The flight was uneventful through landing.  As the aircraft touched down on Runway 4, fire and emergency equipment were operating on the airport property.  A fire truck from a Port Authority Police Department unit known as Truck One and Company contacted the Ground Air Traffic Controller (“Ground Control”) who is responsible for ground movement at the airport.  The Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Truck was responding to a call for assistance involving another aircraft, and asked permission to cross Runway 4 at the Taxiway D (Delta) intersection.  Ground Control approved the request.  However, at this time Flight 8646 had just landed on Runway 4 and was travelling at a ground speed of approximately 100 miles per hour.  As the fire truck began crossing Runway 4, Flight 8646 collided with the truck.  Although Ground Control initially approved the fire truck’s request to enter the active runway, the air traffic controller then realized that Flight 8646 was completing its after-landing roll out.  Ground Control then attempted to stop the fire truck from crossing Runway 4, directing the truck to “Stop! Stop!” but it was too late and, being unable to stop in time, Flight 8646 collided with the fire truck.  It is unknown at this time why Ground Control initially cleared the fire truck to enter and cross Runway 4 with an aircraft cleared to land on the same Runway but communications after the collision indicated that the Ground Controller realized his mistake. The communications between Ground Control and the fire truck can be heard HERE.  To place these communications into context below is an airport chart depicting the location of the collision at taxiway D and Runway 4.

Aerial image from Google Earth

Tragically, the collision sheared the front part of the cockpit from the fuselage.  The pilot and co-pilot were killed, and the flight attendant was ejected from the aircraft suffering severe injuries.  There were a total of 76 individuals on board Flight 8646, consisting of 72 passengers, the 2-person flight crew and 2 flight attendants.  Early reports indicate that 41 persons were initially hospitalized including two occupants of the fire truck, but 31 have since been released.  Ten individuals remain hospitalized with severe injuries.

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) will be the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the investigation.  Parties to the investigation will be the airline, Jazz Aviation, the Federal Aviation, the unions representing pilots as well as the air traffic controllers  and possibly the aircraft manufacturer. The NTSB will examine all aspects of the crash including the conduct of Air Traffic Control, the flight crew and the movement of the fire truck.  This will include an analysis of the Airport Surface Detection System (“ASD”).  The ASD Display is similar to ground radar that provides visual information to air traffic control about the movement of planes and other vehicles on the tarmac. In addition, the “Black Boxes” from Flight 8646 consisting of the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital Flight Data Recorder, both of which have been recovered by the NTSB, will shed additional light on the actions of the flight crew, whether the crew even realized that the fire truck entered the Runway, whether it was possible for the crew to undertake evasive action, and what actions the crew took in their attempt to avoid the collision.  The NTSB will analyze all available data, including surveillance video which captured the tragic collision in rendering its Factual and Probable Cause findings.

Claims Against the United States of America for the Failures of Air Traffic Control

Speiser Krause has decades of experience litigating against the United States for the failures of Air Traffic Control. Currently the firm represents six families from the midair collision over the Potomac River in January 2025, and several lawyers from the firm have been appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee responsible for conducting the litigation on behalf of all passengers. Speiser partner Douglas A. Latto has been appointed Co-Lead counsel in that litigation.  The Firm has also represented victims of other midair collisions, including the midair collision the Hudson River, as well as numerous cases resulting from the negligence of Air Traffic Control both in New York and throughout the United States.

Although the United States can be sued for the failures of air traffic control, cases involving ATC involve specialized laws including, but not limited to, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), aviation statutes and regulations including the Federal Aviation Act, as well as the policies and procedures governing the conduct of air traffic control.  Unlike private defendants, specific rules must be followed when commencing litigation against the United States.  You cannot simply file suit against the United States.  Rather, you must first file an Administrative Claim (commonly referred to as a “Form 95”) setting forth your allegations against the government as well as specific requests for damages.  You must then wait a certain amount of proscribed time before litigation can be brought.  The team at Speiser Krause has extensive experience in this area of the law.

Claims Against the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency that operates and maintains critical transportation infrastructure at various ports within New York and New Jersey, including LaGuardia Airport. The Port Authority is collectively governed by the governors of New York and New Jersey. While it may be too soon to say what responsibility or ability the operator of the Port Authority truck may have had to see and avoid Flight 8646 once cleared to cross Runway 4, Speiser Krause is mindful of the statutory preconditions to suit involving claims against the Port Authority. Like the Federal government, a Notice of Claim is required before suit can be brought against the Port Authority but the time frames are markedly different.  Under applicable law, the Port Authority requires that a Notice of Claim must be served on the agency within 10 months of the crash, and requires suit to be filed within one year.  In addition, the Notice of Claim must be served no less than 60 days prior to any lawsuit being filed.  This is a much shorter period than that within which claims must be filed against a private defendant, or even against the United States. Because these prerequisites are jurisdictional in nature, victims must be careful to meet the stringent requirements prior to filing claims against the agency. Speiser Krause has successfully litigated claims against the Port Authority for decades and is very familiar with these requirements.

