Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Project participation

There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Memorial (again)

Just removed a list of victims of 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident under WP:NOTMEMORIAL and have been reverted using the Featured Article 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident as a good example (this also names all the victims in a box at the bottom of the article). It appears this was an exception because of the many nationalties involved!! Not sure were that leaves us but I see a memorial creep appearing! MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a "memorial creep", the language I use is neutral and their names only appear once. Just seems odd not to even mention the names, although I appreciate we need to be vigilante about POV memorialists etc. Would like to resolve issue peacefully, you'll see that I have not re-added the 2nd instance of names in the main body of the article that you removed. [1] Ryan4314 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No I have not touched the article since as I needed to be clear what the guideline/policy is. I still think that the list of names in a featured article is added because they have different nationalities is a bit of a slippery slope. The only problem I have is that once you start adding names where does it stop which is why I was looking for a clearer guidance. Sometimes the mention of a pilot and others opens up to a paragraph on their life history nearly all non-relevant to the accident/incident which I appreciate was not the intention in the Gazelle article. I suspect we may need to make up a project guideline for air accidents/incidents. 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilborneOne (talk • contribs)

Yea I know what u mean, I frequent AFD military articles, 9 out of 10 are some kind of memorial created by a relative. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Accident articles need assessing

Currently there are some unassessed accident articles at Category:Unassessed Aviation accident articles. I'm going through the ones there now. The articles generally fall in the stub or start class. Please help assess any ones remaining in the category. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are all done now. One article remaining involving a minor incident has been tagged for proposed deletion (PROD). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with Adam Air Flight 172

Another user posted on WT:AVIATION about Adam Air Flight 172 being under review during GA Sweeps and has some pending issues. See Talk:Adam Air Flight 172 for more info. Help if you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Flight 188

Northwest Airlines Flight 188 has been created, but it still quite poorly written. This is probably of borderline notabilit, but certainly is an intriguing one for now. I'm inclined to let it run its course for now. The article culd use a good rewrite while its still short, if someone is game. It's also possible there are more articles about this under other names. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Many accident articles now include direct quotations from newspapers, often unattributed.

While reading through some articles on historical airline accidents, I've noticed a number of them now include passages quoted from The New York Times or other newspapers, apparently verbatim. For some of these passages, the quotation is fairly clearly marked, but for others it's much more ambiguous. In some cases the source of the quote isn't even mentioned; only the inappropriate tense and style of language give it away. Sometimes the quoted passage comprises most of the body of the article.

For the first few of these I came across, I tried to clearly mark them as quotes using the {{Quote}} template, but as I found more and more of them, I got frustrated and ran out of patience. I'm not sure whether my edits were even the right thing to do; perhaps the passages should be excised as plagiarism or copyright infringement. Nor can I easily compare the passages against the newspapers they were apparently taken from, since this content is usually behind a "pay-wall".

Here are the edits I made related to this, in case someone wants to check my work or clean up after it: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

All the quoted passages I found were added by IP users. It's easiest to see the pattern by looking at the user's contributions. Some examples: [12], [13], [14], [15]. I'm sure there are others. This might be a helpful approach if anyone wants to go on a cleanup spree.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catches. That's one of the major drawbacks of open editing without some sort of review before the content is made public. Doesn't look that's going to change anytime soon, despite public lip servivec from ole Jimbo about flagged revisions/reversions, but all the while nothing happens except more damage to WP's reputation as a reliable information source. Hopefully newpapers and other publishers will start suing (or aleast threatening to sue) the pants off Wikipedia for copyright violations! I can't see things changing otherwise, which is sad. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative template format

Hello. I thought the Task Force might be interested in the suggestion here: Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009#Alternative layout. Thank you for your work. 212.84.106.20 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Air Berlin Flight 2450

Just for information Air Berlin Flight 2450 has been listed at Articles for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for accident report

Hello all --

I'm usually rather good at this locating old NTSB accident reports business, but for the life of me I can't seem to find the full report of Eastern Air Lines Flight 663. I found the brief, but what I need is the actual report. The NTSB website doesn't have a copy (it only has the last 15 or 20 years' of reports available), and Embry-Riddle University's collection doesn't have it (they're really only useful from 1967 forward, and this accident took place in 1965), and AirDisaster.com's collection doesn't reach back that far.

Frankly, I'm stumped. Does anyone have any other magical sources of accident reports they know of?

Thanks --

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: and yes, I know the Civil Aeronautics Board released a report, but since the NTSB released a brief, wouldn't it make sense they released a report too? Wasn't 1965 a transitional period when both the CAB and NTSB investigated? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have that report in my files. It was published by the CAB on November 14th, 1966, and released on November 17th, and is 27 pages in length. EditorASC (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1979 Dniprodzerzhynsk mid-air collision

Just created accident article at 1979 Dniprodzerzhynsk mid-air collision using the project naming convention <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>, User:LeadSongDog has just moved it to 1979 Ukraine Aeroflot mid-air collision quoting WP:AVIMOS which has DATE LOCATION AIRLINE AIRCRAFT TYPE crash - I have not got an opinion on the name but clearly a disconnect somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could construct that <<event>> = AIRLINE AIRCRAFT TYPE crash, but that seems rather arbitrary. Some editorial flexibility is needed in addressing W5H. In the case in point, both aircraft were of the same airline and type, but that is obviously not at all a general case for mid-air collisions. We wouldn't normally list two a/c and two a/l in a title, we'd leave them out instead. In this rare case, that's not necessary. I substituted Ukraine rather than the more specific Dniprodzerzhynsk simply because it is more likely to be typed correctly by English-speaking users and is sufficiently precise to be unique. Still, if someone wants to revert the move, I too have no strong opinion on it. LeadSongDog come howl 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the new name perhaps we should just note that we have some flexiblity in naming and perhaps point the project guideline to AVIMOS. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, either way, so long as we don't have duelling guidelines.LeadSongDog come howl 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

An idea for information on the project page

I would like to place a checklist for aviation accident articles on the front page of this task force.

