Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family

US Airways A320 landing gear collapse, 13 March 2014
The news report from CNN and the Twitter statement said the aircraft involved in an aborted takeoff due to nose gear failure was an Airbus A320. Should this be included now or waited on until an investigation is completed?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/philadelphia-airport-incident/ Putz (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree; after doing some research on my favorite research site (Aviation Herald), I found this: . Looks like this plane took some very serious damage after a tailstrike during an attempted takeoff, then rejected takeoff when they found that they weren't going anywhere. In doing so, it sounds like they slammed down the nose gear, and caused it to collapse. The plane was written off, which makes it automatically worthy for inclusion on an Accidents and Incidents page.


 * In the future, if you're not sure if it's worthy of inclusion, ask four questions: 1) Is it classified as an accident according to the ICAO? 2) Was there any substantial damage to the aircraft (meaning it costs millions or more to repair, or is destroyed entirely)? 3) Was anyone hurt? 4) Is it an accident that was not caused by turbulence? (As turbulence encounters happen all the time, they are not noteworthy, unless scores of people, and/or the plane itself suffers serious injuries), and 5) Is it at least somewhat noteworthy? If #1 is true, and either #2 or #3 (or both) are true, and #4 is true, then definitely include it. If #1 to #3 aren't true, but is extremely noteworthy for other reasons, then it may still be worth including. Hope that helps!
 * - The Legacy (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Silly me. I should have actually explained the now vs later part. My suggestions above still stand, but it wouldn't hurt to wait until the preliminary report comes out, a few weeks after any major incident. Again, the Aviation Herald is my go-to source, as Simon Hradecky has all kinds of aviation industry sources, up to and including aviation and air safety agencies. If it's listed as an accident on his site, then chances are he'll keep it updated as much as the information he gets allows him to do so. Exception to the delay: If it's extremely noteworthy and is all over the news. (ie. MH 17, MH 370, etc.)
 * - The Legacy (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

British Airways A319 incident, London Heathrow Airport, 24 May, 2013
Fnlayson partly undid my update on the May 2013 A319 incident at Heathrow. I have restored this update. Here are the reasons. The detachment of the engine fan cowl doors cannot he described as a "mechanical failure." It happened because the doors had been left unlatched following maintenance. This is the finding of the AAIB's preliminary report which I referenced, and which was widely covered in the media. Fnlayson's "undo" is referenced on a statement from British Airways released on the day of the accident, before the circumstances had become clear. I am puzzled as to why this contributor decided to undo an update, presumably without checking the reference. Graemebowd (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Iberia Airbus A320 crash-landed in Bilbao, Spain"
Should this be included in this article? http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010207-0

It's referenced at the end of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

and I was surprised that there was no link. RenniePet (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are quite right - of course this accident had to be included. Done today !


 * Kammeratlig hilsen --Uli Elch (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cebu 971
The accident of Cebu Flight 971 did not result in a writeoff. The aircraft is still flying today...see http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a320-4870.htm Maybe it should be changed... Flo121142 (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability
In the list of incidents, must each "incident" be notable, or are we cataloging them all? If there is a dispute of notability, presumably having an article at WP is proof of sufficient notability. If notability is a threshhold were any glass cockpit blackouts notable? If not, remove the sentence from the lead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No we only list ones that are notable for some reason, I have removed the glass cockpit bit it appears to be a bit of of context. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that, individually, glass cockpit blackouts are not notable for inclusion on this list, unless such a circumstance causes some kind of noteworthy situation (as blatant as a crash landing, or, alternatively, a situation that leads to major changes to the aircraft and/or company). It is, however, in my opinion, worth adding to the main article as a subtext, if this happens enough times to make a pattern, and is a risk to the flight. Hope that clarifies. :)
 * - The Legacy (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

need more crash photos
after so many hull loses there should be some photos showing the aftermath. it should be similar to other aircraft pages to maintain a Neutral point of view.Jacob805 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family
I added the following accident to the above article because the tail-section design on Airbus is similar for the whole A300 family:
 * On 12 November 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 (an Airbus A300) from NYC to Santo Domingo plummeted almost immediately after taking off from JFK, killing 265 passengers, crew members, and people on the ground. The accident was attributed to pilot error, yet there will always remain questions regarding (1) the composite fiber-glass material used to fabricate the vertical stabilizer, and (2) the fact that the stabilizer (wing) suffered a significant structural failure (it should not have been close to failure no matter what the pilot did or did not do). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

Along comes Buttons to Push, who removes my above paragraph saying "the A300 is not part of the A321 family" or some such statement. I don't know if BtP is an engineer, but I am a structural engineer. I posted the above paragraph because of the similarity of "tail failures" which have afflicted the Airbus A300 series. Here is an article which sums it up nicely: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-crash-theory-now-focused-on-tail-snapping-off-again-2009-6

"As soon as the photo appeared of Air France 447's vertical stabilizer floating in the Atlantic, concerns arose that the crash might have been caused by another Airbus plane tail snapping off in mid-air.

