If this is accurate, then VH-60, no?

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a97753,ae313d

Mvportis (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thumb Silverdrake2008 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army already confirmed that it was a UH-60 helicopter. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the paths. The helicopter transponder was on, but was not sending ADS-B position data. The helicopter's position was triangulated based on a technology called MLAT. The current article says the helicopter was sending "mutilated" data to ATC, which is INCORRECT and should be changed. It was operating in Mode C (baro altitude only) without position data, that's normal for these helicopters. 216.26.121.176 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, the reason the helicopter track is "glitchy" and jumping around on ADSB exchange site is because it was triangulated by multilateration (MLAT) from many receivers. The helicopter was not sending "mutilated" data to ATC. The quality of the calculated position and speed is much less with MLAT than when the airplane is actually sending its GPS position. Because of the limitations associated with triangulation, the helicopter track should be assumed to have a large uncertainty of perhaps 500 meters or more. The pilot was not flying erratically. ATC could see the position of the helicopter on their radar screens, which uses a different technology (Mode C interrogation, not ADS-B). 216.26.121.176 (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were asking if the helicopter involved was a UH-60 or a VH-60, as the title of this thread suggests. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it was just the CRJ flight which provided incorrect data in the final 10 seconds before the crash happened 45.126.186.26 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Deutche Welle report shows black and gold wreckage being pulled form the Potomac as its initial background image, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWL_vzUOZo this image https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2003437902/ shows the black and gold VH-60Ms that are exclusively operated by Alpha company 12th Aviation Battalion at Fort Belvoir, Virginia according to the UH-60 article - the company involved in the crash. It seems likely it is one of these 34 vehicles. Mycosys (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the aircraft's serial number shows that it was built as a UH-60L-24-SI. That's probably where the confusion is arising. - ZLEA _T\ 15:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Of the 5 citations in the introduction to the article, two specify a "UH-60", one simply a generic "H-60" and two don't mention the helicopter variant at all.

I have no idea why it's still being referred to in the the article as a "VH-60M". The 4 VH-60Ms are FY2009 aircraft; this one was a FY2000 example. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that 00-26860 was converted to VH-60M standard, but other than the news reports I have found no evidence of this. Did the US Army state that it was a VH-60M? If not, where did that claim originate? - ZLEA _T\ 18:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, In a photo dated 31 August 2023, it appears it was configured as UH-60. Secondly, its Mode-S hex code, AE213D, is also associated with UH-60. Lastly, the military uses the moniker UH-60 in its official statement. I'm not sure where the gold-top VH-60 info came from. —83.8.40.238 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could just mean UH-60 as a type rather than a variant. I notice that the official statement did not reveal the serial number, so I'm wondering if there was another statement released after this one that maybe confirmed the variant. - ZLEA _T\ 20:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, this image File:12th Aviation Battalion flies over Army Ten-Miler 2023 (231008-F-WF811-1220).jpg shows tail number 26861 which is so close to the 26860 of the accident. Is it safe to assume that aircraft with consecutive tail numbers are more likely to be the same type?  Hwi.padam   21:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No assumption necessary. The batch of Blackhawks 00-26857 to 00-26870 are all UH-60L Lot 24 aircraft. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please share the link that identifies it as a UH-60? If it was a gold top (see above) does this mean it was converted to a VH-60? Dw31415 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "gold top" reference comes from this post above: "This Deutche Welle report shows black and gold wreckage being pulled form the Potomac as its initial background image".

I can't see any evidence of that on the linked video. And no, a UH-60L can't be converted to an M - the (only) four VH-60M's were built as such. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for the serial number? Dw31415 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the source for the serial number.

