Talk:Alaska Airlines Flight 1282

Type name: 737 MAX 9, 737-9 or 737-9 MAX?

The article appears to have run into a style inconsistency both internally and with the rest of Wikipedia for the name of the aircraft type. Most articles on Wikipedia, including Boeing 737 MAX refer to this aircraft type primarily as the 737 MAX 9. The current note about 737-9 being the "marketing and type designation of the Boeing 737 MAX 9" seems to sit awkwardly and is unreferenced, and the main article for this aircraft type/series does not discuss a name change (and consequently has no sources for a name change).

As best I can tell, currently the majority of sources are referring to this type as the Boeing 737-9 MAX [1][2][3][4][5][6] and some as 737 MAX 9 [7][8]. The Alaska Airlines statement does use 737-9 [9] but their own fleet page refers to it extensively as the 737-9 MAX [10].

This may be a discussion that primarily belongs over on the Boeing 737 MAX article but here I can already see a lack of WP:CONS so thought it was better to bring it here for discussion. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Rob.au To my knowledge, Boeing has only ever referred to the aircraft as 737 MAX 9 or 737-9, with the former being the marketing name and latter being the formal model number. The involved aircraft is registered as a 737-9, which is marketed by Boeing as the 737 MAX 9. I don't think I've ever seen the model number used in conjunction with the MAX name before this incident, but prior to this I have seen a number of otherwise reliable sources incorrectly refer to the 737 MAX series as the 737 Max. The problem was so bad that there were several lengthy discussions attempting to move the Boeing 737 MAX article to "Boeing 737 Max". - ZLEA _T\^C 20:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

^ This is my understanding too. 737 MAX 9 is the marketing name, 737-9, is the formal model number. Newspapers will show it as 737 Max, because that's the AP Stylebook guidance. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies... I can now see the older discussions about MAX vs Max style - rest assured I'm not going there, although to be honest that makes me more surprised the current inconsistencies haven't had much discussion. My comment here though - you've both said 737 MAX 9 is the "marketing name"... but there's the rub, Boeing appears to have now almost completely stopped using that construction. They refer to the family as 737 MAX, but they appear to now never use MAX in association with any aircraft within the family in their marketing materials. Yet outside of Boeing, 737-9 MAX seems to have become the dominant form, even with Alaska Airlines. -- Rob.au (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is my take:

- 737 MAX 9: The most common designation and the former marketing designation. Mainly used in news articles and other types of media. Sources: [11][12][13][14]

- 737-9: The type designation and the current marketing designation. Used by Boeing, by transport agencies, and in type certificates. Since 2020, Boeing quietly stopped using "737 MAX 9" as the marketing designation.[15] Sources: [16][17]

- 737-9 MAX: Same with the 737-9, but added the MAX name to distinguish from the existing 737-900 of the 737NG family. Used by user updated online databases (such as Planespotters.net, rzjets.net, airfleets.net)

In my opinion, even with "inconsistencies", I think it's best to use the type designation in the infobox and the "Aircraft" sub-section but retain the common designation for the rest of the article. Even in the Boeing 737 MAX article (in some parts) the type and common designations often switches. RPC7778 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. It's a little awkward to see the marketing name "737 MAX 9" under the "Aircraft Type" label, but it seems best to use the label on the 737 MAX article. It's a little better to have a proposal to react to on this talk page. May I suggest adding a specific proposal or marking this topic as resolved Template:Resolved Dw31415 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, 737-9 MAX is how the FAA refers to the type. (I think the NTSB does too, but I won't swear to it.) Isn't that the more authoritative source for the "correct" name? The type is certified by the FAA as the 737-9 MAX. I think that's the defining usage, though Boeing would rather distance itself from the "MAX" designation. (I'm just pointing this out. I'm not interested or experienced enough on this issue to argue for a major change.) Dcs002 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed an interesting detail on the main image. The image clearly shows "MAX9" written on the main gear door, despite the aircraft having been manufactured in 2023, well after Boeing supposedly stopped marketing the aircraft as the "MAX 9". Whether this was added by Boeing or Alaska Airlines, I have no idea. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

NTSB docket has it marked as 737-9 MAX. The MAX9 on the landing gear doors (it's also on the nose gear door) is put there by the airline for the benefit of ground crews. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The type is most certainly not "certified as the 737-9 MAX", nor has it ever been. The relevant entry in the TCDS (currently cited as Reference 51 on the 737 Wikipedia page) says "XI - Model 737-8 (Approved March 8, 2017), 737-9 (Approved February 15, 2018), and 737-8200 (Approved March 31, 2021), Transport Aircraft". If we're going to contradict the Type Certificate, we're on thin ice here. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. My point was that 737-9 MAX is how the FAA refers to the type in the official documents I've seen. I haven't seen the certificate, and my assumption was that if the FAA used the designation in official communications, that would in some way imply that was the official name, or at least an official name, for those purposes. I think official communications from the FAA (and apparently the NTSB as well) are more authoritative than news sources. I'm not gonna make a stand on this hill, but I wanted to clarify my meaning. Dcs002 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You can view the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet at https://drs.faa.gov/browse. When it comes to how aircraft are "officially" designated (as opposed to marketing designations), the TCDS is as definitive/authoritative as it gets. DaveReidUK (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is beside the point. The official and marketing designations are both correct, while "737-9 MAX" seems to be an acceptable way to avoid confusion the earlier 737-900. Ultimately, it is Boeing's aircraft, and Boeing submitted the type certificate application to the FAA, so the "correct" designation(s) is whatever Boeing calls it. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that either designation is "incorrect", only that marketing designations doesn't necessarily have any "official" (whatever that means) status. There have been plenty of other airliner types over the years that are/were commonly referred to by a name that doesn't appear on the TC, for anyone who wants to research them (MD, Fokker, etc), and it's reasonable that Wikipedia should reflect that. Come to that, even with the 737, the predecessor to the "737 MAX" was marketed as the "737 NG", but few people feel the need to use the tautology "737-900 NG". DaveReidUK (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing door

