Talk:List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War

Aircraft Survived

I wonder if we could get a list or a percentage of aircraft that have survived attacks by the opposition in Iraq. It would be an interesting comparison to see the aircraft that have defeated IR or Radar guided missile, by using countermeasures. We have a great list of all the aircraft that been blasted out of the sky, it might be a good thing to show the optimistic side of aircraft in war.ANigg 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

soviet-afghan war?

Is the rate higher than in the soviet-afghan war? Check this. It would be good to have List of Soviet aircraft crashes in Afghanistan. Parallels could be made.--TheFEARgod 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you start the article i will help you......But i cant start the article because iam not amember and i cant get membership becuse i log in from different computers.

See new article List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Afghanistan--TheFEARgod 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

crashes vs. hard landings

The list seems to be inconsistent as to the degree of damage sustained by an aircraft. Photos suggest that some of the incidents resulted in rather limited damage to the aircraft.

To be in accordance with the definition set out in the article, one would need the information in which cases AC was written off. (Still recent gross numbers of US helicopter losses in OIF and OEF would indicate that number of AC written off is even higher than the number of events listed on this site).

Page move

I suggest moving the page to List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq, since "crash" makes it sound like none of them were shot down...or destroyed in a ground fire. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'll the second the name change on this one. The new title would be more appropriate and accurate.--Looper5920 11:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• the proposed title appears also to me more correct. it might be worth considering to replace IRAQ by OIF as well. m. 02/03/07

references

the references have become over-abundant. for each incident we should find one or two references which contaim all the information. m. 02/10/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.95.65.72 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Just a quick question

Is this a complete list, and how often is it updated? As of March 4 2007, Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA334243.htm) claims that there were 8 helicopters shot down with loss of 28 people, sinsce January 20th, but I only count five shootdowns causeing 11 casuilties in the article. Maxim K 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually saw that Reuters article myself yesterday, and realised it is "misleading", they are including the Blackwater USA helicopter losses as US military losses, whereas Blackwater is a mercenary organization over there. They also used the term "shot down" even to describe helicopters that "crash-landed due to enemy contact" and such. The problem is on Reuters' end with accuracy, not ours. You'll see the Blackwater helicopter listed at the bottom under "Other", on this article. I'm personally not sure whether we should include non-military events in the main body or not. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. I guess whether or not the Blackwater Helicopters should be included depnds on whether or not they are part of the "Coalition", on one hand they are allied but are not really a state. Maxim K 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Mercs?

Why are we losing the Blackwater birds & one of the most famous shoot downs the Bulgarian Mi-8.??? ANigg 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CHeck the bottom of the article, non-national losses are listed separately, they're still there :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sherucuj: for many years this site was managed by argument and consensus, and we have never had revert-undo know battles. It would be nice if we could keep this tradition.

1. The piece of news claiming that the Kiowa was shot down is not credidbe. First, it never states where this claim comes from, second it appears nowhere else. It must appear thus that its an editing error. (Why dont you ask them and ask for the source of that information?) I could show you many instances of news pieces regarding helis (e.g. from Xinhua) which just mix up dates etc.

2. we could start to list call signs of downed helis, but what is the value of that? why might anyone be interested? m.

Same reason we say the USS Arizona sank, not "a warship", or "Zidane Bukhari, an interior minister of Iran, said...", not "Somebody in Iran's government said..." - no matter how inconsequential the name, if we are referencing the object, we should reference its name. I am not claiming that the Kiowa was shot down - I am pointing out that there are two stories out there, that is more than fair. I am reverting it to include the callsign, and the Xinhua reference - if you wish to remove these "reasonably includable" facts, feel free to open an RfC or poll. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, this link has the actual pilot of the craft saying that it wasn't a mechanical error, but an electronic one. So we now have four factors to consider, Iraqi news says it shot down, US Army says mechanical failures, pilot says electronic, and witnesses say tangled in wires (which could conceivably still happen after any of the other three). I think this definitely warrants at least mentioning that there's some debate about what exactly caused the helicopter to go down. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

sherucij: I believe you are making a mess out of this site, but I simply dont have the time to follow all that. congratulations, I leave. m.

