Talk:Canberra Airport

message: Note that the Canberra Airport staff are editing this page to remove content they disagree with.
Several edits from 203.22.237.174 (mail.canberraairport.com.au) have removed large sections of the article. 
This article should be removed totally if they continue to astro turf it.
===Update: Caution!!!===
203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution - contains propoganda!

message: 203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: Caution!!!

message: I've had the following response from Canberra International Airport:
:thank you for your email, which was passed to me for attention. 
:Let me first congratulate you on the effort you have obviously put into making the listing comprehensive and totally up-to-date. 
:The only slight error I can see in the entire listing is that Brindabella fly 3x daily to Newcastle and that they start next week a new daily (mon-Fri) service to Traralgon in the LaTrobe Valley.
:I attach an aerial photo of the airport for your information. Unfortunately I can't help with the logo - we have a policy of not providing our logo externally.
:Hope this is of assistance,
:Alex Ananian-Cooper
:Manager Aviation and Environment
:Canberra International Airport
I'll upload the picture under the GFDL for the time being, but I would like guidance from others on the status of this image. --Jumbo 07:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, nixie. Bless you for that! This whole copyright business is a puzzle. I've modified the image accordingly. --Jumbo 04:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That photo would definitely not be CopyrightedFreeUse (which is essentially the same as releasing it to the public domain) since the Airport has not agreed to allow the photo to be used for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and/or modification. The image should be tagged as Fair Use and moved from the Commons back to the English Wikipedia. Kaldari 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA response

message: I've removed the Canberra category for this article as part of the effort to tidy up the Canberra/ACT categories]]. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra#Category:Canberra) It's felt that the Canberra category is too cluttered and that as it is a small jurisdiction, many of the articles relating to the City should probably sit under :Category:Australian Capital Territory and its subcategories. If there is strong feeling that airports should contain the category that relates to the city they are in then perhaps this warrants some discussion, either here, on on the Canberra project talk page. Adz 07:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove canberra category

message: ==Merge Brand Depot == 
I have tagged the Brand Depot article to be merged with the Canberra Airport article at the Brand Depot page. I feel that the proposed development is not yet notable and does not warrant an article of its own. I think a mention here will suffice, at least until it is built, and possibly after the fact as well, depending on its notability when it is complete. -- Adz|talk 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as an individual article it may not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability and therefore be deleted all together. Wikipedia is not a venue for free advertising. --Martyman-(talk) 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's just going to be a shopping centre, and not a big one. It's notability comes from the fact that it is situated on airport land and is consequently not subject to normal planning measures. --Jumbo 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: I have tagged the Brand Depot article to be merged with the Canberra Airport article at the Brand Depot page. I feel that the proposed development is not yet notable and does not warrant an article of its own. I think a mention here will suffice, at least until it is built, and possibly after the fact as well, depending on its notability when it is complete. -- Adz|talk 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Brand Depot 

message: Brand Depot is independent of the Airport - probably best in my opinion to leave it separate, just as you would leave any other companies associated with the Airport separate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webfive (talk • contribs) .
:But as an individual article it may not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability and therefore be deleted all together. Wikipedia is not a venue for free advertising. --Martyman-(talk) 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's just going to be a shopping centre, and not a big one. It's notability comes from the fact that it is situated on airport land and is consequently not subject to normal planning measures. --Jumbo 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand Depot 

message: According to the CIA website, it is managed by Capital Airport Group Pty Limited. --Jumbo 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managed by... 

message: I have felt it necessary to undo some of 59.167.40.48's changes because they are unsupported. I would really like it if 59.167.40.48 (or anyone else, for that matter) could reinstate them with supporting evidence. At the moment, they are simply opinion. I will reproduce them here so that reinstating them is easy.
During peak hour, there are intense traffic jams both within the airport and along the access roads - Supporting evidence?
 - in this time commuters can spend up to 30 minutes. - Up to 30 minutes doing what? 
In a recent state election it was a minor issue - with the incumbent supporting the development. The challenger, David Madew, failed to convince the electorate that the development was inappropriate. - When is recent? Presumably NSW election? Whose judgement is it that it was a minor issue? Who is the incumbent? What relevance has this got to the subject "Location"?
The proposed housing estates - That one is a fact!
:the most contentious, Tralee, is under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths.
::vs
:the least contentious, Tralee, is considered by the Canberra International Airport group to be under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths (despite the development being nearly 10 km from the runway and the planes several thousand feet above sea level).
Ouch! Both are opinion!! How does this one get resolved!!!
BTW: There is no such thing as Canberra International Airport group. Canberra International Airport. Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd. Capital Airport Group. Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd. But no such thing as Canberra International Airport group.
My opinion is that "Accidents" should be a level2 heading, not level 3, and I have changed it accordingly.
I think the references are a bit messy. I've tried to tidy them up. Pdfpdf 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by 59.167.40.48 on 21 June 2007 