If so, this would be the latest in a long string of tail problems for Airbus. And the problems could be extremely expensive to fix.

The crash of an Airbus 300 just after takeoff at JFK in 2001 was the result of the stabilizer snapping off. The NTSB investigation eventually blamed the pilots for overreacting to wake turbulence and hitting the rudder pedals too hard. Pilots have long been skeptical of this conclusion, however, especially as other Airbus rudder problems have occurred over the years (planes suddenly rolling or pitching down as the computers controlling the rudder went haywire and triggered "uncommanded" movements.)

Airbus tails are designed differently than Boeing tails (composites versus metal, etc.), and Airbuses are "fly-by-wire" aircraft that don't have direct hydraulic connections between the cockpit controls and the flaps, rudder, and other flight controls. Some suspect that the AF 447 crash and other Airbus problems may be the result of a computer problem or other design flaw."

Similarly, an article in The Guardian dated: Saturday 12 March 2005 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews                 "At 35,000 feet above the Caribbean, Air Transat flight 961 was heading home to Quebec with 270 passengers and crew. At 3.45 pm last Sunday, the pilot noticed something very unusual. His Airbus A310's rudder - a structure 28 feet high - had fallen off and tumbled into the sea. In the world of aviation, the shock waves have yet to subside.

Mercifully, the crew was able to turn the plane around, and by steering it with their wing and tail flaps managed to land at their point of departure in Varadero, Cuba, without loss of life. But as Canadian investigators try to discover what caused this near catastrophe, the specialist internet bulletin boards used by pilots, accident investigators and engineers are buzzing.

One former Airbus pilot, who now flies Boeings for a major US airline, told The Observer : 'This just isn't supposed to happen. No one I know has ever seen an airliner's rudder disintegrate like that. It raises worrying questions about the materials and build of the aircraft, and about its maintenance and inspection regime. We have to ask as things stand, would evidence of this type of deterioration ever be noticed before an incident like this in the air?'

He and his colleagues also believe that what happened may shed new light on a previous disaster. In November 2001, 265 people died when American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A300 model which is almost identical to the A310, crashed shortly after take-off from JFK airport in New York. According to the official report into the crash, the immediate cause was the loss of the plane's rudder and tailfin, though this was blamed on an error by the pilots.

There have been other non-fatal incidents. One came in 2002 when a FedEx A300 freight pilot complained about strange 'uncommanded inputs' - rudder movements which the plane was making without his moving his control pedals. In FedEx's own test on the rudder on the ground, engineers claimed its 'acuators' - the hydraulic system which causes the rudder to move - tore a large hole around its hinges, in exactly the spot where the rudders of both flight 961 and flight 587 parted company from the rest of the aircraft."

In that the tail-sections of the A321 and A300 are made of composite material and not metal, I feel that accidents involving both planes should be listed together. John Shubert, PE — Preceding unsigned comment added by JShubert (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But is it not a fact that the A300 is not a member of the A320 family? The latter refers only to A319s, A320s and A321s. Therefore it is, by definition, not eligible for inclusion in this article. It is, however, already listed on Airbus_A300, and would be included on any such equivalent standalone article, should one be created. The notion of shared design, even shared design flaws, would not qualify it for inclusion here, really. That's how I see it, at least. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree an A300 is not part of the A320 family and has its own page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a good way of putting it: this article is about accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family, not those which effect the Airbus A320 family. Therefore if it doesn't involve a member of that family then it isn't suitable for this list. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also in agreement with everyone else here; wikipedia is not a speculative source; if the NTSB and other agencies determined that the A320 series, as well as other airbus aircraft have a similarly dangerous flaw, then it should be included in the -main- article, rather than in the A320 Accidents and Incidents page. Though the A320 shares a fair number of similarities to the A300, they are both very different aircraft.
 * Also in agreement with everyone else here; wikipedia is not a speculative source; if the NTSB and other agencies determined that the A320 series, as well as other airbus aircraft have a similarly dangerous flaw, then it should be included in the -main- article, rather than in the A320 Accidents and Incidents page. Though the A320 shares a fair number of similarities to the A300, they are both very different aircraft.


 * Also, the circumstances that took down the A300, where the pilot (or the airplane?) moved the rudder back and forth in full-deflective movements, would take down -any- large airliner, regardless of whether the tailfin was aluminum or composite. The sheer amount of wind stress would cause significant fatigue stress on the tail, until it would sheer off. Think of it as trying to bend the head of a fork back and forth until the two sides snap apart. That's what happened on the A300 in New York, over a decade ago. I'm surprised that people would blame the aircraft, when it was made quite clear that the pilot made huge errors in his attempt to stabilize the aircraft.