“ The second aircraft was a Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, specifically a VH-60M variant (registration 00-26860)”

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/american-eagle-flight-crashes-with-64-on-board-after-collision-with-helicopter Dw31415 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that describes it as a UH-60 while listing the other variants CT insider Dw31415 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the summary to say H-60 to match FAA and CBS reports Dw31415 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Update now referring to it as UH-60 Dw31415 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look for more articles. Any other opinions or links that support UH or VH variant? Dw31415 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're flogging a dead horse here. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was changed back to UH-60, which I now support. My apologies to the horse. Dw31415 (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blancolirio shows charts that show the maximum published altitude for the corridor the BlackHawk was flying was 200 feet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3gD_lnBNu0 - the collision occurred at 300ft. Would this information be worth including? | Mycosys (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would need an RS rather than a youtube video I'm afraid. If you can find the FAA airspace map that would be best? Timtjtim (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/09-05-2024/PDFs/Balt-Wash_Heli.pdf Timtjtim (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an extremely pertinent fact. Perhaps slightly moreso than the claim that the FAA has been taken over by those with complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability and dwarfism. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a little person did bad by you in the recent past. Sorry to hear that :-/ Mickey Smiths (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Short-staffed", allegedly. (And it wasn't a little person, it was an orange person... ) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to NYT reporting here:

"Details about the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter's final location indicated that it was not on its approved route and flying higher above the ground as it traversed the busy airspace just outside the nation's capital, according to four people briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly."

Is this sufficient for updating our article? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say certainly not. But I wonder when they ever will be authorized. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. maybe a quote could be added, with explicit attribution to NYT. But really a consensus of RS sources would be needed?[reply]

CBS News has similar reporting here:

"Experts ask why Black Hawk helicopter may have been flying above allowed altitude before crash"

and according to Fox News here, even Trump himself (no expert, but presumably briefed by one) reported that the helicopter "was flying too high, by a lot. It was far above the 200-foot limit. LThat’s not really too complicated to understand, is it???"

Maybe we can report something like, Attention soon focused on the helicopter's altitude... —173.56.111.206 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orange person? Someone with a fake tan? Mickey Smiths (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake nudes!" You expect him to go swim in the Potomac?! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

The chart giving maximum altitudes Juan Browne was using on his Blancolirio Youtube channel is https://aeronav.faa.gov/visual/09-05-2024/PDFs/Balt-Wash_Heli.pdf and it is PD US-GOV. Thincat (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That defines the planned corridors that applied at the time? You might want to give some advice on how to read the relevant part. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Browne explains all that on his second (of two) videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3gD_lnBNu0 and the chart itself has a detailed explanation. The instrumentation showed the helicopter to be in excess of its normally permitted altitude. I'm not intending to be editing the article. Thincat (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought might just hint at which route we should be looking it. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where I heard this but I believe Route 1 and 4 are the relevant, the heli being in a transition between. If someone can actually find a source for that.

Put together with the description of the routes, the legend with altitudes. I'm not trained to read these. I believe that is maximum 200 ft for Route 4 towards the intersection direct east of the airport. 1500 recommended is for route 6, irrelevant. Below 200 ft on route 1 in that intersection area.

This makes sense to me as 200 ft for the routes that cross the approach glidepath for the RWYs. 1500 for crossing over the airport. Intersection east of the airport has no approach path so it would be a somewhat safe place to transition routes. Someone with actual knowledge and experience please read though. Keita2282 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update from a WP:RS:

1. Petchenik, Ian (2025-01-30). "PSA Airlines CRJ-700 collides with US military helicopter in Washington DC". Flightradar24 Blog. Retrieved 2025-01-31. The NTSB confirmed in its 30 January briefing that the H-60 was flying south transiting from Route 1 to Route 4 along the Potomac River. The chart lists the maximum altitude along that particular route as 200 feet.

