The aircraft involved in the July 10, 2026 engine failure on flight has been identified as , according to the official NTSB accident record for the event, case DCA26FA274. Aircraft registry records list as a Boeing, a twin-engine jet landplane, registered in Malta.
The accident occurred during the from Thessaloniki International Airport, with the NTSB case record placing the event near , . According to Simple Flying, engine parts smashed a cabin window during the and passenger Ljubisa Karović, a Serbian national, had his head and right shoulder sucked out of the window while his wife held onto his legs. Simple Flying reported that a replacement aircraft took the passengers on to Memmingen Airport with a four-hour delay.
The cause has not been determined. Simple Flying reported that the NTSB's report says the initial indication is that a bird strike was involved, with bird remains and feathers found in the affected engine; the report draws no conclusions about the ultimate cause, and it is unclear whether there was a bird strike during the flight itself or whether engine parts disconnected because of previous damage. Bird remains and fan blade samples were sent to the Smithsonian Institution Feather Identification Lab in Washington, DC. According to the same reporting, the report noted cracking and 360° shear buckling on the exhaust case aft of the engine turbine rear frame, and recorded that fan blades underwent ultrasonic inspections on November 11, 2025 and May 24, 2026 with no findings. Flight crews had reported four bird strikes to the no.2 engine in the 12 months before July 2026. The NTSB found cabin procedures were followed, including proper deployment of all oxygen masks.
One public claim about the cause has come from an airline executive. Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, said the event "looks like foreign object damage to the engine on takeoff at Thessaloniki," Simple Flying reported. Simple Flying also reported that Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the NTSB, wrote to Michael O'Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, saying investigators had made no such determination and that he violated ICAO disclosure rules.
For context on the airframe type, the NTSB database, which begins in 2008, contains 713 other cases involving the Boeing 737, of which 17 involved a fatality. That count is a record of other cases and says nothing about the cause of this one. The NTSB's investigation into all aspects of the accident, including the potential involvement of a bird strike, continues.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Reference data
From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.