 * Finally, I would like to make note of Air Transat Flight 961, that you mentioned above; they are two very different incidents. In the New York flight, the entire vertical stabilizer (tail) assembly came off, which completely doomed the aircraft (especially during the takeoff phase). The Air Transat flight, however, only the rudder came off. Though shocking, yes, losing the rudder isn't -that- worrying. Yes, you lose a crucial piece of control, but the flight was not in tremendous danger as a result. It would be on par with a plane losing a flap, elevator or an aileron. Shocking, yes. But not the end of the world.


 * Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here, is that it's still too early to tell whether composites are to blame. I honestly don't think that, short of building a rudder out of solid titanium (which would never get airborne!), that avoiding a New York-styled failure is possible. I strongly feel that human error was to blame there. Thus, I don't think it even needs to be mentioned on the A300 page, outside of the Accidents and Incidents pages. Until there is solid, undeniable proof, posting things about it would break Wikipedia's rules on speculative research, unless you include ALL points of view. Also, Boeing now also uses composites, so this is no longer just an Airbus scenario.
 * -The Legacy (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Prototype A321neo Accident (as per ICAO standards) in the List.
Hello! I added an entry regarding the tailstrike incident with D-AVXB, that required it to be flown back to Toulouse for repairs. I'm writing here to explain my reasoning; Normally, I wouldn't post such 'minor' accidents on this page, but I felt that the uniqueness of the aircraft (it is, currently, the ONLY A321neo in existence, and is THE prototype they are using as a proof of concept), deserved inclusion by being noteworthy. It will also push back the certification of the A321neo by at least a few weeks, which is a potentially big blow for Airbus, if they don't have it repaired and tested before their production aircraft are ready to launch.

With that in mind, I did NOT include the incident with another new Airbus aircraft, F-WXWB, an A350-900, because there was no damage, and it was not nearly noteworthy enough in my eyes, since it was a simple taxiing error that required a tow.

Since I haven't seen it removed yet, I'm assuming that people have agreed with my inclusion. If not, feel free to reply below!
 * -The Legacy (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesnt appear to be particularly notable so probably needs to be deleted, it is not the first aircraft to have a tail strike and in particularly it was on test where flying is going to go to the limits. MilborneOne (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right in that tailstrikes aren't particularly notable in terms of incidents and accidents. However, where I felt it was notable, was due to the fact that it was the first and only A321neo in existance, and that it has the potential to cause serious problems for Airbus. Though I can understand removing it later, once the A321 is established, currently, I still feel like it should be mentioned. I'm going to reinstate the entry, for now, but I'd like to see it stay for at least a year, until its notability decreases. Other articles do include incidents involving prototypes, so why shouldn't this qualify? The Legacy (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Does this count as an incident - probably not. I would delete it. It is of no lasting interestsAndrewgprout (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Should be placed in the A320neo article instead as it very likely causes a delay in the flight test and certification program. --Denniss (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrewgprout, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the tailstrike qualifies as an Incident per the ICAO. Thus, it would qualify...but I find that Wikipedia tends to only pick the most significant of entries for inclusion, such as crashes, hull losses, and passenger deaths. Based on that qualification, then, yes, it probably isn't worth including. I felt that it would qualify as "notable", but perhaps it's not notable enough. However, Denniss, you do bring up a valid point, which is something I already did back when I made this entry as well. If it's not there...then someone deleted it. Either way, thanks guys. :) I'll probably remove it in the near future once I mull it over. The Legacy (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:The Legacy The ICAO definition of incident is extremely broad - indeed it is unusual for an incident to cause any damage at all - anyway what we include or not is guided by WP:AIRCRASH and probably in this case WP:RECENTISM, it is highly questionable that this incident qualifies. I think Denniss's advice is good and put something in the neo page (again?) in the appropriate place properly referenced and my guess is that that would be totally uncontroversial Andrewgprout (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, Andrewgprout, you've convinced me. Thanks for the explaination. :) I was going to remove it, but it seems you've already done so. Appreciated. The Legacy (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100812042326/http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk:80/HE1aero.html to http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/HE1aero.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed as a self-published source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

2020 Aden attacks don't belong here
With regard to the recent edit-warring by an IP editor, IMO the 2020 Aden attacks do not belong in this article (and note that the content in question was incorrect, starting "In January 2021...". This appears to be an incident in which the type of plane in which the ministers arrived is incidental. The article actually says "all those aboard the plane were unharmed". If you disagree, feel free to discuss this here until consensus is achieved. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)