Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

"Type" (cause) of crash in infobox

Copied from Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990 Hi everyone, I changed the infobox from "Deliberate crash" (which is NOT what the NTSB Final Report Probable Cause reads) and added "disputed". While we shouldn't state "disputed" for every crash where there are conspiracy theories or unsubtantiated rumors, in cases where (example Arrow Air Flight 1285) several members of the safety board issue a dissenting cause adding "disputed" would be appropriate, as well as cases (such as this or Tenerife) where more than one nation involved in the investigation issues conflicting conclusions it seems appropriate. Lipsticked Pig 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the Infobox Aircraft accidentes I think there should be a few changes which I'll propose later; "Type" should be "Cause" (its very hard to just come up with a few categories for "Type" that cover everything ...is this crash CFIT or UFIT?) and definitely a line for "Phase" (takeoff, climb, cruise, etc.) would be good. Lipsticked Pig 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea for dealing with such infoboxes. Several of us are in the process of getting a Task Force together under the Aviation Wikiproject to deal specifically with air crash formatting issues. The initial draft material is on my Sandbox (eventually, it will be moved to become a subpage of the Aviation project). I'd like to invite you to join us, and I'll also copy your comments over to there. As to the proposal itself, since there are already categories for the different types of crashes, maybe the Type (or Cause, as it may become) should be a link to the cat so, for instance, to use the one from KAL 007 which was the fastest for me to pull up, the link would look like this: Shootdown Just a thought. Akradecki 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Tail number field. Currently in the Infobox Aircraft accidentes the "Tail number" externally links to a not-so-useful Airdisaster.com page. If it externally links at all, maybe to a page where user could see the history of that airframe...don't know the right webpage for that, but an example of what I am thinking is [1] Also, wouldn't this field be better called would "Registration number" or "Registration code" or something? Lipsticked Pig 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template for article lead

This is what I did for Alaska Airlines Flight 261; I think it satisfies what a Wikipedia article lead should do and has the advantage of being so easy...for the most part you can just cut-n-paste from the abstract. So, basically, just take this [2], drop the non-pertinent info (sometimes we would want to keep the meterological stuff for example), and add a one sentence plain English summary of the probable cause. Doing it this way insures factual accuracy and with just one in-line citation you are set.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft, crashed on January 31, 2000 in the Pacific Ocean about 2.7 miles north of Anacapa Island, California. The 2 pilots, 3 cabin crewmembers, and 83 passengers on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. Alaska 261 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport (PVR), Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), with an intermediate stop planned at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).[1]
The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and catastrophic failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly’s acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly."[1]
  1. ^ a b http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.htm

    2. Lipsticked Pig 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Time standard

    I had been writing times as "20:31 EDT" (as per the AAR); someone was changing that to "8:31 p.m. EDT"...either is fine, we just need to decide on a standard. Lipsticked Pig 11:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    "Notable victims"

    I'd like to just drop these sections from all aircraft accident articles...it is almost always, with a few exceptions, essentially "trivia". Comments? Lipsticked Pig 11:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    I don't believe they should have a section to themselves, but should instead briefly be mentioned, with a few exceptions that have caused a large number of individually notable deaths eg Surinam Airways Flight PY764 (speaking of which, I must remember to move that one in accordance to the naming convention sometime). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    EC-121 shootdown incident