2. Walker, Mark (2025-01-30). "Army Helicopter in D.C. Plane Crash Might Have Been Flying Higher Than Approved". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-31. The military helicopter […] appears to have been flying too high and outside its approved flight path at the time of the crash, according to four people briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly. […] In this case, the pilot of the helicopter asked the air traffic controller for permission to use a specific, predetermined route that lets helicopters fly no higher than 200 feet […]. The requested route — referred to as Route 4 at Reagan — followed a specifically carved out path […], and the air traffic controller instructed the helicopter pilot to follow the route and go behind the plane. But the helicopter pilot did not follow the intended route, the people briefed on the matter said. Rather, the helicopter was above 300 feet, not below 200 feet, and was at least a half-mile off the approved route when it collided with the jet.

3. And to add a sprinkle of WP:OR, according to granular data published by Flightradar24, the last transmission from the helicopter's Mode-S transponder indicates it was at 400 ft. This is consistent with the "above 300 ft" part. Also, here's the helicopter's estimated trajectory overlaid on the "Washington inset" chart with the Route 1 and Route 4 it was following. —79.163.222.20 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would line up. Route 1 to 4 at 200 ft along the river bank was what the helo was supposed to be doing. The path data I've seen sees the heli too far inward over the river from the bank. Keita2282 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum height is 200 ft above sea level. What we see is pression altitude, with altimeter settig of 29.87 (cf prior METAR) there will be a 50 ft difference (so that the limit would be 250 ft maximum). Anyway, when on the glide slope for landing on runway 33, the CRJ would have been crossing the helicopter Route 4 at about 200 ft. 100 ft does NOT make any safe separation, due to instrument errors and piloting margins. 500 ft is a minimum. The fault is not being too high, but failing to pass behind (probably because they were not seeing the CRJ but another plane/city light) Df (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While as far as I know the "200 ft" should be the altitude above ground level (please correct me if I'm wrong), I agree that, assuming a standard 3° glide path, the CRJ could be at ~200 ft over Route 4. Even if a hundred or two hundred feet higher, the vertical separation would be far too small, well within any reasonable margin of error, so you made a very good point—altitude is probably not the main issue there. The news also said that the UH-60 was reportedly more than half a mile off the route toward the airport; that's got to be a much more significant factor.

Overall, visual separation at night seems like a bad idea; the controller should give the UH-60 specific instructions and ensure the separation himself. Just my two cents. —79.163.222.20 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the civilized world, military traffic is not permitted to mix with civil traffic - especially with a student pilot at the contols. And for good reason as all can plainly see.Henrilebec (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add this to the previous weather topic, but it got archived.
https://aviationweather.gov/data/metar/?ids=KDCA&hours=96 This is an official source for aviation weather. This data drops off over time so here it is for WP purposes:

KDCA 300245Z 29007KT 10SM CLR 09/M07 A2993 RMK AO2 ACFT MSHP T00891067
KDCA 300152Z 30014G23KT 270V330 10SM CLR 10/M07 A2990 RMK AO2 PK WND 30033/0108 SLP126 T01001072
KDCA 300052Z 29015G25KT 10SM CLR 11/M07 A2987 RMK AO2 SLP114 T01061072

Last line is the one in effect during the incident. Winds out of 290 at 15 knots gusting to 25 knots. 10 statute miles visibility, skies clear. Temp 11°C, dew point -7°C. Altimeter setting 29.87 inches of mercury. Winds are the most likely explanation for the last-minute runway change. Titaniumlegs (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you’re suggesting adding detail about the weather, I would wait to see if that is mentioned as a factor by RS. Dw31415 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't proposing adding it to the article, but keeping it in talk for future reference (prevous talk topic is what I mentioned as archived). However, weather is always discussed in aviation accidents, even if only to indicate CAVU and "likely not a factor", and you can be certain it will be included in NTSB reports, so it could be worth including in the article. Titaniumlegs (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is disagreement on whether '''PSA Airlines Flight 5342''' should be included in the lead. I take the position that it should, while others (like @Astropulse), through their edits, have taken the position that it should not.

I will note that, to the extent of my knowledge, the flight was legally PSA Airlines Flight 5342, as evidenced by its call sign, "Blue Streak 5342".

