Talk:2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident

Registration

Can someone confirm what the registration of the stolen plane was indeed N449QX? According to FlightAware, the last tracked flight of N449QX was from SeaTac to Victoria International and the return flight was canceled. --Omega13a (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Omega13a: - the Aviation Safety Network currently has the incident on its Wikibase (less notable, military and GA accidents). Edits made to the Wikibase are checked and verified before publishing, so it should be reliable. I appreciated some editors will object to the fact that a Wiki is being used for a reference, so won't object to its replacement as a reference should another become available. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Acccording to this source it is indeed N449QX [1]. Flightaware won't have the flight because it was just a takeoff without filing any flight. The transponder was most likely off as well. --Bohbye (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Aviation Safety Network have now moved their entry to a full listing, thus WP:RS is met. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Found something that confirms beyond any doubt that it was indeed N449QX.--Omega13a (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

OK, we've got two opposing merge proposals. Let's keep the discussion at talk:2018 Sea-Tac airplane theft#Merge to avoid confusion. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Read. The. Documentation. On. {{merge}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've closed the merge discussions and brought everything over from the other article, including the talk discussions which I've pasted in below. As a result, it can be confusing which direction the discussion refers to, but now it's at least in one place.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2018 (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.

F-22, not F-15

At the end of the video that shows the barrel roll attempt, a fighter plane is shown. Notice the horizontal part of the tail. It clearly has the shape of an F-22 tail. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources all say F-15. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Needs a WP:RS. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It could be a matter of low resolution and video compression. The wing matches an F-15. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Late to this - but according to its Wikipedia page, the 142nd Fighter Wing does not have any F-22s. Jak525 (talk) 10:26, Friday, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

It's an F-15. They were ANG aircraft, and only active USAF units operate the F-22. The tail does look like an F-22, but that's really just because it's a twin-engine fighter jet with a stabilator that sits behind the exhaust. The -22 is incredibly distinctive, even at low resolutions. FireLordAang (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP?!?

The following discussion 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.

---

How does BLP pertain? The guy's dead! kencf0618 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP applies to subjects who have recently died as well. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can confirm. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nor is he confirmed dead (though it's extremely likely). ansh666 05:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

News to me. Thanks for the information! kencf0618 (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Ansh666. You are welcome Kencf0618! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:06, 11 August 2018 (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.

Hijacking?

This incident seems to fit the definition of a hijacking. Should the title be changed, replacing "theft" with hijacking? Juneau Mike (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've brought this up before. I don't know if legally speaking this was a hijacking or not. He didn't interfere with a flight crew -he was the flight crew! kencf0618 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hijacking means to forcibly stop and seize control of a vehicle while in transit. This airplane was parked, therefore it was stolen, not hijacked. [2] [3] Bradv 06:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)@Michaelh2001: The news is currently calling it a theft, but we shall have to see as more becomes available. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The aircraft hijacking page here on Wikipedia defines hijacking as the unlawful seizure of an aircraft by an individual or group.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: Let's wait and see what the end result is. A lot is unknown at the moment. Titles are easy to correct if necessary later. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly it is being reported as a stolen aircraft incident, and not as a hijacking, inasmuch as there were no passengers on board. The hostage aspect factors into this, I guess.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/11/f-15cs-intercept-stolen-dash-8-airliner-out-of-seattle-tacoma-airport-before-crash/ kencf0618 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Seizure means to take forcibly, in this case the aircraft was simply stolen and was not hijacked. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe "hijack" is correct if we follow the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The closest definition is "to commandeer (a flying airplane) especially by coercing the pilot at gunpoint", which if we just consider "to commandeer (a flying airplane)" is absolutely false. All 3 definitions seem to indicate that vehicle needs to be in transit for it to be considered a hijack. 73.109.0.253 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Reportage, investigations, etc.

The Pierce County Sheriff's Department utilized Twitter as an official news feed: "Follow this thread for official info." This provides context for their Twitter account being included in the article, methinks. Too, this bizarre incident shall be gone over with the proverbial fine-toothed comb by all agencies involved (including ours); it's not the Lufthansa heist, but it's our Lufthansa heist, so to speak.

