Regulations & Safety
WestJet Boeing 737 Landing Gear Collapse Investigation in St Maarten
TSB investigates WestJet Boeing 737 landing gear collapse in St Maarten linked to a fractured aft trunnion pin from maintenance issues.

Anatomy of a Landing Gear Failure: TSB Investigates WestJet Incident in St. Maarten
On September 7, 2025, a routine landing for a WestJet Boeing 737-800 at the scenic Princess Juliana International Airport in St. Maarten took an unexpected turn. The aircraft, arriving from Toronto with 157 passengers and 6 crew members, experienced a significant mechanical failure during its landing on Runway 10. The right main landing gear collapsed, causing the aircraft’s right engine to strike the runway surface. The event led to substantial damage to the aircraft and a prompt, controlled evacuation of everyone on board.
In the world of aviation safety, what happens after an incident is just as critical as the event itself. Under international aviation protocols, the St. Maarten Civil Aviation Authority delegated the complex task of investigation to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB). The TSB, working in close collaboration with American counterparts like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as with Boeing and WestJet, immediately began to piece together the sequence of events. One of the first, and most crucial, findings from the flight data recorder was clear: this was not a hard landing, immediately shifting the focus from operational factors to the mechanical integrity of the aircraft.
This incident does not exist in a vacuum. As investigators delve deeper, the focus has narrowed to a specific, critical component known as the aft trunnion pin. This piece of hardware has been implicated in previous landing gear failures on other Boeing 737 aircraft. The TSB’s investigation, therefore, carries implications that extend beyond a single flight, touching upon maintenance procedures and the lifecycle management of one of the world’s most common commercial aircraft.
The Incident and Initial Findings
The moments following the gear collapse were a testament to crew training and procedural discipline. With the aircraft disabled on the runway, the crew initiated a planned evacuation. Passengers and crew exited the aircraft using the emergency slides on the left side, away from the damaged right side. The evacuation was swift and orderly, resulting in only one reported minor injury sustained during the process. No injuries were reported as a direct result of the landing gear failure itself, a positive outcome in a challenging situation.
The Fractured Pin: A Critical Clue
Once the site was secured, TSB investigators began a meticulous examination of the aircraft. Their attention was quickly drawn to the failed right main landing gear, where they discovered that the aft trunnion pin had fractured. This pin is a crucial structural component that secures the landing gear assembly to the wing, designed to withstand immense forces during takeoff and landing. Its failure is a significant structural event.
The two fractured portions of the pin were carefully recovered from the site and transported to the TSB’s Engineering Laboratory in Ottawa. There, they will undergo detailed metallurgical and forensic analysis to determine the precise cause of the fracture. This examination will look for evidence of fatigue, stress corrosion, or manufacturing defects, providing a scientific basis for understanding why the component failed when it did.
The TSB also noted a key piece of the aircraft’s history: the right main landing gear assembly had undergone a complete overhaul in 2016. While this is a standard procedure for aircraft components, the date and details of this maintenance work will undoubtedly form a key part of the ongoing investigation as the team builds a complete picture of the component’s service life.
The initial review of the flight data recorder data indicates that this was not a hard landing event. This finding directs the investigation away from operational factors and squarely towards the aircraft’s mechanical integrity.
A Pattern of Failures: The Aft Trunnion Pin in Focus
Standard investigative practice involves looking for patterns, and the TSB is currently reviewing previous occurrences involving aft trunnion pin fractures on Boeing 737 aircraft. This line of inquiry is particularly relevant, as the NTSB has investigated at least two similar incidents in recent years, both of which point to a potential systemic issue related to maintenance procedures rather than a design flaw.
Historical Precedents and Maintenance Links
In August 2023, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-800 experienced a landing gear collapse. The subsequent NTSB investigation found that the left main landing gear’s aft trunnion pin had fractured due to a fatigue crack. The probable cause was determined to be “excessive grinding” during a maintenance overhaul, a procedure that inadvertently introduced heat damage and created the conditions for the crack to develop and propagate over time.
This was not an isolated case. A similar incident in December 2019 involving a United Airlines Boeing 737-800 was also traced back to a fractured aft trunnion pin. Once again, the NTSB investigation concluded that a fatigue crack had formed due to “excessive grinding” during an overhaul. These repeated findings highlight the critical importance of adhering to precise, validated procedures during the complex process of refurbishing major aircraft components.