I have used all three of my reverts on this article, so I will take a break from editing the article itself for a while.

b3stJ (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like i noted in edit - PSA Airlines Flight 5342 is operational name ( used internally ). American Eagle Flight 5342 is what it is known to public ( what they see on airline website and when they buy tickets ). Even in official announcement AA has used the name American Eagle Flight 5342 . Therefore lead should reflect it. There isn't a concept of legal name. We should use the name, what people knew it as. Internal or operational name is of less significance Astropulse (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cc @GalacticOrbits Astropulse (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The media is notoriously unreliable when it comes to reporting the name of the airline for regional flights. American Airlines has used "American Eagle Flight 5342" since PSA Airlines is a subsidiary of American Airlines and you can buy tickets for a PSA flight through the American Airlines website (but yet again, the loophole here is that you also technically can't buy an American Eagle ticket since it is merely an operating name for the regional flights of American Airlines). The NTSB and FAA are both calling it a PSA Airlines flight since American Eagle technically can't operate flights since it isn't an airline. The media calls it both but the earlier lead already clarified that PSA Airlines is a regional subsidiary of American Airlines. Further, the earlier lead is consistent with other accident articles such as Comair Flight 5191 or Colgan Air Flight 3407. Plus, you don't need a kajillion different footnotes near "PSA Airlines" to clarify it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA25MA108.aspx on here NTSB also call it as American Airlines Flight 5342 We should use whats widely recognized Astropulse (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about this (https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2025/Information-regarding-American-Eagle-Flight-5342/default.aspx)? This is the official press statement from American Airlines. And what about similar descriptions, like American Eagle Flight 4184? In any aspect, it shouldn't be Americam Airlines Flight 5342. Awdqmb (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was initially written like this. However there were dispute and some editors wanted it to call PSA. Therefore going with NTSB and FAA to find compromise. Its not good to mention all names it lead. Astropulse (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AA 5342 is most news website calling it. as do NTSB and FAA. wsj article [1] Astropulse (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because American Eagle is not a independent operater, thus also not have IATA/ICAO code or AOC. Just like the infobox said, they used "AA" as IATA code for the flight number, but it's more like a codeshare, instead of really operating the flight. If we don't discuss about the difference about regional brand and operator, this dispute will simply fall into no end. Awdqmb (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that terms like “codeshare” and other technical jargon can confuse many people. It’s important to clearly display the flight number, the operator, and, most importantly, the owning/parent airline (here, American Airlines). The current lede presents this information in the simplest possible way, while additional details can be provided in the body text. Astropulse (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I think my previous change is enough. And use existing quote to explain further. But since it has been reversed, I won't try again for now.

Which, it will be like as I suggest:

PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (operated as American Eagle Flight 5342)[a]

Awdqmb (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a strong argument that most customers would see it not as American Eagle but as American Airlines. The US carriers have really muddied the waters when it comes to regional flights… and that’s largely by design. Sure the aircraft says American Eagle… but most people never see that as they walk down the jet bridge. When they bought the ticket there was a disclosure to the effect of “Operated by PSA Airlines dba American Eagle” but it was in tiny type that’s easily overlook. However customers were bombarded by American Airlines branding when they booked the ticket, on the app they used, the baggage check counters, airport information screens and at the boarding gate. It’s entirely designed to surround passengers with American Airlines branding, while allowing the company to reduce its costs. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No argument with any of that, other than the fact that "Operated by PSA Airlines as American Eagle" is shown on the booking site in the same size, perfectly legible, type as the AA flight number and the aircraft type. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appending my original statement, you can purchase a PSA Airlines ticket either on its own website or on American Airlines's website. However, you can't purchase an "American Eagle" flight ticket. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, I'm fine with either "PSA Airlines 5342 marketed as American Eagle 5342" or "American Eagle 5342 operated by PSA Airlines" to satisfy both camps. In the long term, I think we all need to build broader WP:AV consensus about this issue due to the muddy waters described by @RickyCourtney. All that being said, I do object to explicitly mentioning codeshare agreements or the companies' corporate structure in the lead. It strikes me as kludgy, no matter how it's worded. The footnote is adequate to explain this. Carguychris (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also American airlines took down PSA airlines website. They are owning the accident,calling it one of their planes. The current lead ( my version ) mention it is operated by PSA in second para. I also dont support code sharing agreements and mentioning two names in opening sentence Astropulse (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the Colgan Air article handles this best…