Whenever a notable accident or incident occurs, the editors of the task force shall:

• Redirect all shorthand forms of the flight number to the target article (I.E. Air France Flight 447 should have as redirects "AF447," "AF 447," "AFR447," "AFR 447," and "Air France 447."
• Make sure that the external links section includes a link to the airline's special section about the accident or incident. One link to a centralized list of press releases and other info should be sufficient. Members should keep a list of all of the pages of the accident and incident section on a talk page so web.archive.org archives all of the pages. Once the airline removes the accident/incident pages, update the links to the archived page. One can also use http://www.webcitation.org/ and use it to link to archived pages.
• Make sure the accident investigation authority's pages or other major authority pages are in the external links section.
• Make sure the aircraft manufacturer's statement page (Airbus, Boeing, etc) is included in the external links section.

I have tried to get the external links to the airline accident pages for older accidents via web.archive.org (i.e. I found the Swissair Flight 111 page on the SR website)

If one wants to add more tasks, please feel free. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ojinaga plane crash

Hi! I found es:Accidente del avión del CILA en Ojinaga de 2008 but noticed that there was no English article. Was there ever one? Would this be notable for an article in the English Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a read of the article - not sure it meets WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of B-52 crash article

Hi -- could some of you folks more experienced with how we name these incidents take a look at this discussion please? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD - Dan-Air Flight 045

I have nominated Dan-Air Flight 045 for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Accident investigation agency of Mexico

Which agency does aircraft accident investigations in Mexico? Is it the Secretariat of Communication and Transport? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed recategorization of "airline flight" categories

I have proposed renaming all the various airline flight categories to reflect that the articles in question are actually about airline accidents. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 4#Category:Airline flights. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD - Cathay Pacific Flight 780

I have proposed Cathay Pacific Flight 780 be deleted via AfD after nominating it for Speedy Deletion when it was one sentence (declined) and then PRODding it (tag removed by creator). YSSYguy (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NB. The article is barely more than a copy-and-paste of excerpts from the official accident bulletin, see here. YSSYguy (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of unsolved aircraft accidents and incidents

New article not sure if it adds any value. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As a large number of aircraft accidents go down as "undermined cause factor" this could be a very long list. No refs cited. I am not sure what the point of this list is. Looks like it could be an WP:AFD candidate to me. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I also added a note at Talk:List of unsolved aircraft accidents and incidents noting this conversation here and inviting discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this article was userfied and the original page deleted. Problem solved for now, I guess. It will be interesting to see if it comes back again as a much longer list. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there does not seem to be much of an interest in the article. My purpose with the article was that other users could add more accidents and incidents. The biggest purpose with the article was to mostly include only commercial flights.

However, I still have provided myself a copy of the same article (including the talk page) at User:Heymid/List of unsolved aircraft accidents and incidents. /Heymid (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with a list like this is that it could potentially include tens of thousands of accidents that have "undetermined" cause factors and that the accidents themselves may have nothing in common other than that. I remain unconvinced that it would serve any purpose, but you are welcome to put forward some reasons why you think it would be a useful list. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot airliners have gone missing on over water flights for example, all would be unsolved accidents and incidents but it would make for a long list, even more if you include light aircraft and military. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

I just wanted to inform here that I have added the Air Traffic control regarding Air France Flight 447. If anyone thinks it is not relevant to the article, we can discuss it here. Heymid (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

USAir Flight 405 FAC

Hi all -- User:Wackywace has nominated USAir Flight 405 as a FAC. If anyone is interested in reviewing, please take a look over there. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash

The article 2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash, which falls under your scope, has been nominated for deletion. Since there are no firm notability guidelines specifically for aviation accidents (that I am aware of), I invite you to participate. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Romanian Air Force Antonov An-2 crash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Airlines Flight 45, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One photo op incident. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mayday Season 8

An editor has opened up a new section and modified the show's template. The only problem is- I've found no independent confirmation for the new episodes this editor has listed.

There has been a history of erroneous episodes for this show in the past. Look at the template's edit history, Mayday episodes were supposed to be made about Northwest Airlines Flight 5, Air New Zealand Flight 901, and China Airlines Flight 140. None of them were ever done.

I think the Season 8 entries should be deleted till some confirmation is received. Anyone agree or disagree with me? Please give me some input. I'm willing to revert the entries and take resulting heat but prefer to have editorial consensus first.- William 18:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this subject landed in WikiProject Aviation, since it is about a TV show that is about aircraft accidents, but in looking at the section you have indicated I would delete the whole thing as unsourced and therefore speculation. If refs can be found then that would add some credibility to the section at least. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

According to its Talk page, List of Mayday episodes is part of WikiProject Aviation article. Thank you for the input on the show.- William 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did note the project tag, so I guess someone thought it was close enough to include here! - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Never really understood why what is a regional television programme has some much prominance in accident articles, with a nav box between unrelated accidents really no help to the general reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Some articles on crashes that were featured on Mayday are written in a style that copies the show. The biggest issue I have with that is Mayday isn't always reliable as a source for facts about a crash.- William 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Still cant find a navigational reason for using a Mayday navbox, I could understand a category although should we have navboxes and categories for all these type of dramatised programs, Mayday is not the only one and is not really known outside of North America. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been resolved. User:Qantasplanes said his source for the season 8 episodes was an email he got from the show's production company. This comes under WP guidelines towards original research, therefore I removed the information about the unconfirmed episodes and removed the nav box for Mayday from six separate wikipedia articles.- William 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pilatus PC-12 Rockbridge County, Va crash

There is an accident covered at Pilatus PC-12#Accidents and incidents that seems like it might be worth an article, assuming one doesn't exist already. The piliot seeme dto be a notable person, though there is no WP article on him. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash

Just for information 1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

On the project page, it states that WP:AIRCRASH is the shortcut to this WP, which is not the case. You're gonna have to find a new shortcut as that one has been used for a long time for the essay on notability of aircraft accidents. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (JetBlue flight attendant) -- comments wanted

