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

The issue of night visual separation reminds me of this

Are night visual separations used in Australia ?

 

[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.

 

[elanshin]

I suspect in terms of who was in the right and wrong, the Blackhawk is likely in the wrong - but appropriating blame and who was right isn't going to undo the accident and bring the people back.

This will mostly turn into an exercise of what exactly went wrong (besides the obvious) and things that can be done to mitigate it in the future. Whether there needs to be new night VFR rules for DCA approach etc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I suspect in terms of who was in the right and wrong, the Blackhawk is likely in the wrong - but appropriating blame and who was right isn't going to undo the accident and bring the people back.

This will mostly turn into an exercise of what exactly went wrong (besides the obvious) and things that can be done to mitigate it in the future. Whether there needs to be new night VFR rules for DCA approach etc.

But determining responsibility does absolve the family of the AA pilots from shouldering any blame the families of the passengers might feel. It would be awful knowing that the pilot - your child or parent - was responsible for the death of everyone on board. There will likely be a lot of anger directed at those responsible. Clearing the AA pilots (or the helicopter ones as the report may determine) will be an important outcome for those left behind. (Equally that applies to the families of the helicopter pilots if the report clears them.)

 

[Quickstatus]

Blackhawk is likely in the wrong

IMO Too simplistic and an actually incorrect focus . It's really not about who was wrong /right, not about apportioning blame because humans operate in a complex socioeconomic-technical system. Apportioning blame simplifies the conplex which inevitably leads to the wrong conclusions.

It's about what happened, why it happened, and what are the lessons.

Currently we are at the what happened stage.

 

[I love to travel]

Just saw new footage on CNN. The Blackhawk literally flew straight into it from the LHS

 

[justinbrett]

But determining responsibility does absolve the family of the AA pilots from shouldering any blame the families of the passengers might feel. It would be awful knowing that the pilot - your child or parent - was responsible for the death of everyone on board. There will likely be a lot of anger directed at those responsible. Clearing the AA pilots (or the helicopter ones as the report may determine) will be an important outcome for those left behind. (Equally that applies to the families of the helicopter pilots if the report clears them.)

It’s already universally accepted by anybody who knows what they’re talking about that the CRJ pilots cannot possibly be at fault.

IMO Too simplistic and an actually incorrect focus . It's really not about who was wrong /right, not about apportioning blame.

It's about what happened, why it happened, and what are the lessons.

Currently we are at the what happened stage.

True but when there’s mass casualties people want blood. There will be court cases after the investigation is over.

 

[Quickstatus]

CRJ pilots cannot possibly be at fault.

Yes, but the error that people will then make is that if the CRJ pilots are not at fault, the Helicopter pilots must therefore at fault. This conclusion is erroneous.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes, but the error that people will then make is that if the CRJ pilots are not at fault, the Helicopter pilots must therefore at fault. This conclusion is erroneous.

There’s always ATC.

Or the procedures.

Or management.

Or aircraft malfunction.