Investigation Reveals Key Errors that Led to Reagan Airport Midair Crash
“Not only was the Black Hawk flying too high, but in the final seconds before the crash, its pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to change course.”
The deadly midair collision between an American Airlines passenger jet and an Army helicopter over Washington, D.C., which claimed 67 lives on January 29, captured the attention of the nation.
The New York Times recently concluded an extensive investigation into the crash, drawing on a thorough review of official documents, cockpit audio recordings from the moments before the collision, and interviews with scores of experts — including pilots, government officials, and current and former air traffic controllers. The paper published its disturbing findings on Sunday.
Webcam at the Kennedy Center caught an explosion mid-air across the Potomac. https://t.co/v75sxitpH6 pic.twitter.com/HInYdhBYs5
— Alejandro Alvarez (@aletweetsnews) January 30, 2025
The article emphasized that the crash was not caused by “one error,” but rather by a convergence of several contributing factors. However, it ultimately concludes that the fatal error was made by helicopter pilot Rebecca Lobach, who allegedly failed to follow a direct order from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to turn away from the approaching jet. She also disregarded multiple warnings about her altitude.
Katie Thomson, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration during the Biden administration, told the Times, “Multiple layers of safety precautions failed that night.”
The report states that, shortly before the collision, an air traffic controller at Ronald Reagan National Airport warned the helicopter crew about a regional passenger jet in their vicinity. The crew confirmed “seeing traffic nearby.”
Next, one of the pilots requested permission to conduct an exercise known as “visual separation,” which allows pilots “to take control of navigating around other aircraft, rather than relying on the controller for guidance.”
The controller responded, “Visual separation approved.”
The article says that air traffic controllers routinely grant permission for this practice.
According to the Times:
The pilots either did not detect the specific passenger jet the controller had flagged, or could not pivot to a safer position.
The helicopter crew appeared to have made more than one mistake. Not only was the Black Hawk flying too high, but in the final seconds before the crash, its pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to change course.
Radio communications, the tried-and-true means of interaction between controllers and pilots, also broke down. Some of the controller’s instructions were “stepped on” — meaning that they cut out when the helicopter crew pressed a microphone to speak — and important information likely went unheard.
Technology on the Black Hawk that would have allowed controllers to better track the helicopter was turned off. Doing so was Army protocol, meant to allow the pilots to practice secretly whisking away a senior government official in an emergency. But at least some experts believe that turning off the system deprived everyone involved of another safeguard.
The controller also could have done more.
Though he had delegated the prime responsibility for evading other air traffic to the Black Hawk crew under visual separation, he continued to monitor the helicopter, as his job required. Yet he did not issue clear, urgent instructions to the Black Hawk to avert the crash, aviation experts say.
Remember the DC helicopter crash in January that killed 64 people, including 12 children?
Turns out the female pilot who was flying was given multiple warnings and was directly told by her male instructor/copilot to turn the opposite direction of the passenger jet to avoid a… pic.twitter.com/50q7O7jiHR
— Savanah Hernandez (@sav_says_) April 27, 2025
The Times reached out to the FAA for a comment. A spokesman for the agency replied that they could not comment on “any aspect” of the National Transportation Safety Board’s ongoing investigation.
In the days following the crash, attention was focused on both the altitude of the helicopter and staffing issues at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport’s air traffic control tower. The Black Hawk was flying above the FAA’s maximum allowed altitude limit of 200 feet. According to agency rules, “helicopters, which regularly cross through and around Washington, between military bases, the Pentagon and other locations, must fly in the area close to the airport at a maximum of 200 feet.”
During a press conference that was held two days after the crash, NTSB member Todd Inman announced that his team had successfully downloaded data from the flight data recorder, also known as the black box, of the passenger jet. The data showed the jet was flying at approximately 325 feet at the time of impact “plus or minus 25 feet.” This would indicate that the helicopter had exceeded its altitude limit of 200 feet.
And NTSB safety investigator Brice Banning said that “on the tower’s radar data scope that was available to the controller, initial data indicates that he may have seen” the helicopter flying at 200 feet. Banning emphasized that these were only “preliminary data.”