Steven Slater was the flight attendant that exited his flight (JetBlue Airways Flight 1052) via the emergency chute following an altercation with a passenger on 9 August 2010. His article has been nominated for deletion. Should it be deleted? Do we still need some other coverage of this incident? Your comments (and precedents) would be helpful. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open

The FAC for American Airlines Flight 11 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A-review for List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War needs a last reviewer

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War has already been reviewed by two editors who both endorse the promotion to A-class. We need a third and last reviewer. Someone, please? Link to A-review page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Alaska C-17 plane crash

I am not really an expert on this sort of thing, but this seems a notable crash as the first ever fatal incident involving this aircraft. Any input would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure their is enough material or notability for a separate article. Could do with a change of name to meet the naming convention unless it is about some wood working tool. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Flight 1052 (which is scarcely related to this taskforce if at all) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Blue Wing Airlines Antonov An-28 crash. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• And this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIRES Flight 8250, which does appear notable per the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Accident Digest

Is anyone in possession of the ICAO Accident Digest? In particular I am interested in two articles: one is in issue no. 9 and covers the Hummelfjell Accident (I believe on pages 10 through 14); the other is the coverage of Braathens SAFE Flight 239, which occurred on 23 December 1972. I am uncertain of the issue of the latter. Getting hold of these two articles seems to be the only way to get sufficient documentation to get the two articles to GA level. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

new redirects

FYI, I noticed these redirects just show up...

• 1996 Cessna 177B crash
• Cessna 177B crash

76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They are a bit general in nature and point to one specific article, Jessica Dubroff. Not sure where else they could point to, as I don't think it is a good idea to point them at Cessna 177 as it will lead to adding a lot of accidents there. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of people who died in Alaskan aviation accidents

Please see the article's talk page for more information. Basically, the subject matter presents opportunities for something, but the page that was created is pretty much a joke and a slap in the face. I know I won't have the time necessary to do much work on it. It's tempting to ask for deletion of the page, and insist that its creator come back with something which isn't so much crap, but I doubt that would happen. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking it should probably be deleted under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents

The current guideline WP:AIRCRASH on aircraft accidents and incidents does not appear to reflect the consensus of the community. The current guideline is being used equally by both sides in deletion discussions and the scoreboard type effect does not help these discussion. Following comments from other editors that the guideline is not really fit as it stands, I would like to propose that a new AIRCRASH guideline currently drafted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability be used as the guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents. Any comments for or against are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

EgyptAir Flight 763

FYI, EgyptAir Flight 763 has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming

I have no idea if people still watch this page but --

So we have PSA Flight 182 and we have Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771. (And, of course, the requisite redirects: Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182→PSA 182 and PSA Flight 1771→Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771)

Frankly, I am at a loss as to which is right, and which should be redirected where. After all, the main article for, say, Transcontinental and Western Air Flight 3 lives at TWA Flight 3 and the article for British Overseas Airways Corporation Flight 777 lives at BOAC Flight 777, and all the Pan American Airways crashes are Pan Am Flight #. But at the same time, Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 lives there and not at PAL Flight 773.

Can someone clear this up for me? Please?
--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Its all to do with what the original creator though would be the common name, not really been a big problem as a redirect is normally set up from any alternates. Most people would understand BOAC and Pan Am but abbreviating articles like Pacific Air Lines to PAL might confuse some readers as PAL could be Philipines Air Lines etc. Best if you can to spell out the name unless you are really sure that the reader would understand the abbreviation used. BOAC and TWA are unlikely to be anything else but most of the rest could be confusing. If in doubt spell it out. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK that makes sense I suppose. It's just the fact that, like I mentioned previously, two flights from the same airline "default" to different conventions in terms of naming (PSA Flight 182 and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771). Should one of these be redirected so all the crashes from the same airline follow the same naming convention? I think all the other PSA accidents follow the form PSA Flight #.

Which brings me to another point. At what point do articles stop being named by flight number and start being named by location? For example, United Airlines Newhall Crash was a 1936 crash of a flight billed as United Airlines Trip 34. This was prior to the standardization of scheduled commercial flight naming conventions, but still, it seems to me that the article should have been located at United Airlines Trip 34 rather than its current location. I know that if there is no flight identification number whatsoever, then the convention is either to go with the location of the incident, or the tail number. But if the flight identification is not in the form Flight X, then should the nonstandard identifier be used instead, ex. Trip 34, or should it revert to location/tail number?

Thanks for your response to my previous inquiry. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 12:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647

FYI -- FedEx Express Flight 647 is up for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1

I would be grateful for any comments! wackywace 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kolavia Flight 348

Are there any member of this task force who read Russian? [MAK's latest update (8 Jan) says something about the aircraft having technical problems the day previous to the accident. I'm having to rely on Google translation and am not confident that the translation is of sufficient quality to use. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review for Air France Flight 447

Just an FYI --

There is currently a peer review ongoing for Air France Flight 447. (That's the A330 that disappeared/crashed off the coast of Western Africa in June 2009.)

--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

South African Airways Flight 228

I made a page for South African Airways Flight 228, I hope its up to standards. Kwiesky (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention

I've expanded the naming convention a bit, based on actual practice. I hope that this change is not too controversial and meets with the approval of members of this task force. Please raise any issues here for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What if the flight has no flight number but has a trip number (ex. early United flights)? Such as United Airlines Trip 4, whose article nevertheless lives at United Airlines Newhall Crash?

In re the last change to the naming conventions, it seems to me that the <<year>> preface in article titles is unnecessary if only a single crash has occurred at a particular location. Otherwise it does make sense.

Additionally, something should be added for how to deal with crashes of multiple flights with the same number. Ex. American Airlines Flight 63 - the shoe bomb, and two separate crashes in 1943. --OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Flight 63 is adequately handled by the hatnote and dab page. United Airlines Trip 4 should be the title of the article, possibly with a redirect from United Airlines Flight 4. Possibly the year could be lost, but sometimes even a year isn't enough to disambiguate accidents - see 1926 Air Union Blériot 155 crash for an example. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of figured. Just that when I was creating the pages for American Airlines Flight 63 (Flagship Ohio) and American Airlines Flight 63 (Flagship Missouri) I kind of hit a mental block as to how to name them since they happened in the same year, and doing (Month Year) seemed kind of overkill.