These historical cases provide a crucial context for the WestJet investigation. They suggest that the focus will likely be on the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) history of the component. Landing gear assemblies are periodically removed from aircraft and completely disassembled, inspected, repaired, and reassembled by specialized facilities. The NTSB’s findings in the Alaska and United cases show that even minor deviations from approved procedures in this highly technical process can introduce latent defects that may not become apparent for years, ultimately leading to in-flight failures.
Conclusion: Awaiting the Final Report
The investigation into the WestJet landing in St. Maarten is a clear example of the methodical, evidence-based approach that defines modern aviation safety. The key facts established so far are that the incident was not caused by a hard landing, but by the fracture of the right main gear’s aft trunnion pin. This specific component has a documented history of failure in other Boeing 737-800s, with previous investigations pointing to improper maintenance during overhauls as the root cause.
The TSB’s final report, which will be released after the completion of the laboratory analysis and a full review of all evidence, will provide the definitive cause of this specific incident. Its findings will be closely watched by airlines, MRO facilities, and regulators worldwide. Depending on the outcome, it could lead to revised maintenance protocols or airworthiness directives to prevent similar occurrences, reinforcing the continuous cycle of learning and improvement that makes air travel one of the safest forms of transportation.
FAQ
Question: What happened to the WestJet flight in St. Maarten?
Answer: On September 7, 2025, the aircraft’s right main landing gear collapsed upon landing at Princess Juliana International Airport. The investigation has focused on a fractured component in the gear assembly known as the aft trunnion pin.
Question: Was the incident caused by a hard landing?
Answer: No. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) analyzed the flight data recorder and stated that the event was not a hard landing.
Question: Have similar incidents happened before?
Answer: Yes, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has investigated similar landing gear collapses on other Boeing 737-800 aircraft. In those cases, the cause was traced to fatigue cracks in the aft trunnion pin, which were attributed to improper maintenance procedures during overhaul.
Question: Were there any serious injuries?
Answer: No injuries were reported from the gear collapse itself. A planned evacuation was conducted, during which one minor injury was reported.
Sources
Photo Credit: TSB
Regulations & Safety
TSB Reports Fatal 2023 Helicopter Accident During Maintenance Run
TSB Canada details a fatal 2023 helicopter accident at Smithers Airport caused by skipped checklists and pilot distraction. Mustang Helicopters updates safety policies.

This article is based on an official press release from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
On May 27, 2026, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final investigation report (A23P0040) detailing the circumstances surrounding a fatal incident that occurred three years prior. The incident, which took place on May 6, 2023, at Smithers Airport (CYYD) in British Columbia, involved an Airbus Helicopters AS 350 B3 operated by Mustang Helicopters Inc.
According to the official TSB press release and accompanying report, the accident occurred during a maintenance ground run, resulting in the death of one ground worker and serious injuries to another. The investigation highlights critical safety issues, specifically the severe dangers of procedural complacency and digital distraction in the cockpit during ground operations.
The Incident at Smithers Airport
Maintenance Ground Run Turns Fatal
The TSB report outlines that on the day of the accident, the Airbus AS 350 B3 helicopter (registration C-GUXR) was undergoing maintenance ground run operations. The specific procedure was designed to balance the tail rotor drive shaft, a highly technical task that requires the helicopter’s rotor system to be operated at nearly full RPM.
During the third maintenance ground run of the day, the aircraft suddenly entered an uncommanded and rapid rotation. At the time, two maintenance staff members were positioned on the ground near the helicopter’s left cargo door to monitor the balancing equipment. As the helicopter spun out of control, both workers attempted to evade the aircraft but were struck multiple times by the tail rotor. Tragically, one worker was fatally injured at the scene, while the other sustained serious injuries and was airlifted to a local hospital.
The TSB investigation notes that the pilot eventually managed to move the engine control to IDLE, shut off the fuel supply, and apply the rotor brake. The helicopter came to a rest after rotating approximately 540 degrees. The aircraft remained upright throughout the event, and no post-impact fire occurred.