Colgan Air Flight 3407 (marketed as Continental Connection Flight 3407) was a…

The second sentence unpacks the relationships…

Colgan Air staffed and maintained the aircraft used on the flight that was scheduled, marketed, and sold by Continental Airlines under its Continental Connection brand.

In this case, however, there are two added complexities: this is not a single aircraft incident and PSA Airlines is owned by the same parent company as American Airlines. Because of that, I am okay with putting the relationships in an explanatory footnote and unpacking it further in the main body of the article. However the question is, is this critical information for readers who won’t go past the intro of the article. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the US transportation industry, and we track every flight by their registered name and number with the knowledge that they are often marketed differently. For example, SkyWest owns and operates aircraft for regional service for both Delta Air Lines and United Airlines with specific aircraft painted in each mainline airline's livery; those flights are marketed as Delta or United, respectively, but flight plans are filed as SkyWest. Other carriers (British Airways comes to mind immediately) will file a flight plan using a flight number completely unrelated to the marketed flight number (i.e. British Airways 19W could be the filed flight that was marketed as British Airways 262). I agree that both should be used, and Colgan Air Flight 3407 is a good precedent:

PSA Airlines flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle flight 5342) ...

Being owned by the same parent company has no bearing on the fact that PSA and American are two legally distinct entities. Perhaps we could also mention that the Blackhawk was operating under the callsign PAT25. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, with one small revision regarding capitalization.

PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342)

b3stJ (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just the matter of American Eagle. Both their major rivals have similar brands for regional flights, like United Express and Delta Connection. I think that's because the regulation problem and unions, like the infamous Scope clause. Awdqmb (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual reason you should include both in the statement:

PSA Airlines Flight 5342(marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342)

The American aviation landscape is full of those Scope clause agreement. PSA is remain contracted to AA in this clause despite PSA is majorly owned by AA themselves. The crews and pilots all came from PSA, not AA but they fly under AA (or in this case, AE brand).as Lowyat Slyder (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I used incorrect terminology. Though thanks for pointing it out.

The reason that I take my position, however, still stands. I think that we should adopt naming its operational name as it has been so in earlier articles about crashes in the same situation. That is also how the NTSB and the FAA refer to it.

Since you mentioned American Airlines owning the crash, instead of dumping on the subsidiary, that's commendable. But I am not advocating for the removal of the mention of the American Airlines/American Eagle flight number.

As to American Airlines' owning of PSA Airlines, I'd argue that doesn't matter. PSA Airlines is still listed separately from American Airlines as PSA Airlines d/b/a American Eagle in this list of carriers in the United States.

b3stJ (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be concise and brief with only the top details provided. The call sign it was flying under code sharing belongs in the body. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision&oldid=1273303357 this is the edit version id recommend Astropulse (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I object to describing it as an "American Airlines plane" because, strictly speaking, it's not true—it's a PSA Airlines plane, and I don't want to reintroduce the long-winded corporate relationship explanation. I like the current wording, although I'd prefer deleting the bit about the codeshare and leaving that in the footnote:

...PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (marketed as American Eagle Flight 5342 by American Airlines)...

Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I sympathize with the desire to be accurate but think the more common American eagle should referenced. Dw31415 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that here we're (mostly) talking about the commercial rather than operational aspects of the service, it would be interesting to see how OAG and the GDS's portray it. As one might expect, there are a bunch of fields in the IATA Schedules Information spec (SSIM) relating to codesharing, operating vs marketing carrier, aircraft owner, etc. Does anyone have access to the relevant data for 5342 ? DaveReidUK (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A guy (he's named in the article, but I won't post his name here) is claiming that he scored 100% on the air-traffic controller exam, and says he was turned down for the job because he was white. This article mentions the crash that just happened. I think this article is relevant. I'm curious to hear what others think. I'm good at finding sources, but maybe I'm not so good at deciding if they're relevant. I think this is notable, but I'll go by whatever the consensus is. Thank you for any comments, whether they agree or disagree with me. I'm always happy to learn new things from the more experienced editors.

Original: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/01/31/diversity-hiring-cost-me-job-at-faa-a-crash-was-inevitable/

Archive: https://archive.ph/5iuqQ

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personal experience of a single unnamed failed job candidate is worthy of inclusion? It might be a perfectly reputable source, but I'd suggest not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scored 100% and not offered a job? For a start, he would not have been told it was because he is white. Maybe he was indecisive, or a psychopath, or could not handle pressure. Who knows? Who cares? WWGB (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions a pending lawsuit against the FAA. This could be used as a (likely primary) source for that, if it should be mentioned in this article.

Also, @WWGB: the idea sounds extremely unlikely to me, but Wikipedia is made of what reliable sources state.

Though WP:TELEGRAPH states that it is generally reliable for topics excluding ones on transgender issues, WP:EXCEPTIONAL likely applies here, which would require serious substantiation by high-quality sources on the part of the claimants.

b3stJ (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think this allegation should be mentioned in this article? I am amazed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that it likely is a exceptional claim; with the earlier part, I had made an assumption. Assuming it is exceptional, there needs to be more sourcing.

The article itself is just an interview with someone (a primary source), with some stated facts about the crash, which can be found in other, more factual articles.

b3stJ (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy he is suing about was dropped in 2018. It would be absurd for us to include what someone involved in a suit is claiming or suggest there is any connection whatsoever with this incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thus WP:EXCEPTIONAL likely applies, which means I believe this can't be featured without there being reporting from even more reliable sources.

b3stJ (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of further reporting, it's utterly tangential. And only considered here because of what Mr Trump blurted out in his wholly ridiculous and unconsidered press briefing, It's wholly WP:UNDUE here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He took the test in 2014, the policy was dropped in 2018, and there is zero evidence that any involved traffic controller was incompetent, black, female, had a disability, had dwarfism, or whatever else Trump thinks may be somehow unacceptable. Or for that matter was responsible for this crash. I know this is a radical idea; but why don't we wait for the investigation? Although, all employees of the NTSB (which handles the investigation) just received an email offering them payment if they resigned and then they were told they were not eligible for the offer. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the class action lawsuit was probably rendered moot.

Quickly the article becomes irrelevant; even if many reliable sources had started blaming "DEI" for the crash, because the lawsuit was probably made so, there would be no place for it to be mentioned. Unless again, many reliable sources made the link to fulfill WP:EXCESSIVE.

Obviously, that hasn't happened.

Cheers, b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 23:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we don't report on lawsuit by third-parties. This is a case where someone who does not appear tied to the event is suing and is using the crash for extra publicity. At this moment, there isn't anything we can do with the claims made by the person. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a lot of comments! Thank you to everyone who took the time to give their thoughts on this.

I want to clarify two things:

1) When this crash happened, the air traffic control tower was understaffed.

2) This guy is part of a class action lawsuit involving a large number of people who had either taken the required college courses or had military flight experience, but were turned down for the job because they were white males. Even if that program was canceled years later, the fact that these people were turned down for the job would still have an effect today, because many of them looked for other jobs and never ended up becoming air traffic controllers. Perhaps if there had been additional people working in the tower, this crash would not have happened.