On an unrelated note, is there a reason the naming conventions are on the main task force page and not under the "Naming" tab?--Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is the accident investigation agency of Tunisia?

Talk:Tunisian Civil Aviation and Airports Authority (OACA) has some notes on my quest to determine whether the authority is the one that investigates air accidents.

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/Briefing%20Leaflets/Legal%20Issues/11LEG01%20-%20Legal%20Directory.pdf from the IFALPA says that the Tunisian Transport Ministry and the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile investigate accidents. But the DGAC doesn't seem to have its own website, the ICAO list of related agencies at http://www.icao.int/icao/en/m_links.html#t only links to the OACA, and the http://www.asecna.aero/liens.html has the DGAC link for Tunisia link to the OACA site. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not the OACA. See their website in english for the list of responsibilities. "Area, approach, aerodrome and ground control together with the participation in elaborating and in carrying out search and rescue plans" seems like they'd be involved in the aftermath of an aviation accident/incident, but not as an investigatory agency.

Pity I don't speak French. Or Arabic. I'll keep looking. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then again, on second thought, since there's only been 11 accidents or incidents in Tunisia, only of which 6 have occurred since independence from France and did not involve French military, there may not be a regulatory agency native to Tunisia. Tunisia is involved in a number of international organizations, including the Arab Civil Aviation Commission and the African Civil Aviation Commission.

The most recent accident was EgyptAir Flight 843. If this article is to be believed, it was investigated, in part, by the US NTSB, FAA, Boeing, and General Electric. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to the NTSB, EgyptAir Flight 843 was investigated by the Tunisian ministry of transportation. Boom. It may not be the same for all other crashes, but considering how few there were, I'd say there's a good change. Cheers. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As per the website, the OACA is an agency of the ministry of transportation: http://www.oaca.nat.tn/index_eng.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash

I have raised it at the main aviation talk page but I have just proposed 1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash for deletion as non-notable. It a good article nominee and within a few days of being promoted. Any comments best on the main aviation talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DRV Notice

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to the changes to WP:AIRCRASH since the article was deleted. Members of this WP might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When does an incident become an accident?

Curious about Qantas Flight 72 - no physical damage to the aircraft, but it's being called an accident. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley every country defines the two terms differently and so an accident in one country might have been an incident in another. For instance in the case of civil aviation in Canada the definition is found on the TSB website . Even under the Canadian definition (which obviously would not apply in the case of Qantas Flight 72 since it happened to an Australian aircraft in Australia) that would have been classed as an accident, because "a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of being on board the aircraft". In this particular case though you would have to find the Australian Transportation Saftey Bureau definition and use that, although it may be similar. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The article states "1 crew member and 11 passengers suffered serious injuries". To my mind, most people/orgs/nations would consider serious injury to be an accident (I think that's in the ICAO definition, but I need to brush back up on all this). The real problem comes in the definition of 'serious'. I have no idea when a minor injury becomes a serious one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer for any other jurisdiction or whether this complies with ICAO (their publications are notorious for not being available on line, in this case see ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION (AIG) SECTION for a list of publications that they don't have on line which would answer this question), but in Canada the definition of a serious injury in connection with an air accident is in the Transportation Safety Board Regulations and is "serious injury” means an injury that is likely to require admission to a hospital". - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the ICAO definition can be found here (Page 1-1). Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 232

I have nominated UAL 232 for WP:GA status after an extensive rewrite of the article. Any input/improvements would be greatly appreciated. N419BH 01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 812

Southwest Airlines Flight 812 article has been created. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for ITN. Second structural failure for SWA in as many years. N419BH 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Be prepared for an AFD on the article - borderline-notable events like this are inevitable targets for the aircrash AFD cabal. - BilCat (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the article which should establish notability per the grounding of all 80 of Southwest's 737s. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The last one was snow kept; this one is more serious. Now 81 jets are sitting on the ground as a direct result. Methinks we have certainly established notability, though I suspect someone will nominate it for deletion anyway. Actually what's more likely is someone will nominate both. SWA 2294 is the weaker article, although an airworthiness directive did result in that case, and 2294 and 812 are quite similar though the failure was in a different location. N419BH 17:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW Mjroots, Southwest has nearly 550 737s. They've grounded about half of the 737-300s. N419BH 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

After a premature SNOW close, the AFD has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (2nd nomination). - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which was also closed as a keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What a mess! Let's hope the user has learned to listen a little more to advice. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SA295-CVR.jpg

image:SA295-CVR.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

UAL 497

UAL 497 Seems as though it skidded off the runway during an emergency landing after primary instrumentation failure and smoke in the cockpit. Flight crew reports anti-skid and nosewheel steering both failed. Evacuated via slides. Let's keep an eye on this one, not sure if it meets WP:N yet. N419BH 21:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

JFK crash between AF007 A380 and DL6293/Comair 553 CRJ-700 (Delta Connection 6293)

So... does the JFK crash between the Air France A380 and the Comair CRJ (in Delta Connection livery) deserve an article? The video of the crash that aired on CNN certainly is dramatic. [16][17][18]

65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Ground collisions happens (the last one with F-HPJD was 6 months ago at CDG, with an A330-200), doesn't deserve an article. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I created a stub wikinews article on it. wikinews:Taxiway collision between A380 and CRJ-700 at JFK Jetport -- though I don't know what it takes to make a candidate article into a published article on wikinews. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If this does become an article, this CBS News report (via Boston) [19] contains some air-traffic-control recordings [20] to help create it. This report [21] seems to highlight the seatbelt on tarmac issue (and the plane almost flipping, from a passenger point of view (though not from an outside POV, considering the video)) And the WSJ reports that the Flight Safety Foundation [22] calls it more than just bumping together. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is much more likely to just end up a footnote on the Air France page. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

...and someone's made an article. wackywace 09:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

.... and I've prod'ed it. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

... now at AFD. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Nominated for deletion- Malaysia Airlines Flight 9

It can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Airlines Flight 9. The article has a whole array of problems.