    Would the EC-121 shootdown incident fall under the task force's purview? If not, who would cover it? An editor has been adding information to it recently, but there really isn't a format being to followed. It's good, well-sourced information though, much improved over the stub of a few days ago. - BillCJ 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Really good question...military incidents don't seem to be as well covered as commercial ones. This one definitely needs a better name, and I don't see why we shouldn't follow the existing guidelines - we've already sort of set the precedent with 2002 Jalandhar India MiG-21 crash, 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash and 1989 Belgian MiG-23 crash, among others. Maybe 1969 Navy EC-121 North Korean shootdown? Or something similar? AKRadecki 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm the editor BillCJ refers too. I've been working on EC-121 Warning Star and expanded the description of the incident in that article. It was moved to this page (reasonably enough) and I found myself researching it--everything sort of snowballed from there. I'm not happy with the format either, but the incident is significant (the first major foreign policy crisis of the Nixon administration) and I will be rounding it out shortly with a summary of its import. As to reorganizing it, I hope someone will take an interest to bring that about.--Buckboard 09:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    You've been doing a great job thus far. Don't worry too much about re-organising it (obviously feel free if you want to), we'll work out how to do it between us here; collectively we've enough experience we should get it looking nice. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Great job Buckboard, I learnt alot from the article about an event I had never heard of. It's amazing how many of these types of shootdowns happened during the Cold War...so many RB-50s and the like over many years. While there won't be enough info for articles on all of them, a general article listing incidents would be great at some point. Lipsticked Pig 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    1996 CT-43 Croatia crash

    The Boeing T-43 page has 2 paragraphs on the Ron Borwn crash, including a section on "The official U.S. Air Force report", as does the Ron Brown (U.S. politician) article. While not overly long, it seems a bit too much for an aircraft article or a biography. However, there are no links to an incident article on either page, and I've not been ablke to find one trhough a serach. I am therefore assuming there is not one, and asking if the Task Force can create one, as this is a fairly notable incident. I can help out as far as clean-up, but the rest is a bit beyond both my expertise and my time right now. THanks for your consideration. - BillCJ 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Done, at 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash. Needs expansion of course, but it's a start. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks, Alan. - BillCJ 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897

    This is a minor incident and I've sent it to AfD. Though we haven't really addressed the need for incident/accident notability standards, I'm of the opinion that this most certainly would fall short of them. Comments? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Coordination for improved productivity

    Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Comment over at WP:DM

    Over at WP:DM - specifically, here - there is a comment requesting help to nonambiguosly name an article on a Finnish air disaster. I have left a comment; could others here do the same, please? Thanks. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Template:Infobox Airliner accident

    (copied from the template's talk page) Since this box is becoming more and more commonly used for all aviation crashes, including military ones (see B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base for example), I suggest renaming to the existing {{Infobox Aircraft accident}} redirect, since when you look at the box in an article in edit mode, "Infobox Aircraft accident" is what it shows it being called. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just a quick note that I have just finished the ATSBLink template, which is now fully documented and ready to use. This is designed to consistently link to accident and incident reports published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and covers all their reporting types from rail, air, and sea. If anyone has suggestions or improvments, don't hesitate to pitch in or get in touch. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Southwest Airlines Flight 1455

    I have listed Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 for deletion at AfD since I don't think it is notable-either in general or via the reasonable guidelines discussed above. On the other hand, I don't have any particular expertise in this area so comments from anyone who does are very welcome. Eluchil404 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I said "Keep" but with reservations; some editors questioned your rationale for nominating it for AfD, but based on the guidelines above (a work in progress though) I see your point. Lipsticked Pig 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I also said keep, along with some comments that addressed the notability issue, so that this one can be referenced in our criteria. I'll repeat one of the comments here, though...one of the criteria listed above is "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.", and this article documents that this indeed is the case, in the "Survivability" section. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I basically stated my agreement with what Akradecki said (as one particular famous quote from whom I annoyingly can't remember goes, "'Tis what I oft have thought, but ne'er so well expressed"). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't thought that it "materially contribute[d] to a change in industry or aircraft procedures." but that's why I asked. Given the basic unaminity of the responce, I'll probably withdraw and close the AfD. Eluchil404 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think something that the AfD process on this article has brought out it that what can make a bordeline incident notable is that it is "intriguing", especially in the circumstances, and in what could have happened. Just seeing the comments in the AfD, and reading the aritcle, piqued my interest to read more, and having the additional sources made that easily possible. I also noticed that just about everyone who commented seem to find it interesting in some way. We might want to add "intersesting" or "intriguing" to the guidelines for notability. I know that is highly subjective, but then much of the borderiline incidents will be. It is somewhat akin to the "unusual" qualification, but different too. An incident might be intriguing without beibng highly unusual. - BillCJ 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    An interesting point... How on Earth could we word it so people don't immediatly say "I find it interesting, it must be notable", missing the point that that doesn't mean everything that has vague interest. I'm getting a voice in my head telling me there's an obvious answer, but somehow if there is I'm missing it... maybe I'm just up too late. I'l sleep on it... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. It definitely needs some thought. It might be something that only a PROD or AfD will determine, as in this case. - BillCJ 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, nothing personal against the nominator, and not to pile on either, but I think this is a really good example of a bad nomination. The chief problem is a common one—looking at the article as written, without doing any independent research. Others pointed out a few obvious notability points which I expanded and summarized in the AfD before I left for work this AM:

    • It was the most serious accident for SWA at the time
    • The aircraft left the airfield and entered a high density public street area
    • ATC was faulted by the NTSB
    • The pilots were subsequently fired for their actions
    • The configuration of the airfield was a factor, and is an ongoing concern
    • An essential piece of safety equipment failed (escape slides)

    After work, I did a quick news archive search, and turned up several more, which I added to the article tonight:

    • The CVR transcript quoted the captain saying "Well, there goes my career" at the end of the accident sequence
    • The city billed Southwest $40,000 for emergency services, which they refused to pay
    • Southwest admitted negligence in court
    • A $4M EMAS installed at Burbank after the accident stopped A-rod's private jet in 2006.
    • The accident was cited in a subsequent NTSB safety recommendation (separate from the accident report).

    All of these show continuing news coverage from multiple independent sources, which makes notability in this case a non-issue. The AfD process should not be used to test for notability. The nominator should test that with research, and only nominate where they believe they can get a consensus for deletion even after the article is improved to the maximum extent possible with the available references. Dhaluza 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    As I understand it, notability must be asserted in the article. The nominator merely makes a reccommendation beased on what is in the article. If AfD nominators were required to research notability beforehand, there would be a lot less frivolous AfDs nominated by the "deletionist" crowd. I honestly feel this was a good-faith AfD (and I have been though some that weren't, ie the "required" Pop-culture article deletions), and because of it the article was improved. Might the same thing have been accomplished with a PROD or a less extrem tag, perhaps, but we all know AfDs get people's attention. At first glance, I thought this was a delete too, and origianlly voted as "weak support" after reading it more carefully. But after the sources were added, including one from two years after the incident, notability was firmly established. At that point, the nominator withdrew the nomination. - BillCJ 03:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    The problem with PROD is that sometimes it is possible for something notable to be deleted in a situation where had it been examined by many people in an AfD, it might have survived, but as a PRODed low-traffic article, people might miss the tag until it is too late. I sometimes dream of taking PROD itself through MfD for that very reason, but that's unlikely to receive consensus, because it needs replaced by something, and there's nothing, and PROD is just a tad well-established. Sorry for the rant. Also, the crash wasn't obviously covered by our guidlines (although to those more familiar with accidents and their terminology it obviously was). Maybe we need to try and make them more understandable for the layman? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm still in the Week Keep camp. "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures" has barely been met, if at all. No changes to ATC proceedures, since the controller shouldn't have cleared the 737 to land so high and fast, and the pilots shouldn't have accepted that clearance. The latch covers on the forward escape slides on older 737s should be replaced with new latch covers. A small part replacement isn't in the same category as the total redesign of (ex.) DC-10 cargo door latching mechanisms. My point is systematic changes, rather than a specific part, so when the propeller on Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529 failed, more sweeping changes to inspection proceedure, applicable to all propellers, were implemented, rather than just use prop X instead of prop Y. The worst accident in the history of SWA means a lot less considering SWA has never had a fatal accident (since we are then talking about $ value, I'd say the worst accident in SWA history was the decision to go ahead with the reality show "Airline" on Bravo).
    In the end though, the "Die Hard" or "Speed" factor I think merits inclusion (aircraft fuselage + gas station = notable). Not that I think a conflagration was assured if it hit a gas pump (they must have some safety mechanism, right?). But I think almost ALL runway excursions are Hollywood spectacular, so should we also have articles for:
    • This TACA Airlines 737 overrun in Guatemala City
    • This Tradewinds 747 cargo (spectacular) overrun in wet weather
    • This Quantas 747 (spectacular) overrun in Bangkok
    All, I believe, are non-injury accidents. I'd probable say yes to just Quantas. How about this "runway overrun" resulting in the 747 being written-off? Just kidding. Again, I think SWA 1455 IS notable, but not as much a slam-dunk as everyone else. Lipsticked Pig 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    This was not a "non-injury accident", there were 42 injured, and two met the criteria for serious injury, plus there were many lawsuits as a result. The real issue is whether there is enough material for an article, and clearly there is. It may not be interesting to you, but it may be to someone else. Dhaluza 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Man, I looked at the article now, with all the changes Dhaluza put in, its so much better and obviously notable. Lipsticked Pig 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    But that is exactly my point--all I did was a little web research, no magic. Anyone could do the same, *before* starting an AfD (not after!). Dhaluza 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe it wasn't magic, but it was enough, when considering your other work as well, to prompt me to award you the Wikiwings on your talk page. Fly high, my friend, and thanks for all your hard work! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    To address the good/bad AfD mentioned above...while I'm fully aware that AfD isn't for testing notability, the reality is that in borderline cases, where community dicussion on keeping or deleting an article is desired, this is an effective way of getting it. One of the interesting, if unintended consequences is that when you track AfDs on a certain subject, and compare/contrast them, they really do provide a valid tool for developing an overall community consensus on notability criteria. Seriously, how many of the folks who commented on just this AfD would have said the same thing on the article's talk page? With so many people commenting on this and other such AfDs, a very distinct community view comes out, and in the end, like it or not, this is one of the most efficient ways of getting that kind of view. Because of that, I have no problem if articles like this get nommed. Just my view, though.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Concorde crash

