Regulations & Safety
United Airlines Jets Collide on Ground at Chicago O’Hare Airport
Two United Airlines jets collided at Chicago O’Hare in 2025 with no injuries, highlighting concerns over airport ground safety and staffing shortages.
On the afternoon of October 17, 2025, Chicago O’Hare International Airport became the scene of a ground collision involving two United Airlines jets. While such incidents on the tarmac are often low-speed, the event has cast a spotlight on the intricate and high-stakes environment of ground operations at one of the world’s busiest airports. The collision, which involved a taxiing passenger plane and a stationary aircraft, resulted in no injuries, a fortunate outcome that nonetheless fails to quell rising questions about airport safety protocols and the pressures facing the aviation industry.
The incident involved United Airlines Flight 2652, a Boeing 737 arriving from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with 113 passengers and five crew members on board. As it was taxiing toward its gate, it made contact with a stationary and unoccupied United Airlines Boeing 767. This event is not an isolated anomaly; it marks the second tarmac collision at O’Hare in 2025. This pattern, combined with broader, national-level discussions around aviation safety and staffing, elevates a local incident into a significant case study on the potential vulnerabilities within the U.S. air travel system.
For the passengers aboard UA2652, the flight from Jackson Hole had been routine until the final moments on the ground. As the Boeing 737 navigated the complex network of taxiways at O’Hare, it struck the horizontal stabilizer of the parked Boeing 767. According to United Airlines, the contact occurred while the arriving flight was moving toward its designated gate. The immediate aftermath saw the deployment of emergency vehicles to the scene, a standard procedure to ensure the safety of everyone involved and to assess the aircraft for damage.
Bill Marcus, a passenger seated in 22F, captured the scene from his window. He reported that the initial impact was not perceptible to him. The first indication of a problem came from the captain’s announcement, stating a need to “document what happened.” It was only then that Marcus looked out his window and realized their plane had collided with another. He described feeling a “shuddering” or “turbulence” not from the collision itself, but when the two aircraft were subsequently pulled apart. Upon deplaning, passengers were met with a notable presence of Chicago police officers, a detail Marcus felt underscored the seriousness with which officials were treating the situation.
The official response from United Airlines was swift, confirming the basic facts of the incident. The airline stressed that no injuries were reported and that all 113 customers and five crew members deplaned normally at the gate. While the damage to the aircraft is under investigation, the primary focus remains on the sequence of events that allowed a moving plane to come into contact with a stationary one in a controlled airport environment.
“It was a bit of a shock, honestly. [The pilot] said they need to document what happened, and that’s when I looked out my right window and saw our plane had collided with another United flight.” – Bill Marcus, Passenger on UA2652
This event gains significant weight when viewed in the context of recent history at O’Hare. In January 2025, a similar incident occurred when an American Airlines flight clipped a United flight while both were taxiing. In that case as well, no injuries were reported, but the repetition of such an event at the same airport within a year suggests a potential pattern that warrants closer examination of ground control procedures and pilot awareness.
The concerns are not limited to Chicago. Nationally, both the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have been focusing on enhancing runway and tarmac safety. The NTSB has identified this area as a critical concern, noting that the runway environment is a confined space where the risk of collision is heightened. In response to these risks, the FAA has been implementing new strategies, such as the Surface Safety Metric (SSM), to better identify and mitigate potential dangers before they result in incidents. These initiatives reflect a system-wide effort to move beyond simply reacting to accidents and toward proactively managing risk.
Passenger Bill Marcus voiced a concern that resonates with ongoing national news: the state of air traffic control. He openly wondered if the collision was related to “what’s going on in Washington” or a “shortage at all in people directing traffic.” His speculation is not unfounded. Reports preceding the incident highlighted significant air traffic controller staffing shortages across the country, with the FAA reportedly short by approximately 3,500 controllers. O’Hare itself experienced a ground delay on October 7, 2025, due to these very staffing issues. An ongoing government shutdown has been cited as a contributing factor, with essential personnel like air traffic controllers working without pay, a situation that has historically led to increased sick leave and further strain on an already stressed system. The October 17th tarmac collision at O’Hare, while thankfully resulting in no harm to passengers or crew, serves as a critical reminder of the fragility of airport ground operations. It is not merely an accident involving two aircraft but a symptom of potentially larger, systemic issues. The incident underscores the importance of the ongoing efforts by the NTSB and FAA to improve surface safety, but it also highlights the real-world consequences of external pressures like staffing shortages and government shutdowns on the national aviation infrastructure.
As investigations by the FAA and NTSB get underway, the focus will be on determining the precise cause of this latest collision. The findings will be crucial in implementing corrective actions, whether they relate to ground control procedures, pilot training, or airport infrastructure. For the traveling public, this event is a tangible example of why consistent funding, adequate staffing, and a relentless focus on safety protocols are not just bureaucratic talking points, but essential components for maintaining one of the safest modes of transportation in the world.