Claims Against the Airline

Although it is far too soon to determine whether and to what extent the airline has any responsibility for this tragedy, since this flight involved international travel, a federal treaty known as the Montreal Convention will govern the rights of the passengers. Under the Convention, the airline is strictly liable for damages equal to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (“SDRs”) assuming that a passenger’s injuries meet or exceed that sum. Certain types of damages, however, may not be recoverable from the airline under the Montreal Convention but may be recoverable from other defendants.   The team at Speiser Krause also has extensive experience litigating claims under the Montreal Convention and has been involved in virtually every international aviation disaster impacting US citizens for over fifty years.  The Firm also has significant experience in litigating claims against Canadian airlines, including recently resolving a crash that occurred in June 2024 which took the life of one passenger and injured others.

Although the investigation is only beginning, it is unknown if any additional factors, such as fatigue, nighttime conditions, or human performance, contributed to the crash. Although the NTSB will examine all aspects associated with this tragedy, given the speed at which Flight 8646 was travelling as it was landing on Runway 4, it is unlikely that the flight crew could have done much, if anything, to avoid the collision.  However, all potential causes must be examined to ensure that a tragedy like this does not happen again.

Speiser Krause will continue to monitor the investigation and provide updates and we are available to answer any questions.

The MD 11 aircraft entered service in 1991 and was originally configured for passenger operations.  In 2006 the aircraft was re-configured for cargo operations and has been part of the UPS fleet since that time.  Although early in the investigation, it is known that the left engine separated from the aircraft during the takeoff roll and was found on the runway.  Several early reports indicated that the flight was delayed due to maintenance issues associated with the left engine which caught fire and separated during takeoff. UPS, however, has since denied those reports, stating that the flight was not delayed nor did it undergo maintenance prior to the flight.  The aircraft, however, did undergo extensive maintenance in the month of October, but it is presently unknown the precise nature of that maintenance.  This undoubtedly will be a focus of the investigation.
The National Transportation Safety Board is on-site and is the lead agency responsible for the accident investigation.  Parties to the investigation will include Boeing, as the manufacturer responsible for the aircraft’s type certificate as a result of its takeover of McDonnell Douglas, General Electric, the manufacturer of the three CF6-80C2D1F engines that were installed on the aircraft, UPS (the largest employer in Louisville, Kentucky), as the aircraft operator, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration.  Other entities may become parties to the NTSB’s investigation as more facts become known.

The aircraft’s cockpit voice and digital flight data recorders, known as the “black boxes” have been recovered and sent to the NTSB’s lab in Washington D.C. for analysis.  The black boxes will provide significant insight into the cause of this tragedy.

Picture of the UPS MD-11 accident aircraft 

Speiser Krause has extensive experience in crashes that have occurred on takeoff due to numerous issues, including, maintenance, aircraft design, and pilot error.   Speiser is monitoring the investigation and will provide additional updates as more information becomes available.

As expected, the TSB determined that the crash was caused by pilot error.  At the time of takeoff, the aircraft exceeded the Maximum Takeoff Weight (“MTOW”) in violation of applicable operating procedures contained in the Aircraft’s Flight Manual.  In addition, immediately after takeoff the pilot improperly and prematurely reduced engine power and retracted flaps in violation of applicable takeoff procedures.  As a result, the aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall approximately 100 feet above the water causing it to crash into the river.  Tragically, one passenger died as a result of the crash and the others sustained varying degrees of substantial personal injuries.  

Speiser Krause has extensive experience in international aviation disasters and the Firm is presently pursuing all legal avenues to ensure that the passengers of this tragedy receive the compensation that they rightly deserve.

On June 12, 2025, at approximately 1:43 p.m. local time, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner with 242 passengers and crew, crashed shortly after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The London-bound flight was scheduled to land at Gatwick Airport when it crashed shortly after takeoff.  Miraculously, one passenger, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, who was seated in Seat 11A survived the crash, but his brother, who was also on the London bound flight was tragically killed. Mr. Ramesh advised investigators that immediately after liftoff from the runway he heard a loud bang and then the aircraft crashed.

