An amateur-built aircraft incident near Arlington, Virginia, July 31, 2012
On July 31, 2012 at about 6:05 pm local time, a an amateur-built aircraft was involved in an incident during approach near Arlington, Virginia. It was flown under rules the NTSB did not record. The NTSB record does not give the injuries.
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
A hearback/readback error on the part of the tower traffic management coordinator, who did not understand the request being made by the approach control area supervisor and then communicated that misunderstanding to the local controllers. Contributing to the incident was the lack of standard coordination procedures between the tower and approach control for temporary runway changes and the accepted practice of operations supervisors being distracted by non-operational duties while responsible for tower operations and interfacility coordination.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 31, 2012 · about 6:05 pm local time
- Place
- Arlington, Virginia · map
- Type
- Incident
- Injuries
- The NTSB record does not give the injuries.
- Weather
- not recorded
- Aircraft
- An amateur-built aircraft
- Registration
- not recorded
- Damage
- Not recorded
- Flight
- Flight · rules the NTSB did not record
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The airport had been using runway 1 for arrivals and departures all day. Because of thunderstorms south of the airport, the approach control area supervisor for Mount Vernon (MTV) attempted to coordinate with the airport tower supervisor to stop departures from runway 1 and temporarily land arrivals on runway 19, opposite to the traffic flow in use. According to the airport’s standard operating procedures, requests for runway changes must be approved by a tower supervisor, but the tower supervisor was unable to take the call because he was on a different phone line and distracted by administrative duties. Instead, a traffic management coordinator took the coordination call. A misunderstanding occurred between the MTV supervisor and the traffic management coordinator. The coordinator stated that she had missed the supervisor's reference to use of runway 19, and instead thought arrivals would be continuing to use runway 1, only with reduced spacing. The coordinator relayed the incorrect information to the local controllers responsible for the runways. The local controllers subsequently released two departures from runway 1 and both flights lost required separation with the first arriving airplane inbound from the northwest to land on runway 19.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Air traffic event during approach defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Communication (personnel) › Accuracy of communication › ATC personnel
- factor Organizational issues › Support/oversight/monitoring › Oversight › Oversight of operation › ATC
- factor Organizational issues › Management › Policy/procedure › Adequacy of policy/proc › ATC
- factor Organizational issues › Management › Culture › Pressures/demands › ATC
The aircraft
- Landing gear: fixed
The flight
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.