while flying that route was very bad Army policy. Training flights, or not.
It’s not an Army policy to mandate the entire crew to wear NVGs at all times. There are local policies / SOPs that will dictate when NVGs are worn (terrain flight / evals) but as the NTSB stated, there has to be a “discussion” among the crew to go unaided. You know what that consists of? “Right front unaided.” It’s just that easy. I used to do it all the time to relax my eyes or this case, look for traffic.

Helicopters use NVGs even when flying over the city. Happens all over the country every night. It’s not just the Army but other branches, police, EMS, etc. This Medstar aircraft is an NVG program and there’s a very good chance this crew is wearing NVGs.

 
If you’re a fixed wing guy it’s hard to understand the importance of using NVGs. We have stringent min altitudes to abide by IAW 91.119. But we don’t even fly our Cessnas at these altitudes during the day let alone night. Imagine flying this low at night without goggles.

 
It’s not an Army policy to mandate the entire crew to wear NVGs at all times. There are local policies / SOPs that will dictate when NVGs are worn (terrain flight / evals) but as the NTSB stated, there has to be a “discussion” among the crew to go unaided. You know what that consists of? “Right front unaided.” It’s just that easy. I used to do it all the time to relax my eyes or this case, look for traffic.

Helicopters use NVGs even when flying over the city. Happens all over the country every night. It’s not just the Army but other branches, police, EMS, etc. This Medstar aircraft is an NVG program and there’s a very good chance this crew is wearing NVGs.

The look on his face reveals the level of intelligence I associate with his videos.
 
“2025 Potomac River mid-air collision,” as it’s known on Wikipedia.
 
I think all the mishap titles should be largely a standardized format.
The reason is: it’s much easier to locate when searching later, and also figure what the thread is about before scrolling (46) pages.
In my perfect world, something like
Date of incident
Location ie nearest city name or major airport name
Aircraft type(s)
Fatal or non

Thanks @FlightmechH3
 
Savage report aimed squarely at the FAA.


I think it's spot on. Pandemically grade failures at all levels of the FAA.
I’m not a fan of blaming the system when it comes to accidents like this. Sometimes obvious human error is the primary culprit. This is the epitome of the Swiss cheese model but I think the bulk of the blame goes to the Black Hawk crew.

Don’t care about the poor route structure, an altimeter error or ATC’s poor application of visual separation. This Black Hawk crew had been given traffic. They used no CRM in discussing where the traffic was and how to plan around it. “Exchange mission information” and “adequate warning of traffic” did not occur on the part of the IP. Honestly, I don’t think he ever saw any traffic to begin with. Just probably assumed their altitude is never a factor for inbounds. This was a failure on the crew during low workload and at the time, low traffic volume at DCA.
 
I’m not a fan of blaming the system when it comes to accidents like this. Sometimes obvious human error is the primary culprit. This is the epitome of the Swiss cheese model but I think the bulk of the blame goes to the Black Hawk crew.

Don’t care about the poor route structure, an altimeter error or ATC’s poor application of visual separation. This Black Hawk crew had been given traffic. They used no CRM in discussing where the traffic was and how to plan around it. “Exchange mission information” and “adequate warning of traffic” did not occur on the part of the IP. Honestly, I don’t think he ever saw any traffic to begin with. Just probably assumed their altitude is never a factor for inbounds. This was a failure on the crew during low workload and at the time, low traffic volume at DCA.
giphy.gif
 
I’m not a fan of blaming the system when it comes to accidents like this. Sometimes obvious human error is the primary culprit. This is the epitome of the Swiss cheese model but I think the bulk of the blame goes to the Black Hawk crew.

Don’t care about the poor route structure, an altimeter error or ATC’s poor application of visual separation. This Black Hawk crew had been given traffic. They used no CRM in discussing where the traffic was and how to plan around it. “Exchange mission information” and “adequate warning of traffic” did not occur on the part of the IP. Honestly, I don’t think he ever saw any traffic to begin with. Just probably assumed their altitude is never a factor for inbounds. This was a failure on the crew during low workload and at the time, low traffic volume at DCA.
Just how much is an IP supposed to CRM on a checkride? That's always a question... you know, do you watch someone fumble through something because they need to fail a little to get better, or do you chime in because you are genuinely worried about an outcome, or because you should CRM??? What's the Army take on that @Velocity173 ? I know when someone is going to be single-pilot, I tend to want to force them to use single-pilot resources because they can't expect me to call out traffic for them when they are solo.
 