(https://twitter.com/PierceSheriff/status/1028143213142401025)

kencf0618 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge into 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident for now. This is a rapidly developing, confusing story, and we will gain nothing from having two articles on it. For now, I'm merging the stub into the larger article, but am making no longterm decision about the name. The name of the article can be the subject of a different proposal. (Note this is now on the talk page of the target page, so which direction the merge went is a little confusing in the dialogue below.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Oppose merge as proposed - Accepting that this article was started first, the 2018 Horizon Air Q400 Incident article is at a title that better conforms with the naming convention on aircrash articles, and is better developed. It would be better to merge this article into that one. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as proposed - Agree with Mjroots merge this one into 2018 Horizon Air Q400 Incident. --Bohbye (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh ffs. You might want to look at the documentation for {{Merge}} - "To propose a merge of at least two articles together at an unspecified location, use {{Merge|OtherPage}}". It is conventional to put {{Merge}} on both articles. Still. Whatever. Argue amongst yourselves. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: what we actually have is two opposing proposals, not a single proposal. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Mjroots, Bohbye, I'm a little confused. What exactly are the proposals? Anyway, my input is this:

• Merge 2018 Horizon Air Q400 Incident into 2018 Sea-Tac airplane theft for now — Most people won't remember the type of aircraft, and won't search for it using 'Horizon Air Q400'. The type of plane is not central to notability. The '2018 Sea-Tac airplane theft' title is more in line with news headlines, describes the situation better and includes more likely search terms. It may be that once the identity of the man is published, it would be best to change the title again.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 09:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge I agree, as this is more inclusive. kencf0618 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge the other way round, as proposed my Mjroots (i.e. merge Sea-Tac airplane theft into Horizon Air Q400 Incident). The event is primarily a plane crash and should be covered as such. Also, Sea-Tac would arguably be no more meaningful to a large number of readers than Q400 (at the very least, it should be replaced with Seattle-Tacoma). The presence of more common search terms in the title is irrelevant: the redirects left in place after the merge would ensure that searching for those terms will still take the reader to the intended article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Merge We don't need two articles on the same subject, at this time I'm neutral on which of the names I support keeping. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2018 (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.

Another merge?

See Draft:2018 Bombardier Dash 8 hijacking incident. The draft contains two sources which aren't in the present article. Based solely on an offhand glance, they both appear to be stronger than many of the sources which are in the article. There's also an AFC reviewer who appears to believe that this topic isn't notable, citing various pieces of policy, yet at the same time they aren't taking this article to AFD. I left the usual comments over there about paper tigers existing in walled gardens and continuing to carry on as if what happens in draftspace need not bear any relation to what goes on in the rest of the encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Go ahead and (s)merge and redirect, since we already have an article. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Why is it so important what that reviewer did? this is a major aviation event that will dominate the news for a while, will also change aircraft security forever. --Bohbye (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Info Box

In the Info Box, Richard Russell is listed as the "crew". I don't think that is correct or appropriate. He stole the plane. Calling him a member of the "crew" seems to minimize his criminal conduct and to legitimize his presence on the plane. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, infobox tweaked to read Occupants 1, Fatalities 1, Survivors 0. I think that covers it adequately. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Occupators" might be the most precise term here, although I note that the Angola and Botswana incidents still use "Crew." kencf0618 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Biographical info on Richard Russell

This article has some good biographical info on Richard Russell: Who was Richard Russell? 7 things to know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of "he crashed"