    There is a dispute on Talk:Air France Flight 4590 regarding the placement of alternative theories with questionable sources, and a large amount of material. Some editors are attempting to limit it to only a small mention in line with WP:UNDUE with only verifiable sources. Just thought it might be of interest to the project. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    Flight 952

    The Flight 952 article has just been added by an apparantly-new user, with a link on the 757 page per this diff which claimes 16 fatalities. There are no sources, so I don't know yet if it's notable or not,a nd don't have time to search tonight. - BillCJ 05:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    The airframe is real, but I could not find anything about this "crash"...I think this is a fake. Lipsticked Pig 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think your right. Smells like a hoax to me. - BillCJ 07:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash

    There is a dispute about whether the info contained in the above article is contrdictory or not. As one of our project GAs, we should try hard to ensure the quality of this article is maintained. Akradecki, I guess this is of special interest to you since you collaborated with me to get this to GA. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

    2005 EC 135 Air Methods crash

    There is an incident in this article about an Air Methods Corporation EC 135 crashed on 10th January 2005 in Washington, D.C. Not nitpicking here, but is this a notble enough incident to warrant a mention? If so, does it also merit an article (ther is not one as yet, as far as I can tell). - BillCJ 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'd say it definatly deserves to keep it's current mention... Also, per this I would say the accident probably does deserve it's own article; the other crash shows that enough RSs will have covered the other one to make a decent article about it, IMO. Interestingly, I don't see how it compares to our guidlines for notability... A hole in the guidlines? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would have to disagree and say I dont think it is notable, but then I didnt think Mercy Air 2 was notable either ! It is still not that unusual for helicopters to crash and as more are used as air ambulances in sometimes difficult situations then the odds are that a few will crash tragically. Not sure why an air ambulance is more notable than any other helicopter accident. As mentioned by Blood Red Sandman perhaps the notability guidelines should be more specific on helicopters. MilborneOne 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm going to risk accusations of COI and comment here...I would agree that, as tragic as Air 2 was for the industry and me personally, notability is questionable. There just were not any factors in the crash itself that make it so unusual. The EC 135 crash is a bit different, as there are a number of "interesting" factors involved. Currently, from what I understand, it's looking like the wake tubulence from a departing airliner might have been the causual factor. Helicopter air routes through the DC area are extremely restrictive and, some critics have said, force unsafe operations. Also, the survival of one of the crewmembers, and the nature of how he was thrown clear has some interesting safety implications for the EC 135 and the use of survival gear in particular. I don't know how much of this can be gleaned from published sources, so notability again becomes problematic. I guess all I'm trying to say is that between the two accidents, the EC 135 one has factors that would tend to indicate notability, whereas Air 2 doesn't really. Just my opinion, and again, please keep in mind my biased position here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think your bias is really a problem; if you were going simply on bias alone you would almost certainly have wanted a memorial to the Air 2 tradgedy. The fact you don't find it notable means - to me at least - that your bias is definatly not getting in the way of your judgement. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    I cant see any signs of COI if the factors you mentioned are citable then I would agree that it meets the notability for an article.MilborneOne 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 on AfD

    The articloe on Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 a serious runway incursion, is up for AfD. Please comment. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    It was snowballed as a "Keep" Lipsticked Pig 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    And, FWIW, I left a comment on the nom's talk page about jumping the gun. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    And the DRV seems to be going against you. Corvus cornix 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Petty. Very petty. Sorry, had thought you had filed the DRV. I assume you didn't "alert" the nominator to the problem, or otherwise make sure he knew about it? - BillCJ 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Corvus, are you trying to make Aradecki cry? If so, I suggest instead that you tell him that helicopters are "girly birds" and real men fly fixed-wing aircraft; that works everytime. In the meantime, enjoy your "victory" Corvus, I was being a dick, and I sincerley apologize. Lipsticked Pig 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider any of this a "victory". I wouldn't even have felt the need to post the above, had I not become the subject of a series of personal attacks from the WP:OWNers of the article who happen to be members of Aradecki's WikiProject. Corvus cornix 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Corvus, the worst I have EVER been treated on Wikipedia is during the AfD process. I have had 5 articles I participated on that were AfDed, and not ONE nominator EVER showed enough courtesy or good faith to contact me or another editor about their concerns first. At least they all waited longer than ONE minute! Also, by the tinme I found out about the AfDs, just a few hours usually, there were so many people commenting it was strange at first! And I saw the same people commenting on each AfD. To me, the entire AfD list is a big canvassing page for deletionists, and they swarm like flies to every AfD they see there.We in WP:AVIATION are the first to acknowledge we don't own the articles, but that doesn't mean we can't try to save articles we think are notable just because it's in our project. I can give you 4 or 5 incident pages in the past month or so, most listed above on this page, that were deleted because we did NOT feel they were notable. There was even a proven hoax that should have been speedied, but wasn't. So please, if you're going to play hardball by nominating articles that have existed for only ONE minute for AfD, DON'T cry about abusive treatment. You haven't even begun to experiance real wiki-abuse until one of "your" articles has been nominated. What you've gotten becuase of your ill-timed (not bad faith) nomination is very minor. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. - BillCJ 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Guys, prior to an adoption of a final report I wonder if there is enough material for an article, and until that report is issued its hard to tell if it is notable. It is a serious runway incursion, however there are so many every year. Should we have guidelines that it is notable is it was within 300 feet, or 50 feet? Or the total persons put at risk was 20+ or 200+? If in the end it leads to substantial safety or proceedural changes, fine, but until then all we have is a controller undergoing retraining. Prior to more information/analysis being available, the article was probably better at home on wikinews. The fact that this was a notable successes of AMASS is best put in the AMASS article. In the meantime, may I offer this thrilling video for you amusement: United Airlines Flight 1448 runway incursion at PVD (1999) Lipsticked Pig 02:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    ...well, now that I think about it more, they (civil aviation runway incursions) are all notable I guess, and since this is Wikipedia, screw it, lets have an article for every one. Lipsticked Pig 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    LP, the creator of the incident article actually did add one sentence on the incident to the Airport Movement Area Safety System page. But please, spare us "let's cover all articles of this type" hyperbole. It's even less useful than frivoulous AfDs. One day, perhaps Wikipedia will be a place were deletionsts actually deign to "discuss" there concerns first. But we don't have to stoop to their level. If you genuienly feel much of this article should be merged to the AMASS page, then propose it. The idea does have meret. Let's discuss it like real Wikipedians who are actually interested in making articles better, instead of just trying to delete the ones that aren't quite up to par whole hog. - BillCJ 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Heh, I took me a sec to realize you thought I was being sarcastical...but I wasn't! I always loved that United 1448 video, but in searching for more info on that incident I got a google hit for...1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion. I realized there isn't any need for qualifiers for a serious runway incursion involving any civil aviation aircraft; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we really can (eventually) have an article for every one. It was my mistake thinking "why should we have a article for SkyWest 5741 instead of this (pretty hairy) incident"; we should have both. Lipsticked Pig 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry! Those two incedients would be fine, but I really don't thinkl every runway incursion would be notable. But I could be wrong, as they should be jusdged on their own individual merits. I can't say just because x-number of incursions occured that some would be non-notable, not without knowing the details. But in theory, I really doubt they all woulb be intrinsically notable. - BillCJ 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, as a general guideline we could say only those that would be classified as "Severity A: Separation was decreased and participants took extreme action to avoid a collision." (Republic Airlines flight 4912/SkyWest Airlines Flight 5741 appears to be such). Or Severity B too, dunno Lipsticked Pig 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Naming Convention Hey, I see other runway incursion articles titled as 1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion or 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion...should this article be changed to "2007 San Francisco Airport Runway Incursion" with the appropriate redirects? Also, a category for all such articles would be appropriate. If no one objects I'll change the title and and create that category. Lipsticked Pig 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion

    THis a a formal notification to the project of an AFD of an atirlce within its scope. Please weigh in, whatever you opinion. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    I think the article is improved now, however it reads too much like a defense against the AfD, which is understandable considering AfD comments like "This is basically an airport traffic jam." Lipsticked Pig 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Newsbox?

    Considering the amount of coverage the TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 story is getting, and the fact I only found it because the incident was added to the A320 page, maybe we should consider a "breaking news" section on the project page. We could add new incidences that may or may not have a article, and try to get ahead of the curve on putting together pages if they are notable. This isn't a suggestion to cover news, but rather to have one place to alert the Task force members of potential articles which may or may not be noteworthy. Comments? - BillCJ 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, I think that is a good idea...perhaps especially since a breaking news event generates alot of edits, and often such edits deserve scrutiny. One comment: the TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 article was quickly expanded extremely well by (apparently) predominately Brazilian editors, who I think did a marvelous job. I found it to be a much more reliable source of information than any single wire story I was reading. Lipsticked Pig 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

    I concur on the Brazilian editors. We might consider giving each of them WikiWings for their hard work. I really was impressed with the quality of edits on that page as a whole, much better than other articles of similar events of late, especially non-US/nonEuropean. That page was actualoy my only source of info on the staory, though I later saw a headline on AOL about the plane hiting a gas station, 3 hours after this page's editors had pretty much repeoted that as not true.

