Connect with us

Business

Clues From D.C. Plane Crash Suggest Multiple Failures in Aviation Safety

Published

on

Clues From D.C. Plane Crash Suggest Multiple Failures in Aviation Safety

Clues emerging from the moments before the deadly collision Wednesday night between an Army helicopter and an American Airlines passenger jet suggest that multiple layers of the country’s aviation safety apparatus failed, according to flight recordings, a preliminary internal report from the Federal Aviation Administration, interviews with current and former air traffic controllers and others briefed on the matter.

The helicopter flew outside its approved flight path. The American Airlines pilots most likely did not see the helicopter close by as they made a turn toward the runway. And the air traffic controller, who was juggling two jobs at the same time, was unable to keep the helicopter and the plane separated.

An F.A.A. spokesman said the agency could not comment on the ongoing investigation, which is being led by the National Transportation Safety Board. Crash investigators will spend the next several months reviewing flight data, recordings from inside the cockpits, weather patterns, as well as interviewing controllers and others involved to try to figure out what went wrong.

But the catastrophe already appeared to confirm what pilots, air traffic controllers and safety experts had been warning for years: Growing holes in the aviation system could lead to the kind of crash that left 67 people dead in the Potomac River in Washington.

Even before an official cause is determined, there were signs Wednesday that pilots and air traffic controllers at Reagan National were not operating under optimal conditions.

Advertisement

The duties of handling air traffic control for helicopters and for planes at Reagan National on Wednesday night were combined before the deadly crash. That left only one person to handle both roles, according to a person briefed on the staffing and the report.

Typically one person handles both helicopter and plane duties after 9:30 p.m., when traffic at Reagan begins to lessen. But the supervisor combined those duties sometime before 9:30, and allowed one air traffic controller to leave, according to the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation into the crash. The crash occurred just before 9 p.m.

While there were no unusual factors causing a distraction for controllers that night, staffing was “not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic,” the preliminary F.A.A. report said.

On Thursday, five current and former controllers said that the controller in the tower should have more proactively directed the helicopter and the plane to fly away from each other. Instead, the controller asked the helicopter to steer clear of the plane.

Some of the current and former controllers said the darkness could have made it more difficult for pilots to accurately gauge the distance between themselves and other aircraft. Some wondered whether the helicopter pilots mistook a different plane for the American jet.

Advertisement

The helicopter was supposed to be flying closer to the bank of the Potomac River and lower to the ground as it traversed the busy Reagan National airspace, four people briefed on the incident said.

Before a helicopter can enter any busy commercial airspace, it must get the approval of an air traffic controller. In this case, the pilot asked for permission to use a specific, predetermined route that lets helicopters fly at a low altitude along the bank on the east side of the Potomac, a location that would have let it avoid the American Airlines plane.

The requested route — referred to as Route 4 at Reagan National — followed a specific path known to the air traffic controller and helicopter pilots. The helicopter confirmed visual sight of a regional jet and the air traffic controller instructed the helicopter to follow the route and fly behind the plane.

But the helicopter did not follow the intended route, the people briefed on the matter said.

Rather, it was above 300 feet, when it was supposed to be flying below 200 feet, and it was at least a half-mile off the approved route when it collided with the commercial jet.

Advertisement

A senior Army official urged caution in making any assessments until the helicopter’s black box could be recovered and analyzed, along with other forensic data.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry, said the Black Hawk’s pilots had flown this route before, and were well aware of the altitude restrictions and tight air corridor they were permitted to fly in near the airport.

Safety lapses in aviation have been increasing for years, leading to an alarming pattern of close calls in the skies and at airports involving commercial airlines. They have occurred amid rising congestion at the country’s busiest airports, including Reagan National, where the frequent presence of military flights makes controlling traffic even more complicated.

At the same time, a chronic shortage of air traffic controllers has forced many to work six-day weeks and 10-hour days — a schedule so fatiguing that multiple federal agencies have warned that it could impede controllers’ abilities to do their jobs properly. Few facilities have enough fully certified air traffic controllers, according to a Times investigation in 2023. Some controllers say little has improved since then.