Investigation Findings and Human Factors
Skipped Checklists and Unseen Hazards
In its analysis of the events leading up to the uncommanded rotation, the TSB identified several critical human factors and procedural deviations. Following the first maintenance run of the day, the pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process.
The pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process, viewing the task as “routine and repetitive.”
According to the TSB, this deviation meant that crucial safety steps were missed. Specifically, pressure was left in the hydraulic system, and the right anti-torque pedal remained engaged in a fully forward position. Because the checklist was skipped, this critical hazard went completely undetected prior to the third engine start.
The Role of Digital Distraction
A central finding of the TSB report is the role of digital distraction in the cockpit. Investigators found that the pilot’s attention was split between the highly sensitive maintenance operation and a cellphone, which was connected to a Bluetooth earpiece.
Because the pilot was looking down when the rapid rotation began, he was not expecting the sudden movement. The TSB concluded that his delayed response to the rotational yaw force was insufficient to stop the helicopter from spinning quickly. Investigators emphasized that the minimal time saved by skipping the official checklist was negligible and ultimately contributed to the fatal outcome.
Industry Implications and Safety Actions
Regulatory Blind Spots
The TSB report highlights a significant regulatory gap within the Canadian aviation framework. Currently, there are no Transport Canada regulations that explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations.
The safety board has previously identified the severe risks associated with cellphone use in aviation accidents, noting that electronic devices can fatally divert a pilot’s attention from activities necessary for safe operations. The TSB presents this incident as a grim case study on the dangers of complacency during ground operations, which are often falsely perceived by crews as lower-risk than active flight.
Operator Corrective Measures
Following the tragic occurrence, Mustang Helicopters Inc. implemented several corrective safety measures aimed at preventing future incidents. According to the TSB report, the company introduced a strict new distraction policy that explicitly requires the stowing of all electronic devices during operations.
Additionally, Mustang Helicopters added a new standard operating procedure (SOP) specifically tailored for maintenance ground runs to its operations manual. The company also thoroughly revised and strengthened its hazard assessments and safety briefings for both maintenance personnel and pilots.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this tragic event underscores a critical vulnerability in modern aviation operations: the intrusion of personal electronics into safety-critical environments. While active flight operations often command a pilot’s full attention, ground operations, such as maintenance runs, can falsely appear lower-risk, inviting a dangerous level of complacency. The TSB’s findings suggest that regulatory bodies like Transport Canada may need to urgently modernize their frameworks to explicitly address digital distractions. Ensuring that the cockpit remains a sterile, focused environment, even when the aircraft is firmly on the ground, is paramount to preventing similar tragedies in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What caused the helicopter to spin during the maintenance run?
According to the TSB, the pilot skipped portions of the checklist, leaving hydraulic pressure in the system and the right anti-torque pedal in a fully forward position. When the engine was started for the third run, this caused an uncommanded and rapid rotation of the aircraft.
Why didn’t the pilot stop the rotation immediately?
The TSB investigation found that the pilot was distracted by a cellphone connected to a Bluetooth earpiece and was looking down when the rotation began. This distraction led to a delayed and insufficient reaction to the sudden yaw force.
Are pilots allowed to use cellphones in the cockpit in Canada?
The TSB report highlights that there are currently no Transport Canada regulations explicitly prohibiting the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations, identifying this as a significant regulatory blind spot.
Sources
Photo Credit: TSB
Regulations & Safety
FAA Establishes No Drone Zones for 2026 FIFA World Cup Events
FAA announces strict no drone zones around stadiums and fan events for the 2026 FIFA World Cup with severe penalties and federal enforcement.

This article is based on an official press release from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
FAA Implements Strict “No Drone Zones” for 2026 FIFA World Cup
On May 28, 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced comprehensive airspace restrictions for the upcoming FIFA World Cup 2026. In a highly coordinated effort with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the agency is establishing strict “No Drone Zones” across the United States.
These Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) will cover all stadiums hosting matches, official fan events, and team base camps. According to the official press release, the initiative is designed to ensure the safety of players, staff, and spectators by keeping unauthorized Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, out of restricted airspace.
With the tournament co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the scale of the event is unprecedented. Federal agencies have adopted a zero-tolerance policy, warning that violators will face severe financial penalties, equipment confiscation, and potential federal criminal charges.