message: 203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims. 
I've placed information on that talk page, but have received no answer or acknowledgement, so now I've stopped being polite and I'm just reverting them. Pdfpdf 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, those IPs don't seem to trace to the airport operators, it's somewhere in South Australia. Host ge-0.bdr01-cbr.velocity.net.au & d220-237-192-15.mit800.act.optusnet.com.au. 220 of Borg 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignore the trace, the IP's are Canberra based, I'll bold them. ge-0.bdr01-cbr.velocity.net.au d220-237-192-15.mit800.act.optusnet.com.au, best way is too look at the hosts since trace records will only show SA (tracing in Australia is next to useless). Also this is an archived discussion. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism & propoganda 

message: I have just read the Incident Report of the above indicent on the ATSB website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200205179.aspx). The statement on the Canberra Airport page was inconsistent with the ATSB report, which I have corrected to reflect the ATSB report.
I note further that this is not an accident, but rather an "incident", as defined in the ATSB report. Hence, should this be moved to another heading "Incidents", or should it be deleted?
Also, while on this subject, it strikes me that this is an odd list of "accidents". There are two aviation accidents, one non-aviation accident and one incident (not an accident at all, by anyone's definition). If the level of accidents on airports are consistent with other airports of similar size, then it's likely that there are many more accidents than listed here, and hence this is an incomplete and somewhat arbitrary list.
Is there a policy on what is supposed to be done? I've looked at other Australian airport pages, and I can't find any listings of accidents! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.182.144 (talk • contribs) 01:49, July 19, 200 (UTC)
:Good catch on the correction, and the heading of accidents regardless of an ATSB definition should stay. Most people understand the word, so as long as the content is written correctly it won't make a bit of a difference. As for the incompleteness of the list, if you have the time please feel free to add the information into the article. Perth_Airport#Accidents gives a good overview of how such content should be written and referenced. If you cite sources from ATSB investigation reports, please use Template:ATSBLink for this purpose. Thewinchester (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  b737-476 incident 

message: According to http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame?offset=225#top an IP address traced to Canberra Airport has been editing this article to "to hide accidents, traffic chaos plus a general shining astroturf." The evidence is aparently at: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=203.22.237.174&ip2=&ip3=&ip4= This isn't very cool behavior and would make the airport look really dumb if it was, say, confirmed and got into the Canberra Times. --Nick Dowling 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canberra airport caught censoring this article

message: === Recent accidents and incidents ===
There was a "Recent accidents and incidents" section, but I removed it because none of the incidents were recent.So, what is wanted and/or needed? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incidents are part of the history.  Wikipedia should not be condentrating on the recent events, but should have an all of history approach.  So any significant events from any time in the past should be included here.  The article is not intended as a public relations tool for the airport.  So my opinion is that the section should not include the word "recent" in its title. Incidents where people died should be included as being important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. However, this topic is covered inconsistently; e.g. Melbourne Airport#Accidents and Incidents mentions only one incident, Kingsford Smith International Airport doesn't mention any. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an argument for improving the coverage of incidents at other airports rather than removing those at Canberra. Gimboid13 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree - it's not an argument one way or the other. It's just an observation that coverage is inconsistent, and addressing the use of the word "recent" in the title. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Despite the fact that there must be dozens of incidents, very few seem to have found their way onto WP pages about airports. This issue must have been discussed before somewhere. (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force??). I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Incidents at Airports. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And, very quickly, I got a reply:
====Accidents and incidents for Airport project====
The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest - 
*Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
**The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
**The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
**The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.
MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you look a couple of lines above, the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would say keep it there unless there is some reason to think it is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2008 - Recent accidents and incidents and Proposed services 

message: There was a "Recent accidents and incidents" section, but I removed it because none of the incidents were recent.So, what is wanted and/or needed? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incidents are part of the history.  Wikipedia should not be condentrating on the recent events, but should have an all of history approach.  So any significant events from any time in the past should be included here.  The article is not intended as a public relations tool for the airport.  So my opinion is that the section should not include the word "recent" in its title. Incidents where people died should be included as being important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. However, this topic is covered inconsistently; e.g. Melbourne Airport#Accidents and Incidents mentions only one incident, Kingsford Smith International Airport doesn't mention any. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an argument for improving the coverage of incidents at other airports rather than removing those at Canberra. Gimboid13 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree - it's not an argument one way or the other. It's just an observation that coverage is inconsistent, and addressing the use of the word "recent" in the title. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Despite the fact that there must be dozens of incidents, very few seem to have found their way onto WP pages about airports. This issue must have been discussed before somewhere. (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force??). I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Incidents at Airports. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And, very quickly, I got a reply:
====Accidents and incidents for Airport project====
The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest - 
*Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
**The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
**The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
**The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.
MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you look a couple of lines above, the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent accidents and incidents 

message: The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest - 
*Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
**The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
**The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
**The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.
MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents and incidents for Airport project

message: I've noticed that the reporting of incidents on WP pages for airports is very inconsistent. Are there any guidelines? Where can I find them? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look a couple of lines above, the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents at Airports 