The air traffic control tower at Reagan National has been understaffed for years. The tower there was nearly a third below targeted staff levels, with 19 fully certified controllers as of September 2023, according to the most recent Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, an annual report to Congress that contains target and actual staffing levels. The targets set by the F.A.A. and the controllers’ union call for 30.

Advertisement

An F.A.A. spokesman said on Thursday that Reagan National currently employs 25 certified controllers out of their goal of 28.

The controller who was handling helicopters in the airport’s vicinity Wednesday night was also instructing planes that were landing and departing from its runways. Those jobs are typically assigned to two controllers, rather than one, the internal F.A.A. report said. This increases the workload for the air traffic controller and complicates the job.

Controllers can also use different radio frequencies to communicate with pilots flying planes and pilots flying helicopters. While the controller is communicating with pilots of the helicopter and the jet, the two sets of pilots may not be able to hear each other.

As the passenger jet’s pilots were approaching the airport, they were asked by air traffic control to pivot the landing from one runway to another, according to the F.A.A. report, a person briefed on the incident and audio recordings of conversations between an air traffic controller and the pilots. That request may have introduced another complication shortly before the collision.

The American Airlines flight had originally been cleared by the traffic control tower to land on the airport’s main runway, called Runway 1. The controller then asked the pilot to land on a different, intersecting runway instead — Runway 33 — which the pilot agreed to do.

Advertisement

That decision, according to the person who was briefed on the incident and four other people who are familiar with the airport’s air traffic, happens routinely when regional jets like the American Airlines aircraft are involved. The decision may also have been made to help keep air traffic moving efficiently by not clogging the main runway, the people said.

Runway 33 is shorter, requiring intense focus from pilots landing their planes. The last-minute change raised questions within the F.A.A. on Thursday morning about congestion at Reagan National, the person briefed on the event added.

Robert Isom, American’s chief executive, said at a news conference on Thursday that the pilots of the passenger plane involved in the crash had worked for PSA Airlines, an American subsidiary, for several years, The captain had been employed by the airline for almost six years, while the first officer had worked there for almost two years.

“These were experienced pilots,” he said.

Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Business

Tesla Fires a Manager Who Criticized Elon Musk on Social Media

Published

on

Tesla Fires a Manager Who Criticized Elon Musk on Social Media

Tesla has fired a manager who objected to a social media post by Elon Musk, the chief executive, that referred to Nazi leaders. It was the latest example that public criticism of the boss was unacceptable in the Musk business empire.

Jared Ottmann, a manager and engineer who worked with Tesla’s battery suppliers, said he had been fired because he criticized Mr. Musk for a post on X that used the names of Nazis like Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring in a series of wordplay.

“Stop Göring your enemies,” Mr. Musk wrote on Jan. 23, adding, “Bet you did Nazi that coming.” He punctuated the post with a laughing-while-crying emoji.

Mr. Ottmann said on LinkedIn in late January that he was offended that Mr. Musk had referred “as a joke” to Nazis who were responsible for genocide.

“Starting in 2022 and especially the last week I’ve raised the issue internally multiple times, with managers, HR, legal compliance, investor relations,” Mr. Ottmann wrote, referring to behavior by Mr. Musk that he found objectionable. “And while overwhelmingly people offer personal support, Tesla as a company has remained silent.”

Advertisement

Tesla did not reply to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk’s companies, which include SpaceX and X, have a history of punishing dissent. In 2022, SpaceX, which makes rockets, fired nine employees who had called on the company to distance itself from social media comments by Mr. Musk, including one in which he mocked sexual harassment accusations against him. Some of those employees later filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Ottmann’s critical remarks, and Tesla’s reaction, are the latest indication of the disruption caused by Mr. Musk’s right-wing politics. He has supported a far-right party in Germany whose members have been fined by the government for using Nazi slogans. Mr. Musk’s role in the Trump administration as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency has also made him a polarizing figure.

Signs of dissent at Tesla have not been isolated to Mr. Ottmann. Last month during a meeting at Tesla’s offices in Palo Alto, Calif., employees vented their frustrations about Mr. Musk’s political activities, leading a manager to say he was also discouraged by the chief executive’s behavior.