Also, an internal preliminary report from the FAA and reviewed by the New York Times (at that time) suggested that staffing levels at the air traffic control tower on the night of the crash were “not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic.”
Specifically, the FAA had determined that a single air traffic controller was performing the duties of two people at the time of the incident, communicating with both the helicopter and the plane.
According to the Times, during the busiest hours of the day, from 10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., “those jobs are typically assigned to two people, not one.” However, after 9:30 p.m., “those duties may be combined.” The collision occurred at 8:48 p.m.
Worse, on that fateful night, one air traffic controller reportedly left work early, as per the report. That may have resulted in a single controller managing both aircraft.
Speaking to reporters the day after the crash, Trump suggested that the FAA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion program was partly to blame for the tower being understaffed. In his eyes, that would make DEI a factor in the crash — not the sole cause, but a contributing factor nonetheless.
Trump was widely criticized for this remark. But given the FAA’s well-documented emphasis on diversity in its hiring process, his concern was legitimate.
Although the results of the Times’ investigation can hardly be considered definitive, it does shed some light on what went wrong on that tragic night. Management at American Airlines must be tremendously relieved by these findings. The Army, not so much.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn or X.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
first mistake was dei hire
then the military ALLOWED THE GUILTY TO DITATE WHAT INFO was going to be released..if at all,, to the public
the pilot was a liaison who they wanted to ferry around the “importante” people …our overlords
correction:
dictate
WAS she a DEI hire? That has not been shown, as far as I know.
And what was her record? That should go a ways towards answering this question. It’s a fair question to ask, but absent data we cannot assume the answer.
I believe I read she had around 400 hours flight time. They graduate helo flight school with about 150 +/- hours depending on which airframe they are tracked into. She’s a Captain without much fruit salad (an AAM appears to be highest award, NDSM and Army Training Ribbon, Not impressive at all, I would argue the lack of of any other awards tells us much) Anyway a Captain so that’s probably five years in the Army. She was coming off a tour in the WH as a military aide. Probably hadn’t been flying much during that time. In fact was being evaluated at time of crash. If your IP says do X then you do X immediately, especially if the tower ATC had just prior told you and you ignored it (so this report claims). This seems to indicate a young, over confident Officer who felt entitled to ignore or at least delay in responding to her IP and ATC.
Women in the Army are not uncommon. Young pretty officers sometimes use their looks and sometimes their looks are used by others who see a pretty face to let them get by with actions that a dude would get reamed over. Happens in civilian workplaces as well. Soldiers are human and make human mistakes. I suspect she had ‘pretty privilege’ and corners were cut for her, perhaps without her knowledge or seeking it. I can definitely see how she’d be an asset to display when flying around woke members of Congress and why the command would go out of their way to avoid grounding her.
I read an article that she had some sort of relationship with her unit’s commanding general so she was considered untouchable. I couldn’t figure out who that general is. There are though a lot of women leaders and CSM in her unit and the organization above. Most of them are quite attractive. One wonders how they were selected so as to be based in DC.
The word is this was a her 5th flight check and she failed the previous 4. She outranked the other two pilots on board although they had more hours.
If you search around you will find a lot of superlatives about this woman from AP and US Today and others. Very suspect.
She outranked the other two pilots on board although they had more hours.
That has no meaning (well, it’s not supposed to) in the cockpit. IPs and Check pilots always “outrank” everyone else in the aircraft. And there is nor rank when it comes to safety of flight. Anyone asserting safety of flight has authority.
The idea of “I outrank you, so shut up” has been technically no bueno for about 40 years, at least in the Air Force.
All of that does not mean it wouldn’t happen.
Thank you for those details.
There are a lot of suggestions on the internet that she was possibly a member of the LGBTQ+ Community – adding to her intersectionality in DEI Vin Diagram…. when one watches the video of the crash, she makes no effort to change her flight path despite tower and instructor pilot warnings…. the collision appears almost intentional… very bizarre – social media scrubbed before her name was released? Working as an aide in the Biden WH? All so strange…
All of these revelations come on top of the intrinsic stupidity of having helicopter flight routes that intersect the paths flown by commercial jet planes at low altitude, on final approach to the runway. As well as the fact that the FAA ignored (or, wasn’t aware of) the scores of pilot complaints submitted to its reporting system, regarding close call encounters with helicopters, over decades. What the hell is the point of having a reporting system for pilot complaints, if no one is paying attention to the submissions and taking pro-active measures? FAA dropped the ball, here, big-time. And, the military bears huge responsibility, too, running training flights in the vicinity of commercial aircraft, with transponders turned off.