Question: What happened at Chicago O’Hare Airport on October 17, 2025? Question: Were any passengers injured in the collision? Question: Is this the first time an incident like this has happened at O’Hare? Question: What are the potential causes of the collision? Sources: WGN-TV Chicago
Ground Collision at O’Hare: A Deeper Look into Aviation Safety Concerns
The Incident of October 17th
A Pattern of Incidents and Systemic Pressures
Concluding Section
FAQ
Answer: A United Airlines Boeing 737 (Flight UA2652), taxiing to its gate after landing, made contact with a stationary, unoccupied United Airlines Boeing 767 on the tarmac.
Answer: No. According to United Airlines and passenger reports, there were no injuries among the 113 passengers and five crew members, and everyone deplaned normally.
Answer: No. This was the second reported tarmac collision between commercial jets at O’Hare in 2025. A similar incident involving an American Airlines and a United Airlines plane occurred in January 2025.
Answer: An official investigation is pending. However, the incident occurred amidst broader concerns about aviation safety, including reported nationwide shortages of air traffic controllers, which have specifically impacted operations at O’Hare.
Photo Credit: WGN Morning News
Regulations & Safety
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
A stolen Cessna 172 crashed into a hangar at Van Nuys Airport. Suspect arrested; FAA and FBI investigate security breach at busy general aviation airport.
This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd.
A security breach at Van Nuys Airports (VNY) early Thursday morning resulted in the theft and subsequent crash of a single-engine aircraft. According to reporting by NBC Los Angeles, a suspect broke into a flight school facility and attempted to commandeer a Cessna 172 before crashing the plane into a nearby hangar building. Authorities have confirmed that the aircraft never successfully became airborne.
Law enforcement officials, including the Los Angeles Airport Police (LAXPD) and the FBI, responded immediately to the scene. The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported on the ground or in the aircraft. The incident has prompted a federal investigation into the security protocols at one of the world’s busiest general aviation airports.
The incident began in the pre-dawn hours of December 18, 2025. According to a timeline compiled from reports by NBC4 and KTLA, the suspect trespassed onto the airport grounds around 4:00 AM. The individual targeted a flight training facility located near the 7900 block of Balboa Boulevard, an area densely populated with Commercial-Aircraft academies and hangars.
After gaining access to the flight school, the suspect boarded a white single-engine Cessna 172. Around 5:00 AM, the suspect attempted to operate the aircraft. NBC Los Angeles reports that the plane was stolen directly from the flight school’s ramp.
“A small plane crashed in a building at Van Nuys Airport after it was stolen from a flight school, officials tell NBC4 Investigates.”
— NBC Los Angeles
While the suspect managed to start the engine and begin taxiing, they lost control of the aircraft before reaching a runway. The plane surged forward and impacted a hangar nose-first. Aerial video footage broadcast by KTLA showed the aircraft’s nose embedded in the metal siding of the structure, leaving a distinct hole in the exterior wall. The propeller and nose cone sustained significant damage, rendering the aircraft inoperable.
Following the crash, LAXPD officers arrested the suspect at the scene. CBS Los Angeles and other local outlets have identified the individual as 37-year-old Ceffareno Michael Logan. He was booked on suspicion of burglary and theft of an aircraft. According to verified reports from Patch and NTD News, bail for Logan has been set at $150,000. As of the latest updates, authorities have not disclosed a motive for the theft, nor have they confirmed whether the suspect possessed any prior flight training or a pilot’s license. The swift arrival of law enforcement prevented any further attempts to move the aircraft or flee the scene.
The investigation has expanded beyond local police to include federal agencies. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are on-site to assist LAXPD. Their inquiry will likely focus on how the suspect breached the perimeter and accessed the aircraft keys or ignition system.
Crews were observed later in the morning extracting the damaged Cessna from the hangar wall and towing it back to the flight academy’s facility. Despite the dramatic nature of the event, airport operations at Van Nuys were not significantly disrupted, as the crash was contained within the flight school’s specific ramp area.
While commercial airports operate under the strict passenger screening protocols of the TSA, general aviation (GA) airports like Van Nuys face different security challenges. VNY is a massive facility with multiple access points for Private-Jets businesses, hangars, and flight schools. This incident highlights the vulnerability of “insider” areas where aircraft are parked.
Although rare, the theft of aircraft is a known risk in the aviation industry. In 2018, a ground service agent stole a Q400 turboprop from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a tragedy that ended in a fatal crash. Fortunately, in this instance at Van Nuys, the suspect failed to achieve flight, preventing a potentially catastrophic outcome over the densely populated San Fernando Valley. We anticipate this event will trigger a review of after-hours key storage and perimeter security standards for flight schools operating at VNY.