Feel free to voice your opinions on whether it should be deleted or not. The incident may not even have occurred. ASN has no record of it, and a light google search shows nothing either. Even if it did, the incident is not notable IMHO- William 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Nominated for deletion- Yemenia Flight 448

It can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yemenia Flight 448. The article has a whole array of problems.

Feel free to voice your opinions on whether it should be deleted or not.- William 23:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenya Airways Flight 507

I notice that the final official Cameroon government report on Kenya Airways Flight 507 has different statistics for nationalities than the preliminary Kenya Airways press release.

Should I use the final Cameroon report figures over the Kenya Airways figures? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

West Caribbean accident

Does anybody know if anybody made an English translation of the final report of the West Caribbean Airways Flight 708? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't find anything, I can translate parts for you. Just ... not all 276 pages. ;) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I find an accident report not in English :)
  • I was looking for an English version so I could post it in the external links section - On FR the French and Spanish versions are posted, while on EN and ES it's just the Spanish version (as it is the original)
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New plane crash: Flight 5428 of Sol

A plane crash just happened in Argentina. The Spanish Wikipedia has es:Vuelo 5428 de Sol - The English Wikipedia will need an article too

BTW I took the liberty of archiving the airline's press releases at Talk:Sol Líneas Aéreas - Please continue to archive any new ones, and use http://www.webcitation.org/archive to archive them - For some reason archiving the pages doesn't work, so please archive the individual image files WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional resources

Hi! I found http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/FBW.html

It has a listing of some 1980s and 1990s accident reports in full text. Some of which I placed in Wikipedia articles WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing foo cats

Two new cats are being added to accident articles Category:Missing Aviators and Category:Missing air passengers. As these relate to persons they dont make sense on accident articles. As I have removed them a few times from the same articles just looking for a sanity check but as far as I know for example a Douglas DC-4 is not an aviator or a passenger. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. It looks like these cats should apply, for instance Amelia Earhart, but not Lockheed 10. The summaries on the cat pages themselves make this pretty clear. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I was unsure whether to add those pages to the category. I agree that if the indviduals concerned (air crew or passengers) were sufficiently notable they would each have their own page. Todowd (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Todowd, perhaps a category for Category:Missing aircraft may be appropriate for these articles ? MilborneOne (talk)

Good idea, that would work! - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have created the category Category:Missing aircraft and added the relevant pages to it. I suppose technically some of the pages concerned are about events (eg 1953 Skyways Avro York disappearance rather than the specific aircraft concerned (in that case, an Avro York four-engined piston airliner registered G-AHFA) but I think that is more a question of how the article has been written, rather than the substance of what is involved. I have created a meta-category Category:Aerial disappearances for the three existing categories (aircraft, aviators and air passengers.) I am stumped, however, about what to do with a page such Dole Air Race. I suppose the correct course of action is to create pages for each of the missing aircraft and each of the people missing with them and then to include each in the proper category. For the time being at least, I have included the page in the meta-category. Todowd (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a good solution to me. One thing to keep in mind is that these are categories and a survey I did a while ago using the page hits tool shows that readers don't use categories very much, so they probably aren't worth a huge amount of effort or attention. - Ahunt (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about categories. However, creating a category is sometimes a good way of identifying persons or events that are sufficiently notable to deserve pages of their own, and I have created several as a result of populating these categories.Todowd (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Original languages of reports of investigation agencies

It could make sense to keep track of the "original languages" of the various worldwide accident investigation agencies. As in, the reports in the original languages are the versions of record, and in case of conflict, the version in the original language has precedence over the one in the translated language.

The ones I know:

• English
  • U.S. NTSB
  • U.K. AAIB
  • Hong Kong CAB
  • Indonesian NTSC
  • Lebanon
  • Nigeria
  • South African CAA
  • Republic of China ASC (some reports)
• Spanish
  • Colombian UAEAC
  • Mexico
  • Peru
  • Spanish CIAIAC
  • Venezuelan JIAAC
• French
  • France
  • Ivory Coast
• German
  • German BFU
  • Swiss AAIB
• Italian
  • Italian ANSV
• Japanese
  • Japan
• Korean
  • South Korea
• Norwegian
  • Norwegian AIB
• Portuguese
  • Brazilian CENIPA
• Swedish
  • Swedish AIB
• Traditional Chinese
  • Republic of China ASC (some reports)

Ones I am not sure of:

• Canada
• Cameroon (English seems to be the original...)

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian official government documents are issued in both English and French simultaneously. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The question about Canada's is, in case of a conflict between the English and French, which language takes precedence? Or does the Canadian government say both are equally valid?

For instance the Swiss issue reports in multiple languages, but say that the German version is the primary version.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision

Further information: WP:ANI § Civility: Threatened by Admin mjroots over edit to Wikipedia article which contained false uncited information introduced by admin

Can we please have some eyes on the 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. A content dispute has broken out. Per WP:EW, I'm not going to make any more reverts, but I have asked for a course of action on the talk page, which another editor has backed, but he also cannot do for the same reason. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 383

I'm not familiar with this project or how you handle your articles, but I stumbled on American Airlines Flight 383 while cleaning up some common misspellings; and this sequence of edits looks to me like it could use a little attention from someone familiar with articles of this genre. TJRC (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Airlines Flight 523. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 261

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 Hey, folks. Over the past day, a user has been adding and restoring a partial transcript of the flight's cockpit voice record to this article. I don't think the content really belongs, but the user hasn't responded in any way to my attempts at communication. He seems like a good-faith editor, so I don't really want to bring the Fury of the Gods down on him with an RfC. And I don't want to go to war with him. So, I'm hoping I can respectfully turn the issue over to you lot. Let me know if you have any questions. --Moralis (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a sock-puppeteer who has used a large number of socks to edit aviation accident articles, some of which he created that proved to be fictional. I don't remember the original user name, but it's possible this is one of his socks. A checkuser might be worth running. - BilCat (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AOCJedi is another possible sock-master candidate, as he's currently indef-blocked for adding copyvios. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New articles