Resolved

 – Forum discussion

Very curious if blown-out door will turn up after 2- to 3-mile fall, and where.

Looking at ADBSexchange flight track, 1282 N704AL flew S/SE over Northwest Skyline Blvd, Helvetia, Westmark Center, Liberty HIgh School, OR127/US26, downtown Beaverton, Lake Oswego Junior High/Springbrook Park. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Unless there is a proposed change, the text above reads to me as a forum type comment. Please let me know if I've missed something. Dw31415 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The missing tray table was found Monday afternoon west of Cedar Hills Shopping Center. NTSB has been notified. RussellSenior (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Article Title

Current article title: Alaska Airlines Flight 1282

Proposed new title: 2024 Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 Mid-air Uncontrolled Decompression

Thoughts? Clueless.explorer (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Clueless.explorer Per WP:AVINAME, titles of articles on aviation accidents and incidents involving airliners are usually the flight number, unless the flight did not have a number or multiple aircraft were involved in the accident. Usually, further disambiguation is not necessary per WP:OVERPRECISION. However, in the case of multiple accidents and incidents involving the same flight number (which is rare as flight numbers are usually retired after fatal accidents), further disambiguation may be required.

As of right now, there has been only one notable incident involving Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, so no further disambiguation is necessary. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The current title is fine. Local Variable (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't stand the naming convention, but it's the WP:CONS so I accept it, and therefore support the current article title. -- Rob.au (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I have some sympathy for it - with the recent Japan crash that I know you're aware of, there was debate about whether it should be labelled a collision, incursion, disaster, etc. The naming convention avoids that, and crashes are often summarised in reliable sources by reference to the flight name/number. Finally it makes using a bold title easier. Local Variable (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I appreciate the sentiment. It seems like the the title should include more from a lay-reader perspective. The pattern of using the flight number as the article title to the page about accidents is well established. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft . It has the benefit that the title can be quickly established and won't change as the first hours and days of information unfolds. I propose marking this section as {{Resolved | No change }} Dw31415 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: the new proposed name would be too long, "Alaska Airlines flight 1282" is enough, and like ZLEA, aviation incidents are usually flight numbers. The only example I can think of where that isn't the case is 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision, and that's only because JAL516 wasn't the only involved airplane. Hope this clears it up. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 17:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 Haneda Airport runway collision isn't the only such example. It is standard practice to not use flight numbers for accidents and incidents involving multiple aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: no need, as only one aircraft involved. Sometimes there's more than one, e.g. 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision, but fortunately far less common. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Debris search and phones found.

https://x.com/SeanSafyre/status/1744138937239822685?s=20 noteable enough to add I assume? Zachruff (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this X account is reliable per WP:RSPX, but if there are reliable sources covering it, then we can add it. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a WP:RS - a reliable source will take steps to validate the story, eg. in this case the email recipient's name is visible in the photo, so a media outlet would typically try to contact them and confirm if they were on the flight and lost their phone (and ask them if they really don't lock their phone! The auto-lock feature is on by default and needs a user to take intentional steps to disable it + not be using the phone to access email or services from any organisation that would prevent this setting for security reasons). It's possibly genuine but things like this is why the WP:RS policy exists. -- Rob.au (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

We've got an NTSB brief, which I think is WP:RS, so I've found a BusinessInsider article covering the press conference and added it; I'd prefer a direct link to the NTSB website, but they haven't published anything yet. There is a YouTube link but I'm not as comfortable citing video sources. Please feel free to update to a more primary source when possible. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The NTSB and FAA are, if I read correctly, not appropriate sources. It seems a little silly that we would need, say CNN, to validate a press release published at FAA.gov but that seems to be the policy. @Zachruff, please update here if you found an RS or would like further help. Dw31415 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think so? The NTSB and FAA sure seem WP:RS, so they should be fine to use. Gawaon (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

But I feel a lot more comfortable now a media outlet has done the work and verified the story, finding the guy whose phone it was and speaking to him. [18]

