Image 01 Image 03

FAA: Reagan Airport Air Control Tower Staffing ‘Not Normal’ Night of Crash

FAA: Reagan Airport Air Control Tower Staffing ‘Not Normal’ Night of Crash

Only one controller was “responsible for coordinating helicopter traffic and arriving and departing planes.”

The Associated Press reported that a preliminary FAA report shows that the Reagan National Airport air control tower had one controller “responsible for coordinating helicopter traffic and arriving and departing planes” when an Army helicopter and American Airlines plane collided on Wednesday.

According to the report, having one controller responsible for those actions was “not normal.”

However, a person told the AP that “the staffing at the air traffic control tower on Wednesday night was at a normal level.”

The person explained that “positions are regularly combined when controllers need to step away from the console for breaks, are in the process of a shift change, or air traffic is slow.”

The collision over the Potomac River killed all 67 people on the two aircraft.

First responders have recovered 28 bodies.

The National Transportation Safety Board promised a preliminary board within 30 days.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Why were they understaffed?

a. DEI don’t like to work night shift
b. Not enough DEI to fill the positions
c. Qualified white people not acceptable


     
     4 
     
     15
    bobtuba in reply to Paula. | January 30, 2025 at 8:17 pm

    Why the downvote? You know it’s true.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Andy in reply to bobtuba. | January 31, 2025 at 9:13 am

      It’s DEI + stupid people in charge.

      Don’t forget the people who ran these outfits during the DEI era also were responsible for everything else.

      Boeing and the airlines are good examples of this. DEI is just one of many really really bad decisions made by white dimwits at the head.

      The fish does rot at the head.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Concise in reply to Andy. | January 31, 2025 at 11:25 am

        Too early and may possible explanations but I’ve seen video that make it hard to believe the pilot did not see the oncoming aircraft. In another context, I would be thinking something about motivations, which is not a road I want to go down.


           
           0 
           
           0
          alaskabob in reply to Concise. | January 31, 2025 at 12:36 pm

          We are on that road whether we like it or not. I would have been OK with negligent flying but as things unfold this becomes even harder to believe. An experienced instructor allowing a departure from the explicit flight path required. Even with all of the lights… the far bank of the river and 200′ maximums are the requirement. OK lousy flying but but but the pilot in command… well… things are getting interesting.

          The more I see different videos of the collision…. well… you know…..


 
 6 
 
 12
Frank G | January 30, 2025 at 8:24 pm

I’m concerned the quick shift to blame DEI/et al may just damage the future program to remove DEI and CRT. Less than a day after, the arguments are set. IMHO – Human error, not DEI, “appears” to be the problem, wherever the blame may ultimately lie. By attributing the blame so early, it diminishes the ultimate verdict


     
     0 
     
     13
    TargaGTS in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 8:30 pm

    I get your point. But, while it will be months before we know with any degree of confidence what happened, what we do know is ATC is facing SIGNFICANT shortages. We also know the primary reason for those shortages is the prior administration’s refusal to hire well-qualified WHITE people out of fidelity to their DEI objectives. We now also know this specific incident was being controlled by an ATC wearing two hats. At best, that’s sub-optimal. DEI may not be the primary reason for the catastrophe here (or, it may be). But, it’s already clear it was a contributing factor, minimally.


       
       0 
       
       7
      alaskabob in reply to TargaGTS. | January 31, 2025 at 12:02 am

      Listening the ATC, the controller was doing his best. Still uncertain if Blackhawk was fully dark but having a single controller to monitor and direct these flights would have been helpful but he was as in the blind as the jet. Anyway, the chopper collided with the jet at about 350′ AGL which means out of position altitude wise by 150 or so feet. This was the worst place to go too high in the whole route. Just because nothing happened before may have been ingrained into the military at that base. If all of this is the case, the commander of the base needs to handwrite letters of apology to the families of the jet passengers with copies displayed permanently at the base on the flight line… if it continues to exist.


     
     1 
     
     2
    nordic prince in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 8:31 pm

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Embrace the power of “and.”


     
     2 
     
     12
    Paula in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 8:41 pm

    The subject of the article is the staffing level at Reagan International Airport. We are talking about many people were on duty. There were supposed to be 30 Air Traffic controllers on duty last night at the time of the crash. There were 19.

    They were badly understaffed. My comment was on topic. So was the next. Then you changed the subject.


       
       1 
       
       10
      Paula in reply to Paula. | January 30, 2025 at 9:38 pm

      I’m not saying DEI hires caused the accident, I’m saying due to DEI requirements, they couldn’t fill the positions so they were working short staffed.


