Talk:Med Jets Flight 056

Title

The ADS-B ID of the flight was MTS56. According to https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/cnt_html/chap3_section_3.html, MTS is the ICAO 3 letters designator for MED JETS, S.A. DE C.V. company, in MEXICO, and its telephony callsign is MEDSERVICE.

Thus this flight callsign was MEDSERVICE 56 (not Med Jets 56 - only Flightaware seem to name it like that, saying that the operator is Med Jets "Mantrust" which is unknown everywhere else)

According to its website, "MED JETS, S.A. DE C.V." (anonym society of variable capital) is doing business as "Jets Rescue" and use the brand "Jets Rescue Air Ambulance" - Jets Rescue Air Ambulance operates in Mexico directly under its own AOC (Air operator's certificate) and indirectly in the US using Century Aviation AOC

If a flight name is used as a title, it should rather be "Jets Rescue Flight 56" than "Med Jets Flight 56" (or 056)

Anyway, according to Naming conventions, since it is NOT a commercial air carrier, and since nobody else than Wikipedia has used Med Jets Flight 56 or any other variant of the flight number, I suggest we "use the "where and what" convention" and revert to the original title "2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash", or to "2025 Medevac Philadelphia Learjet crash" - Df (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash" makes the most sense to me, but suggest that it gets brought up through WP:RM to gain consensus. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Done - #Requested move 8 February 2025 Df (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Filed maximum speed?

I am a retired aircraft engineer and pilot, and know of no such thing as a filed maximum speed referred to in the article. 184.183.120.187 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus in favour of moving the title to "2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash" or "Jet Rescue Flight MTS056" as was proposed during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Med Jets Flight 056 → 2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash – Tough "Med Jets SA de CV" is the owner of the aircraft, MTS56 flight (call sign MEDSERVICE 56) was operated under "Jet Rescue Air Ambulance" name, not Med Jets. According to Naming conventions, since it is NOT a commercial air carrier, and since nobody else than Wikipedia (except FlightAware) has used Med Jets Flight 56 or any other variant of the flight number, the requested title (which was the original title) "use the "where and what" convention" - See also #Title and #Med Jets Flight 056 discussions above Df (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a one plane crash, the 2025 philadelphia learjet crash would make sense if it was a double plane crash. Look at the other one plane crashes, they had the official name for the plane. So that is why I am opposing this. Shaneapickle (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Technically, no, this can still be considered a commercial aircraft as it was registered with a "XA-" prefix which is used by operators intending to carry out commercial use for the aircraft in Mexico (see ) and not anything else like "XB-" (private aircraft) or "XC-" (government aircraft). Med Jets Flight 056 also has been in use lately (see , ). GalacticOrbits (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  ...in use by people maybe reading wikipedia ;-) ... still waiting a reliable source with that flight designation. And, if we consider a medevac as an Air Carrier flight, we should use the real air carrier name, and the title would rather be "Jet Rescue [air Ambulance] flight [0]56" - no need for 3 digits here, there are flights numbers of 1 to 4 digits, the "0" is not significant - see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2021Df (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  I've seen this argument over and over again of removing the leading zero in flight numbers and I most definitely oppose that. The callsign and flight number were MEDSERVICE 056 and MTS056 respectively. FlightRadar confirmed this while FlightAware tends to omit the leading zero in most flight numbers. We have also had a strong precedence on having leading zeroes in flight numbers in the past Korean Air Lines Flight 015, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Overseas National Airways Flight 032, Mandala Airlines Flight 091, Aeroflot Flight 065, Aeroflot Flight 068, Avianca Flight 011, Avianca Flight 052 just to name a few. It's standard to retain the original flight number and not make up a flight number that "seems more appropriate" than another. The ICAO code MTS belongs to Med Jets so it would be a Med Jets flight and not a Jet Rescue Air Ambulance flight. GalacticOrbits (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, ICAO code is always 3 digits, the flight number no. We have Qantas Flight 1, Delta Air Lines Flight 89, Meridian Flight 3032 etc... For Flightaware it is MTS56, not 056. For Flightradar24, it's MTS56/MTS056, neither are in their title (see Medevac Learjet 55 crashes near Philadeplphia) and Airline/Operator are "Jet Rescue Air Ambulance" (the name under which "Med Jets, S.A. DE C.V." is doing business)... There is no reliable "original flight number", and it is not up to Wikipedia to invent one. Also, there is a MedJet US-based company without any connection to the crashDf (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  "ICAO code is always 3 digits": No one's disputing that claim; the ICAO code is always 3 digits long (in this case it's MTS). As I said earlier, FlightAware almost always tends to omit the leading zero for its data while FlightRadar24 keeps it. Qantas Flight 1 isn't Qantas Flight 001 since it was never designated so. It was always designated as QFA1 and not QFA001. Some airlines add (a) leading zero(es) to their flight numbers to make it look more visually appealing, often requiring changes in internal operations. If it's depicted to the public (on the flight information display) with (a) leading zero(es), and is even used internally (as the flight number and the callsign), there is no reason to not use the flight number without them.

  Regarding your claim that the flight number cannot be determined if it was MTS56 or MTS056, it can most definitely be determined with absolute certainty. The callsign of the flight was MEDSERVICE 056 (see: ) so that already establishes what the flight number most likely was, but I'll do you one better. The NTSB too reports this to be flight MTS056 and not flight MTS56 (see: ). Wikipedia never invents flight numbers (other than the Air Inter Flight 148 exception) and should never invent flight numbers.

  More sources are now using Med Jets Flight 056 as well (see: , ). This title should stick. GalacticOrbits (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Rename to Jet Rescue Flight MTS056 as it is publicly known as the Jet Rescue crash, and as with the Potomac crash, which is known as the American Eagle crash with the helicopter, this flight is known by its public operating name and not the internal name, just as it is American Eagle and not PSA in the other crash days before -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Med Jets has ICAO flight number, like this one AirMed Australia Flight 990. Arrow Air charter (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose As others stated above, this was only a single plane that crashed, so the Wikipedia standard is to make the title the flight number. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 14:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Red0ctober22 is correct. It already meets the requirements of WP:AVTITLE. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discrepancy with footage and official death toll?

I've seen most of the footage and images that came out about this event and I was able to count two to three distinct maimed bodies in pictures and videos. Could some of this footage be unrelated to this crash or is there something I'm missing regarding what counts a casualty in this event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.2.121 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this observation. We rely on the preponderance of published reliable sources for such information. (Please remember to sign your talk comments!) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

can I share sources here?

comment added by 181.31.2.121 181.31.2.121 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but the information must comprise somebody else's analysis, published in a reliable source. We editors can't do our own analysis and draw conclusions. That would be original research. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Later death

I know the title is poorly worded, but there is an eigth fatality attibuted to this event months after the fact.

How is that handled.

And since you all like sources: https://6abc.com/post/dominique-goods-burke-becomes-8th-victim-die-months-northeast-philadelphia-medical-jet-crash/16339458/ 2601:49:4203:7A20:0:0:0:69D (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)