That helo did have a transponder and it was broadcasting, as military aircraft always do in Class B airspace. The tower was obviously aware of its location, knew what it was and was in communication with it. Be that as it may, keep in mind that the District of Columbia doesn’t exist for residents and their creature comforts. Its exists as physical location for our federal government to operate. These Gold Top helos are used in continuity of government contingency operations. When an imminent strike is expected on DC, its’ the Gold Tops that shuttle critical government officials out of the city to places of safe harbor so that our government can’t be decapitated. If that’s their mission – and it is – then they have to be prepared to execute their mission objectives at all times. That requires TRAINING. The only way to train to execute that kind of mission is by flying these kinds of sorties, at all times of day and during all kinds of weather & traffic conditions because we can’t predict when a strike on may be launched.
If the helicopter had a responder that was transmitting, what are all these news references to the aircraft’s ADS-B transponder being off?
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/blackhawk-ads-b-was-off-because-mission-profile-was-classified/
https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-announces-ads-b-out-requirement-for-reagan-airport/
Not all transponders have ADS-B. Some military aircraft don’t have ADS-B at all and some, for a variety of reasons, don’t broadcast ADS-B data in every circumstance. Whatever the case w/this particular helo, ADS-B should have been installed (if it wasn’t) and should have been transmitting. But, it was clearly transmitting the more primitive (and allowable until just a few years ago) transponder data.
If your instructor tells you to change altitude and you don’t……. If the towers mentioned warnings multiple times and you don’t ……
And then you crash???? or ????? New info ties with the original video. It was a
head limes collision.
-It was not broadcasting ADS-B data of altitude. OK… fly the routes, but this pilot in command failed and other people died… that is not suitable collateral damage. The transition between the routes goes from hugging the east bank at below 200 to going to middle of river. She ignored the “suggestions” of the instructor… and there should have been a point of intervening as he was in the left seat and had better view of converging traffic. FUBAR in spades. One can argue about the copter and tower, but the passenger jet was totally correct in its flight path… and cleared to land. Army 90%, tower 10%(at most).
Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of this and I’m in no way defending the pilot. She obviously made a catastrophic error either through incompetence or neglect. But, I am defending the mission. Continuity of government ops are critical, particularly now when we’re arguably at a greater nuclear threat posture than we’ve been since the 1960s. One reason these helos take these weird, circuitous routes that hug Reagan is noise abatement. Residents in the District, many of them well-connected, don’t want helos buzzing overhead at < FL010.
I agree with the mission. The ADS-B was off. It would be valuable to see if there is a confidence course tiered system… pass one to get to next level and then the biggie of D.C. If not current…. what if any familiarization flights. Also, scrubbing social media and the approved delay by the Army in releasing her name… also curious for scrubbed social. Was there deference to her in the cockpit from White House..whatever? That she failed and failed big time …. I would have a billboard in the hall going to the flightline with the pictures of everyone killed on the jet… a permanent reminder of what can go wrong. Since no one has been sacked so far, I wonder what if any status is going on at the base. Were the officers just Biden their time with D.C. perks?
“What the hell is the point of having a reporting system for pilot complaints, if no one is paying attention to the submissions and taking pro-active measures? ”
It sounds like a variation on the theme of the FBI “observing” terrorists. Real ones, not Catholics with a preference for Latin mass, or concerned parents at school board meetings.
They do NOT intersect. They cross over each others’ path, but that is not the same thing.
Also, airspaces are not free-for-all areas. They are restricted at various times for various reasons – meaning you may not always use all of the airspace designated.
In this case, the helicopter route was restricted* to a top altitude BELOW that of the proper approach to Reagan National. This is a common procedural control all over the country, particularly in crowded airspace.
(* Via assignment to a specific altitude, accompanied by “at or below”.)