I do agree that we need reliable sources. I just think that this is notable, and I wanted to bring it up.

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. The NTSB report will contain details of training and staffing levels and the discrimination lawsuit will play out. I vote for waiting for RS to address. Dw31415 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 articles are all brand new, and all three mention the large number of qualified people who got turned down for the job because they were white. They also mention that the D.C. tower was understaffed when the crash happened.

I know these sources aren't considered reliable by wikipedia standards, but for the purpose of the talk page, they show that this is being reported in the media, and I expect that more reliable sources will eventually cover this.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/31/us-news/faa-embroiled-in-lawsuit-alleging-it-turned-away-1000-applicants-based-on-race/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14348923/FAA-job-applicants-DEI-rules-lawsuit.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3306980/what-to-know-suit-against-faa-diversity-policies-critics-blame-crash/

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise that this crap is in horrid sources. Try the KKK newsletter next. Why are you making us read this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, so there must be multiple high-quality sources. These are definitely not those.

However, it is not necessarily bad to know of their existence. It's just that one has to keep in mind them in the context of Wikipedia's standards for verifiability.

Regardless, don't get discouraged. Wikipedia is built by people like you.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 02:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three bad sources, an assumption if something is in a bad source, good sources will eventually cover the same. So we should look at and spread bad sources. Exactly zero evidence that anyone involved with the accident was incompetent because they weren't white males. No. We do not need this here. Someone hat this section. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as well as the whole claim being WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and thus requiring multiple high-quality sources), does not mean that we should bite the newcomers. Suggesting that we read the Ku Klux Klan's newsletter on somebody posting (admittingly generally unreliable) sources does absolutely nothing to help.

The WP:CIVIL thing to do is to calmly point out consensus on these sources' unreliability, and that one shouldn't speculate. Hell, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Washington Examiner says that it shouldn't be used for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 03:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I second the hatting notion. If it comes up in the investigation, one can open a new topic.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 03:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been asserted here or in the article that anyone involved with the accident was incompetent because they weren't white males? If not, your the comment above concerning that seems to me to be a strawman argument; and please see WP:STRAWMAN. That said, the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport section of the article does suggest that ATC understaffing could have contributed to the accident, and I have seen suggestion in RSs that DEI has contributed to such ATC understaffing. I don't recall seeing a connection explicitly drawn in a RS between this accident and ATC understaffing with DEI identified as a causative factor but I would hesitate to argue against mention of such speculation here if it was solidly RS-supported and if WP:DUE was observed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bad sources posted specifically talked about diversity and race. Another editor pointed out to plumbing that it was the tenth time you have posted this comment or a similar one to the talk page and plumbing said they would stop. The FAA regulation related to the legal suit by a white applicant that plumbing keeps citing was dropped in 2018. BITE only goes so far. ATC understaffing has been present since Covid. Trump and Fox have repeatedly pushed the concept that DEI is at fault. Trump said Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary in the Biden administration, "just got a good line of bulls---" and said he had "run [the Department of Transportation] right into the ground with his diversity."[2] President Trump’s remarks, suggesting that diversity in hiring and other Biden administration policies somehow caused the disaster, reflected his instinct to immediately frame major events through his political or ideological lens. [3] Look, the painstaking process of investigation has just begun. As an encyclopedia, we should stop all speculation, particularly speculation that lays blame for political purposes, and more so that which is race-baiting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of vandalism on the page recently, is it appropriate to semi-protect it for a certain amount of time? Squawk7700 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to, for example the Jeju Air crash thread initially, I'm amazed that edits here haven't been restricted to autoconfirmed users. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is now. Tvx1 23:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment, it almost seemed as if people knew how to behave themselves regarding a mournful topic. Silly me. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely a bit confused as to why any reference to this accident was removed. I read the previous discussion on classifying XYZ as a more recent 'major accident' and I agree that definition is vague and requires better language, but it significantly was the most recent commercial aviation accident of its type (which resulted in total destruction of the aircraft/total fatalities/mass fatalities) on U.S. soil, and is important in the context of American aviation. IMHO a reference to it should be made in some shape or form. Xanblu (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find an WP:RS sensibly describing it - but "was the most recent commercial aviation accident of its type" is a very wooly statement - what's it's "type"? Timtjtim (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a part 121 passenger operation. There hasn't been a crash of that type since Colgan (you can maybe argue PenAir, but the plane wasn't destroyed and there was one fatality. Not trying to say it should be discounted because of that, but I think it's clear that crash just isn't comparable to this), and a good number of sources have used that as the marker in their initial reporting. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for elaborating. I didn't really know the correct technical way to describe it; just that I know it was significant enough to warrant a mention. Xanblu (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the reference in the introductory paragraph. Dw31415 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colgan 3407 was, until last week, the last fatal crash [other than incidents like SWA1380] involving a major US airline. Now it isn't.