Yes, I've added a dozen references, two ((fact)) tags and clarified stories where we before just said "A Black Hawk Helicopter crashed in Baghdad", truly I'm making a terrible mess of the place. Ah well, at least have the dignity to keep your word and remain gone, after trolling :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

List accuracy?

I'm noticing that some of the numbers on the summary lists on the bottom do not always match with the numbers of helicopters lost at the top of the page. Is everyone making sure to update the lists whenever we post a new loss? Hoboron 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok i will check it now. Miguel

• April 26, 2007 - A private security firm's helicopter is shot down north of Baghdad, killing five American security forces and six other passengers.

I was the one to add this, but I'm now removing it because while the site claims to have been posted two days ago, the casualties, location and ratio of forces/others exactly match the Thursday, April 22 crash of this, already listed, so methinks a "blog" editor got his facts wrong. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft accidents = Losses??

It might be a better list if we just record the aircraft actually shot down, as opposed to the ones that have been lost due to mechanical failure or brown out situation, etc.. I know some of you think that they are all meaningful to the list, but keep in mind that non-hostile accidents could happen anywhere, on any training exercise, and any aircraft. I mean come on thses ex: April 1, 2003 - F-14A Tomcat 158620 'NF-104' of VFA-154 crashes; the pilots survive. April 1, 2003 - AV-8B+(R) Harrier 165391 of HMM-263 crashes off USS Nassau; the pilot was rescued. April 1, 2003 - S-3A Viking 160584 of VS-38 crashes off USS Constellation; two pilots survive. These have no source to back them up. We don't even know if was war related. Their not even in the battle space, over Iraq ANigg 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The list records all the cases counting separately hostile and non-hostile causes. I don't see any reason to change that. Many accidents happen because any aircrafts fly over the country for military operations. How many military aircrafts crashed over the USA the last years? I think less. These accidents in Iraq are heavily connected with the invasion. -- Magioladitis 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

With what proof? Theres no media source for those 3 fixed wing incidents. I take a qutoe from your briefing "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" which no one has provided. Oh yes if you have a opportunity to look at the August edition of Air Forces Monthly on pages 74 & 75 you can see the Mexican AF had 14 accidents in the year of 1996. I'm sure the US has just about the same or close to the same number of accidents. There needs to be restaint on putting every non-hostile incident on this list. ANigg 09:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be "restraint". I've added sources to the above three questioned crashes, from a link provided at the "external links" at the bottom of the page. The non-hostile crashes are important because they occurred in the theatre of battle, and the U.S. military considers them losses of war; plus, if anyone dies in a non-hostile crash, they are considered casualties of war, so why can't the aircraft be classified as such? The aim of this page is to document the aircraft losses of the U.S. in Iraq for historical reference. As far as I can tell, no other page has a list as thorough as this one, because the military has yet to release such a list. So yes, we must include the non-hostile crashes. If there is any confusion about a crash and its source, it helps to look up the tail number given for most aircraft (such as AV-8B+(R) Harrier 165391, a detail provided by an editor a few years ago. PBP 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets keep one thing in mind here it "List of COALITION Aircraft" not just the US Military so you argument has to consider the United kingdom, Poland & even Private contractors. And an incident in the Persian Gulf of lets say a AV-8B+(R) Harrier trying to land on a (LHD-1)& crashes, doesn't say whole lot about "A true aircraft lost due to conflict" now dose it?ANigg 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ANigg, one thing you could do is to present a comparison between aircrafts losses in Iraq and the US at the same period (since the US invasion to Iraq till today). That would be interesting. Friendly, Magioladitis 07:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

all aircraft taking part of a conflict and crashing during that are considered losses in that conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

About the title of the article and its content

This is article about Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq. As I can understand, aircraft is lost when it is totally destroyed or written-off. When helicopter is shot down/crashed and crew killed, it's clear. But here we have HH-60 which made “a forced landing” on August 10, 2007. Was it destroyed, was it written-off or was it repaired? We don’t know. On August 5, 2004, UH-1 was shot down near Najaf, crew wounded; during Vietnam war, approximately one half of all downed helicopters were taken back to base and repaired. In this case, we again don’t know if this chopper crashed and burned, or if it made a hard landing with pretty minor damage. On October 13, 2003, OH-58 crashed inside Iraq, but pilots survive. What was the extent of damage to this chopper? Was it destroyed, written-off or repaired? We just don’t know! And there are many many many similar cases. So, why all this helicopters are listed as lost, and why they are included in total statistics?