Flight Path Illustration

The illustration has a "Approximate Location of Depressurization" marked, however I'm not sure how this has been arrived at without sources, and it's shown later in the flightpath from where the NTSB stated it expected debris such as the door plug would probably be found. This doesn't make sense. The depressurisation must have occurred no later than the time of the door plug's separation and therefore cannot have occurred later in the flightpath. -- Rob.au (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaGuy768 created the image, perhaps they could provide some insight into this. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I used a ADS-B unfiltered data that was timestamped with FAA ATC Recordings. These are done to the second. Because it is a graphic, it introduces minor inaccuracies when an ADS-B Receiver network is trying to triangulate location/speed/altitude data. You don't make such "accurate" claims with an ongoing investigation and inaccurate claims would be irresponsible at this time. I will update once official information is available to substitute. As a pilot, I can that the NTSB will provide preliminary report in a few weeks, and the full report in a year or so. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the image, the location of where the panel was found is wrong - it was found north of highway 26.

I can't find a reference as to exactly where it was found, but there are news stories that it was found in the Hazel-Dell neighborhood, west of St Vincent's.

As noted in this story:

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2024/01/portland-teacher-bob-recounts-finding-alaska-airlines-door-in-yard.html

I assume no one wants to publicly list the finders address.

That puts it north of 26 and at or west of where 217 intersects with Barnes Rd (just west of St Vincent's) - somewhere near 45°30'58.7"N 122°46'41.1"W.

Not sure if you or anyone will update the image, but per this twitter post and the image on it:

https://twitter.com/SeanSafyre/status/1744138937239822685

I can tell that's right by St Vincents, and verified via satellite image and google street view that that cell phone was found at 45°30'44.9"N 122°46'48.3"W. Patrick.mansfield (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, You must account for wind change and high wind speeds of 75-100kts or more at high altitude and that items often fall further away from the "depressurization Point" along the path. This is very probable and was even mentioned by NTSB news conference. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to update the text in the image? The word "emergency" is misspelled. Home Lander (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I will fix. Thanks!! MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaGuy768 thanks for your work. In today's NTSB briefing they provided a readout of key FDR data, during which the cabin pressure drop and cabin altitude warning activation was recorded at 17:12:33. I believe this is the appropriate guide to correlate the accident location. FDR altitude at this moment was 14830ft, speed 271 knots (but not stated if this is IAS or GS). I'll add the key details to the article shortly (just watching the whole briefing first). -- Rob.au (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that. I will make reviews tomorrow. MediaGuy768 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Flight Path Info from flightaware https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA1282/history/20240106/0050Z/KPDX/KONT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.198.226.214 (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Incident vs Accident

I can see there's been a few edits back and forth. In the Jan 6 briefing (at 1:48 in this video: [19]), the NTSB very clearly stated that they are defining this as an accident and not an incident.

"Now we're here investigating an accident and yes we've now determined based on our definition of substantial damage that it is an accident not an incident..."

In all following statements/tweets/comments eg. [20][21] the NTSB uses the term "accident". Unless they walk this back, we should be using their assessment. -- Rob.au (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The international definition of accident vs. incident comes down to if “the aircraft sustains significant damage.” If the NTSB believes that the damage to N704AL meets that definition, who are we to argue? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I must say, I am surprised by the NTSB's classification of this as an accident. I had assumed that a door-shaped plug becoming detached would be considered relatively minor from a structural standpoint. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the Annex 13 definition correctly, it states "the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which: adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component". To me this clearly fits (it doesn't need to be structural damage), but ultimately it's the NTSB's call. Rob.au (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Also matches definition On the aviation accident article Dw31415 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Was it really a plug door?

Resolved

 – Consensus to keep door plug

Please consider an edit of the article, eliminating the word "plug." A "plug door" is a specific engineering term of art. It means a door that will be held in place by cabin pressure, even if all latches fail. A plug door has to be brought into the aircraft to be removed.

This was a door that had an outward swing and required a latching system to remain in place. 1peterk (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This wasn’t a plug door, it was a door plug. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you suggest any primary sources or search hints to find find that used in engineering practice? Dw31415 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Description of a plug door:

plug_door — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1peterk (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