This edit has been the cause of some edit warring. Specifically, whether to use the wording, "when he crashed the aircraft" or "when the aircraft crashed". The statement should be, in my opinion, "when he crashed the aircraft". Let's discuss that here. Pinging involved parties: @Bohbye: @Ahunt: @2600:1003:b10b:1509:2a88:42bf:d0ab:3acf:. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should say "when he crashed the aircraft". The use of "when the aircraft crashed" makes it sound like the impact was an accident, when all the refs indicate that it was an intentional act, including quotes from the occupant of the aircraft to ATC, when he said that he intended to crash the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes he was suicidal. Though it's far too early in the investigation to reliably determine, do we have a source that says the crash was actually intentional? His quotes suggest he intended to, but it's still unclear if that's actually what happened. Would not be surprising if the crash was ultimately accidental, a result of him not being a trained pilot. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not involved in any edit war, I just edited based on what all sources say. Didn’t even see the edit war amongst the other two. Makes no sense to stick to old untrue information. But hey, edit as much as anyones hearts desires if that makes someone happy. Peace. Bohbye (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye, my apologies for any confusion. By pinging you as an involved party, I was not implying you were involved or engaged in an edit war, but rather that since you had reverted the quote being discussed, I considered you to potentially have an opinion on it. --HunterM267 ^talk 22:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

He may have been suicidal. He may have intended to crash the aircraft. The crash may still have been an accident. Will an inquest arise from this death? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait on the result of all of the FBI and NTSB investigations. The black box alone shall tell us much. kencf0618 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinda funny to watch IP editor reverting edits non stop. Must be giving them an revertgasm. Bohbye (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Kindly keep discussion on-topic and avoid personal attacks, thanks! 173.73.10.191 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think had a revertgasm once, but I was in Rio at the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrator bio needs a diet

Too much irrelevant info to the incident. Who cares who and where he married? Owned a bakery? Let’s cut down on the unrelated info. Bohbye (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right, although I found those details the most interesting part of the entire article. There's so much footage all over social media, this was the only intriguing bit. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I added this stuff because it was interesting, and relevant to the incident. "Who, what, where, when, and why", as they say. There are many times when media will come out and say "Oh, there were so many warning signs that people could have seen in advance if they only had the Great Firewall of China writing out a report about the perp's social postings and sending him to a reeducation camp!" This time mum's the word among the commentators, because the fact is, the guy was normal, well liked, well adjusted, religious (and not a Muslim.....), married, nobody anybody would think twice about. And I feel we should say a little of that also because among other things we want to sort of be fair to the airline, since their people are obviously under a cloud when something like this happens, and there's no reason to think they deserve that. Plus, it's interesting, and the readers come here to see stuff like that. But -- above all -- it belongs because sources about the incident are covering it, and wherever they go, we should follow. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perpetrator section does not need to be reduced in my opinion. It probably should be further expanded. Backgrounds of the individuals involved in these types of events are of interest to the reader. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's called a mindset or mentality and paints a picture of his life prior to the incident. Same as with those who go on a killing spree or commit suicide, which is what happened here. — Wyliepedia @ 03:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Barrel Roll?

The videoed manoeuvre ended up being more like a Split-S than a Barrel Roll. However, I doubt the man at the yoke had enough control to choose how it actually turned out. Should it be changed to "attempted barrel roll"? I guess he did say he was going to try a barrel roll, even if he didn't end up actually doing one. Is intention enough? Kotukunui (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

His intention is certainly not enough. But without an RS for a description of Split S, having precedence over barrel roll, that would be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What specific maneuver Russell succeeded in is difficult to prove, and I can find sources that suggest he performed at least three different things from the same piece of video evidence; a barrel roll, a split-s, an upside-down aerial loop... Video evidence and wide media coverage is sufficient to say that he most certainly attempted "aerobatic maneuvers", which is not likely to be disputed. If and when the black box is analyzed, it is likely that it will provide evidence of what exactly Russell did. At this stage, being more specific is an exercise in guesswork for editors and (it seems) media alike, which is, as previously stated, WP:OR. Skybunny (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur. kencf0618 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

On kind of the same topic... there is one person widely quoted as saying that the maneuvers were "impressive". I do have to wonder -- in all of history, has literally any qualified pilot ever tried to do those maneuvers with that kind of airplane? If not, how do we know they're difficult? :) Wnt (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Alvin M. Johnston did a barrel roll in a Dash 80 almost exactly 63 years ago, and a couple of Danish pilots appear to have done a barrel roll in an ATR 42-500 back in 2008. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just talking with a pilot about this incident yesterday, but forget who his example of a pilot who performed aerobatic maneuvers in a dash 8 was. That said, it doesn't really matter. The point is that they have been shown to do stunts - as have planes like 737s. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Suicide