         
         0 
         
         11
        gibbie in reply to Paula. | January 30, 2025 at 10:02 pm

        Thanks for pointing out the true problem with DEI. It absolutely guarantees a smaller hiring pool, and is therefore highly likely to leave out highly qualified candidates.


         
         0 
         
         4
        alaskabob in reply to Paula. | January 30, 2025 at 11:50 pm

        The FAA had three choices to fill shortages;
        1) Lower the standards to hire lesser qualified applicants
        2) Fill the shortages with non-minorities which compromises DEI goals
        3) Don’t fill the empty slots

        I’ve seen that with STEM. STEM is “under-represented”. If no one is being turned away who is qualified then its by choice. As Mattel’s Barbie said, “math is hard”. No females in Nuc Engr. when I went through. Their choice. There some great women who have shown superior work in STEM. Letting lessers in is an insult to them.
        .


           
           0 
           
           6
          CommoChief in reply to alaskabob. | January 31, 2025 at 7:10 am

          You didn’t account for DEI woke contributing to staffing shortages via:
          1. Early retirement of retirement eligible who don’t want to be part of the nonsense.
          2. Impact of Covid jab mandates which was also woke nonsense ‘daddy govt knows best shut up and take it’
          3. Impact on potential applicants who heard from current/former ATC who advised against seeking a job due to the woke nonsense
          4. Higher turnover rate due to DEI nonsense itself once hired
          5. Higher quit rate due to increased work load and increased job stress due to short staffing

          All of these potentially play just as much a role as the agency deliberately turning away qualified applicants in favor of hiring DEI targets. Incentives matter, people often change behavior or make different decisions in response to both + and – incentives.


           
           0 
           
           3
          TargaGTS in reply to alaskabob. | January 31, 2025 at 8:06 am

          One of my daughters has an MS in Chemical Engineering. She was one but a handful of females in her graduate class and undergrad wasn’t much better. While in graduate school (even during her undergrad), she was recruited HEAVILY and had a job long before graduation. She’s making an insane amount of money now. If you’re a female in with a ChemEng degree, you’re as marketable as anyone. And yet, schools have great difficulty recruiting females into those programs and getting them to stay in those programs. Make of that what you will.


           
           0 
           
           2
          gibbie in reply to alaskabob. | January 31, 2025 at 9:45 am

          Excellent additions by CommoChief!

          My hope is that Trump will find someone who will be able to articulate all of these reasons well. And hammer them in repeatedly without ceasing.

          I feel sorry for people who have been deceived by the DEI regime into thinking they are capable when they are not, but we cannot allow this disaster to continue. Those people also need the people who serve them to be competent.

          May God have mercy on us all, but destroy the ability of the foolish and wicked to do evil.


           
           0 
           
           1
          Bruce Hayden in reply to alaskabob. | January 31, 2025 at 11:24 am

          Daughter got her PhD in Mechanical Engineering maybe 4 years ago. Turns out her class of PhD candidates at that school was over 1/2 (XX) female. Master’s candidates had a higher male proportion, and undergrads higher still.


       
       0 
       
       2
      MoeHowardwasright in reply to Paula. | January 31, 2025 at 6:57 am

      Your comment was correct. There was supposed to be a single ATC respectively for each type. Landings/ Helicopters. They are on two different frequencies. The single controller was overwhelmed with workload. This problem has been a root cause for many air accidents as highlighted in many Air Disaster episodes and pilots who post reels on Facebook deconstructing air accidents.


     
     7 
     
     4
    healthguyfsu in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 8:51 pm

    I agree I don’t like to accuse anyone of anything with zero evidence. Some of you are the mirror image of the unprincipled prog mob sheep


     
     1 
     
     4
    Johnny Cache in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 9:18 pm

    Human error, not DEI, “appears” to be the problem?

    How do you know? And as nordic prince said, they aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t know what happened, maybe ATC there is full of Mensa members. Trump is closer to the info. than any of us. If he put his foot in his mouth, so be it. It’s a thing. At the same time, I’m reading Aircraft Accident Report conclusions from people on their high horse who are relying on news from social media, “news” organizations that have no interest in accuracy, or could be doing their best and getting incomplete or wrong info. If you are truly an advocate of the truth, criticize Trump all you want but at least follow your own rules and wait to find out like the rest of us.

    The “diminishes the ultimate verdict” theory is nonsense if it matches up with what Trump said, and it’s nonsense if it doesn’t, because the changes in regulations will be stark either way. No one is going to not change a federal aviation rule because Trump Mouth January 30, 2025. Plus we have a president who is directing agencies to cut the blatant discrimination hires, which, fingers crossed, will be followed and can only help lower the chances of future disasters vs a workforce of feel-good incompetents.