    One idea on the Newsbox (for lack of a better term), is to have a Notability status designation, along with a few links to reliable news sources. This will help the editors watching the story to get up to speed quickly, and give them an idea of how much importance to assign the story. - BillCJ 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054

    Did anyone happen to notice who this editor was? This really WAS a big story! - BillCJ 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    List of notable incidents and accidents involving general aviation

    Okay, folks, we have List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and List of notable incidents and accidents involving military aircraft, but there's a growing list of article that fall into neither category, those involving GA aircraft (by that I mean "general aviation", not "Good Article" ;} ). So, I've started a List of notable incidents and accidents involving general aviation at one of my sandboxes, where I'm intending to let it grow a bit before going "live". The intent is to have the same rules as the commercial list, it's not includable unless it has a wiki article (I say that because the military list doesn't abide by that rule). Feel free to add to it if you know of articles that I've missed. Also feel free to comment, even if you don't feel that it's a good idea! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    He's not in the Category: Accidents and incidents in general aviation, and I can't remember his name...the Dominican or Nicaraguan baseball player who died in the plane crash while trying to fly relief supplies after an earthquake (it might not have been GA accident). Lipsticked Pig 02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    OK, Roberto Clemente. It was a charted DC-7. Lipsticked Pig 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Another incident AfD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 2315 AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    AfD record

    Because AfD discussions on air crashes can provide valuable community consensus insight as we built this project, I've started a table to track them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/AfD record. Input is invited, as I'm sure I've missed many. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    Good idea. Maybe we could combine it in a section with the proposed incident-alert section for new incidents in the news. - BillCJ 22:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    Makes sense.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

    Second opinion

    I could use a second opinion on my revert here. Seems non-notable to me, as it's a wheels-up landing with no injuries, and has no sources. - BillCJ 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

    agree AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    Input sought on this article

    Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane has a rather awkward name, and has a source issue. Not sure what to do with it, would appreciate input. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Posting transcripts

    I've removed the flight recorder transcript from the TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 article, asking for discussion each time. This appears to be a raw, unedited version, with a releasing agency but no direct site for a source. I'm new to these types of articles, but this does seem to merit discussion on the article talk page first. If it is normal practice to includes raw transcripts, then OK. But for now, it seems crass, unnecessary, and over-long. Would not a link to the relesing agency's site page for the transcript suffice here? - BillCJ 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    A whole transcript, no, it's not ususal. However, quotes from core, pertinent parts are sometimes used when they are directly applicable to a critical part of the accident scenario. If the full transcript is available free of restrictions, Wikisource may be a better place to put it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    1996 Charkhi Dadri air mishap

    This article needs some attention, starting with the title. I don't know what the policy is, but going by Tenerife disaster, maybe this article should be "Charkhi Dadri disaster"? - PatrikR 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not that familar with the naming conventions for these articles, but it is common to use the year in the title. It may be the other article that is not following the naming conventitions for air disasters. As to the other concerns, we will try to address them. - BillCJ 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    Articles of questionable notability

    There were 3 incidents lited in the Boeing 747SP#Incidents and accidents section. I've removed the second and third as being non-notable, as both do not have articles, there were no injusres, and no claim of notability. The first, China Airlines Flight 006, one does have an incident article, so I'm leaving it in for now. It isrstis probably notable due to the circumstances, but I'd like some more opinions. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

    Korean Air Lines Flight 007 nominated for WP:GA

    I think it's good anyway. Anynobody 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

    Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories to be nominated for WP:AFD?

    This spin off is one of the main factors keeping its main article from being listed as good. It has one valid reference discussing tension caused by the incident, not the conspiracy theory and two citations to a website which doesn't meet reliability standards. Anything worth saying about these theories can be said in a section within the main article, and so I don't think this spin off is necessary. (But I thought I'd see what y'all thought before I did anything.) Anynobody 04:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 source found

    I've found a verifiable, reliable source for this article. I am in the process of working it in but would welcome anyone else's views.