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
Timeline of the Theft and Crash
The Break-in and Attempted Taxi
Suspect and Legal Proceedings
Investigation and Aftermath
AirPro News Analysis: General Aviation Security
Sources
Photo Credit: KTLA5
Regulations & Safety
US Government Admits Liability in 2025 Washington DC Mid-Air Collision
The U.S. government admits fault in the 2025 mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67, citing FAA and Army errors.
This article summarizes reporting by AP News.
In a significant legal development following the deadliest United States aviation accident since 2001, the U.S. government has formally admitted liability for the mid-air collision that claimed 67 lives earlier this year. According to court filings submitted in December 2025, the Department of Justice acknowledged that negligence by both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers and U.S. Army pilots caused the tragedy.
The crash, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Eagle Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As reported by AP News, the government’s admission comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the family of a victim, signaling a potential shift in how the remaining legal battles regarding the disaster will proceed.
The lawsuit, filed by the family of passenger Casey Crafton, alleges that failures in communication and protocol led directly to the catastrophe. In a move that legal experts describe as unusually swift for complex aviation litigation, the government did not contest its role in the accident.
In the filing, the government stated that it:
“owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, which it breached.”
, U.S. Department of Justice filing, via AP News
By admitting liability, the government effectively removes the need for a trial to determine fault regarding its own agents (the FAA and the Army). The legal focus will likely shift toward determining the amount of damages owed to the families of the 64 people on the regional jet and the three crew members on the helicopter.
The collision occurred at night while the American Eagle CRJ700, operated by PSA Airlines, was on approach to DCA from Wichita, Kansas. The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training mission involving night vision goggles. Investigations cited by AP News and preliminary NTSB data highlight two primary causes for the disaster: air traffic control errors and pilot deviations. According to the reports, the FAA controller at DCA utilized “visual separation” procedures, asking the helicopter pilots if they had the incoming jet in sight. Once the pilots confirmed they did, the controller transferred the responsibility for maintaining safe distance to the helicopter crew. Following the incident, the FAA has reportedly restricted the use of visual separation for helicopters operating in this congested airspace.
The government’s admission also encompasses errors made by the Army flight crew. Investigators found that the helicopter was flying significantly higher than permitted for its specific route. While the limit for “Route 4” was 200 feet, the Black Hawk was operating between 278 and 300 feet, approximately 78 feet above the ceiling for that corridor.
Furthermore, technical discrepancies were noted in the helicopter’s equipment. The investigation revealed that the barometric altimeter may have displayed an altitude 80 to 100 feet lower than the aircraft’s actual position, potentially misleading the pilots. The use of night vision goggles was also cited as a factor that may have limited the crew’s peripheral vision and depth perception.
The speed at which the U.S. government admitted liability, less than a year after the incident, is notable. In many aviation disasters involving state actors, litigation can drag on for years over jurisdictional and immunity claims. We assess that this early admission is likely a strategic decision to limit the scope of discovery. By conceding fault now, the government may prevent a prolonged public trial that would expose granular, potentially sensitive details regarding military training operations and air traffic control systemic vulnerabilities in the nation’s capital.
While the government has accepted its share of the blame, the legal battle continues for the private carriers involved. American Airlines and its regional subsidiary, PSA Airlines, are also named defendants in the lawsuit. Both airlines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that the sole responsibility lies with the government entities that controlled the airspace and the military aircraft.
Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the airlines failed to mitigate known risks associated with flying into the highly congested airspace around Washington, D.C. The outcome of these motions will determine whether the airlines must also pay damages or if the U.S. taxpayers will bear the full financial burden of the settlements.
When is the final NTSB report expected? What safety changes have been made since the crash? How many people died in the accident?
US Government Admits Liability in Fatal Collision Between American Eagle Jet and Army Helicopter
Government Concedes Negligence in Court Filing
Operational Failures Behind the Crash
FAA Controller Errors
Army Pilot Deviations
AirPro News Analysis
Ongoing Legal Disputes with Airlines
Frequently Asked Questions
The National Transportation Safety Board is expected to release its final report on the probable cause of the accident in early 2026.
The FAA has permanently closed the specific helicopter route (Route 4) involved in the crash. Additionally, regulators have prohibited the simultaneous use of certain runways at DCA during urgent helicopter missions and restricted visual separation procedures for helicopters.
The crash resulted in 67 total fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 crew members on the Army helicopter.
Sources
Photo Credit: NBC News
Regulations & Safety
Why Proper Maintenance of Aircraft Wheel Bearings Is Critical for Safety
Airbus technical data shows aircraft wheel bearing failures result mainly from maintenance errors. Proper torque, cleaning, and lubrication are essential for safety.
This article is based on technical guidance and safety publications from Airbus and additional industry safety reports.