Mr. Ottmann confirmed Thursday that he had been fired. He declined to comment further, referring questions to Jana Moser, a lawyer in Santa Monica, Calif. Ms. Moser did not reply to a request for comment.

Advertisement

This fall, a SpaceX employee was fired after writing on an internal message board that he hoped Mr. Musk would stop wearing company apparel during his campaign appearances for Mr. Trump, three people familiar with incident said. During an October rally in Butler, Pa., for example, Mr. Musk wore an “Occupy Mars” T-shirt — which SpaceX sells in its company store — as he jumped up and down onstage.

The employee wrote that it wouldn’t be appropriate for workers to wear political clothing to the office and, therefore, that company apparel should not be worn at campaign events. A few days after his post, the company revoked the employee’s access to internal systems, though it later reinstated the employee after determining there was no violation of company policies, the people said.

The employee resigned weeks later. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Musk has also fired workers at X who criticized him. In the wake of his $44 billion takeover of the company, then called Twitter, in 2022, several employees posted critiques of the billionaire on the platform. Mr. Musk argued with some of them online, and they were later fired.

The firings are at odds with Mr. Musk’s often-stated goal to defend free speech. He has offered to fund lawsuits against employers who fire workers because of things they posted on X. In 2024, he funded a suit for a former worker at the payments company Block after she was fired for inflammatory posts she made on a pseudonymous X account.

Advertisement

Investors in Tesla, the only publicly traded company that Mr. Musk runs, are also worried that his political activities are alienating some buyers and that he is spending too much time in Washington and not enough time addressing slumping car sales. Shares of the company have declined about 40 percent from a high set on Dec. 17.

Continue Reading

Business

LAEDC estimates up to $8.9 billion in lost economic output from Palisades, Eaton fires

Published

on

LAEDC estimates up to .9 billion in lost economic output from Palisades, Eaton fires

Los Angeles County could lose $4.6 billion to $8.9 billion in economic output over the next five years from the Palisades and Eaton fires, a Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. study released Thursday predicts.

Federal, state and local governments are estimated to miss out on up to $1.4 billion in tax revenue from 2025 to 2029, depending on how long it takes to rebuild, the report said.

“Speed matters in the recovery process, particularly from an economic perspective,” former California Gov. Gray Davis said during a Zoom news conference Thursday.

The faster the fire areas are rebuilt, the quicker the economy will recover, Davis and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said. Both sit on the board of the Southern California Leadership Council, which commissioned the report.

Advertisement

“This report is clear in communicating that our strongest path forward is expediting the rebuilding of our homes, businesses and communities,” Barger said.

The report analyzed three trajectories of recovery: a quick recovery ending in 2028 and matching an earthquake-model recovery timeline from the Federal Emergency Management Agency; a recovery ending in 2032 that doubles FEMA’s timeline; and one ending in 2034 that triples the timeline.

“Across all scenarios, the initial direct economic loss in the burned areas amounted to $1.26 billion of sales revenue (or 90% of baseline level) and about 8,200 jobs (or 85% of baseline employment)” for 2025, according to the study.

Employment losses in Los Angeles county could reach up to 49,110 job-years (which refers to a person working full time for a year) based on recovery time, the study said, with labor losses ranging from $1.9 billion to $3.7 billion.

Los Angeles County industries that will take the brunt of the economic damage include real estate and rentals, retail trade, and professional and scientific technical services. The real estate and rental sector alone is expected to lose $515.8 million to about $1 billion, the study estimated.

Advertisement

Property damage, which was analyzed by counting 20,218 land parcels within the burn area, could range from $28 billion to $53.8 billion based on how long recovery lasts, the study said.

The nonprofit’s president and chief executive, Stephen Cheung, clarified during Thursday’s online news conference that the value did not include losses to businesses outside the burn area, such as those that suffered utility shutoffs or other setbacks.

In comparison with the new study, a Times analysis found that 13,338 land parcels affected by the fires were valued at $16.7 billion, after adjusting for the level of damage to each structure as determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Tax revenue would decrease by $61 million or more per year, according to the data The Times reviewed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Trump Takes Aim at Chinese Shipping Amid Widening Trade War

Published

on

Trump Takes Aim at Chinese Shipping Amid Widening Trade War

The Trump administration has opened a broad new front in its global trade conflict, proposing to affix levies reaching $1.5 million on Chinese-made ships arriving at American ports.