Air refueling routes are often restricted by altitude (I’ve even had them shortened – which really isn’t proper) due to commercial traffic. And vice versa occurs, too – sorry, airliner, but you’re going to have to wait until you get by our large formation of aircraft before you can climb to your best-cruise altitude. Plenty of other airspace is, too. There were days we couldn’t do aerobatics in training because airliners were right over top of our airspace.
Why would “training flights” be an issue at all? As long as the aircraft stays within its assigned boundaries? The trainer on board (or the check pilot) is responsible for ensuring it does that.
You’re splitting hairs, semantically.
The NTSB’s preliminary report noted that the helicopter and passenger jet paths often do intersect, with less than 75 feet of vertical separation. I call that “intersecting.”
Call it what you want — the bottom line is, those helicopter flight paths should be nowhere near airplane final approach routes.
I call that “intersecting.”
Call it whatever you want, but that is NOT “intersecting.” There is 75 feet where they do NOT intersect. They aren’t surface roads. That altitude makes all the difference in the world. I got busted on training rides for being so much as a dozen feet outside my assigned airspace.
You’re WAY wrong on this aspect. I have experience in several aircraft from very small to very large (no jumbos, though) flying in all sorts of conditions all over the world, and what you claim to be “semantics” is actually exactly how things work out there. (I also worked airspace issues for a numbered Air Force for a time, and have worked with and on airspace planning software.)
If the airspaces do not actually occupy the same three-dimensional space, they do NOT intersect.
Read the NTSB preliminary report. Yes, the helicopters were restricted to a maximum altitude below the approach altitudes.
This meant jack excrement in practice, because the vertical and horizontal separation distances (and, the margin for error) was so incredibly low, that the situation posed “an intolerable risk to aviation safety.”
This meant jack excrement in practice
Which is not what you were talking about. If it doesn’t mean anything “in practice” then that means people are violating the altitude restrictions and they should lose their license/ticket over it.
If everyone drives 70 in a 55, and there are lots of crashes at that speed, you don’t blame the speed limit for being too restrictive because people don’t obey it.
And, if you’re 75 feet too low on an approach to actually be out of the allotted airspace, you’d best push up the power and go around now. No excuse.
A separation of 20 ft would be an intolerable risk, 100 ft, not so much. Even with older equipment, the US air traffic control system is one of the best in the world. We safely handle more traffic than any other system and we’ve been doing it for a very long time.
100 feet… what is the closing offset for the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, in the day with clear weather and not in a poorly lit night?
alaskabob, that would be about a foot and a half.
I would like to know if the downvoters have any knowledge of flight operations in controlled or uncontrolled airspace, or any experience of actually flying in crowded airspace?
At least 3 – 4 of the downvoters are bots. I think that was the last count. We ignore them because they really don’t effect anything.
Seriously? What is the basis for their downvoting?
The inconvenient truth is females in the military, particularly in the officer corps, are given FAR more latitude and grace in failure to meet standards than their male counterparts are. This applies to other ‘minority’ groups as well. But, it’s particularly notable with females. There are (now) female infantry officers who routinely finish in the bottom 10% (or worse) in physical fitness testing (using standards that are already appreciably lower than they are for male troops, NCOs & officers), and yet they’re given command of those infantryman they’re demonstrably inferior to, in every measurable way. It’s a recipe for resentment among the troops, other officers and it undermines good order, discipline and MORALE. But, diversity, right?
thats what happens when you “leaders” who want us to lose
No one “mansplains” anything to her.
Unless there was not a second set of controls, I am surprised the instructor didn’t do the “I have the aircraft” and just take over.
I was wondering the same thing. Unless she was resistant to giving up control…I can imagine that trying to physically take over helo flight controls isn’t the best idea.
If she doesn’t want to relinquish control, then there is a problem. But that certainly isn’t how people are trained.
And there is always a second set of controls in a Blackhawk. It’s a 2-person crew in front.
Yes, the instructor/check pilot should have said* “I have the aircraft,” proceeded to avoid the airliner, then said “I’m setting this down over there and calling command post. They can send a car for you or you can get an Uber home, but you’re not flying this aircraft again.”