    Aerial intrusions by Civil and Military Aircraft in a Time of Peace Phelps, John Maj. Military Law Review Vol 107 Winter 1985 Page 288 - Page 289 - Page 290 Anynobody 09:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

    Flight 19

    I know a lot of people like to think these planes up and vanished but underneath all the hype is a story about a guy who led 14 men to their doom by getting lost and another aircraft with 13 people aboard blowing up while looking for the missing planes. Since both events are accidents involving aviation I added it to {{WPAVIATION}}. Anynobody 05:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

    The article has come along nicely and to me reads like a WP:GA, so I nominated it - Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Air transport. Anynobody 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    It passed, so that's another WP:GA for our project. Anynobody 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

    China Airlines Flight 120

    There is a new incident page at China Airlines Flight 120. The wrekage is pretty spectacular, especially since no one on board has been reported to have died. However, I want to know if this meets our notability standards, as it just happened. - BillCJ 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    You're making a WP:RECENTISM argument. Recentism is an essay and not part of the more widely accepted WP:N guideline. The article meets WP:N with significant coverage by reliable sources independent of China Airlines. The cause of the accident will be under investigation for some time, so its notability should be continuous and not temporary. Wl219 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Wl219 is correct. The fact it has just happened does not mean it is not notable. John Smith's 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    Whatever. This is just NOT my day at all! I'll go vote "Keep" on the AFD below, since it was once recent, and so must OF COURSE be notable. - BillCJ 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    Having just watched a video of the thing exploding on Sky News, I have to conclude it looks notable... in particular, the centre wing fuel tank exploded while people were still scrambling off the forward-right evacuation slide. Also, I would expect an engine fire to be quickly put out within one minute of landing, so something went badly wrong somewhere - I expect safety changes to come out from this one. Although I apreciate all of what I just said is a combination of original research and crystal balling. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    No one has YET explained what criteria of notability this crash meets, they just asseert that is is notable. As long as the standard of Notability is "It was on CNN/Sky News", I don't think there's a place for me in this Task Force. - BillCJ 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

    I admitted I couldn't satisfy the guidlines. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    The notability section on this project page is blank, but I would suggest that an incident that results in the write-off of a commercial airliner would be considered notable. We ought to get the notability guidelines hammered out sometime so we have something to point to when we remove "flight diverted because of a cockpit indicator of smoke in the baggage hold" type of entries from the Accidents and Incidents section of airline articles. -- Hawaiian717 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I think the notability with this incident has to do mostly with the fact that it occurred on the ground. I read that the crew described difficulty with the engine before landing, why didn't they shut it down? Or if they did and it blew up anyway, then the incident would be especially notable because deactivated turbofan engines shouldn't spontaneously combust. Anynobody 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed there, Anynobody. Also, it shouldn't have spread that quickly to the centre wing fuel tank. My initial thoughts were that the wing tank must have gone off, and that that had in turn set off the centre tank, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that happening in the footage. Also of interest, what kind of 'trouble' were they having with the engine? Was there good reason why they didn't stop on the runway, open up the left had evacutaion slides and have a fire crew spray that engine? So, I'm talking, like I said, a combination of OR and BALLS, but it's the best I can do for you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    I noticed that the NTSB has done a preliminary report, that's gotta help notability a tad.
    I actually enjoy the OR aspect of talk page discussion, as long as one self-admits the OR nature of one's comments of course which I am doing now. Those are good questions, why would they let an aircraft taxi toward the terminal if it could be experiencing such trouble? I also noted that the wing looked intact and scorch free for the most part considering what happened to the rest of the plane (underneath, on the fuselage side I'm sure it's a different story). I think this'll turn out to be a maintenance screw up of some kind as the cause of engine flamage. What the pilot/tower/etc. were thinking about when as it happened will be interesting to find out. Anynobody 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    I totaly agree. I hopwe this will result in some sort of standard procedure for emergency landings, but in the post-landing phase. This seems indicative of the problem that efforts have previously been focused on getting the plane down, and what to do if an aircraft unexpectantly bursts into flames - nothing on how to handle an 'in-between' situation, that is to say, how to prevent a situation on an aircraft known to be in distress from becoming an all-out disaster, as this very nearly did. All that said, there are now reports contradicting earlier evidence, suggesting they didn't realise they had a problem. Hmmmmm.... The plot thickens ;-). All the same, I cannot help but be reminded of Saudia Flight 163... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe, now I'm wondering if FOD could have had something to do with it since all was well until the end. Anynobody 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1136054127"