Talk:Boeing P-8 Poseidon

Canadian Air Force uses the P-8; missing from article?

According to current news reports of the search for the missing Titan sub in the North Atlantic, Canada's Air Force has deployed their P-8 aircraft to search. Is there a reason Canada doesn't show in the Wiki article list as a user? 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:B031:29:1EAB:4FBB (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Canada has no P-8s. They are proposing to purchase some (current reports say up to 16), but do not currently have any.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 11:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Operators have to place a firm order, i.e. sign a order contract of some form to be considered an operator. Planning or talking about it is not enough. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The reports I've seen are about USN P-8s being deployed, possibly from Canada. If you've seen them referred to as Canadian, they're incorrect. BilCat (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

P-8 Runway Overshoot on 20 Nov 2023

RedundancyAdvocate,Fnlayson Why do we need to include this incident in the article? WP:PLANECRASH explicitly states Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:

1. The accident was fatal to humans; -> Fail at criteria since all nine personnel safely evacuated and no injuries reported.
2. The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; -> Fail at this criteria since the aircraft is structurally intact.
3. The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. -> It's not possible to confirm these criteria yet as the investigation is still underway. However, it's unlikely that there will be major changes in procedures or regulations since there were no casualties, and the aircraft is still intact.

Please also note that the above criteria is for large civil aircraft which have more relaxed standards when compared to military aircraft. So, I propose to remove that addition. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is indeed a minor incident that I didn't add. It's generally easier to let things go for a while than have a back & forth edit war over it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The aircraft did receive fairly major damage, and there is a chance it will result in procedure changes. Also, it’s notable as the first major incident involving the P-8, which should be noted in the article. I say leave it, there’s no harm in doing so. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note criteria for inclusion for accident in military aircraft per WP:PLANECRASH is The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft). -> so did all P-8s is grounded while investigation ongoing due to this incident? I don't think so... Ckfasdf (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be left until we know more about what exactly happened. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@RedundancyAdvocate: IMO, it should be the other way around, until there is evidence of significant notable procedures/regulations changes, then we should remove it as it didn't met criteria of WP:PLANECRASH.Ckfasdf (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The article does not appear to note that...

... the P8 design leveraged and used a lot of the work done on the first 737 military derivative Wedgetail E-7 (e.g., countermeasures, in-flight refueling, the 180 kVA generators, etc). 2601:603:302:3F70:7419:28A:1D0F:1D7E (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That kind of detail can't be added without valid sources to support them. Unsourced claims can be removed from Wiki articles per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)