New accident articles like Brazilian Air Force Cessna Crash are created all the time is it worth listing them at WP:AIRNEW (rather than create a new list) to give project members visibility? MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - that will get them some attention. They should go under "miscellaneous articles". - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just had a read of that particular article and it doesn't come close to meeting WP:AIRCRASH. What do you think? - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We could had a separate heading for accidents if we get more than a few a month. ANd I cpnur the event appears to be non-notable. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD notice

The 2011 NATO helicopter crash has been nominated for deletion Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, more incessant cross-examination. Looks like MMN has a replacement. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a friendly note, which seems to have been taken in the spirit it was offered. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I presume as this is an "accident" task force it is really not relevant to this project if it was shot down. But it probably opens the doors for the creation of loads of combat loss articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Combat losses are always going to be harder to justfy than wartime accidents. Not something I would support, but if that's the consensus then I'd accept it. Combat losses would probably fall under MILHIST, which is where the topic should be discussed. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical US accident reports

If anyone wants accident reports from 1934 to 1965 from the US, I found: http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?websearch&site=dot_aircraftacc WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest split

I've been working on cleaning up the various lists, and just a suggestion that List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1950–1959) would be a good candidate for splitting into 2 lists; the article has been marked as being too long since April 2010. Any help is always appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Star Dust (aircraft)

I just finished a major rewrite of Star Dust (aircraft) and am hoping to nominate it as a Good Article soon. Any suggestions before I go ahead and do the nomination would be welcome. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are there articles on these incidents?

Namely Philippine Airlines Flight 463 and Stornoway plane crash, when the worst aviation disaster in history as of January 1973, a crash in Kano Nigeria, doesn't have an article? Small or trivial incidents have an article, but one of the all-time worst doesn't. It's happened before. Viasa Flight 742 the worst incident ever till the summer of 1971, and the worst ever incident involving a 707 were without articles too. There are probably other 100+ death toll crashes without articles. One I know of for certain, took place in the early 90's and happened in one of the countries that once composed the old Yugoslavia.

I'd propose the two articles above for deletion, but I'm not sure of how to do it. Back to Kano, I'm completing an article on it right now.- William 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The simple reason that those article don't exist is that no one has created them yet. WP is a work in progress. Thanks for finding them. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Victim list of Air India Express 812

About Air_India_Express_Flight_812#Victims Did the airline do a nationality count? Apparently the list has a Bangladesh survivor, but the survivor is counted as an Indian in the "passengers" column. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

XV179

XV179 was a RAF Hercules lost when its wing fuel tank exploded after a fire caused by a ground weapon. The Mod was publicly criticized, for not having fitted their Hercs with fire suppresant equipment, in a Channel 4 documentary. Another editor has asked for a more project compliant title. The naming convention seems to be lacking in this area - while it gives guidance for civilian accidents eg a more proper naming of 2005 Baney plane crash as 2005 Equatorial Express Airlines Antonov 24 crash it doesn't advise on naming notable military incidents. Would someone mind suggesting (or moving if they feel inclined) a rename? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to 2005 Royal Air Force Hercules shootdown for want of a better name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, are people waiting until things quieten down to sort out the naming on Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Really need to loose the "plane crash" bit! doesnt sound very encyclopedic but the current name has a lot of support. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft descriptions

I added a simple description of the aircraft to Ansett-ANA Flight 325 and this has been challenged by User:Dolphin51. I changed:

• The aircraft was Vickers Viscount 720, serial number 46.

to

• The aircraft was a Vickers Viscount 720, serial number 46, a medium-range four-engined turboprop airliner that was built at Hurn Airport in the United Kingdom and first flew on 17 November 1954.

Dolphin has argued that the general description medium-range four-engined turboprop airliner is not needed as this can be found by reading the Viscount article. I said that we shouldnt presume that the reader knows what a Viscount is. The page content guideline says that the aircraft section is A description of the aircraft to include the make and model and registration. Other information on the aircraft should only be included if related to the accident. Is the simple description I added within the spirit of the guideline or to much information. I Just noticed that the guideline says other information should relate to the accident when clearly in practice a brief history of the aircraft is included, perhaps we should look at the wording. Any thoughts or comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne’s addition: diff. Dolphin's erasure: diff. MilborneOne’s restoration: diff.

I erased MilborneOne's words about Viscount serial number 46 being a medium-range four-engine turboprop airliner. (I erased, but I don't challenge, the words about built at Hurn airport in the United Kingdom and first flew on 17 November 1954 because this information is specific to serial number 46 and is supported by the cited source.) The words about medium-range four-engine turboprop airliner are not specific to S/No 46, are not supported by the cited source, and MilborneOne didn't cite whatever source he was using.

I have perused a significant number of articles about aircraft accidents, looking for further examples where a blue link to the aircraft name is supplemented by a simple description of the aircraft. I didn't find one (other than Ansett-ANA Flight 325#Aircraft.) If we adopt Milborne's vision of how it should be, we have a hell of a lot of work to do on articles about aircraft accidents, adding brief descriptions of the aircraft type, because it looks as though most of them would require that brief description. Alternatively, we can save ourselves all that work by acknowledging that anyone who reads the occasional Wikipedia article has learned that to find out more information you just click on the blue link.

My position is explained more fully at User talk:MilborneOne#Collaboration. Dolphin (t) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016

A post frenzy tidy up of LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 has been reverted, comment welcome on talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Other agencies

Hi! I found http://archives.pr.erau.edu/resources/investigation.html

It lists several accident investigation agencies which may not have Wikipedia articles. Is anybody willing to start some new articles about them? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, I've added them to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources. Many are still redlinked, but I've not checked for variations on the names (native vs English, with/without country name, etc) so some might be red but already have articles.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of external links to investigation reports

There's a discussion at Talk:South African Airways Flight 295#External links about the appropriateness of including the official investigation report in the "External links" section of an article about an air crash. It may be of interest to this task force. - htonl (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cessna 185 Crash

Just noticed this Kiunga Aviation P2-MJL created in December 2009 and not touched since - notable ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

By WP:AIRCRASH that isn't notable enough to be included in the C-185 article, let alone rate a stand-alone article. Since it was created on 31 December 2009 and hasn't been edited since I would suggest a PROD will do it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion - PROD done. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I seconded it! - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Civil Aviation Administration of China

Does anyone know where the accident reports from the Civil Aviation Administration of China are? It would be interesting to read them.