(* Based solely on the information in this NYT article.)
Is there a set procedure for relinquishing control during a training flight? I’d think that the instructor could take control at any time during the flight and the pilot being evaluated would be required to immediately surrender control.
No experience but I suspect that you are correct. I think it’s a bit of a misnomer to call this a ‘training’ flight. My understanding is that this was a qualification flight or proficiency check which would probably have been using a standard helo rather than one set up specifically for pilot instruction. While it’s almost certain there are two sets of controls they are probably not set up to allow the observing pilot to override inputs from the other set (I think that’s the way trainers are set up but not sure). Unless she gave a positive indication of relinquishing control, the observer trying to override her manipulation of the controls could have been even worse in terms of producing unintended changes in the flight path as the systems tried to respond to both of them.
As far as I know (experience with multiple fixed-wing aircraft) there are no special arrangements to lock out the controls of a student pilot in any trainer aircraft.
The standard method of getting a student pilot’s attention (after verbal statements and shaking the stick) in T-37s was to grab the air hose of the student’s helmet and compress it. If that didn’t get their hands off the stick, then you used the hose as a handle to slam the student’s helmet against the canopy. It didn’t happen very often, except with a certain cohort of foreign students.
I was once accused of mansplaining. My response was that I was explaining to her exactly as I would explain to anyone. And I was. If she had a problem with it, it was her problem. I wasn’t going to let her throw her hangup onto me.
They were flying on a known route along the river which they had flown many times before. It was on the map on their screen in front of their faces, and the map clearly shows where they would cross the path of two runways along their route—in which the planes have the right of way. So, you know, when you get to those two places, look both ways for planes, before you cross.
It’s not quite that easy. But, yes, the sentiment is accurate.
She seems to have been behaving like there was something on her mind besides the flight she was piloting.
Women. Can’t live with them. Can’t be flown by them.
Make absolutely no mistake.
They knew ALL of this within hours of the crash. At absolute most, within 24 hours.
They lied, stonewalled, and tried to delay as long as possible until they hoped people forgot about it.
And they’re still trying to stonewall about an ‘ongoing investigation’.
It’s been THREE FREAKING MONTHS. If your investigation is still ‘ongoing’, then every person ‘investigating’ needs to be fired.
When they tried to withhold the name of the female pilot, and ONLY the name of the female pilot, we all knew exactly what that meant.
No, you’re wrong.
NTSB investigations take up to a year for aircraft incidents. And they take that long precisely because they don’t want people jumping all over some tidbit and making something of it when it isn’t the only contributing factor. They piece together every piece of the aircraft they can find – every last screw and mangled piece of aluminum. They put together all of the data and voice recordings and synchronize them. And they go through it ALL with a fine toothed comb.
And, no, they did NOT know all of this within the first 24 hours. It took them that long just to find the one black box.
yup and they pour over mtx records. been involved in a few as records clerk.
The NTSB is thorough. It is fortunate that the Biden White House is not around. I don’t see NTSB bowing to FJB but the pressure would be there none the less.
What I had seen previously made me think a preliminary NTSB report was out. Evidently this is just something the NYT came up with.
It bears much more scrutiny, then. These folks are often ignoramuses where subject matter is concerned. (Don’t get all Gell-Mann on me, here!)
I’ll give this a longer, deeper look.
Funny that everyone says “the black box showed” the airliner was flying at 325′, but they rarely mention if that was AGL or MSL (not that relevant in this case, but a detail a pilot should include), and no one seems to have confirmed* what the altimeter barometric setting was. If that was set wrong, it could drastically change the actual altitude of the airliner.
(* I could be wrong. I just don’t recall it ever having been mentioned.)
I’m not throwing shade at the airliner crew, but that’s the kind of thing that a real investigation looks for and reports on. I’m not satisfied, looking at this, the NYT has a complete picture.
Two altimeters on board… pressure and radar. Radar is more accurate and it’s right in front of her. The two should jive if pressure set properly. Sloppy for what should be top flight in DC environment. The flight was not performed with safety in mind…either for the copter or other traffic…
67 dead is a small price to pay for DEIversity which, as everyone knows, is ùber alles.