     
     0 
     
     9
    henrybowman in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 10:47 pm

    “Human error, not DEI”
    DEI contributes to increased human error. That’s the entire point.


     
     1 
     
     2
    Ironclaw in reply to Frank G. | January 30, 2025 at 11:26 pm

    More likely human error because of dei.


     
     1 
     
     4
    mailman in reply to Frank G. | January 31, 2025 at 1:38 am

    You know what I’m concerned about? Hitting practices that prioritise skin colour over safety!

    So no, Democrats don’t get a pass for the shit they forced on the country just because some of you are getting the f88king vapours!! 🤬🤬


       
       0 
       
       0
      Bruce Hayden in reply to mailman. | January 31, 2025 at 11:29 am

      Plus, keep in mind, who ran the Department that the FAA is in, up until a week and a half ago – the pathetically incompetent Pete Buttplug. Almost every air traffic controller working there, probably 99.9%, were either hired or retained by him and his FAA head.


 
 3 
 
 3
rhhardin | January 30, 2025 at 8:41 pm

It looks like a hole in the system. There’s no failsafe for visual separation on lights at night, when it’s less reliable than had been assumed.


     
     0 
     
     5
    alaskabob in reply to rhhardin. | January 31, 2025 at 12:10 am

    Try this…. Holding points with required full monitoring and clearance. Positive control. We have holding patterns for aircraft already. Speed limits…. which aircraft already have. Altitude warning system… already around…. especially when landing Layered. The “system” got sloppy.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Bruce Hayden in reply to rhhardin. | January 31, 2025 at 11:45 am

    Almost impossible to have seen the helicopter that night. It was apparently running with minimal lights, on a training mission, and apparently ended up well above (~400’) his maximum altitude (200’?) in that heavily controlled airspace. Flight track showed the helicopter starting at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, with Eustis being an Army aviation training base (and Langley apparently being mostly an AF fighter base). It was likely a mandatory recertification flight. The Army pilot identified so far was experienced enough that he shouldn’t have made this mistake. But if it was either training or recertification, it’s likely that two pilots were aboard that night.


 
 1 
 
 5
Peter Moss | January 30, 2025 at 9:04 pm

I’ve been through DCA more times than I can count and I’ve landed on 33 exactly once and that was late last year. And as aviation experts have mentioned today, that runway is damned short. There’s another runway there that’s not even used – noise complaints as I understand. There’s never a shortage of helicopters flying at treetop level. I suppose it was inevitable that something like this would happen eventually but it’s still heartbreaking.


 
 0 
 
 5
Ironclaw | January 30, 2025 at 11:29 pm

It doesn’t help that there were an abnormally High number of close call incidents within the last couple of years.


 
 1 
 
 2
ThePrimordialOrderedPair | January 31, 2025 at 2:11 am

The rumor starting to go around is that the “female” pilot of the Blackhawk was a trans who was vehemently anti-Trump. I don’t see much about this and nothing has been coming from the government on this, but this is what’s going around, now.

I have no idea how true any of this is but all I can say is that, it looked to me, from the very beginning, that this was probably intentional. That seemed the most likely situation to me. At first, I considered medical or mechanical issues but that seems to be off the table with the ATC audio.


     
     0 
     
     1
    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | January 31, 2025 at 2:39 am

    The two pilots who seem to have been confirmed by people (family, etc.) are Ryan O’Hara and Andrew Eaves but the third – the alleged “female”, a trans guy – has not been identified or acknowledged by anyone except for Smerconish having mentioned the name, with no one confirming or denying it since. No other information about it from anyone official … or anyone at all, really. The only thing is that one person claim the person’s facebook page was changed from a pic to a black ribbon with the two flight numbers on it.

    I figure that someone has to come across with the real names of the Blackhawk crew tomorrow. There is no reason for the government to hold these names or the circumstances.

      People need to be skeptical UNTIL irrefutable proof comes out. Of course that skepticism is hard to maintain when The Man hides information from the public but there you go. It is what it is.

      But lets assume this guy did kill everyone on purpose. That would be a HUGE own goal for trannies and DEI and if this guy did utterly detest The Orange One then all he has done is prove his enemy right about mental health retards being in the armed forces and DEI promoting these mentally retarded people in to positions of power.

    Until they examine the blackbox data, it’s going to be difficult to pin this on any specific cause. I am interested to know their altitude since that’s tightly controlled for helicopters precisely to keep them out of the way of approaching aircraft.