Several crashes happened in Mainland China over the years... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD

For information recently created Category:Airliner accidents and incidents featured in a Mayday episode has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 26#Category:Airliner accidents and incidents featured in a Mayday episode. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of British Airways flight 2157

The article British Airways flight 2157 has been proposed for deletion. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

On the grounds that the incident is not independently notable enough to warrant a separate article - fault lay in maintenance procedures and rectification suggested by AIBB was at level of recommending improvements to procedures such that problem was not overlooked in future. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-accident articles

We seem to have a lot of articles on individuals being treated as accident articles and they also have been added and use the Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in YYYY infobox. I did remove some that were pointed to articles on villages that had a paragraph on accidents but the ones pointing to individuals are more common. Any thoughts of using the template on articles about individuals as I think it needs to be clarified, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in ... should only apply to actual accident articles. If there is a need to add a cat to biographies then perhaps we need a new Template:People who died in aviation accidents or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

They all tend to have cats like Category:Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents in the United States or similar which are appropriate for the article and also a list article List of fatalities from aviation accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the cat being Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents, or one of its subcats? In some cases the article on the person is the only place where the accident is mentioned. eg there are more cases of Otis Redding#"(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" and death and fewer of The Day the Music Died GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding is one example where Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1967 has not been used! which shows we are not consistent, if we used the template everywhere then should it include all the accidents on for example List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft before 1925. In my opinion it should just be used for accident articles but if it is not then it needs clear guidance. MilborneOne (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of passengers and crew aboard the final flight of LZ 129 Hindenburg

The article List of passengers and crew aboard the final flight of LZ 129 Hindenburg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a lot of redlinks with little likelihood of them becoming articles. No indication that the list is of itself notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

That's the stock notification. I raised the notability question on the article itself in August, so I thought it about time I went to the next step. There have been more costly - in terms of lives lost - airship disasters and their articles fare well enough with such lists. I'll allow that the Hindenburg is more famous because of the film but I still fail to see how a list of the passengers is notable/benficial to the project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New accident in the DRC

A Gulfstream crashed in the DRC.

There is a source:

• "RDC: un avion s’écrase à l’aéroport de Bukavu, 5 morts." (Archive) Radio Okapi. 13 February 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like some of the injured have biographies on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Injured: Antoine Ghonda - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Having worked on several earlier DRC accident articles, I predict this will be plagued by a paucity of reliable sources, and that an investigation will be started that ultimately does not publish findings. After a while, an AFD will be filed with some reasonable justification, and once more wp:CSB will be ignored. Better to wait and see. Watch for news, and archive the stories when they come out. The article can always be written later. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Have people tried searching Radio Okapi and other French language sources from the DRC?

If the French and/or Lingala Wikipedias have looser notability standards, we could also have preliminary articles made there.

Also, would you mind listing the "problematic" DRC crash articles? I could see if I can find more sources for them.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the remaining ones are in Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo, though my recollection is a bit foggy on the AFD discussions. I'm a bit tied up for a couple of days, but you may be able to track them down by comparing the category list to the accident databases if you're ambitious. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Was there an Africa One crash on 28 July 2002? A book said that Régie des Voies Aériennes de la République Démocratique du Congo was prompted to enact an emergency plan for Kinshasa Airport because of the crash WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020726-1 says that the accident took place in 26 July 2002, and had no fatalities. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I started 2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash - I think the fact that it prodded the DRC into making an emergency plan should provide notability WhisperToMe (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkish army Sikorsky crash

Just for info I have add a proposed deletion to Turkish army Sikorsky crash but I suspect it may have to go to AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Survivor redirects

Just for information I have taken a load of redirects created for survivors of Air France Flight 358 to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 25. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

UTAir crash

Recently there has been a UTAir crash involving an ATR-72

• UTAir: "Официальное сообщение ОАО "Авиакомпания "ЮТэйр"." 2 April 2012. - http://www.webcitation.org/66cETt7xL
• Newspapers:
  • "Russian Plane Crashes With 43 Aboard, 12 Survive." Reuters at The New York Times. 1 April 2012. Updated 2 April 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article has been started WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article: Aviation accident and incident investigation

Has anyone tried to start an article on the general aviation accident and incident investigation principles?

I got the idea during a talk page conversation on the Finnish Wikipedia: fi:Keskustelu_käyttäjästä:Apalsola#Article_requests

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of. It could be done of course, given some good refs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

TAME 737-200 crash

The article is totally unsourced. I mean there isn't one single IC or EL in it. To be honest, ASN, Airdisaster.com, crashinfo, and David Gero's book Aviation disasters has very little on the crash. If I go in there to fix up the article with verifiable information, the whole thing will shrink considerably. Does another editor have any book or other sources that can be used to verify anything that's written?...William 17:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well we need to comply with WP:V, so I would say do what you need to do to bring it into line. - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Star Dust accident — "head-on" or "full-on" collision with mountain?

Regarding the BSAA Star Dust accident, do people here feel the incident (in which the aircraft flew straight into the side of a mountain) is more properly described as a "head-on collision" or a "full-on collision"? Or would either of these be correct?

The reason I'm wondering is that the definitions of "head-on collision" which I've been able to find so far all refer to scenarios where two vehicles, moving in opposite directions, hit one another — whereas Star Dust was a single moving vehicle colliding with a stationary object. I've found several examples where a motor vehicle collision with a stationary object is referred to as a "full-on collision" — though the dictionary definitions of this term seem to describe it as meaning superlative or extreme, and not specifically referring to an accident.