Such fees would apply even on vessels made elsewhere if they are operated by carriers whose fleets include Chinese ships — an approach that risks increasing costs on an array of imported cargo, from raw materials to factory goods.

Given their potential to increase consumer prices, the levies could collide with President Trump’s promises to attack inflation. Nearly 80 percent of American foreign trade by weight is transported by ship, yet less than 2 percent is carried on American-flagged vessels, according to Gavekal Research.

As detailed on Friday by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the proposal reflects the “America First” credo animating the Trump administration. It is engineered to discourage reliance on Chinese vessels in supplying Americans with products, while aiming to spur the revival of a domestic shipbuilding industry after a half-century of veritable dormancy.

Taken together with Mr. Trump’s expansive tariffs, the approach to shipping is a rebuke of the trading system constructed by the United States and its allies after World War II. Faith in the view of the world as a teeming marketplace has given way to hostility toward globalization in favor of the pursuit of self-sufficiency.

Advertisement

The proposal would advance the mission to isolate China while diminishing American reliance on its industry — a rare area of bipartisan consensus in Washington. The plan was the result of an investigation, started during the Biden administration, into the dominance of the Chinese shipping industry, in response to a petition filed by labor unions.

Almost one-fifth of container vessels arriving at American ports are made in China, and a far higher share on trading lanes spanning the Pacific, according to ING, the Dutch banking giant.

“A significant portion of imports entering the U.S. via ports would be directly subject to hefty fines,” the bank’s researchers concluded in a report published Monday. “These additional expenses would likely be passed on from the carrier to shippers and, ultimately, to importers and exporters.”

The administration is fielding comments on the proposal through March 24. Mr. Trump could then impose the levies by executive order.

The plan envisions a range of fees on ships unloading at American ports depending on the percentage of Chinese-made vessels in a carrier’s fleet. In addition to the rate of up to $1.5 million for Chinese-built ships, it outlines levies reaching $1 million per port call for carriers whose orders for new ships draw heavily on Chinese shipping yards.

Advertisement

Major carriers typically stop at two or three American ports per route, meaning their levies could exceed $3 million on journeys bringing $10 million to $15 million in revenue, estimated Ryan Petersen, chief executive of Flexport, a global logistics company.

“The proposed fees are huge, and they will get rolled into what shippers have to pay, and hence consumers,” said Willy Shih, an international trade expert at Harvard Business School. “It’s a really aggressive move that reflects an administration that is either out of touch with how the world really works or that doesn’t care and wants to cause chaos.”

Upheaval may suit the designs of Mr. Trump, who has sought to pressure companies to make their products in the United States. But increased shipping costs could hamper that effort, given that more than one-fourth of American imports are components, parts or raw materials, according to World Bank data. Higher costs on such cargo challenge the economics of making finished goods in the United States.

The Trump proposal aims to counter the dominance of the Chinese shipbuilding industry, which makes more than half the world’s commercial cargo vessels, up from 5 percent in 1999, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

At least 15 percent of American exports would have to be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels within seven years of the new policy, and 5 percent of fleets would have to be built in the United States.

Advertisement

“There is no physical way in hell that U.S. shipyards can do that,” said Lars Jensen, chief executive of Vespucci Maritime, a container shipping consultancy based in Copenhagen. “The technical term for this proposal would just be ‘stupid.’”

The wait for a new container ship from an existing shipyard already stretches more than three years, he said. An American industry would be starting almost from scratch, requiring billions of dollars and many years.

The effort would also require steel — a commodity made more expensive by Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

In the meantime, the levies would create fresh opportunities for established shipyards in South Korea and Japan.

If enacted, the proposal would scramble international transportation, sowing extra uncertainty for businesses already grappling with Mr. Trump’s various tariff proposals.

Advertisement

Importers would most likely reduce their use of American ports by shipping into Mexico and Canada, and then using trucks and rail to deliver to the United States.

“Those ports are often congested,” noted Mr. Petersen, the Flexport chief executive. “They won’t be able to absorb much capacity.”

Continue Reading

Trending