A screen grab captured from a video shows a regional plane that collided in midair with a military helicopter and crashed into the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 29, 2025. Kennedy Center Cam/Anadolu via Getty Images

Squadron primarily used for transporting VIPs around D.C. was apparently familiarizing new pilot with area.

Wednesday night, shortly before 9pm ET, an American Airlines flight carrying 64 people was on its final approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport when it collided with an Army helicopter with three soldiers on board, about 400 feet off the ground, killing everyone on both aircraft.

The Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk had departed from Fort Belvoir in Virginia with a flight path that cut directly across the flight path of Reagan National Airport

This final approach is probably the most carefully controlled in the world, as it it lies three miles south of the White House and the Capitol.

According to various media reports, military aircraft frequently train in the congested airspace around D.C. for “familiarization and continuity of government planning.”

Less than 30 seconds before the crash, an air traffic controller asked the helicopter, whose callsign was registered as PAT25, if he could see the arriving plane.

‘PAT25 do you see a CRJ? PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ,’ the air traffic controller said. A few seconds later, a fireball erupted in the night sky above Washington DC as the two aircraft collided.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the following statement on X:

It seems that Blackhawks from the 12th Aviation Battalion out of Davison Army Airfield are primarily used for shuttling VIPs around the D.C. area. The following appears to be a helicopter from this battalion.

On the face of it, it strikes me as very imprudent to conduct training flights at night that cross the final approach to Reagan D.C. To me, the word “training” suggests a potential for making errors that an instructor is called upon to correct.

It also strikes me as very strange that Army Blackhawk helicopters operating in this airspace at night are not required to operate with bright external lights, especially when crossing the final approach to Reagan D.C.

Finally, though it’s nothing more than a vague intuition, it seems to me that there is something very strange about this disaster and the timing of it. I wonder if, for some reason, risk management of such training activities was impaired.

Share

From the Fraser Institute

Ross McKitrick

Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel

The federal government’s plan to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions will result in 254,000 fewer jobs and cost workers $8,000 in lower wages by 2050, all while failing to meet the government’s own emission-reduction target, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Ottawa’s emission-reduction plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs, but it won’t achieve the target they’ve set because it is infeasible,” said Ross McKitrick, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel.

The government’s Net Zero by 2050 emission-reduction plan includes: the federal carbon tax, clean fuel standards, and various other GHG-related regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements for buildings, fertilizer restrictions on farms, and electric vehicle mandates.

By 2050, these policies will have imposed significant costs on the Canadian economy and on workers.

For example:

• Canada’s economy will be 6.2 per cent smaller in 2050 than it would have been without these policies.
• Workers will make $8,000 less annually.
• And there will be 254,000 fewer jobs.

The study also shows that even a carbon tax of $1,200 per tonne (about $2.70 per litre of gas) would not get emissions to zero. Crucially, the study finds that the economically harmful policies can’t achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and will only reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 70 per cent of the government’s target.

“Despite political rhetoric, Ottawa’s emission-reduction policies will impose enormous costs without even meeting the government’s target,” McKitrick said.

“Especially as the US moves aggressively to unleash its energy sector, Canadian policymakers need to rethink the damage these policies will inflict on Canadians and change course.”

• The Government of Canada has committed to going beyond the Paris target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels as of 2030 and now intends to achieve net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as of 2050. This study provides an outlook through 2050 of Canada’s path to net zero by answering two questions: will the Government of Canada’s current Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) get us to net zero by 2050, and if not, is it feasible for any policy to get us there?
• First, a simulation of the ERP extended to 2050 results in emissions falling by approximately 70 percent relative to where they would be otherwise, but still falling short of net zero. Moreover, the economic costs are significant: real GDP declines by seven percent, income per worker drops by six percent, 250,000 jobs are lost, and the annual cost per worker exceeds $8,000.
• Second, the study explores whether a sharply rising carbon tax alone could achieve net zero. At $400 per tonne, emissions decrease by 68 percent, but tripling the carbon tax to $1,200 per tonne achieves only an additional 6 percent reduction. At this level, the economic impacts are severe: GDP would shrink by 18 percent, and incomes per worker would fall by 17 percent, compared with the baseline scenario.
• The conclusion is clear: Without transformative abatement technologies, Canada is unlikely to reach net zero by 2050. Even the most efficient policies impose unsustainable costs, making them unlikely to gain public support.

Read The Full Story

Ross McKitrick