1peterk Technically you're right, but I disagree with your proposal. As you said, the part that detached from the aircraft was not a "plug door", but it was not a functioning door in the first place. A better term would be "door plug" or simply "plug", as it was a plug that filled the gap where an emergency exit door would be. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been bothering me but I'm not sure how to approach it. To me, these fillers do not meet the plain English definition of door and they do not meet the plain English definition of plug. Like actual plug doors and as 1peterk has outlined, a plug should form a natural failsafe - if any bolts or retention mechanisms fail in flight, the pressure differential should make it inherently impossible for the door to open, because of the inherent shape of a plug/stopper. The difficulty arises because it appears the technical term assigned to it is "plug" or "door plug", but it doesn't sit well with me at all. -- Rob.au (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The difference between "plug door" and "door plug" is only word order. This leaves significant risk of confusing the two. Shortening to "plug" leaves open confusion if "plug door" is meant. Makes me think of KLM Tenerife being confused when they heard "takeoff." 1peterk (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the NTSB has said the correct terms are "plug" or "door plug". We know it is definitely not to be called either a "door" or "plug door" (also per NTSB). But like I said, this leaves a quandary. Boeing and/or the NTSB should be authoritative sources on what to call the part. They are wanting to call it a plug. Yet, it just absolutely isn't a plug in form. — Rob.au (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Rob.au (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Door plug" is a perfectly reasonable term to use. Technically, it's a "semi-plug" - of which there are several sorts, all of which have in common the characteristic that they use the geometry of the door, when in a specific orientation, to transfer the pressurisation loads from the door to the fuselage while physically preventing it opening. Semi-plug doors of various types are nothing new, having been used in the industry for many decades. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Add the FAA to the list of organisations whose terminology we are disagreeing with - "door plug" is how they describe the offending item in the Emergency AD. By all means explain in the article the difference between the meaning of the various terms that use one or more of those words, but arguing about generally-accepted industry definitions is pointless. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The current plug door article lacks citations. I’m searching for a primary source using the term “plug door” rn Dw31415 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The use of “door plug” has really been bothering me as well. I doubt a plug door has ever failed in this manner. I agree that it should remain “door plug” for now unless and until a credible source questions the term. Possibly a sentence, could be added “The door plug on the 737 should not be confused with a plug door (with link)” dw31415 — Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to be confused with either a plug door or a Stopper (plug) (the other article people keep linking to alternatively) because it's now comprehensibly clear that it is neither of those things. The stop pads definitely do not make it a plug. A plug door literally cannot fail in this manner, at least not without significant structural failure. It can have all of its retention mechanisms fail while the aircraft is pressurised and it cannot open. In this case this "filler panel" opens outwards. It just had to shimmy out of position to move off the stop pads and it was gone, cleanly.

We are absolutely stuck with both "door plug" and "plug" since both Boeing and the NTSB have called it this, but I agree, it's definitely appropriate to explain that despite the name, it is not actually either a "plug door" or even a "plug". It for sure has to be supported by WP:RS and can't be WP:OR, but I think we will get there. Rob.au (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. Well put. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, did you see the headline cited in the plug door page?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/05/28/relax-passengers-aircraft-doors-cant-open-in-flight/ Dw31415 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"So while the Alaska Airline passengers may have heard an ominous hissing sound of some air escaping when the door seal was apparently broken, there was no actual danger of the aircraft door being opened." lol! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I just reviewed about 20 drawings of the Apollo command module. All of them use “hatch”. I don’t think this article should link to door plug until that can be approved.

Disclaimer: I have a mechanical engineering degree but vehicle structural components was not my specialty and I never practiced in that area Dw31415 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Seesh. Dw, forget Wiki... Artemis needs you! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The NTSB posted a diagram from Boeing showing "mid-cabin door plug and components" on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1744202059870831016. In my opinion, this should put this to rest. Boeing calls it a door plug. The NTSB calls it a door plug. Even if *we* as Wikipedia editors think or don't think it should be called a door plug, a plug door, a door, a plug, or a hatch... that's the official name and what we should be using. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. “Door Plug” it is unless/until some reliable source uses different terminology. Dw31415 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally something that makes sense. Boeing CEO just called it a fuselage plug. Also the FAA just used quotes when referring to it as a plug in their letter requesting evidence from Boeing.

youtu.be/ qVv62o9NR_I?si=uFbazo38lTyZgcR1 Dw31415 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As per my earlier comments - the article has to use door plug because of the fact that Boeing has been calling it this, and the NTSB has followed suit. However in a Wikipedia article explaining this accident it is both necessary and appropriate to describe the nature of the accident. The issue is not "put to rest" because we are facing the problem that the accurate name of the part in question is not validly descriptive of the part in attempting to explain its form and function, and the fact that it isn't is fundamental to the explanation of what did and did not happen (not the fact of mis-description per se, the fact of what this part is and isn't). If Boeing had called the part a "door lollipop" then we would include that in the article and would then describe what a "door lollipop" was.

The NTSB has stated clearly in one of their briefings that the part is not a door (which doesn't appear to be controversial - the part in this case is not designed for ingress and egress and does not enable this even when opened for maintenance in the usual manner, and certainly never in service with the cabin sidewall in place). The consternation is that the part is also clearly not a plug and particular confusion is created because such openings on aircraft have typically been plug doors, when this part is very much not this. In the immediate aftermath some people picked up on the term "plug-type door", which apparently is a description in Boeing's technical documentation, which is increasingly coming into dispute. [22] is a good example of someone who appears to have domain expertise (albeit I'm not confident if it meets the necessary standard of WP:RS) who is stating that it is not in fact a plug. The explanation of fact is necessary to describe the accident, which saw this panel ejected cleanly from the aircraft, with no noted damage to the surrounding structure, which simply would have been impossible if it was a plug. I'm not sure if this is worth arguing about to be honest though. When it's supported by WP:RS, this will in time become part of the article. Rob.au (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only Boeing, but also Airbus describe this type of door as a plug: "The aircraft has four plug-type doors that open outward and forward" [A320 FCOM]. The A320 family has been flying with those for almost 40 years now. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Airbus is describing a different part, the actual doors. I wonder if Airbus also uses similar fuselage plugs I did a quick search for 'Airbus "door plug"' but can't find anything.