Obviously Colgan has its own Wikipedia article - I can see the logic in recording there (as has been done) that it's the last-but-one US airline fatal crash. But I can't see any need to refer to that fact in the Potomac accident article. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable that between that crash and this, there is a nearly 16 year gap. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection (and after a cup of tea!), I've changed my mind.

The relevant section in the article is mostly of the form "It was the (first/deadliest) (category of event) since (whatever was the last instance) ...".

So "It was the first fatal crash involving a major US airline since Colgan Flight 3407 in 2009" fits that format exactly and is clearly of significance.

Or are we suggesting that it wouldn't be reasonable for anyone reading the article to wonder "when was the last time a US major killed a plane-load of people?" DaveReidUK (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts! And that's also the way it's being covered for the most part in the media. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my comments here per suggestion. I would argue the fact that no part 121 passenger operation in the U.S. has crashed since Colgan, almost 16 years ago, is very noteworthy. The U.S. has a longstanding reputation for being the gold standard when it comes to aviation, so breaking a 16-year streak of no major crashes is, in my opinion, noteworthy enough to be in the lead. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to anyone concerned about the verbiage, neither the NTSB report nor Wikipedia’s own article refers to the PenAir incident as a “crash.” Runway excursions are their own category, therefore I think this is a factual way to describe this incident. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hidden note here and raised a question at the Talk page. That thread has now been archived here and the hidden note removed. Is everyone happy with the veracity of this audio? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned by the NTSB investigators during a press conference, the many ATC cutouts on the internet are of poor quality, not reflecting the real communication fully because of different frequencies, so I'd Support removing it until we get the official, synchronized version by the investigators. Squawk7700 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd also very strongly Support removing it as, without any explanation, I think it's very misleading. I'm not sure why the hidden note was removed Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for the audio? Dw31415 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source given at the upload page is this. I expect User:JayCubby will want to comment here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and pasted from article:

• Kansas Senators Roger Marshall and Jerry Moran said that they were communicating with authorities about the collision. Don Beyer, U.S. representative for Virginia's 8th congressional district, where the airport is located, said he was in contact with airport officials about the crash.
• Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin stated that first responders from Northern Virginia were being sent to help recovery efforts. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly stated that she was in contact with authorities about the collision. Maryland Governor Wes Moore raised Maryland's Emergency Operations Center status to "Enhanced" to help recovery operations.

These aren't (political) comments about who's to blame, but sound more like recovery efforts or actual investigation efforts. Please help me find the best place to re-insert them. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aftermath section briefly mentions the crash in PA two days later - Does this really need to be included? It's completely unrelated to this accident and in my opinion should either be omitted or better tied together to the wider public perception on aviation safety surrounding these crashes. Marsroverr (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the mention of the Pennsylvanian plane crash because of the reason above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There actually exists consensus to not mention any of the late January crashes here as they would or could imply a not coincidental relation, so feel free to remove these mentions :) Squawk7700 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]