Having spent time as a passenger in various choppers while with Marines, CH-46 and Huey’s, I can say that I’ve never witnessed a one of the pilots grab control from another. Since you have to use both hands to fly. Cyclic and power on the lower control and stick that controls turns L and R. You could cause a situation to become magnitudes worse in normal conditions. That leaves us with a pilot who had not flown in a long while as she worked as a spokesperson in the Biden administration. That leads to the question as to why she was flying this particular training mission. She did not seem to have the hours or proficiency to be doing this at night. Finally she failed to acknowledge and execute a direct order. That says to me that she was way way out of her league from a mission parameter. The entire helicopter command needs to be investigated as to who and why they let her fly this mission.
“The entire helicopter command needs to be investigated as to who and why they let her fly this mission.”
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I think when most people say “grab the controls” they mean to take positive control of the controls at their seat. Any aircraft with a pilot-copilot setup has controls at each seat.
I have seen “struggles” for control of an aircraft. Very brief and quickly resolved (except once in a simulator – we got reamed for that one). And always based on not acknowledging the other person’s claim to the controls or not announcing properly that you were taking control. Pilots usually figure it out when they say something out loud, like, “Can you check the flibgidget circuit breaker, please? Because I’m having to put more and more pressure on the stick to keep it from going nose up.” (Because the other guy is putting increasing pressure on the stick to keep it from going nose down.)
Supposedly, she was qualifying on night vision equipment, and had otherwise qualified to be back as Pilot-in-Command. That might not be what the investigation uncovers, but that was the initial set of ‘facts’ given out. 100 feet outside your airspace should definitely get your further training/checkride stopped, though.
I traveled primarily in choppers when I was in and all of the pilots I flew with and even the ones I know now all say the same thing. The reason you have a Pilot and Co-Pilot is because you only get one chanced to screw up when flying a chopper, with a co-pilot you might get 2 chances. But once you screw up you may as well kiss it goodbye.
Being one of the Monkeys strapped in the back, that was very comforting news. 🙂
“That leaves us with a pilot who had not flown in a long while as she worked as a spokesperson in the Biden administration.”
I missed that detail.
Maybe she got told to stay right down the middle, so of course she turned hard left because that’s what “centrists” are expected to do.
I’ve flown into DCA more times than I can count and I can fully understand why it’s so difficult for pilots. That said, it must be a blast for pilots to fly the Potomac River approach from the north.
It’s 2025 and I am not in the least interested in an investigation from the New York Times on any matter, least of which this tragedy.
In the new media, I learned everything in the NYT piece weeks ago from Juan Browne, an (excellent) amateur journalist and commercial pilot. There are plenty of others too – like Hoover’s Pilot Debrief – that give very solid and sober overviews of aircraft incidents.
Clearly, significant changes need to happen in order to improve safety in the crowded DC airspace but I’m ok with waiting for the NTSB and FAA to figure it out. They’re the experts, not me and certainly not the NYT.
“it must be a blast for pilots to fly the Potomac River approach from the north.”
Back in the ’70s, it was also a blast for ground pounders to plan a family picnic in Gravelly Point Park immediately north of DCA, and watch all the various incoming traffic fly past a hundred feet over their heads every minute or so. I’m flabbergasted that the park still shows up on the map as active — I would have thought they would have closed it for securrrrrrrrrrity excuses long ago.
I had lunch at Gravely Point last week as a matter of fact and you’re exactly right. It’s a pretty spectacular place though.
Replying to Sanddog:
Yes. Generally if there is an instructor in a seat or a check pilot, if he says “I’m taking control” it means he will take control of the aircraft and YOUR part of the ride is now over. That pilot would then “shake the stick” and say “I have the aircraft,” to which the relieved pilot would say, “Roger, you have the aircraft” and take their hands off the controls entirely to visually indicate they’ve relinquished control.
Procedures might vary slightly across the services/types of aircraft.
About 25 minutes into this video https://rumble.com/v6soxqn-urgent-prophetic-update-the-fiery-window-between-passover-and-pentecost.html she plays a video of a guy stating that the crash was deliberate.
I always wondered who was on the American Airlines plane who would be an assassination target?
Error, singular. Use of female dei political pilot.