message: A number of people have removed this section, without explanation, except "Wiki ian" who said "remove unverified information". As the information has been there less than a month (in one case, 2 days) and was flagged with "citation needed", I believe "Wiki ian" is being a bit too quick off the mark. What do other people think? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say keep it there unless there is some reason to think it is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed services 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support - The airport is known as Canberra Airport on it's website, Government, media and the Airport itself (the building). The Airport also has no direct international flights —Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "Canberra International Airport" have release the 10th Anniversary issue of their publication "The Hub". I'm amused to see that they refer to the place as "Canberra Airport" ... Ho hum. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Script comments 

message: I've just removed this statement from the article's lead: In addition to regular traffic, the airport handles diverted traffic from Melbourne (Tullamarine) and Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airports when weather conditions restrict landings there. This is routine for all airports, and is particularly unnotable for Canberra airport as the large distances between Canberra and Sydney and Melbourne and the unavailability of fast alternate transportation mean that passengers on the diverted flights have to wait until they can fly out of Canberra to their destination: Canberra airport is in now way an alternate for Sydney or Melbourne airports. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverted flights 

message: Canadian and American airports generally contain a link to an aviation weather source in their external link section. Why should airports in this country be different?DSatYVR (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation weather links 

message: The airport seems to be against passenger pickup:
"Private vehicles are not permitted to pick-up passengers at the road kerb immediately outside the terminal. Vehicles may not park or 'stand' for extended periods while awaiting arriving passengers, or while carrying out any other function. Like unattended luggage, idle vehicles within close proximity to the terminal represent a potential security threat." 
--RobBrisbane (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No passenger pickup 

message: == External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canberra International Airport. 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/20091027132234/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/feds-bring-airports-247-ambitions-back-down-to-earth/1367273.aspx?page=0 to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/feds-bring-airports-247-ambitions-back-down-to-earth/1367273.aspx?page=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913145858/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228052714/http://www.canberraairport.com.au:80/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canberra International Airport. 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/20091027132234/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/feds-bring-airports-247-ambitions-back-down-to-earth/1367273.aspx?page=0 to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/feds-bring-airports-247-ambitions-back-down-to-earth/1367273.aspx?page=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913145858/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228052714/http://www.canberraairport.com.au:80/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canberra Airport. 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/20110518122816/http://www.canberraairport.com.au:80/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829235019/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/ne_sy.htm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/ne_sy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501054157/http://www.canberraairport.com.au:80/air_newTerminal/terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/terminal.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228052714/http://www.canberraairport.com.au:80/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ncet/natcapauth/subs/sub070.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canberra Airport. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927222337/http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0010/39943/Canberra_Airport_Roads_Working_Group_Interim_Report.doc to http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0010/39943/Canberra_Airport_Roads_Working_Group_Interim_Report.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canberra Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717182252/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_aboutAirport/board.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_aboutAirport/board.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We can't add an entry to the airlines and destinations section until an exact start date is found see WP AIRPORT content for guidelines. The reference says that they are looking at serving Canberra along with 8 other cities in either 2017 or 2018.CHCBOY (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatar Air  

message: The Total passengers and aircraft movements projections were based on a 2005 Primary Source, Master Plan. Comparing with actual movements, some of these Airport-provided-projections are obviously 100%+ wrong.  While there are later PS projections,  available suggest drop these projections altogether, or at least use any BITRE projections.  110.147.145.160 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics > Projections made in 2003 for Total passengers and aircraft movements

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Canberra Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913145858/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/thefacts.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228052714/http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm to http://www.canberraairport.com.au/air_newTerminal/new_terminal.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050707082744/http://brindabellaairlines.com.au/ to http://www.brindabellaairlines.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are subsubsection International flights, but the title is only Canberra Airport, I think must be Canberra International Airport.Gsarwa (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of airports with international service but don't have international in their name.  Andrewgprout (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberra Airport or Canberra International Airport 

message: Does this source of 7 May 2003 relate to this page, or the RAAF Fairbairn one? 🤔
"Work on a massive aircraft hangar at an RAAF base in Canberra has been suspended after the structure collapsed.The accident happened just before 12:00pm AEST, injuring 12 construction workers."The $11 million hangar is a joint project between the Defence Department and the Capital Airport Group." @ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-05-07/hangar-work-suspended-after-collapse/1850180
--220 of Borg 06:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be RAAF Fairbairn? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: Noting the previous discussion of accidents and incidents that dates back to 2008, i'd like to seek some consensus on the inclusion of the Link Airways/Virgin Australia flight 633 incident where a propellor strap was left attached and punctured the fuselage on take off in November 2022. The damage to the aircraft was minor and I can see that the ATSB's investigation is still ongoing so not sure what the impact will be on procedures across the industry just yet, however its interesting that the airline denied any injuries, but the ATSB/AFP have stated 3 minor injuries. And its also just a very strange occurrence, not only that a strap was left in place, but that it stayed secure during taxi and only hit the aircraft while on the take off roll! Are there any objections to including this one in the article, or would you prefer we wait? Dfadden (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given it's a serious enough incident to have led to an ATSB investigation, it should be included. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections, I've included the incident per WP:BOLD, but happy for a discussion should anyone consider it not worthy for inclusion! Dfadden (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents and Incidents