Talk:ATR 72/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New section (Standard Crew Requirement) suggestion for Commercial Aircraft articles

Could we please add a new section for all commercial aircraft articles that outline standard Crew requirements for both Pilots and Cabin crew? I am new here. How does one go about the above? ILWAIC (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The specification section already has the number of crew (pilots) required, I cant see any encyclopedic value in adding information about crew requirements. That said the best place to raise it would be the Aircraft Project talk page at WT:AIRCRAFT. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Images

The lead pic should be updated to something more recent. I suggest this one:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• 
  current
• 
  proposed
• 
  2d proposal

Wikipedia is not the place for such an overt marketing shot, the current picture with sky as a background is better than this suggestion. Currency in a photograph is not really an attribute we are looking for on Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The point of the main picture is to clearly show the aircraft main configuration: an high-wing, twin turboprop and T-tail airliner. Both are pretty good for that. The proposed picture has a beautiful but distracting background, as opposed to the clean, simple background of the current picture. The current one points towards the text, the proposed points outside. The current has some jpg artifacts, the proposed one not. A similar picture, pointing left and over a neutral background would be perfect. I encourage the usage of marketing material, if properly licensed it's a perfectly good source of quality pictures.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How about this picture then: [2d proposal above] Fabien Garcia at ATR Aircraft (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll agree its technical quality is superior. Note that using an aircraft picture with the manufacturer livery conveys an idea of not being into service, which perhaps you want to avoid.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Variants in accidents table

It is important to show the variant in the accidents table because the model has received major upgrades. Also, -212A (-500) indicates that this is a 212A version corresponding to the -500 variant (see the article). Trigenibinion (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as there is no referenced source linking the variant to more or less accidents, and 1 more column with little meaning makes the table too wide (eg on a mobile phone).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for another source for the table to show a correlation (which could simply mean that the airlines operating -500 or -600 have better safety controls or fly in more forgiving climates). No need for another source to show that the wrong engine shutdown was on a -600 either. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying an hypothesis don't need a ref casts a strong doubt on its reliability. See also WP:OR and WP:soapbox.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The table states no hypothesis. It only shows data. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

However you have stated that the reason you added the column was to indicate such a claim. That is not what Wikipedia is for. It should not be hard for you to find a reliable discussion on the icing issues being fixed after the early variants. Doing it the way you have done here is not appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not add the column to make a claim. I added the column so that people don't simply avoid any ATR because of the icing accidents. The corresponding section in the ATR 42 article tends to show the variant. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked and the protection system is further improved starting with the -500. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you've got a ref, you can add it to the article. Reading American_Eagle_Flight_4184#Probable_cause it seems more a failure from organizations (ATR, DGAC, FAA) that allowed the plane to fly in inadequate conditions rather than a defect in the plane itself, but wp:notforum.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

While in general the icing accidents are due to pilot error, the boots were about doubled in length after the American Eagle crash (the article states that some experts think they should be even longer). This is probably the best free reference online besides the manuals: Trigenibinion (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Another ATR pilot said increasing engine power again would be more important than additional protection. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The PW127XT engines that will enter service this year have a higher thermodynamic power rating. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Urk. A YouTube vid from an individual. I'm sure there could be a better ref. Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I find that very disrepectful. It is a serious channel. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I did't say it wasn't serious, but it's not up to the standards of WP:RS, it's akin to a WP:blog, see also WP:VIDEOLINK.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably even if you have the manuals, it is better to also watch his videos unless you're attending a course. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

wp:notforum--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Image

@Turtle.aviation: Why does this image have such a large watermark, and why was it added to the lead:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:ATR_72-600.png Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)