       
       0 
       
       3
      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Sanddog. | January 31, 2025 at 3:13 am

      Don’t they have all that relevant data from the telemetry, already, and the videos (and there must be 1000 more videos around)? I saw some radar traces early on (even though there was that rumor that the Blackhawk had turned its telemetry off, or something.

      I understand that the black boxes will give more detailed info about the copter (I don’t think there is any reason to think the plane had anything to do with anything) and the voice recorder.

      We’ll find out, but I was highly suspicious from the first videos I saw. Of course, on the other side, it is extremely difficult to ram another aircraft, but not so much when one is in a landing pattern.

      We should be getting the crew names of the Blackhawk tomorrow and more will be known about all this and I can’t imagine it will take much to find all of the black boxes – they found one so far?


       
       0 
       
       1
      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Sanddog. | January 31, 2025 at 7:44 am

      New video posted on X (allegedly CNN) of the crash. Clearest videos, yet.


     
     0 
     
     0
    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | January 31, 2025 at 5:20 am

    This is the Smerconish article on the alleged co-pilot that came out three days ago.

    No one has confirmed or denied that this was the co-pilot.

    This information is looking more and more accurate with each passing hour and would explain why, almost 30-hours after the incident a name has not been officially released. Trump would have, of course, known this from the very beginning and would go a LONG way towards explaining his immediate disposition towards DEI.

    With the ‘new’ (to us) information, I agree that you have have to give extra scrutiny to the possibility that this may have indeed been intentional. The latest video that has surfaced is inexplicable. It legit looks like the helo was flown right into the path of the plane with intent. I still incompetence is the most likely reason. But, intentional act can’t be dismissed now as crazy talk.


 
 0 
 
 3
RepublicanRJL | January 31, 2025 at 6:34 am

I grieve for those who died needlessly and the loved ones left behind.

It was a tragic accident first and lay blame after enough evidence unfolds.


     
     0 
     
     2
    CommoChief in reply to RepublicanRJL. | January 31, 2025 at 7:17 am

    How about a compromise to describe it as a tragic event? At least until we have enough evidence to confirm it was an accident and completely rule out an intentional act?


       
       0 
       
       1
      TargaGTS in reply to CommoChief. | January 31, 2025 at 7:37 am

      🎯Bondi should find a prosecutor she knows isn’t infected by the Woke Mind Virus and then announce DoJ is taking over the investigative lead on this possible terrorist event.


         
         0 
         
         1
        moonmoth in reply to TargaGTS. | January 31, 2025 at 10:26 am

        And also an investigator who won’t be influenced by the fact that the head of the entire executive branch (in addition to being the Commander in Chief of the military) has already taken a public position on the root causes of the collision.


           
           0 
           
           0
          healthguyfsu in reply to moonmoth. | January 31, 2025 at 12:26 pm

          Thats not true either as a public position on the root cause would require an official root cause that has yet to be released prior to an investigation.


           
           0 
           
           0
          CommoChief in reply to moonmoth. | January 31, 2025 at 2:35 pm

          All Trump seems to have implied is that DEI culture played a key role. The ATC hiring process has absolutely been impacted since Obama administration where ‘personal biography’ was included with goal of decreasing the overall % of traditional hires (read White straight males) in favor of increasing the % of everyone outside that category. Might be a laudable goal and if conducted as outreach to build interest among nontraditional individuals who were otherwise competent, capable folks who could then meet existing qualifications …no problem. That’s not what happened, instead standards were dropped and less qualified, less capable folks were hired. Working environment deteriorated, folks quit/retired which increased the workload on those who remained. That’s why the particular tower had less than 2/3 of the authorized staff, 19/30 ATC.

          TL/DR Trump is absolutely correct that DEI nonsense played a big part in setting the conditions for crash.


 
 0 
 
 1
Dr.Dave | January 31, 2025 at 7:35 am

Why is the name of the woman pilot


 
 0 
 
 1
Dr.Dave | January 31, 2025 at 7:37 am

not released? Why was the choper at 400′ and not the required 200′?


     
     0 
     
     2
    TargaGTS in reply to Dr.Dave. | January 31, 2025 at 9:04 am

    Assuming the altitude is accurate (sometimes it’s not accurate on those radar tracks, particularly at the lower alts with small margins), because of simple pilot error, most likely. But, why didn’t ATC correct the blackhawk’s altitude? We’ll never know for certain. But, the fact that they were understaffed couldn’t have helped and almost certainly hurt.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Bruce Hayden in reply to TargaGTS. | January 31, 2025 at 12:02 pm

      It’s was a military helicopter, required to fly fairly low there (<200’?), underneath the DCA incoming and outgoing corridors. Radar visibility of Blackhawk helicopters was never a high priority, and, indeed, probably the opposite. FAA radar is not as accurate at such low altitudes.