Airspace Restrictions and Temporary Flight Rules
The FAA’s safety plan outlines specific boundaries for the No Drone Zones during match days and official events. For all stadiums hosting World Cup matches, unauthorized drone flights are strictly prohibited within a 3-nautical-mile radius. This restriction extends vertically up to 3,000 feet above ground level.
Fan Events and Base Camps
Beyond the stadiums, the FAA is also protecting official fan events and host city locations. The no-fly zones around these gathering spaces will extend to a 1-nautical-mile radius and reach up to 1,000 feet above ground level.
The agency noted that standard airspace authorizations for commercial or experienced remote pilots will be suspended during the active TFR windows. Only aircraft explicitly authorized by air traffic control or law enforcement will be permitted to operate in these areas.
Enforcement, Interception, and Severe Penalties
To manage the massive influx of international tourists and the high-profile nature of the matches, the FAA is deploying its Drone Expedited and Targeted Enforcement Response (DETER) initiative. This program accelerates the detection, identification, and enforcement of drone violations.
“As fans from around the world gather at stadiums and fan events across the country for the FIFA World Cup, the FAA is using every available tool to protect the airspace, including stronger drone-enforcement efforts,” stated FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford in the press release.
FBI Mitigation and Financial Consequences
Local law enforcement and the FBI are legally authorized to use specialized mitigation technology to intercept unauthorized drones. According to statements from the FBI Atlanta Office, agents can detect, track, and physically move aircraft out of restricted airspace while preserving evidence for prosecution.
“Should there be the need for us to intercept a drone we have the technology for that. We do have the technology to identify drones and then locate operators,” said Aaron Hope of the FBI Atlanta Office.
The financial and legal consequences for violating these TFRs are severe. The FAA outlines civil fines up to $75,000 per violation, while criminal fines can reach up to $100,000. Additional consequences include immediate confiscation of the drone, federal criminal charges, and potential arrest.
AirPro News analysis
We note that while the FAA routinely establishes TFRs for major sporting events like the Super Bowl or the World Series, the simultaneous, multi-city nature of the 2026 FIFA World Cup requires a highly coordinated federal response spanning several weeks. The deployment of the DETER initiative and explicit warnings about FBI mitigation technology highlight a growing federal concern over unauthorized drone usage at public events. These incidents not only pose physical risks to crowds from falling equipment but also threaten to disrupt global broadcast operations. For local hobbyists, utilizing tools like the FAA’s “B4UFLY” app will be essential to avoid life-altering fines during the tournament.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the penalty for flying a drone near a World Cup stadium?
Violators face civil fines up to $75,000, criminal fines up to $100,000, immediate drone confiscation, and potential federal arrest.
How large is the No Drone Zone around stadiums?
The restricted airspace covers a 3-nautical-mile radius and extends up to 3,000 feet above ground level around all host stadiums.
Are commercial drone pilots exempt from these rules?
No. According to the FAA, standard airspace authorizations are suspended during active TFR windows. Only explicitly authorized law enforcement or air traffic control-approved flights are permitted.
Sources
Photo Credit: Mercedes-Benz Stadium
Regulations & Safety
Detroit Metro Airport SUV Crash Highlights Terminal Security Gaps
A vehicle breached Detroit Metro Airport’s Evans Terminal entrance in May 2026, prompting security upgrades and no serious injuries reported.

On Friday morning, May 29, 2026, a vehicle breached the entrance of the Warren Evans Terminal at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airports (DTW). According to third-party news reports, a 67-year-old man drove a black SUV through the terminal’s glass doors, causing temporary closures but resulting in no serious injuries.
The incident, which occurred between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. local time, marks the second time in just four months that a car has crashed into a DTW terminal. Authorities quickly detained the driver, who is believed to have been experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of the crash.
Operations at the Evans Terminal were halted as emergency responders secured the scene, though normal activities resumed by late morning. The McNamara Terminal remained fully operational throughout the event, and flight schedules were largely unaffected.
Details of the Terminal Breach
The Crash and Immediate Aftermath
Based on surveillance footage reviewed by the Wayne County Airport Authority, the black SUV navigated over a curb and passed through a gap between existing cement barriers. The vehicle then shattered the glass entrance near Door 4 of the Warren Evans Terminal.
