Talk:2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident

message: I didn't understand this sentence, so I removed it until someone with more expertise about this incident can clarify it:
They(the pilots?) turned (the plane?), whilst being videotaped by a French journalist, who saw the missile being fired, and American Apache helicopters (in the area?).
--Guroadrunner 10:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph needs clarification, expansion

message: Some French journalists who had videotaped the whole incident later came under criticism for not trying to stop the attack, but the journalists argued that they would have been shot if they attempted to leave or resist.
Did anyone really expect the journalists to stop insurgents with missiles? Nil Einne 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is confirmed by the Aircrash Investigation epsiode. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Journalist

message: Can anyone locate a flight number? This article should be entitled DHL Flight xxx. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that there was no flight number because of the nature of the flight; any flight originating from Baghdad isn't exactly going into congested airspace where every flight needs a flight number, is it? So Iraq doesn't require them, which means DHL didn't bother with one. If, however, you have any good ideas for a better title, we really could do with better than this. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was there for this entire event and the Tower (run by Australians at that time) simply called out "Oscar Oscar Delta Lima Lima."  There was no flight number that was being used.  
Hawker 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight number 

message: An anonymous user had edited the page so that it read "...a SA-14 ground-to-air missile, fired by Islamofascists, struck the Airbus..."  I deleted the italicized words.  
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the author of that edit intended the word "Islamofascists" to be descriptive rather than inflammatory.
As far as I can tell, no one knows who fired the missle, so it is impossible to know their motivation, and whether they felt they were acting in the name of Islam.  The attackers' motives might have been secular, or they might have been merely nihilist vandals.
Brianriceca 08:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insurgents is a better word. The sentences in the lede marked as needing verification are verified by the Aircrash Investigation episode mentioned in the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted unsourced remark about who fired the missle 

message: I refer to the sentence "The crew has been given some of the highest awards the aviation community had to offer.", which was deleted due to uncited source. 
On one of the documentary on National Geographic which covered the whole incident, the crew was indeed awarded top aviation awards and have photos on it.
ADouBTor 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards to the Crews 

message: Why is this article titled a "shootdown" incident if the aircraft landed safely? Socrates2008 05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: attempted shootdown? --122.104.43.23 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Title again : 2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident is extremely confusing. Is the 'incident' DHL-attempted (by DHL)? Was a missile fired down from a DHL plane? I would suggest 2003_Baghdad_missile_attack_on_DHL_plane .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.104 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Socrates2008 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting out of hand. To keep it in line with the semi-informal naming style for disasters and near-disasters, how about simply 2003 Baghdad DHL A300 incident? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shootdown?

message: According to Airfleets.net the plane was destroyed, while the Wiki article says it was repaired.  Which is correct? Socrates2008 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Written-off or Repaired?

message: Just being curious, but why would a modern aircraft such as an A300 have a flight engineer on board? --DrFod (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight engineer?

message: A person wrote, without attribution, that people criticized DHL for exposing employees to danger without additional pay.  I can find no confirmation that criticism, if made, was widespread and from credible sources.  It is hard to give weight to the statement because this experienced aircrew would have known historic risks of entering a conflict zone.  Whether they were or were not offered danger pay seems irrelevant.  Accordingly, I removed this wording: “DHL came under criticism for ordering crew members into Iraq without any additional danger pay.” Interactbiz (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of DHL?