The Dreamliner crashed into a building that was a medical college hostel with early reports indicating that at least twenty-four people on the ground were killed and many more injured.  

Video of the takeoff and flight prior to the crash shows that the aircraft impacted the medical hostel approximately one mile from the runway.  The video also shows that the aircraft struggled to gain altitude after takeoff likely due to a power failure.  Immediately upon takeoff the flight crew contacted air traffic control and advised “mayday . . . no thrust, losing power, unable to lift” but no further communications were heard from the pilots.  

Indian aviation accident investigators will be joined by experts from the United States National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) and the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch (“AAIB”) to investigate the crash. Representatives from Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, and GE Aerospace, the engine manufacturer, will also participate in the accident investigation and provide technical assistance.  Critical to the investigation will be the data captured by the “black boxes”, the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Digital Flight Data Recorder. These are sophisticated recording devices that capture a large amount of information.  This analysis will provide significant detail into what the flight crew and the aircraft were doing during the short flight prior to the crash, and it has been reported that the Digital Flight Data Recorder has been recovered.   

Speiser Krause has decades of experience in handling international aviation disasters, including cases against Boeing dating back to the 1960s, and has litigated these cases throughout the world. The Firm will closely monitor developments in the accident investigation. 

The pilot had attempted to land at the Columbia County Airport when he contacted Air Traffic Control and advised that he executed a missed approach to the airport.  Instead of following published missed approach procedures the pilot requested vectors for another approach to landing.  During the second approach, the air traffic controller who was in communication with the aircraft received a “LA” or Low Altitude Alert on the radar display that he was using.  He attempted to contact the aircraft on several occasions but he did not receive a response nor was there a distress call from the aircraft prior to the crash.  

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) launched a “Go Team” to the crash site and it is the lead federal agency investigating the crash.  The NTSB assigned various entities to assist in its investigation, including, Mitsubishi (the manufacturer of the aircraft); Honeywell (the engine manufacturer); the Federal Aviation Administration; and NATCA (the union representing air traffic controllers).

Although manufactured in 1985, the aircraft was purchased approximately one year ago, and it was equipped with an advanced and upgraded avionics package.  The aircraft was also equipped with advanced cockpit technology, including a memory card that the NTSB will analyze which will hopefully provide additional information concerning the crash.

With respect to its preliminary investigation, the NTSB confirmed that shortly before the crash, the aircraft was operating under Instrument Flight Rules (“IFR”), that the weather conditions were deteriorating, and snow was visible on the ground.  The NTSB also advised that it is in possession of a video that shows the impact of the aircraft with the ground, that the crash occurred at a high rate of descent, and that it appeared that the aircraft had not suffered a structural failure prior to the crash.  Weather, including if ice had accumulated on the aircraft structure, will be a part of the NTSB’s accident investigation.

The Mitsubishi MU-2B-40 model aircraft is a high wing high-powered twin turbo engine aircraft and it has had a significant safety history.  Given the challenging nature of piloting the aircraft, the FAA requires that pilots receive specific training particular to this model aircraft, including annual recurrent training on special emphasis items. In a press conference the NTSB advised that the pilot had undergone the additional required training.  While it is far too early to speculate, the model of the accident aircraft is susceptible to icing – specifically tail icing – which could result in a loss of control.  When ice accretes on an aircraft’s airframe this could result in the disruption of airflow over the tail and wings which could cause a loss of control.    

The NTSB advised that it hopes to release its Preliminary Report within thirty days of the crash.  Speiser Krause will provide additional details as more information is released.   

On Wednesday, January 29, 2025, American Eagle Flight 5342 (a CRJ700 aircraft) operated by PSA Airlines was seconds away from landing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and was established on short final for its landing on Runway 33. At approximately 350 feet above the Potomac River the CRJ700 and a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter operating on a training flight collided at approximately 8:48 p.m. Tragically, all 60 passengers and 4 flight crew members on the American Eagle Flight were killed, as were 3 U.S. Army personnel in the Black Hawk helicopter.

A depiction of the collision is set forth below:

During its approach to the airport, the American Eagle flight accepted an offer from air traffic control (“ATC”) to land on Runway 33 which is significantly shorter than Runway 1 at Reagan National.

The airport, which lies on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, is extremely busy and the airspace around the airport is heavily congested. Extreme vigilance is always required when operating in any aircraft environment but more so here, given the nature of the airspace and the amount of air traffic utilizing the airport.

