Aircraft in PSA Airlines Callsign Mix-Up Identified as N527EA
The Bombardier CRJ-700 involved in the August 12, 2026, callsign duplication has been identified, according to Simple Flying.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 1:05 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 1:05 a.m. ETFirst report
Two PSA Airlines CRJ-700s Share Callsign for 26 Minutes, No Separation Loss Reported
Two Bombardier CRJ-700 aircraft operated by PSA Airlines flew simultaneously with the same callsign 'Bluestreak 5083' for 26 minutes on August 12, 2026, according to Simple Flying. The incident involved flights between Philadelphia and Providence. No loss of required separation was reported, the outlet said.
The aircraft involved, registered as N527EA, is a Bombardier Inc CL-600-2C10, according to aircraft registry records. Registry records list the registered owner as American Airlines Inc; the owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight.
The incident is developing, and the cause has not been determined. Registry records show that the same owner/operator has been involved in other incidents, including a Boeing 737-800 incident on June 20, 2026, and a Bombardier CL-600-2C10 incident on February 24, 2026. These records say nothing about the cause of this incident. The NTSB database lists 9 other cases involving the Bombardier CL-600-2C10 type, of which 1 involved a fatality.
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 Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
- Registration
- N527EA
- Type
- Bombardier Inc CL-600-2C10 — twin-engine jet landplane
- Engines
- GE CF34-8C5B1
- Built
- 2010-01-01 (16 years old)
- Registered owner
- American Airlines IncThe owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight.
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 05:23current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 05:05current
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.