FirstAlerts
Plane Crashes

NTSB, FAA Investigate Near-Miss Between Marine One and Airliner Near Washington, D.C.

The FAA estimated the aircraft came within 0.82 nautical miles laterally and 700 feet vertically, but the NTSB said the distance met the applicable Class B radar-separation standard.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 5:45 p.m. ET
The NTSB and FAA are investigating a near-miss incident on Aug. 4, 2026, between a Marine One helicopter and an near , according to avweb.com. The FAA estimated the aircraft came within 0.82 nautical miles laterally and 700 feet vertically, but the NTSB said that distance met the applicable Class B radar-separation standard. FAA recordings showed Marine One's first attempt to contact the tower was not received and a second transmission was unreadable. A subsequent FAA analysis found inadequate line-of-sight radio coverage between the Ellipse and the radio site. The agency later relocated the helicopter-control radios to the top of the DCA tower, and follow-up checks using two HMX-1 helicopters found no communication deficiencies. An alternate procedure was established, but an attempt to use it Aug. 4 was unsuccessful. The cause of the incident has not been determined, and the investigation is ongoing. The aircraft involved has not been identified. Registry records list as operating seven aircraft, five of which match the reported type (), but these are not candidates for the aircraft involved.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Terrain elevation
39 ft
Nearest aerodrome
3.0 miles N of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (KDCA/DCA)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:45current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.