By the way, there are many helicopters which really were written-off because of some damage without any declaration in news or Pentagon releases. 195.248.189.182 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Check the list below. This helicopter of August 10, 2007 is not reported in the losses. (The 2004 is reported and I' not sure for the 2003 case). The article writes clearly "at least 108 helicopters..." and this one is not included in the tables at the bottom of the page.

So, what you suggest is that we have to write that the list reports all the choppers: destroyed, written-off or shot down. I think we can write that. I think the first paragraph needs an improvement -- Magioladitis 10:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... This list "includes helicopters as well as fixed-wing aircraft and only those crashes that resulted in the aircraft being destroyed or written off." So, if HH-60 (Aug 10 2007) is absent from total statistics and probably wasn't lost, I suggest it must be removed from the list.

What I'm trying to say is that in this list we probably have several (I don't know how many, of course) helicopters which weren't destroyed or written-off. To be more correct, there is a number of helicopters with too little information about circumstances of loss. Example: January 13 2004 - AH-64 Apache from 4-3 CAV shot down near Habbaniyah, pilots rescued. I remember seeing footage of this helo on TV, it was pretty undamaged and certainly not burned out. It seemed to be repairable. We have no good evidence to suggest it was really written-off (and we even don't know its serial number to check). I think it would be better to put all such cases separatly from "sure losses" and to remake statistics accordingly. 195.248.189.182 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this page does not present the available information consistently. I have been following the page for years, and I believe the source of the inconsistencies are different people coming and going over time. There was a time when cases in which the degree of damage of the aircraft was not clear were removed by peer ref. At other times nobody stopped including dubious cases. On the other hand, just recently there was as an Apache brought down south of Baghdad and the was a heli hard-landing near Sammara yesterday (among great many other incidents presumably involving some degree of damage to aircrafts) which correctly do NOT appear on the list because the public does not exactly know what happened. Yet many of the helis listed on this page DO belong to that category. In the end, is it perhaps worthwhile to keep all the information to be able to check once the war is over. But the last user is certainly right that the information as it is presented now is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.65.71 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to rename the page in order or record ALL US (and coalition forces) loses/failures/accidents/disasters/etc. Two reporters have used this article to present information to the public. I think the information here is valuable. I reverted some edits today. The things that triggered me was that someone tried to remove a mid-air coalition of 2 helicopters. If this is not a lost, what is it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please suggest an appropriate title change? We can also make more clear reports on each incident. Just deleting entries sometimes without even giving an explanation or not using the Talk page is not very nice. I think we have to request a third opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate name is Aviation accidents and incidents in Iraq. I'll be glad to hear opinions about that. Magioladitis 09:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with renaming (Aviation accidents and incidents in the Iraq war?), though current name is somewhat famous already. Maybe we should have different sections on aircraft lost and aircraft with unknown/questionable status to avoid any misunderstandings.

About British Pumas collision in April, of course, both helicopters probably were destroyed. But it’s pretty strange that there were just two killed, and they were SAS (so passengers, not crew)… Don’t know. As I’ve said, there are many cases when we have only short official press-release (like “helicopter made forced landing”, “helicopters collided”), and it’s really hard to find out what happened.

This list is really important because we don’t have any good official data on helicopter losses (which is very strange, is it top secret information or what?!). Sorry I can’t help much, English is not my first language. 195.248.189.182 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for changing the name to Aviation accidents and incidents in Iraq, though maybe we should change the the last bit to "Iraq War" so we don't encompass all incidents ever in Iraq. I think one of our goals should be to find references for all of these crashes (I am working on this as we speak). PBP (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For 2006 just use this one.It has everything and gives more than one link for each case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I solved one case. CH-46 which is listed as loss on December 3, 2006, wasn't lost.

