AA5342 Collides with Helicopter

[justinbrett]

Yes, and we AFFers have all of the answers. . Some more than others it seems. Just the facts, ma’am.

Participation in this thread is voluntary.

 

[Quickstatus]

Yes, and we AFFers have all of the answers

@NTSB should come here for an expedited report

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes, and we AFFers have all of the answers. . Some more than others it seems. Just the facts, ma’am.

Then perhaps you might tootle off this thread for a month or so. I'm happy to read the opinions of the couple of ATC-bods we have here, a pilot and links to other pilots' opinions. Perhaps its only yourself who thinks 'answers' might be attempted at this stage.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's nice that the headlines (inc this thread title) are trying to blame the PSA flight when it was the army helo not meant to be there.

Agree. But most of the news headlines are the same… ‘AA plane collides with helicopter’.

The inference on reading the headline is that the AA flight is the one who *did* the colliding.

 

[ausfox]

I don’t interpret “collided with “ as apportioning blame. I collided head on with another vehicle. The other driver came from off the side of the road crossing the road into my path. Let’s wait a little while until the facts are sorted by those within the enquiry group. I previously had a minor engagement with aviation and dislike decisions based upon maybes.

 

[DC3]

Let’s wait a little while until the facts are sorted by those within the enquiry group.

Agreed. But who’s paying attention to that?

 

[jb747]

Yes, and we AFFers have all of the answers. . Some more than others it seems. Just the facts, ma’am.

Of course we don't, and that applies to any incident. Probably even down to why you didn't get an upgrade. But, we certainly have valid questions, and those of us who know the operations of the place have valid comments. Whether anybody has hit the smoking gun or not, who knows? If the pilot world (and I presume ATC as well) had to sit back and wait for the completed reports to happen (and in the case of some countries they never do), then a lot of the possible learning experience would disappear. We might not hit the actual issue, but along the way others can come to light. Pilots look at this sort of stuff, and propose the what ifs, as a way of working out how to avoid the same issue themselves. I have lost a number of friends over the years to mid-air collisions, and that makes me very wary of any form of see and be seen.

 

[DC3]

Of course we don't, and that applies to any incident. Probably even down to why you didn't get an upgrade. But, we certainly have valid questions, and those of us who know the operations of the place have valid comments. Whether anybody has hit the smoking gun or not, who knows? If the pilot world (and I presume ATC as well) had to sit back and wait for the completed reports to happen (and in the case of some countries they never do), then a lot of the possible learning experience would disappear. We might not hit the actual issue, but along the way others can come to light. Pilots look at this sort of stuff, and propose the what ifs, as a way of working out how to avoid the same issue themselves. I have lost a number of friends over the years to mid-air collisions, and that makes me very wary of any form of see and be seen.

My post was not meant to cast dispersions on the facts available. I understand that these forums attract conjecture and am confident that pilots would not place much strength in the information provided in such forums.

 

[DC3]

CNN (and other media) has been presenting reports, for those interested:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/30/us/maps-plane-helicopter-crash-dca-dg/index.html

Just need to try and sort out the chaff from the wheat

 

[Captain Halliday]

I don’t interpret “collided with “ as apportioning blame.

I disagree.

The word “with”, by definition, conveys action, intent, ownership, direction or cause.

In the context of the thread title, the action and direction combine to imply blame.

To use your car example, consider these two headlines.

A red car and a blue car collided.
vs
A red car collided with a blue car.

The first is neutral, the second implies the red car made the colliding action, even though both cars were required for a collision.

So in the case of the thread title, AA5342 and a helicopter collide would be a more neutral headline.

It would also generate far fewer clicks.

IMHO.

 

[justinbrett]

I disagree.

The word “with”, by definition, conveys action, intent, ownership, direction or cause.

In the context of the thread title, the action and direction combine to imply blame.

To use your car example, consider these two headlines.

A red car and a blue car collided.
vs
A red car collided with a blue car.

The first is neutral, the second implies the red car made the colliding action, even though both cars were required for a collision.

So in the case of the thread title, AA5342 and a helicopter collide would be a more neutral headline.

It would also generate far fewer clicks.

IMHO.

Whoever made the colliding action doesn’t mean they’re at fault. If the CRJ struck the Blackhawk from above while on descent the Blackhawk can still be the one at fault.

This is all semantics and not important.

 

[Quickstatus]

Capt Steeeve's initial perspective

 

[OATEK]

Whoever made the colliding action doesn’t mean they’re at fault. If the CRJ struck the Blackhawk from above while on descent the Blackhawk can still be the one at fault.

This is all semantics and not important.

A lot of the talk is that the Blackhawk hit the CRJ from below.