Just how much is an IP supposed to CRM on a checkride? That's always a question... you know, do you watch someone fumble through something because they need to fail a little to get better, or do you chime in because you are genuinely worried about an outcome, or because you should CRM??? What's the Army take on that @Velocity173 ? I know when someone is going to be single-pilot, I tend to want to force them to use single-pilot resources because they can't expect me to call out traffic for them when they are solo.

Enough to not end up dead would be a start.
 
Just how much is an IP supposed to CRM on a checkride? That's always a question... you know, do you watch someone fumble through something because they need to fail a little to get better, or do you chime in because you are genuinely worried about an outcome, or because you should CRM??? What's the Army take on that @Velocity173 ? I know when someone is going to be single-pilot, I tend to want to force them to use single-pilot resources because they can't expect me to call out traffic for them when they are solo.
The IP must act as a contributing crew member even during an eval. He can use role reversal but he must state when he’s using role reversal. He didn’t mention that in this case so he should have been using appropriate Army Crew Training (CRM) verbiage. There’s a place for role reversal. Playing “I got a secret” when it comes to traffic avoidance isn’t the time.

Now I will say there was a little too much coaching going on for an eval. I read a post on FB from Gold Aviation that the IP isn’t allowed to teach during an eval. That’s partially correct in that the examinee must do the task correctly, properly and without error. However, if the task is within standard and it’s already been graded, nothing prohibiting them from offering a technique. Also, as I said, every crewmember including the crew chief, must be a participating crewmember. That means the pilot not on the controls not only using appropriate CRM, during the river route, he must provide headings and altitudes as necessary. That’s not teaching or coaching. It’s just proper duties off the controls. To not do that, and act as an ineffective crew member would be role reversal. Again, that airspace wouldn’t be prudent for that.

Also, the IP can modify the standard based on the environmental conditions and in this case, it was windy. Earlier, CPT Lobach was having problems with track and trim at a stage field. Due to strong winds / turb the IP can modify track and trim (+-1/2 ball) standards as he sees fit. I think in this case, he gave her a little too much leeway.
 
Now I will say there was a little too much coaching going on for an eval. I read a post on FB from Gold Aviation that the IP isn’t allowed to teach during an eval. That’s partially correct in that the examinee must do the task correctly, properly and without error. However, if the task is within standard and it’s already been graded, nothing prohibiting them from offering a technique. Also, as I said, every crewmember including the crew chief, must be a participating crewmember. That means the pilot not on the controls not only using appropriate CRM, during the river route, he must provide headings and altitudes as necessary. That’s not teaching or coaching. It’s just proper duties off the controls. To not do that, and act as an ineffective crew member would be role reversal. Again, that airspace wouldn’t be prudent for that.

Also, the IP can modify the standard based on the environmental conditions and in this case, it was windy. Earlier, CPT Lobach was having problems with track and trim at a stage field. Due to strong winds / turb the IP can modify track and trim (+-1/2 ball) standards as he sees fit. I think in this case, he gave her a little too much leeway.
I'm certainly no NTSB expert, but to me that's at the heart of this. It looks like things were sideways from an IP standpoint. At some point you might have to switch from eval status to "ok, let's just focus on getting better and we'll redo the eval side of things next flight" but I'm not sure how that would translate in the military world. Being somewhere in between makes things difficult. If you are straight up training, it's easy to decide which things you need to help the student on. When you are evaluating, in my mind you really ought to not help unless it's a safety issue, and in this case, it was a safety issue that they were almost literally blind to even though it was staring them in the face. Hybrid situations aren't great.
 
The easy, and quick tactical assignment of blame to the pilots of the BH, doesn't take into account the strategic failures that made the Swiss cheese. Paraphrasing the report, in my own words: A. That heli route should NEVER have existed, given the locality to DCA. B. The training/eval flights should NEVER have been allowed on that route. C. The FAA received hundreds of notices of possible conflicts prior to the accident. This was not anything that was obscure, or unpredictable. D. The crew requirements for ATC at that time, with that operations load(recently increased at DCA) had already been raised with FAA, and they chose to do nothing about it. E. I've never flown in the DC SFRA, however it operates nominally like a class B, with some added limits on overflight of certain areas. In a class B, one is under positive control. ATC has the authority to release positive control to the aircraft, or not. In this area, with this load, at night, with a PAT(priority air transport) flight, letting anyone go unsupervised was a bad choice. And, I know why the controller did it, to lessen his workload. Maybe I would have done the same, but before giving up positive control and fall back on see and avoid, I would give added instructions to 'remain below 200 feet, crossing traffic, acknowledge', or words to that effect. F. When ATC got the first alert to a possible conflict, I would have told them to go around. But again - I know why he chose not to. This had been going on for years at this facility and they had so far gotten away with it. IF, ATC controllers had been sending flights around with each report of a conflict, maybe the system would have taken some action.