message: Is there any solid evidence that the picture at the bottom (showing engine damage from ingesting debris) actually relates to this incident? It may be may be familiar to some, as it has also been circulating in an email hoax that made the rounds just before the Beijing Olympics (then claiming to show a Chinese jet that supposedly landed at Frankfurt airport with damaged engines). Trying to confirm that the Wikipedia picture of the damaged engine was indeed from the DHL A300, I looked at the reports linked at the bottom of the article and could not find any explicit mentions of engine damage. A damaged wing and deflated tires were listed as the only damage. Pictures of engines were notably absent from the gallery of aircraft damage. According to a Chinese language thread discussing the Chinese aircraft hoax email, the 46 fan blades identify the engine in the picture as a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7J, which is not one of the types listed as having been used on the A300. A google search finds evidence that this same set of pictures has been circulating since at least 2001-04-02 (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-3725.html), more than two years before the Baghdad incident (and suspiciously close to an April 1). Unless the engine picture can be independently verified it should be removed. Joewein (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can help with is to state that I uploaded the image personally - at the time of upload, it was in a flickr image set with other 2003 incident images. Unfortunatelly, since that time the person changed his account name (I have no clue why) and I could find the image now here. That flickr guy seems to have re-uploaded all his images to flickr but he pretty messed them up this time, so that this particular image does bear partly other image set and tagging now - there seem to be few 2003 incidnet tags again though.--Kozuch (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that the A300 in this incident used General Electric CF6-50C2 engines (see http://www.airfleets.net/crash/crash_report_EuropeanAirTransport_OO-DLL.htm), not Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7J as in these Chinese aircraft hoax pictures (http://joewein.net/hoax/hoax-chinese-jet-engine.htm), one of which is part of the Flickr set. Joewein (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then I will be the one to have the courage to remove it.  It is quite obvious that is not the same engine.  I have a series of closeup photos of that airplane, after it was parked, which prove that the engine photo now in the article, is a hoax.  Most of the debris from the missile explosion would have been blown to the rear, behind the wing, just by the force of the air stream.  If it had been blown forward, so that it was ingested by the port engine (that would require a powerful force, to counteract the wind stream), the outer portion of the wing would have been blown off too.  The damage is so bad to the compressor blades (in the Wiki photo), that it would have come apart, or it would have vibrated so badly that it would have forced a manual shutdown.  It is apparent, that whatever hit those fan blades, it had to be after the plane was on the ground.  That alone, makes the photo caption erroneous. EditorASC (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine damage?

message: Not unprecedented at all. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in fact the first time an aircraft was landed, intact with no fatalities or significant injuries to anyone aboard, without any functional control surfaces, so yes, yes it is very much unprecedented.  If you have any source for an incident that can make that claim before this flight I'd very much love to see it. 2001:558:6040:82:7CD6:B941:F0A2:C349 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprecedented injury free landing 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.gapan.org/about-the-guild/trophies-and-awards/award-winners/the-ugh-gordon-burge-memorial-award/
** In 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident on 2011-05-25 07:30:33, 404 NOT FOUND
** In 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident on 2011-06-11 05:33:03, 404 NOT FOUND
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://flightsafety.org/aviation-awards/fsf-professionalism-award-flight-safety
** In 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident on 2011-05-25 07:30:34, 404 Not Found
** In 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident on 2011-06-11 05:33:24, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2003-11-25/world/sprj.irq.missile.tape_1_iraqi-guerrillas-tape-iraqi-military-officers?_s=PM:WORLD
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 02:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2003-11-25/world/sprj.irq.missile.tape_1_iraqi-guerrillas-tape-iraqi-military-officers?_s=PM%3AWORLD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521071136/http://flightsafety.org/aviation-awards/fsf-professionalism-award-flight-safety to http://flightsafety.org/aviation-awards/fsf-professionalism-award-flight-safety
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) 07:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find that the 'Background' section of the article is very meager as it does not mention anything whatsoever about the terrorists firing the missile?
Surely something must be known about them, given that there were two journalists with them that docuented the whole thing?
Okama-San (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reputable sources about that aspect, then please cite them and include the information. If not, refrain from adding rumors. Corqe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background Section? 

message: There is a claim at the end of the Aftermath section that the airframe with serial number 093 was eventually scrapped after going unsold. I cannot find any supporting information that the aircraft was scrapped, only old photos showing it abandoned. Additionally, the web article at the link below claims that the aircraft is in storage, not dismantled. The article was last updated in October 2022. This may not mean that the status itself was updated, but it may be considered more recent information, and with contrary information to the unsourced statement. I have since edited the page, but it was tagged with a citation that only showed a picture of the intact aircraft and made no such claims about any disassembly. Please advise/rebut as you see fit.
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/airbus-a300b4-n1452-pacific-aeromotive-corporation/2r1por 
Corqe (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrapped or stored?