The accident investigation is being led by the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) and the U.S. Army will also be heavily involved. The investigation will likely take more than a year to complete. However, preliminary information indicates that both the American Eagle Flight and the Black Hawk helicopter were in communication with ATC at Reagan National. The helicopter was transiting the area flying on what is known as a low-level helicopter route over the Potomac River. ATC apparently saw that the two aircraft were on a possible collision course and instructed the Black Hawk helicopter to fly behind the American Eagle flight, which the helicopter acknowledged. It is unknown if the helicopter pilot mistook another aircraft for American Eagle Flight 5342 but this is something that will be examined during the accident investigation, and it is anticipated that a visibility study will be conducted to determine what each pilot may have seen. Investigators will also look at whether the Black Hawk helicopter was operating above its permissible altitude at the time of the crash.

While monitoring the government’s accident investigation, the team at Speiser Krause is also analyzing the information being released as well as conferring with experts to determine possible causes of this unspeakable tragedy. The lawyers at Speiser Krause have extensive experience involving mid-air collisions, including above navigable waters, having represented passengers who were killed due to a mid-air collision over the Hudson River in 2009 between a fixed wing aircraft and a helicopter, and recently, those injured as a result of a mid-air collision in 2019 between two sight seeing aircraft over the George Inlet, Alaska. Our firm is dedicated to representing the victims of aviation tragedies and we do all that we can to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again. We will look at all circumstances surrounding the flight including the conduct of the pilots and ATC. Cases involving ATC and potential U.S. Army negligence involve specialized laws including, but not limited to, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), aviation statutes and regulations including the Federal Aviation Act, as well as the policies and procedures governing the conduct of air traffic control. Not only has the team at Speiser Krause been involved with numerous actions involving mid-air collisions but we have litigated dozens of lawsuits against ATC.

We will continue to provide additional updates as more information becomes available.

The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation into this deadly crash. The NTSB located the aircraft’s Cockpit Voice Recorder in a crater 8 feet deep. Investigators also recovered the aircraft’s Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) which should contain flight data including data from the accident flight. The NTSB’s Vehicle Recorder Division and Laboratory will analyze both the CVR and EGPWS and it is expected that these components will assist investigators in determining the cause of his tragedy. Speiser Krause, a national aviation law firm with offices in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, will continue to provide updates as more information is released.

At approximately 4:40 p.m. the aircraft commenced its takeoff roll for its intended flight from Falcon Field to Provo Municipal Airport in Provo, Utah. The aircraft received its takeoff clearance from Runway 22L which the pilot acknowledged. There were no further communications with air traffic control.

According to ADS-B data, the aircraft accelerated to approximately 133 knots ground speed on the 5,100-foot-long asphalt runway. Pursuant to published data, the decision speed, known as V1, is approximately 110 knots which means that if a takeoff is rejected when the aircraft is travelling more than 110 knots it will be unable to stop on the remaining runway. Here, for reasons that are yet to be determined, the aircraft was unable to gain lift and commenced RTO (Rejected Takeoff) Procedures. Unfortunately, and since the aircraft’s ground speed exceeded the takeoff decision speed, or V1, at the time of the attempted rejected takeoff it was unable to stop on the remaining runway, and it then crashed through a perimeter fence and came to rest after colliding with the vehicle on North Greenfield Road. A post-crash fire ensued.

The HondaJet is marketed as a light business jet and is manufactured by the Honda Aircraft Company in Greensboro, North Carolina. Speiser Krause has successfully represented both flight crew and passengers in runway excursions on takeoff. The Firm recently represented the co-pilot of a Cessna Citation Jet who was tragically killed in a failed takeoff which was caused by an inadvertently set parking brake. In the Cessna accident, the jet departed the end of the runway, then gained lift but stalled crashing into a pole and nearby warehouse. All four aircraft occupants were killed in that crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) is the lead federal agency responsible for the accident investigation. The NTSB will examine a host of issues including the aircraft, environmental conditions and pilot actions. It is anticipated that the NTSB will focus on why the aircraft could not rotate (or lift off the runway) despite sufficient ground speed.

A Preliminary Report should be issued by the NTSB within the coming weeks, but the Factual Report detailing the NTSB’s investigative activities will likely take a year or more.

Speiser Krause has extensive experience involving de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver and DHC-3 Otter aircraft, recently concluding litigation involving a midair collision in Alaska involving these types of aircraft.  Speiser Krause has also litigated numerous crashes in Canada recently resolving litigation involving the crash of a Kaman K-1200 helicopter that crashed during heli-logging operations in British Columbia, Canada, in which the pilot was killed.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (similar to the National Transportation Safety Board) has sent two investigators to the crash scene to gather evidence and assess the causal factors in the crash.  Partners Douglas A. Latto and Jeanne M. O’Grady are monitoring the accident investigation.