      Still, it’s going to be interesting to see when the helicopter exited his assigned space, and entered the highly controlled airspace tightly controlled by the tower. (Assuming that the immediate cause was the helicopter having strayed too high).


         
         0 
         
         1
        alaskabob in reply to Bruce Hayden. | January 31, 2025 at 12:50 pm

        Thinking of NASA’s shuttle decisions, Boeing’s Max decisions… and oh…. Big Pharma decisions…. until it is obviously broken and everyone sees it…. it isn’t broken. In retrospect, there are so many reasons why NOT to do what they did… complacency. Juan Brown calls them holes in the Swiss cheese. Brown went into the weeds on the Starship breakup which was uncharacteristic of him but he is shining now.

The point of view of the pilots of the plane was looking at about their 10 or 11 o’clock for runway 33 as they were headed in a mostly north direction before they would turn northwest to land. The Helo was coming from their 1 o’clock, so it’s possible the aircraft pilots didn’t see it because they were concentrating on the quickly approaching runway. The point of view of the helo was looking in a south direction….straight on to the approaching aircraft. Maybe the helo pilots saw the plane’s bright lights, but it could have been washed out with the lights of Alexandria which was directly behind it. Had the helo been at its proper altitude, this would have been a close call and we wouldn’t have heard about it. The big question is why two experienced pilots both screwed up on the altitude reading. And what plane would they have been seeing when they said they had visual contact? The runways were at a very hard 3 o’clock for them…..would t make sense to look 90
Degrees to the right.


 
 0 
 
 0
RandomCrank | January 31, 2025 at 4:07 pm

I have done the deep dive on this one, and Occam’s Razor comes into play.

The crash happened at 300 to 350 feet. The National Guard helicopter was flying an established military route with a ceiling specified at 200 feet. I had seen some explanations that wind and jet vortices might buffet a helicopter and that’s why it was flying too high.

So I contacted a friend who flew helicopters for the USMC. He reply: “They’re making excuses for the pilots. 200 feet in a Blackhawk is child’s play.”

This was the first crash, but there have been other, recent near-misses at DCA caused by NG helos flying above the ceiling. This suggests a serious lack of command discipline at the National Guard installation. To quote a different friend in a different matter, this calls for “a proctologist with depth perception problem.”

Also relevant would be why the ATC guy wasn’t more specific about the civilian plane’s location. Rather than “do you see it,” maybe “look for a plane at 11 o’clock on your right.”

All the rest is of passing interest, but it’s also (to quote another favorite phrase of mine) whipped cream on dogshit. The crash happened because a military helicopter was flying too high, and it was not the first time. 67 people perished. Now, Mr. Hegseth, if you’re looking for lethality …

The military is famous for a culture of accountability. Now is the time for us to find out if that, too, is whipped cream on dogshit. Yes, I am being harsh. It’s appropriate. One of their helicopters just killed 67 Americans. They should feel the heat, to put it mildly. No evasions, no excuses. We shall see.


 
 0 
 
 2
TargaGTS | January 31, 2025 at 4:15 pm

Apparently, the name of the pilot is not being released at the request of the family. That is….really unusual and I’m dubious it’s even legal. Speaking from some (miserable) experience as a Casualty Assistance Calls Officer, the DoD is allowed by law to report the name, rank, unit, photo and a few other data points related to the service member’s record without approval from PNOK. After the PNOK has been notified, the military will generally wait 24-hours before releasing that information. I wasn’t a JAG officer. But, I’m almost certain it’s not legal to withhold the deceased service member’s name indefinitely. I’ve been on probably two-dozen+ casualty calls. I’ve never even heard such a request.


     
     0 
     
     2
    TargaGTS in reply to TargaGTS. | January 31, 2025 at 4:19 pm

    I should add, there are some very limited exceptions to what I’ve outlined, always having to do with national security. DoD won’t release the name of a dead service member if the release potentially jeopardizes ongoing covert missions. So, sometimes special operators won’t have their names released for several weeks or even months. But, that wouldn’t be applicable here, obviously.


     
     0 
     
     3
    RandomCrank in reply to TargaGTS. | January 31, 2025 at 5:15 pm

    Does raise some questions, doesn’t it?


       
       0 
       
       0
      CommoChief in reply to RandomCrank. | February 1, 2025 at 7:44 am

      It does. Plus it is pointless b/c the name will eventually come out either officially, leaked or via a FOIA. The fact that someone doesn’t want the name out just draws more scrutiny and allows speculation of motivation for the delay in release.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.