https://www.theautopian.com/heres-how-plug-doors-and-door-plugs-keep-you-from-blowing-out-of-a-plane/ Dw31415 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't pick up on it correctly earlier, but Dave has pointed out a couple of times that Airbus do use passenger doors based on using a series of stops that the door is lifted up and over before it can swing open. The article you've linked to here has a video that shows the operation of an A321 door with coverings removed to show it moving up and over the stop pads, just as the 737-9 door plug does, even though their opening mechanisms and functionality are quite different. I also came across this discussion: [23] (note - not WP:RS) which I'd read in context but post #19 gets down to it and lays out three types - plug, semi-plug and non-plug. In that convention, what we're looking at here would fall under semi-plug (just as Dave observed in an earlier comment), along with regular passenger doors on the Airbus family as well as the Boeing 777. It looks like confusion over not just naming convention for these things but also where they have been used has rolled around for years and that they are actually far more prevalent than many of us realised. I'm really kind of shocked that semi-plug (sticking with that nomenclature for sake of discussion) has been around so extensively and yet is so poorly understood. It's clearly a topic area that should be better covered in Wikipedia (probably by expanding the plug door article), but we're hampered by the lack of WP:RS we've confronted in this discussion.

Anyway as per consensus "door plug" nomenclature is not going anywhere in this article, it's more looking at how (and indeed where) these things are appropriately explained. Rob.au (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rob.au. Well said. Maybe you @DaveReidUK and I can come to a consensus on where to take the content and discussion. My initial thought is that we should rename the plug door article to something like plug-type doors. And it would be best to move the discussion there. Thoughts? Dw31415 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have any view on the plug door article, because I haven’t read it (though I will now). My experience tells me that the only true “plug” door, i.e. one that can’t physically pass through its opening in any orientation, is a circular one (like a bathplug) – not a common sight on an aircraft. If we constrain the door such that it can’t be rotated about a horizontal axis, which is reasonable, then doors that open inwards and cannot normally be pushed or pulled outside the aircraft (Boeing 767, TriStar, etc) can be legitimately be called plug doors.

Anything else is either a semi-plug door, using geometry to physically prevent the door from opening until it has translated or rotated, or it isn’t a plug of any type, relying purely on locks to stop it opening. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a plug in the sense that it plugs the opening where otherwise a door would be installed. So it makes sense to call it thus. Plus it's evidently a standard aviation term, so who would we be to dispute it? Gawaon (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think, if this discussion demonstrates anything, it's that "plug" is far from being a "standard aviation term", in the sense of one whose meaning everyone agrees on  :-)

Interestingly, FARs (14 CFR) don't use the term "plug" at all in the context of doors, instead preferring to distinguish in the regulations between "doors for which the initial opening movement is inwards" and those that open directly outwards (as many cargo doors do).

By that token, the 737-9 door plug and all the aforementioned Airbus doors qualify as the former. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Some planes have "plug doors" at the aft end of the passenger compartment. I think Boeing introduced "door plug" to refer to this panel. I'd be keen to learn if that term was used prior to the 737. Dw31415 (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The first use I can recall of the term "door plug" (sometimes rendered as "door/plug") was the similar installation on the 737-900ER. While doors have been commonly plugged in the past, notably on other Boeing types going back to the 707, the term seems a recent invention. Why does that matter? DaveReidUK (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter if Boeing recently introduced "door plug"? As additional information comes out on the design of the 737 plugs, I think it will guide whether there will be a dedicated article to the plug (just as how there is a dedicated page for the MCAS System). I think that's premature to create Boeing 737 Door Plug, but the earlier that such a page could have a good name, the better (other options being Boeing Door Plug, Airplane Door Plug, Fuselage Door Plug).

Again I agree that this article must contain Door Plug. Thank you for your comments. Dw31415 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The article must contain the term "door plug" because that's what the NTSB called it and as it appeared on drawings shared with the media. I'm interest to see if Boeing continues the shift to "fuselage plug" as the CEO used in a Bloomberg interview. Dw31415 (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a bizarre, and almost certainly a one-off, mis-use of the term "fuselage plug".

Boeing has more reason than any other manufacturer to know that a fuselage plug is the term used to describe the means by which airliners are "stretched" (i.e. lengthened to provide more capacity). The plug is the additional section (or, more usually, two sections) that are inserted into the existing fuselage, typically one forward and one aft of the wing in order to avoid disturbing the centre of gravity.

