Context:
Resolution criteria:
Resolves YES if it is clear that a mishap investigation is required: eg the FAA states an investigation is required, IFT-4 results in fatalities/injuries/public damages, there are reputable reports of a mishap investigation underway etc
Resolves NO if it is clear that a mishap investigation is not required: eg the FAA states an investigation is not required, multiple reputable sources state that an investigation is not required, there is no evidence of a mishap investigation having occurred or being underway 4 months following IFT-4 etc
Traders will be consulted prior to resolving if I believe it is sufficiently clear but none of the above example conditions have been met
Related markets:
1,000๐ Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน615 | |
| 2 | แน111 | |
| 3 | แน76 | |
| 4 | แน65 | |
| 5 | แน57 |
People are also trading
@Mqrius The definition of a mishap that requires an investigation is in 14 CFR 401.7. Maybe the flap falling apart could be considered "unplanned substantial damage". But since the heat shield and flap was part of the approved "test induced damage" exceptions, it should not count as a mishap, see 14 CFR 450.175.