With WP:BLP in mind, should we be calling this a suicide without an official determination that it was suicide? Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No, only the results of the ongoing investigation will be reliable in determining that. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the suicide by pilot article. Am happy that it states that the perpetrator was "suicidal" as that is what sources report. Until there is an official determination, and I presume that there is the equivalent of a coroner's inquest in the United States, the article should not claim it was suicide. In the UK, a verdict of misadventure would be a possibility in an incident such as this. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

By pilot

Granted, until suicide is officially ruled, I'm ok with leaving out "suicide by pilot". But can we please stop making the "he wasn't a pilot, he was ground crew" argument? He was at the controls, he was the pilot of the plane at the time it crashed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought consensus was that "being at the controls does not a pilot make". That is why the infobox states "occupants" not "crew". Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

From WHNT, quoting a CNN analyst: "If this pilot, instead of doing what he ended up doing..." From the Tri-City Herald: "Only the unidentified pilot was on the plane, according to authorities." Was he a pilot? No. Was he the pilot? Yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrator in lead

There has been a lot of edit warring about describing the pilot in the lede as "the perpetrator". Can we get a consensus here and stop the edit warring? (For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not referring to the section title, just the lede.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Referring to him by name is sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Though I haven't read every link, most media sourced to the article does not use the word perpetrator, why would Wikipedia? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. The definition of the word fits his role in the incident and is necessary in making that role clear in the lead. Just mentioning him by name isn't sufficient. Why use the word as a section title but not in the lead? How else do you propose we identify him? We don't need to copy source wording verbatim. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. His role was as the perpetrator of the incident, therefore he should be called that way throughout the article including the lead.--Bohbye (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - perpetrator is the word that fits the best. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-certificated pilot

I am well aware that many do not see the perpetrator as a pilot. However, he did perform the tasks of a pilot "An aircraft pilot or aviator is a person who controls the flight of an aircraft by operating its directional flight controls". I propose to use the term "Non-certificated pilot" as he is listed on the NTSB Preliminary Report. Your thoughts? --Bohbye (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are you proposing to use that wording? It makes a difference in my response. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The FARs don't define "pilot" alone, but do define Pilot in Command as the person who

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Clearly he wasn't any of those and certainly not all. In many ways the NTSB use of the term "Non-certificated pilot" is an oxymoron, as a person who is not certificated is not a pilot.

Robbing a bank doesn't make you a banker; stealing an airplane doesn't make you a pilot. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How do you call an unlicensed driver driving a vehicle? Driver. Such person will be prosecuted for ‘driving’ without a license. There is absolutely no difference between a vehicle / truck or aircraft driver. They all control a moving machine by land or air and have different titles. Legal titles don’t matter that much, actions do. Bohbye (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What do I call an unlicensed person driving a vehicle that he stole? A thief. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

As above, "perpetrator" describes his role adequately. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support that use of that term. I think we have to be careful here not to glorify this person's actions by according him status he didn't earn. There have been reports (added and later removed from the article itself) that some internet forums, social media and such have tried to make him out to be some sort of folk hero and it is certainly not our role here to encourage future copy cats. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. The situation seems comparable to these, where it's always clear if a hijacker flew the aircraft instead of the pilot. In this case Russell was just a thief, rather than an intended qualified pilot. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Runway used?

Can anyone confirm the correct runway that was used? The video shows the plane taking off from the closest runway to the airport which is 16L, but audio and written reports say it was 16C. 2604:3D08:5786:1000:A1D8:AFA8:6408:E711 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Occurence

Hi Skip6546 Is there a centralised agreement on when "Occurence " should be used instead of "Accident" or "Incident"? Your edit summary did not give much away. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

but why pilot suicide occurrence or incident? Skip6546 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I understand your question. So, is there some kind of centralised agreement, somewhere? Or are you just making a personal subjective judgement here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

i'm sorry I put added Occurrence Skip6546 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You're having regrets? Do you intend to self-revert? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

no man steals planes called occurrence Skip6546 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)