Don't expect to see that term in widespread use in any other context. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Alaska Flight 1282 uses 'door plug' throughout, not 'plug door', because it isn't one. A 'door plug' just fills a hole where a door would be if installed. A 'plug door' is kept in place by the pressure, like a bath plug. The 737 door plugs are fitted from the outside by engaging the bottom edge, swinging inwards, dropping down to engage with 12 stoppers, then bolted twice near the top to prevent it from sliding upwards and out. It actually falls outwards once the restraining bolts are removed and it then shifts up, then there is nothing to stop it from blowing out. The plug even has two light guage wire stays near the top to prevent it accidentally falling outwards and off the plane when handling it during maintenance. A 'plug door' would have stayed in place even without the bolts, this distinction is the key point in the plug loss. Flighradar24 has detailed diagrams of how the plug is fitted and how it detached. Note that the door plug will stay in place without any of the bolts in place and will only blow out when it is lifted above the stoppers. Because there is no actual door, just a space for one, 'fuselage plug' is probably a wise choice to describe it. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) A bath pug?! Ah yes, when it's unplugged, things get "sucked down the plughole", don't they. Or at least, they would if there was any suction force in physics...

To clarify, when I said don't expect to see "fuselage plug" in widespread use in any other context than aircraft stretches, I wasn't including use by Wikipedia editors. If anyone can point to examples of such other usage (apart from by the Boeing CEO), please feel free to cite them. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Move door comparison photo

Resolved

 – Photo Moved

Photo comparison of MAX 9 with or without the door / plug is currently in the Aftermath section. Can this be moved to the Aircraft section where there is already some info on door requirement based on seating density? Seems more appropriate to place the comparison photos there. Clueless.explorer (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and support that edit. Dw31415 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done RickyCourtney (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Add FAA letter?

Resolved

 – Mention of notice added

How much detail should be added from the recent FAA letter.

Maybe: On January 10, the FAA notified Boeing it is under investigation for failing to ensure that its completed products matched the approved design.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/EIR2024NM420001_737MAX9.pdf

(I only have my phone so happy if someone else adds this) Dw31415 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We should wait until secondary sources report on this letter, but your proposed sentence or perhaps just "The FAA notified Boeing of alleged noncompliance with quality requirements" would be sufficient detail. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now added a sentence along these lines, based on a report by a secondary source. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dw31415 @Rosbif73 @RickyCourtney @Archer Serious question for you all from someone less familiar with Wikipedia policy and the rationale of those policies. For example, with respect to the Jan 21, 2024 output from the FAA, which the FAA published on their website, and which has a document published on their website, why is this not sufficient primary source, with no need to footnote others [34] [35] who parrot back the same information???? Makes no sense to me. QualityMattersJoe (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@QualityMattersJoe, I share your question about this policy. I think what you may have experienced and what @Rosbif73 guides is that primary sources should be avoided altogether. Checking the policy now, I see it is more nuanced:

"Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source."

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully

I read that to mean that adding the FAA letter directly would have been appropriate. Thanks for poking on this. Dw31415 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Door plug diagram

I added an inline link to the NTSB's Twitter account for a diagram of the door plug [24], which was reverted by User:Archer1234: [25]

Per the NTSB, the diagram image was obtained from Boeing. So the question is, instead of linking to the Twitter post, can I just upload the diagram image? Per Wikipedia policy and usage, federal government content is public domain. But what about in this case where the federal government publishes an image created by a private company? (Albeit in the course of an official investigation...)

Wl219 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

From what it sounds like, it is probably a copyrighted Boeing image that was used with permission by the NTSB. If this is the case, then it would not be acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. It may, however, be able to be used under WP:FAIRUSE if no free alternative can be found. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

An option might be to use Template:External media to add the link to that image. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the image doesn’t belong on this article. I do support the external media approach using twitters link. I notice that The NY Times made their own diagram and cited Boeing and NTSB as sources Dw31415 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Investigations vs Regulation

Although there is some overlap, the PRIMARY roles of the NTSB and the FAA are distinct. I recommend a separate header for the FAA aspect. I recommend also external links as follows:

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft (this is the FAA's primary webpage reporting out their actions and directives)

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/18/2024-00993/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes (this is the FAA's rule making on Jan 18, 2024, essentially turning the FAA emergency airworthiness directive into an airworthiness directive;) QualityMattersJoe (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Visible Damage to Recovered Door Plug

I recommend a heading to focus on this critical aspect, as well as to put the external image link on the right side box.

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1746624869163241612# ( this is the specific post of the recovered door plug on the official "@NTSB_Newsroom" twitter/X account, this twitter account is displayed at the bottom of the NTSB.gov website; this post is of the recovered door plug being unwrapped at NTSB material lab and has a good image of the internal side of the recovered door)

Suggest the following text:

The NTSB posted an image on Twitter/X of their staff unpacking the recovered door plug on Sunday, January 14, 2024, in the materials lab at the NTSB. Annotated arrows are visible on the frame indicating FWD (forward) and UP directions relative to the door plug's original location on the aircraft. Visible apparent damage to the door plug includes: some separation of the skin from the frame at both upper corners; fractured roller pin guide fitting at the upper aft/left corner of the frame; missing hinge guide fittings at the both lower corners of the frame; bending along both the lower corners of the frame in the vicinity of the hinge guide fitting attachment locations; missing top to the stop pins in the two lower aft/left locations.