Now - there is no question the PAT pilots failed. No question they have a tactical hand in this accident. But, far more than other accidents which can/could be avoided, by strategic changes at ATC, the PAT aircraft should never have been anywhere near the circling appr to 33 at DCA. And yes, I do have 20-20 hindsight and a keen grasp of what is now obvious. YMMV.
 
The easy, and quick tactical assignment of blame to the pilots of the BH, doesn't take into account the strategic failures that made the Swiss cheese. Paraphrasing the report, in my own words: A. That heli route should NEVER have existed, given the locality to DCA. B. The training/eval flights should NEVER have been allowed on that route. C. The FAA received hundreds of notices of possible conflicts prior to the accident. This was not anything that was obscure, or unpredictable. D. The crew requirements for ATC at that time, with that operations load(recently increased at DCA) had already been raised with FAA, and they chose to do nothing about it. E. I've never flown in the DC SFRA, however it operates nominally like a class B, with some added limits on overflight of certain areas. In a class B, one is under positive control. ATC has the authority to release positive control to the aircraft, or not. In this area, with this load, at night, with a PAT(priority air transport) flight, letting anyone go unsupervised was a bad choice. And, I know why the controller did it, to lessen his workload. Maybe I would have done the same, but before giving up positive control and fall back on see and avoid, I would give added instructions to 'remain below 200 feet, crossing traffic, acknowledge', or words to that effect. F. When ATC got the first alert to a possible conflict, I would have told them to go around. But again - I know why he chose not to. This had been going on for years at this facility and they had so far gotten away with it. IF, ATC controllers had been sending flights around with each report of a conflict, maybe the system would have taken some action.

Now - there is no question the PAT pilots failed. No question they have a tactical hand in this accident. But, far more than other accidents which can/could be avoided, by strategic changes at ATC, the PAT aircraft should never have been anywhere near the circling appr to 33 at DCA. And yes, I do have 20-20 hindsight and a keen grasp of what is now obvious. YMMV.
It was never addressed because it was a taxi service for the politicians and the Pentagon.

They would never give up the PAT flights. God forbid if a 2-Star or a Senator has to sit in traffic.
 
That helicopter route is no more incompatible with DCA than are intersecting runways. Both fail if you let aircraft use them at the same time. They could similarly use either the helicopter route OR runway 33 arrivals, but not both at the same time.

Meanwhile, pilots should not accept visual separation when they are sure that they have identified the other traffic and can keep them in sight. It seemed to have been standard practice, for the PAT squadron, to request visual separation first, then worry about finding the other aircraft later--if at all.
 
That helicopter route is no more incompatible with DCA than are intersecting runways. Both fail if you let aircraft use them at the same time. They could similarly use either the helicopter route OR runway 33 arrivals, but not both at the same time.

Meanwhile, pilots should not accept visual separation when they are sure that they have identified the other traffic and can keep them in sight. It seemed to have been standard practice, for the PAT squadron, to request visual separation first, then worry about finding the other aircraft later--if at all.
The first thing the FAA did was remove Heli route 4. Almost instantly after the fact of the accident. Many of the other recommendations haven't been done, and will not be done(reduce DCA volume). The second thing the FAA did was alter the ATC staffing schedule, a few days or hours after deleting Heli route 4.
 
TL;DR: FAA's fault for allowing those helicopter routes in close proximity to DCA flight path.
For those that want to read the full probable cause statement.

-------------------------------
We determined that the probable cause of this accident was the FAA’s
placement of a helicopter route in close proximity to a runway approach path; their
failure to regularly review and evaluate helicopter routes and available data, and their
failure to act on recommendations to mitigate the risk of a midair collision near
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; as well as the air traffic system’s
overreliance on visual separation in order to promote efficient traffic flow without
consideration for the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept. Also causal was the
lack of effective pilot-applied visual separation by the helicopter crew, which resulted
in a midair collision. Additional causal factors were the tower team’s loss of situation
awareness and degraded performance due to the high workload of the combined
helicopter and local control positions and the absence of a risk assessment process to
identify and mitigate real-time operational risk factors, which resulted in
misprioritization of duties, inadequate traffic advisories, and the lack of safety alerts to
both flight crews. Also causal was the Army’s failure to ensure pilots were aware of
the effects of error tolerances on barometric altimeters in their helicopters, which
resulted in the crew flying above the maximum published helicopter route altitude.
Contributing factors included:

• the limitations of the traffic awareness and collision alerting systems on
both aircraft, which precluded effective alerting of the impending collision
to the flight crews

• an unsustainable airport arrival rate, increasing traffic volume with a
changing fleet mix, and airline scheduling practices at DCA, which regularly
strained the DCA ATCT workforce and degraded safety over time;

• the Army’s lack of a fully implemented safety management system, which
should have identified and addressed hazards associated with altitude
exceedances on the Washington, DC, helicopter routes;

• the FAA’s failure across multiple organizations to implement previous NTSB
recommendations, including ADS-B In, and to follow and fully integrate its
established safety management system, which should have led to several
organizational and operational changes based on previously identified risks
that were known to management; and

• the absence of effective data sharing and analysis among the FAA, aircraft
operators, and other relevant organizations.
 
Thank you for the summary.

Not sure that I agree with FAA being the first to blame, though. Their hands were tied (staffing and resource-wise) a lot more than PAT's.
 
Why I agree with throwing the FAA under the bus.

It's their ****ing bus. Just get modestly sideways with the FAA some day. They can and will destroy a pilot without mercy. So - the FAA walks with the big stick, when they get it wrong(as in this crash) that stick can go right up their ass.
 
Lobach was the final Swiss Cheese. Was a substandard pilot who spent a lot of time at the WH instead of flying to maintain her qualifications. 4.4 hours of flight time in the past 60 days? Put her in NVG's in that environment? Wouldn't listen to her instructor?

That's like giving a sharp knife to a toddler. The IP was overloaded by doing everything while she held the controls.

The Army needs to stop sending newbies out of flight school to this unit until they at least get 2k hrs.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260217_182216_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260217_182216_Chrome.jpg
    348.3 KB · Views: 34
The Army needs to stop sending newbies out of flight school to this unit until they at least get 2k hrs.
If you needed 2K hours you would never see a Army Commissioned Officer in this unit…don’t disagree but not how our Army works…
 
Lobach was the final Swiss Cheese. Was a substandard pilot who spent a lot of time at the WH instead of flying to maintain her qualifications. 4.4 hours of flight time in the past 60 days? Put her in NVG's in that environment? Wouldn't listen to her instructor?

That's like giving a sharp knife to a toddler. The IP was overloaded by doing everything while she held the controls.

The Army needs to stop sending newbies out of flight school to this unit until they at least get 2k hrs.
Well 2,000 hrs will never happen on the “commissioned” side. You got LTCs retiring at 20 with less than that. The warrant side that’s possible but MTOE requires platoon leaders and company commanders. Warrants don’t fill those roles outside of Rucker. I agree though, shouldn’t be sending WO1s here. Should be an assignment for CWs after at least one duty station and already a PC. Thats not because of the challenges of flying there but the visibility of the increased risk of a VIP accident. Generally VIP units will have the most senior pilots assigned to fly the “big wigs” around.

The IP shouldn’t be overloaded flying in this flight regime. While more challenging than say a VFR XC, flying around a city on canned routes shouldn’t be much of a challenge for a 1,000 hr IP. You got 700 hr Rucker IPs doing NOE, instruments, and autos at night with 100 hr students. Heck, at Rucker you don’t even have a third set of eyes in the back either. Just get on flight radar and see how dense the traffic is there. Midair waiting to happen…and has before.
 
I am just pointing out that the Army should have never put a low-time pilot with dubious qualifications (retraining?) at that unit and especially flying in a night-time environment with NVG's. Her White House gig was apparently more important than her lesser collateral job of being a pilot and being in charge of a fuel farm. I had to run a fuel farm for a month as an E4 while the main guy took 30 days of leave. Yawn, it was simple and boring.

Are there an excess of Army pilots now they only get 4 hrs flight time every 60 days?
 
I was prev excoriated for my rudeness pointing out a minimally qualified and low hour pilot was in that position. Noting I did not mention gender, or the social schedule which dominated her time in the DCA metro. It was assumed I was being a misogynist.
 
I was prev excoriated for my rudeness pointing out a minimally qualified and low hour pilot was in that position. Noting I did not mention gender, or the social schedule which dominated her time in the DCA metro. It was assumed I was being a misogynist.
That's a fallback accusation in a losing argument. What you said is correct and some are afraid to acknowledge it.
 
Back
Top