Aircraft wheel bearings are among the most stressed components in aviation. Despite supporting loads of up to 500 tons and enduring temperature shifts from sub-zero cruising altitudes to the intense heat of braking, they remain largely hidden from view. According to a technical safety publication by Airbus, the failure of these components is rarely due to design flaws but is almost exclusively the result of improper maintenance.
At AirPro News, we have reviewed the latest guidance from Airbus’s “Safety First” initiative, alongside broader industry data, to understand why these small components continue to pose significant risks to flight safety. The consensus across manufacturers and regulators is clear: strict adherence to maintenance protocols is the only barrier against catastrophic failure.
The primary cause of bearing failure, as identified by Airbus and industry data, is maintenance error. Specifically, the issues revolve around incorrect torque application, contamination, and inadequate lubrication. Aircraft use “tapered roller bearings” designed to handle both the weight of the aircraft (radial loads) and side-to-side movement (axial loads). When these bearings are mistreated, the consequences are severe.
One of the most critical and frequently misunderstood aspects of wheel installation is the torque procedure. According to Airbus technical guidelines, a specific “double-torque” method is required to ensure the bearings are seated correctly without being overtightened.
The process generally involves three distinct steps:
The risk lies in the details. If a technician skips rotating the wheel during the initial torque application, the rollers may not align, leading to a false torque reading. This can result in loose bearings that vibrate and wear prematurely, or tight bearings that overheat and seize.
The failure of a wheel bearing is not merely a maintenance inconvenience; it is a direct threat to the structural integrity of the aircraft. When a bearing seizes, it can generate enough friction to weld components together or shear axles, leading to wheel separation.
In one notable case study highlighted by Airbus, an A330 aircraft lost a wheel during takeoff. The investigation revealed that a seized bearing destroyed the axle nut, allowing the wheel to eject from the landing gear. This is not an isolated event. Data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) underscores the prevalence of this issue. “A study revealed 67 occurrences of nosewheel bearing failures on A319/A320/A321 aircraft worldwide between 1989 and 2004.”
— TSB Canada Data
While the Airbus “Safety First” article focuses on their fleet, the physics of bearing failure applies universally. Reports from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) detail an incident involving a Boeing 737-800 where a seized bearing generated sufficient heat to compromise the chrome plating and base metal of the axle, causing it to fracture.
Similarly, an investigation into an Embraer EMB-145 (registration G-EMBP) found that moisture contamination due to improper seal installation led to severe overheating and subsequent axle failure. These incidents confirm that regardless of the airframe manufacturer, the root causes, contamination and torque errors, remain consistent.
To mitigate these risks, manufacturers and technical organizations like Timken have established “gold standard” maintenance manuals. The following practices are considered non-negotiable for airworthiness:
The Human Factor in Maintenance
While the technical steps are well-documented, we believe the persistence of these failures points to a human factors challenge. Wheel bearings are “hidden” components; unlike a tire that shows visible tread wear, a bearing often looks pristine until the moment it fails catastrophically. This lack of visual feedback places an immense burden on the maintenance process itself.
In high-pressure line maintenance environments, the requirement to rotate a wheel while torquing it, a process that relies on “feel” and patience, can be a trap for technicians rushing to clear an aircraft for departure. The data suggests that safety in this domain relies less on new technology and more on a disciplined adherence to the basics: cleaning, inspecting, and respecting the torque procedure.
Regulators continue to monitor these risks closely. The FAA has previously issued Airworthiness Directives, such as AD 2012-10-09 for Cessna 560XL aircraft, following reports of brake failure linked to loose bearing components. Furthermore, the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) frequently issues alerts reminding operators that “grease is not just grease,” warning that using unapproved substitutes constitutes a violation of FAR Part 43.
Whether operating a General Aviation aircraft or a commercial airliner, the message from the industry is uniform: take care of the wheel bearings, and they will carry the load.
The Hidden Danger in the Gear: Why Wheel Bearing Maintenance Cannot Be Rushed
The Mechanics of Failure
The “Double-Torque” Procedure
Real-World Consequences
Airbus and TSB Canada Data
Cross-Fleet Vulnerabilities
Industry Best Practices
AirPro News Analysis
Regulatory Context
Sources
Photo Credit: Airbus
-
Commercial Aviation7 days agoAirbus Validates Critical Rendezvous Phase for Wake Energy Retrieval
-
Training & Certification7 days agoDiamond Aircraft Restarts European DA20i Production with First Delivery
-
Commercial Aviation6 days agoVietnam Grounds 28 Aircraft Amid Pratt & Whitney Engine Shortage
-
Business Aviation2 days agoGreg Biffle and Family Die in North Carolina Plane Crash
-
Defense & Military4 days agoFinland Unveils First F-35A Lightning II under HX Fighter Program