Mishap Date: 12/03/2006 Severity: A FM Time: 14:00 Evt Ser: 69450

Reference: HMM-165 230558APR07

Acft: CH046E Count: Y Destroyed: N Major Command: MARFORPAC

Custodian: HMM-165 Fatalities: 4 Buno: 156459

Location: IRAQ

Summary: ACFT LANDED IN WATER. FOUR FATAL INJURIES.

Env: Aviation Operational

(Source: FY07 and 08 Aviation Class A Mishap Summary)

That's what I've talked about. Just emergency landing without aircraft being destroyed. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone agree with renaming the article into Aviation accidents and incidents in Iraq War ? I'll do it within the next 5 days unless someone has a different opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the page in the new name and I fixed all the double redirects. I also changed the title of this section to have a better understanding of the conversation here. Thanks to everybody for its contribution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

3 cases from the military.com

A user kept removing 3 entries stated in military.com. As summary the user wrote that "Ref. Source unverifiable, opinion section of Military.com is not a usable source". I found other references for all 3 cases. Please now stop reverting the page. -- Magioladitis 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-count

I’ve tried to make a recount. As for now, we have this incidents in the list:

2003

AH-64 (9), UH-60 (8), OH-58 (5), CH-47 (2), CH-46 (3), AH-1 (2), UH-1 (1), CH-53 (1), MH-53 (1), Sea King (2)

2004

AH-64 (4), UH-60 (4), OH-58 (10), CH-47 (1), CH-46 (1), AH-1 (4), UH-1 (1), CH-53 (1), MH-53 (1), W-3 Sokol (1), Puma (1)

2005

AH-64 (4, on 26 December collision just 1 lost), OH-58 (3), CH-47 (2), AH-1 (1), CH-53 (1), AB-412 (1)

2006

AH-64 (4), UH-60 (2), OH-58 (1), CH-46 (1), AH-1 (1), CH-53 (2), AH-6 (1), Lynx (1), Mi-24 (1)

2007

AH-64 (3), UH-60 (5), OH-58 (4), CH-47 (1), CH-46 (1), HH-60 (1), Puma (3)

Grand Total

AH-64 (24), UH-60 (19), OH-58 (23), CH-47 (6), CH-46 (6), AH-1 (8), UH-1 (2), CH-53 (5), MH-53 (2), Sea King (2), W-3 Sokol (1), Puma (4), AB-412 (1), AH-6 (1), Lynx (1), Mi-24 (1), HH-60 (1)

TOTAL: 107

Oh, yeah, plus "Other aircraft" Mi-8, MD 530, Bell 412, unknown chopper on March 7… so we have a total of 111 helicopters, believe it or not. You can check it by yourself, if you want... 195.248.189.182 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we need to make new sections first (like "Destroyed", "Crash-Landed" with remark that status of crash-landed helicopter is not always known, etc. - something like that), sort out all helicopters, and only then try to make a good count. It's pretty easy to get confused with all these figures, so let's make one re-count instead of several after each change of article's structure. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! I agree. Please go ahead and do it. In some cases the problem is that if we use references short after the incident is saying "cause under investigation". We have to be careful. I think if you do that the article can go to class B! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Improved version of the article

195.248.189.182 (talk) created in my sandbox an improved version of the article by separating the cases in categories. We are expecting help in checking for typos, grammar mistakes, style, wikification etc. We also wait for suggestions/opinions of the new proposed style. Please use this section to reply and feel free to edit my Sandbox in a creative way. All the best to everyone. Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The improved version is almost done. Today I checked year 2005-2007. We have references for 99% of the cases and I'll try to double-reference many of them. I hope I'll finish tomorrow.

I removed the following case:

• April 8 - CH-46 Sea Knight crashes into the Mediterranean Sea while resupplying; all on board are rescued.¹

which was connected to the OIF. We reorganized the article a lot.

Things to do:

• Recount the personnel died and sorted by year as well.
• Move all other stuff (tables, categories, etc.) into the improved version.