QualityMattersJoe (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks to me like original research. This analysis should come from a published reliable source, no?  — Archer (t·c) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I removed it therefore. If an WP:RS writes about it (and explains why and how it's relevant), that would be something else. Gawaon (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly object. You action is unfounded. Please return the text you deleted. Here is the justification: 1. the reference is to an image published by the NTSB, a reliable source; the text comments on what is visible in this picture; this is no different than any other comment on images, such as others in this same article explaining one image of a 737 with a door plug and another with an emergency exit. Is it Wikipedia policy that text cannot comment on visible aspects of image content? this IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. QualityMattersJoe (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The NTSB image is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY (part of the "No original research" policy) tells us that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation and A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Your description is an interpretation of that image that has made use of specialised knowledge – and is thus considered as original research unless backed by a reliable secondary source. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My description of the image is not an interpretation made using specialized knowledge, it is simply observing the differences between this NTSB provided image and other images of the door plug inplace. Any human with a brain can do this, no specialized knowledge required, simply paying attention to the information and observing. How about it Wikipedia community. Can I get some help here? QualityMattersJoe (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing is the definition of original research...

"Original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."

To be be more clear... what you're describing is an observational analysis of two images to reach or imply something that's not stated by a reliable source.

Patience is key on Wikipedia. We're not writing a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We wait for published, reliable sources, even when we may be able to do that analysis or synthesis ourselves. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney - you state "... that reaches or implies a conclusion ..."; again, I disagree. I am not reaching or implying any conclusion, only noting what is visible in the images. Case in point - by your logic, the comment under the image at the top right of the article reaches at least five conclusions, thus the comment should be stricken in its entirety: 1) that the image is an aircraft 2) that it is after the accident 3) that the door plug is missing 4) that there is a hole in the fuselage 5) that said hole is covered in plastic sheeting. Where are the footnotes to the published reliable sources that support these five conclusions for this image? QualityMattersJoe (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But in so far as you don't reach any conclusion, your paragraph is also useless – what's its point if there is none (no conclusion)? That's why I wrote above that an RS would not only need to write about these observations, but also "explain[] why and how [they're] relevant". In so far as their relevance it not explained, the whole material doesn't belong here. But explaining it would inevitably be OR, so we can't do it. Gawaon (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The best part about NTSB images is they're public domain, so we don't have to link to them, we can *show* them. Beacuse we can show them, we can allow our audience to view them and make their own conclusions about what they see. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RickyCourtney, Thank you for editing the "unpackaging" image. Do you know why it is no longer shown? QualityMattersJoe (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The image is on the page. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney This is a late reply - sorry. (Maybe you know this stuff, but others here might not.) I think it's important to note that not all images in NTSB reports are public domain. Appearing in a public domain document doesn't in itself make it an image in the public domain. Sometimes you'll find reports with a bunch of photos "courtesy of" someone, or with a copyright printed next to them. These are sometimes press photos, sometimes bystander photos, possibly photos taken by local authorities, and images or photos created by contractors. Those are not photos taken by federal employees taken in the course of doing their jobs, so they're not part of the blanket US government public domain category, and the notice of credit or copyright on or near the image indicates that the original owner has not given up their copyright. We can only use such images with a Fair Use justification, and only here on WP (not Wikimedia Commons), unless 1) the copyright owner has released the image into the public domain or an accepted CC license, or 2) the image has lapsed into the public domain.

It can be an issue with AAIB reports too, though much less often. I got into a bit of trouble at the Wikimedia Commons when I uploaded an image from an accident report that had been taken by the police, which are exempt from the UK's Open Govt License. We used the image in the article, but it had to be done here in WP only, and at reduced quality under a Fair Use justification. Dcs002 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

External Links

I recommend some additions to the external links, each has particular relevance, value, perspective on this accident, and for the first two, official standing with the NTSB as partners in the investigation:

https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates/index.page (Boeing's official page for this accident)

https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/operations/as-1282/ (Alaska Air's official page for this accident)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FcyvFfHsjQ (this is an incredibly informative and authoritative youtube from Boeing 737 pilot Chris Brady, and deserving of reference here; Chris provides many technical details and a pilots viewpoint; please view this youtube before thinking of reasons to exclude it, because after you do, I suspect you may find yourself looking for reasons or an approach to allow it to be included.) QualityMattersJoe (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The official Boeing and Alaska pages for the accident are probably acceptable. But however informative Chris Brady's video is, it remains a user-submitted video and still needs to meet the general guideline for external links. Unless the author is a recognized authority in his field, which doesn't seem to be the case, it ought to be removed from the page.

Similarly, most of the NTSB video clips ought to be removed, leaving just the official NTSB page for the accident. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the Chris Brady video is an inappropiate link. I moved the NTSB clips into a smaller external media box. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Similar accidents and incidents

Is the current listing of “Similar accidents and incidents” in the “See also” section excessive? Is it necessary? RickyCourtney (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I consider it useful and not excessive. These similar accidents would be essentially impossible to find it it were absent. Gawaon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

However their presence in the article is dependent on a rather vague notion of similarity. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessive, but I also think the list isn't exactly similar in that the 4 incidents listed (AA96, EIA17, TK981, UA811) all involve cargo doors which are a fundamentally different design than door plugs. See the Aircraft section of Plug door. In looking at the "notable accidents" section of Uncontrolled decompression, it seems like Pan Am 201 and AR737 involving locking mechanism failures of passenger doors are more similar to AS1282. Wl219 (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

AAR Corp

The page mentions… From November 27 to December 7, the aircraft was under modification by AAR Corp at a facility in Oklahoma City to install a wi-fi antenna atop the rear fuselage, in the vicinity of the door plugs. On January 8, the company issued a statement denying that it had performed any work involving the plugs themselves.

