Attribute the DC plane crash to the unchecked faith of Washington officials.

Although the National Transportation Safety Board has only recently initiated its investigation into the mid-air collision over Washington, D.C., that resulted in the deaths of 67 individuals, the underlying cause appears to be clear: an overabundance of optimism.

Officials often advocate for the unfeasible when it benefits them. In this scenario, the issue wasn’t a lack of trust in supposedly sluggish and incompetent governmental entities, but rather too much trust.

The political elite in Washington seemed to have an unwavering belief that everything would turn out fine, despite the fact that they were placing themselves in significant peril.

Unlike the United States’ previous significant aviation disaster, which claimed 50 lives in upstate New York 16 years ago, this incident cannot be attributed to the airline’s negligence.

American Airlines Flight 5342 departed from Wichita, Kansas, at 5:22 p.m., and by 8:48 p.m., it had seven minutes remaining to reach its intended destination when it began its descent on an unobstructed path toward Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Then, a helicopter—a US Army Black Hawk with three service members on board—collided with the aircraft.

The NTSB’s task is to determine how and why this catastrophe occurred, a crucial aspect of what makes American aviation so secure: Historically, we glean all possible lessons from a crash and implement changes to prevent a recurrence.

Some pressing questions arise: First, did the Army mishandle its training operation? The military crew was operating beyond its sanctioned limits, flying at twice the permissible altitude. Moreover, it was equipped with night-vision goggles—which can impair visibility.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, airline pilots approaching Reagan have raised alarms about the constant encroachment of helicopters.

“I find it hard to believe that any business is so urgent that these helicopters are permitted to cross the flight paths of commercial airliners carrying hundreds of passengers,” one pilot remarked back in 2013.

“What justifies the tower’s allowance of such reckless behavior by the military in such a vital area?” another pilot questioned.

While pilot training is essential, civilian airline passengers and flight crew should not be unwittingly utilized as training fodder.

The risks associated with military operations differ significantly from those faced by civilians. The military had just sustained a crash of an F-35 in Alaska a day before the incident in D.C.

Secondly, were the instructions from air-traffic controllers to the helicopter pilot regarding the AA jet sufficiently clear?

Following the crash, numerous pilots suggested that when the helicopter pilot confirmed to air-traffic control that he had visually acquired the jet, another jet was also in proximity.

This raises the possibility that the air-traffic controller and the helicopter pilot were referencing separate aircraft.

If there was confusion in communication, was this due to ATC mismanagement, including incidents of allowing a controller to leave their shift ahead of time, resulting in “non-standard” staffing levels?

We have been alerted for years about the staff shortages and excessive workloads facing air-traffic controllers.

Although training requirements remain strict, perhaps enhancements to pay and working conditions are necessary to attract candidates who might otherwise pursue alternative high-stress professions, like financial trading, which offers more lucrative compensation.

Moreover, despite Trump’s premature conclusions last week regarding DEI initiatives, the Obama-era approach to recruiting ATC candidates through subjective “biographical assessments” proved to be a misguided strategy—so flawed that Congress ultimately abolished it in 2018.

However, the alarming fact is that Congress members and their aides were fully aware of all these issues, as were presidents and their advisors across multiple administrations.

Members of Congress have perused countless reports and heard numerous testimonies indicating that the frequency of near-collisions at Reagan National Airport signified a serious danger.

Reagan is located in the most congested airspace and runway system in the United States—accommodating 890 flights every day, nearly operating at double its designed capacity.

Yet, Congress still permitted an increase in flights at Reagan— resulting in 50 additional daily flights over the past 25 years.

A cynical interpretation suggests that members of Congress acted recklessly, as these flights were convenient for them.

However, this also means that top officials in Washington are disproportionately at risk of being on one of these flights. Additionally, the military transports the same elite officials via helicopters across this congested airspace on a daily basis.

Warnings about near misses might have had a negative effect: Congress may have interpreted them as proof that experienced aviators can navigate out of any situation.

It is one thing for Congress to sidestep the regulations that everyone else must comply with.

But this time, Congress has compounded risks for itself.

What do members of Congress, their aides, and their colleagues at the White House—regardless of which party occupies the office—believe safeguards them from the realities of physics and the limitations of human cognition: sheer luck?

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.