If anyone disagrees with the new version, located in my sandbox, please express it now. The new version will replace the new one before 2008 :)

I ask everyones help to finish this as soon as possible because it's difficult for me to keep tracks of changes to both articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed this as well:

• August 30 - An OH-58D(I) Kiowa 90-0037 from 4-3rd ACR crashed in Iraq. SOME MISTAKE HERE, 90-0037 WAS F-16 ANY LINK FOR THAT?

Now, we have recorded 114 cases of helicopters. Please someone help me finish the recount in "Summary per type" and if possible to count the personnel died and sorted by year as. I intend to upload the new version till tomorrow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You have the wrong date for the OH-58D that you removed (not OH-58D(I)). The date was 29 August, and the aircraft number is incorrect. --Born2flie (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the incident. It would be useful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

KISS

Hey, Magio have you ever heard the acronym KISS ...Keep it simple stp--d? this updated idea has way way WAY more info than the average reader can understand or want to understand. They want easy simple info, this breakdown is nice but not needed. I urge you to reconsider uploading it, before maybe making it more conciseANigg (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we leave the list as is? I think you were one of the users that complained that the list mixes the cases giving false impression about the real situation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much, its simple, I sent you a suggestion to maybe separate the shootdowns vs the loss to mechical failure. I can't how many the look to wikipedia for streight foward info. The idea of separating the loss that were recovered to non-recovered seems trival. As to my complaints, they were to make sure that the sources are real news outlets.71.118.37.151 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Title revisited...

The page title changed again by User:Sardanaphalus. The old title was Aviation accidents and incidents in Iraq War and the new is List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War. Please write your comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• For reference, here's the rationale for the change paraphrased from Magioladitis' talkpage:

"List of" is in common with other aviation "accidents and incidents" lists; and "in Iraq War" isn't grammatically correct.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"accidents and incidents" isn't that the same? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

being hit by a rocket is not a exactly an accident... -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if I am right, that's not an incident either, it's an attack...or do I need a better look at my vocabulary? :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ahh, armed incident. maybe we should point that out?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we just name it chronological categorisation of moments in the American-led invasion of Iraq beginning in March 2003, in which fixed-rotor heavier-than-air vehicles have found themselves incapacitated in a temporary or permenant manner then? FFS, just name it List of aircraft losses during the Iraq War and be done with it. I don't see a single incident here that wasn't a loss (you can recover from a loss, the helicoptor is still lost - even if salvagable to be rebuilt). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we really need the "List of..."? The reason I removed it in the past is that this article has a great leading section and many statistics. On the other hand "accidents and incidents" is used in all other similar articles in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with removing "List of", sure. But "Accidents and incidents" are often renamed from previous titles, citing this one. I believe the Chechnyan war aircraft article would be an example of that; but I may be confusing it with something else Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with keeping "List of" in the title; after all, the majority of the article is a list. But perhaps we should take out the "accidents and incidents" phrase to differentiate this article from ones listing crashes of commercial aircraft (this is a military topic, after all). Keep in mind there is another similar article, List of Coalition aircraft losses in Afghanistan, which hasn't gone through as many name changes as this one. PBP (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I really would like a much short title buy I already see above that ANigg disagrees that accidents and hard landing are loses. Is this change going to cause another kind of problems? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see only three listings on the article, that would be "wrong" to call aircraft losses; "August 10 - A US Navy HSC-84 HH-60 "Rescue Hawk" made a forced landing in Yusufiyah. The two crew members sustained non-life threatening injuries". "April 17 – AH-64D Apache 03-5370 from 4-3rd ACR made hard landing near Baghdad.[69]"# "January 1 – UH-60L Black Hawk 93-26514 (4-1091st AVN) made hard landing.[91]" - and I'm not even sure, from those brief descriptions they belong on the list. If nobody was injured, and the aircraft wasn't damaged...isn't that like listing trucks that needed jumper cables? It's completely irrelevant, I'm sure there are hundreds, even thousands of "hard landings", but if nobody was hurt and the craft wasn't damaged, it's not an "aircraft loss", and it doesn't really belong on this list anyways. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV title

I changed it to reflect the enemy fire nature of some crashes--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)