Inside the building, the sudden intrusion sparked immediate panic among travelers and staff. Witnesses described a chaotic scene with people scattering to avoid the vehicle as the driver reportedly revved the engine.
“It was a very fearful moment. You had nothing but children and you know people standing everywhere,” a witness told reporters at the scene.
Despite the frightening circumstances, casualties were remarkably light. Reports indicate that only one person, a female traveler, sustained a minor knee injury while attempting to dodge the SUV. She declined medical attention and was able to board her scheduled flight.
Suspect Apprehension and Motive
Law enforcement officers swiftly apprehended the 67-year-old driver, a resident of Metro Detroit. Police confirmed that the man was unarmed and carried no explosives, ruling out terrorism or an intent to cause mass casualties.
Authorities described the suspect as highly disoriented. According to third-party reporting, the man claimed he drove into the airport because he needed to “meet Tom Cruise and save his dad.” Officials strongly suspect the individual was undergoing a severe mental health crisis.
Airport Operations and Security Response
Minimal Disruption to Flights
Following the breach, the Evans Terminal was temporarily locked down to allow airport police, the FBI, the TSA, and local fire departments to investigate and clear the area.
Fortunately for travelers, the disruption was brief. The terminal was reopened and functioning normally between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. local time. Furthermore, the incident did not cause any direct flight delays or cancellations, and the nearby McNamara Terminal was completely unaffected.
Infrastructure and Barricade Upgrades
The physical security of airport entrances has come under intense scrutiny following this event. The Wayne County Airport Authority announced immediate plans to deploy additional temporary barricades to reinforce terminal entryways and sidewalks.
In the longer term, officials are already in the design phase for a permanent, robust barricade system. Insights gathered from Friday’s breach will be incorporated into the final engineering plans to prevent future occurrences.
A Troubling Pattern at DTW
The January 2026 Incident
Friday’s crash is particularly alarming because it closely mirrors another event from earlier this year. On January 23, 2026, a driver in a Mercedes-Benz sedan smashed through the doors of the McNamara Terminal, eventually striking a Delta Air Lines ticket counter.
That earlier incident resulted in minor injuries to six individuals. Strikingly, the driver in the January crash was also taken into custody while reportedly suffering from a mental health emergency. Following the January breach, DTW installed temporary barriers to block 90-degree turns into the doors, but Friday’s driver managed to bypass these specific countermeasures.
AirPro News analysis
The recurrence of vehicles breaching terminal doors at a major international airport within a four-month window highlights a critical vulnerability in curbside infrastructure. While aviation Safety traditionally focuses on passenger screening and sterile areas, the “landside” perimeter remains exposed to vehicular threats.
Both the January and May 2026 incidents involved individuals in mental distress rather than coordinated attacks. However, the ease with which these vehicles bypassed existing curbside protections suggests that temporary barriers are insufficient. The rapid implementation of permanent, crash-rated bollards across all DTW terminals will be essential to restore public confidence and safeguard travelers from potentially more malicious actors in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Were there any serious injuries in the DTW terminal crash?
No. Only one minor injury was reported when a traveler fell while avoiding the vehicle. - Did the crash affect flight schedules?
No flights were delayed or canceled as a direct result of the incident. The Evans Terminal reopened by 11:30 a.m., and the McNamara Terminal was unaffected. - Was this a terrorist attack?
Authorities have confirmed the driver was unarmed and there is no evidence of malicious intent. The suspect is believed to have been experiencing a mental health crisis.
Sources: X (formerly Twitter)
Photo Credit: X
-
Regulations & Safety7 days agoAAIB Report Details Leonardo AW139 Tail Rotor Bearing Near-Miss
-
Regulations & Safety5 days agoNTSB Urges FAA to Update Runway Condition Assessment Matrix for Heavy Rain
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoFAA Orders SpaceX Investigation After Starship Flight 12 Booster Mishap
-
Space & Satellites2 days agoBlue Origin’s New Glenn Rocket Explodes During Test at Cape Canaveral
-
Route Development5 days agoHong Kong International Airport Opens Expanded Terminal 2 for Departures
