2 ms·

> "This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again." I agree that this statement is unusually direct, but I find it noteworthy that they us

> "This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again." I agree that this statement is unusually direct, but I find it noteworthy that they use the word "incident". According to ICAO, one of the criteria for an accident, not an incident, is when "the aircraft sustains significant damage or structural failure", which is the case here.

htk 3y ago
Playing devil's advocate, this could be considered the limit of an incident, as the plane could still operate.
- agubelu 3y ago
  Yes, but the criteria for an accident is "structural failure", not "hull loss" or "inability to fly". I would say that a gaping hole in the fuselage constitutes structural failure. FWIW, the related Wikipedia page correctly refers to it as an accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282
hedora 3y ago
I’d read that as “Boeing has passed the point where the results of gross negligence can’t be called accidents.”
- p_l 3y ago
  In aviation lingo, "accident" is more serious than "serious incident" which is more serious than "incident". Accident is a plane crash, dead people, etc. Serious Incident is one that was dangerously close to moving into becoming an accident. Incident is pretty much everyday thing and usually you investigate it yourself and self report. Includes even things like front wheel turning 90 degrees during taxiing resulting in broken front wheel assembly.
  - agubelu 3y ago
    "Accident" doesn't only mean plane crash or dead people. According to ICAO Annex 13, it is also an accident when: "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" http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html
    - p_l 3y ago
      Yeah. I simplified a little bit too much when writing on a phone. The shorthand we used when I was more active in flying was "the plane or the crew can't continue (without extensive work)"

htk 3y ago

Playing devil's advocate, this could be considered the limit of an incident, as the plane could still operate.

agubelu 3y ago
Yes, but the criteria for an accident is "structural failure", not "hull loss" or "inability to fly". I would say that a gaping hole in the fuselage constitutes structural failure. FWIW, the related Wikipedia page correctly refers to it as an accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282

hedora 3y ago

I’d read that as “Boeing has passed the point where the results of gross negligence can’t be called accidents.”

p_l 3y ago
In aviation lingo, "accident" is more serious than "serious incident" which is more serious than "incident". Accident is a plane crash, dead people, etc. Serious Incident is one that was dangerously close to moving into becoming an accident. Incident is pretty much everyday thing and usually you investigate it yourself and self report. Includes even things like front wheel turning 90 degrees during taxiing resulting in broken front wheel assembly.
- agubelu 3y ago
  "Accident" doesn't only mean plane crash or dead people. According to ICAO Annex 13, it is also an accident when: "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" http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html
  - p_l 3y ago
    Yeah. I simplified a little bit too much when writing on a phone. The shorthand we used when I was more active in flying was "the plane or the crew can't continue (without extensive work)"