Analysis Summary:

The article's accuracy is mixed. The core claim about a link between an Army equipment glitch and aborted landings is plausible but lacks direct verification from the provided sources. The article exhibits moderate bias through its framing of the event as raising "new questions about equipment and safety," which suggests a pre-existing concern.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** "Diversion of two commercial flights on May 1 has raised new questions about equipment and safety in some of Washington’s busiest airspace."
  • Verification Source #1: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #2: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #3: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #4: Fails to cover this claim.
  • Verification Source #5: Fails to cover this claim.
• Analysis: This is the central claim of the article. None of the provided sources directly confirm or deny this event or its implications. The claim is plausible, but without verification, the accuracy is uncertain. The phrase "raised new questions" implies a pre-existing concern, suggesting a potential bias.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Lack of Coverage: None of the provided sources address the specific incident described in the article. This makes it impossible to definitively verify the factual accuracy of the central claim.
• Potential Bias: The framing of the event as raising "new questions" suggests a pre-existing concern about equipment and safety, which could indicate a bias towards highlighting potential problems.