According to Reuters they made this statement after their stock fell because a lone financial analyst at Deutsche Bank speculated they may have removed the door because of some videos they saw. This appears to have never been seriously considered as a contributing factor to this accident, save for by this lone misinformed analyst. My concern is that including it here feels like it only perpetuates the unnecessary accusations against the company. However, if we do feel strongly that it should remain, the statement from AAR should be placed in a more complete context, including saying that the statement was made in response to speculation by a Deutsche Bank analyst. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest rewriting the sentence to say:

''From November 27 to December 7, the aircraft was under modification by AAR Corp at a facility in Oklahoma City to install a wi-fi antenna atop the rear fuselage, in the vicinity of the door plugs, leading to minor speculation that this work contributed to the accident.''

And then link to the refs saying that this speculation was unfounded and attributed to a single analyst. Wl219 (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Flight data

Flight data section states: 5:13:56 PM – Autopilot selected altitude changes from 23,000 to 10,000 feet (7,010 to 3,048 m) The flight was at no point at 23,000'. Do we assume that the autopilot was merely reset from 23,000' to 10,000'? So: 5:13:56 PM – Autopilot altitude selection reset from 23,000 to 10,000 feet (7,010 to 3,048 m) Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It was still climbing to 23,000 when the AP target datum was changed? (p.s. really not sure of the usefulness of the converts in this case) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we need to assume anything - during the course of any flight the selected altitude will change at several points. Whether we term that "merely reset" or not is immaterial. DaveReidUK (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous Whistleblower report

Should this be included? It's been reported at news sites, e.g. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-not-spirit-mis-installed-piece-that-blew-off-alaska-max-9-jet/ Here's the original source of the infamous comment https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 Wqwt (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Original report seems 100% believable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is no, though I can't cite a policy or guideline. It's a single person, and that person is anonymous. While that's newsworthy, I don't think it's encyclopedic (or verified as noteworthy). I think it will become encyclopedic if/when the story is corroborated or confirmed, or if the identity of the person making the claims is made public and verified as reliable. (I don't think believable is enough because it's so subjective.) I think the Seattle Times is an excellent source, but so far the story from them feels more like news than encyclopedia content.

At risk of straying near OR, I would also add that the "whistleblower" addressed specifically what happened with the accident aircraft but not all the others with loose bolts. That still needs explaining, and it limits the value of what the person has to say regarding this article. Dcs002 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We (along with the world's media) are primarily interested only in the accident aircraft? The identity of the whistleblower may never be revealed. I tend to agree that it should not be added unless it's taken up by multiple other RS media sources. But even then it's not a good idea to pre-judge what the official report will say. There shouldn't be an explicit "cause" given in the infobox until that happens? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no policy or guideline that would prevent us repeating the whistleblower's allegations as reported by reliable sources, provided that we attribute them appropriately, not making any claims in wikivoice. The question is whether it is noteworthy, and I tend to agree that it's a bit early for that. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the NTSB preliminary report is now largely consistent with these claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Accident?

The current wiki facing the public calls this an "accident" and has a section with that as the header. Is this more correctly called an "incident"? There was no crash, no collision, no serious injuries, nothing that most would consider an accident. It seems to me that "incident" is a more correct word to use here. Ziggy29 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Per U.S. regulations, accident includes occurrences in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

NTSB determined that this occurrence resulted in "substantial damage". From the preliminary report [26].

The separation of the MED plug from the airplane adversely affected the pressurization performance of the airplane and the damage to the MED plug adversely affected its structural strength, requiring replacement of the MED plug, resulting in a classification of substantial damage in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 830.

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 02:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

However, I think the OP makes a good point. If most secondary reliable sources do not refer to this as an accident, but as an incident (e.g., see this report from Reuters that refers to it as an incident) or perhaps using another term (some just refer to it as a blowout without using incident or accident), then it might be reasonable (subject to consensus, of course) to use incident, but note that, according to U.S. regulations, NTSB has classified it as an accident. If anyone feels strongly enough that using incident would be better, then a comprehensive survey of the secondary sources would be helpful to find out which term(s) are most often used.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 04:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Per ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 1: Definitions, what happened clearly satisfies the definition of "Accident". DaveReidUK (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is pretty clear cut: the NTSB calls this an accident and they’re the experts. I remember being surprised when they classified it as an accident and not an incident, but clearly something about the severity of the damage led them to make that determination. RickyCourtney (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The NTSB, unsurprisingly, conforms with Part 830, which in turn echoes the definitions in ICAO Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation (Annex 13). An accident is defined as "An occurrence ... in which the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component". I really don't see how anyone can argue that the above doesn't apply here. DaveReidUK (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)