In case it makes any difference, this article is written in British English, so I'd be especially interested to hear opinions from people whose native dialect is British. Thanks. — Richwales 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think the term "full-on" strange in British English. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say "neither". In my experience the term "head-on collision" means a collision of two moving vehicles going in the opposite direction. I have never seen the term "full-on collision" used in any context. The normal modern aviation term for this sort of accident is "controlled flight into terrain" or "CFIT". - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sukhoi 100 disappears in Indonesia

• "Russian plane missing in Indonesia." CNN. Wednesday May 9, 2012.

The NTSC may have a new accident to investigate. Expect involvement from the IAC/MAK WhisperToMe (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure you didn't mean "Never Twice the Same Color". The Telegraph lists nationalities as "eight Russians, two Italians, a French citizen, an American and 38 Indonesians", so yes, expect the NTSB and the BEA to show up if there has been an accident. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has created an article on it yet. It won't be long....William 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also monitor the website of Sukhoi and see if they post anything. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Message in English from the Superjet site: http://www.superjetinternational.com/ - http://www.webcitation.org/67XNaP9xY WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New article: Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Plane crashes in Nigeria and Ghana

A Dana Air plane crashed in Lagos, and there was an Allied Airline plane that crashed in Ghana. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors are all over themselves trying to work on those articles plus ones on the airlines and airports involved, and frankly some of them are making a mess of things. I've dipped my toe into it, but now I'm going to wait till things simmer down. Otherwise I'll be pulling multiple links to the crash out of the Dana Air article every 30 minutes or so....William 18:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just added the airline website condolence/press release info and Boeing press release. Anyway, that gave me an idea WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Checklist for accident articles

I have a checklist. Whenever an aircraft accident happens, I suggest using this checklist to make sure that all relevant primary source information is available

• 1. Locate the airline website. Link to the condolence/press release info in the external links. Archive all pages and important images at http://webcitation.org - Make sure all information in all languages is archived.
• 2. Locate the manufacturer website (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, Tupolev, Sukhoi, etc.) - Link to the press releases in the EL page. Archive all pages and important images at http://webcitation.org - Make sure all information in all languages is archived.
• 3. Locate the information at the accident investigation authority page. Archive all pages and important images at http://webcitation.org and continue doing so up to and including the final report. Make sure all information in all languages is archived.
• 4. Locate the information at the page of the accident investigation authority of the country of manufacture (i.e. the French BEA for Airbus accidents) if it is not already the accident investigation authority of the accident itself. Archive all pages and important images at http://webcitation.org - Make sure all information in all languages is archived.
• 5. Information from search and rescue agencies, emergency management agencies, and/or military agencies involved in search and rescue needs to be archived too. - Make sure all information in all languages is archived.
• 6. Make sure relevant information is linked to in the English Wikipedia and Wikipedias of the relevant local languages. I.E. if an accident takes place in Spain, involves a Japanese airline, and involves an Airbus aircraft, link to all documentation in the English, Spanish (language of country of accident), Japanese (language of country of airline), and French (language of country of manufacture) Wikipedias. If significant numbers of passengers come from another country (i.e. the Flash Airlines accident involved mainly French nationals), link to stuff in the Wikipedia of the language of the country of the passengers too (i.e. French in the Flash Airlines case)
  • Even though Airbus is a pan-European company, the French BEA publishes releases and info related to crashes of Airbus aircraft. Sometimes the German BFU has info too, posted on the BEA website, related to Airbus accidents.
  • Some U.S. airlines have press releases in Spanish related to an accident, even if it takes place on U.S. territory or the territory of an English-speaking country. I.E. American Airlines had Spanish language press releases related to an AA accident in Jamaica. In that case, link to stuff on the Spanish Wikipedia too.
  • If an article does not yet exist in the relevant languages, go on the Wikipedias of those languages and ask that someone write an article about the accident.
  • For webcitation.org, sometimes a page may be too big to archive. If this is the case, archive it at the Internet Archive by querying for the document (if the URL is http://bla.bla/yaddayadda, type in http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://bla.bla/yaddayadda), and the page will be archived.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff whisper - would it help to put this on a guide page somewhere? MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to post it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/New articles so people know what to do when new articles come in WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a great start, Whisper. One detail:

• To add a single EL page to the internet archive, just query for it at http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://bla.bla/yaddayadda and the page http://bla.bla/yaddayadda will be archived one time.

LeadSongDog come howl! 04:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Really? I had no idea it does that. Wow. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reports needed to be archived

Hi, guys! Who has some time to kill?

I started listing all of the pages of the reports of Talk:Aer_Lingus_Flight_712, but the various reports are divided among many HTML pages and pictures. Would anyone like to archive them at http://webcitation.org? That way, in case the AAIU takes down its website and/or puts in robots.txt, Wikipedians will still have access to the material

Please list every HTML page and/or file of an important picture on the talk page (if it gets too long, make a talk page subsection) - to the right of the original URL, put in the webcitation URL.

For webcitation.org, sometimes a page may be too big to archive. If this is the case, archive it at the Internet Archive by querying for the document (if the URL is http://bla.bla/yaddayadda, type in http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://bla.bla/yaddayadda), and the page will be archived.

Also, when the final report of Air France Flight 447 gets published, we need to archive every single file related to the crash posted on the BEA website. I archived most of the stuff from the Brazilian Air Force, but the photographs need to be archived. For AF447, make sure you archive everything in every language (English, French, German, and Portuguese)

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 217

Did the IAC/MAK ever investigate Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 217? Azerbaijan is one of the MAK member states. But I don't see it in the list of investigations at http://mak.ru/russian/investigations/investigations.html WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mayday (TV series) vs WP:RELY

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I can't find the answer: What's the official position regarding the use of this series as a reliable source in aircrash articles? (i.e. Fact or drama?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Mayday shouldn't be used. It's a TV show and prone to dramatize rather than 'just the facts'. Example- Their episode on PSA 182 saying the crash helped to create the sterile cockpit rule. The NTSB report didn't criticize the flight crew for non pertinent conversations, so why was this on the show? There's other facts they've fluffed on but that's the one I can remember at this moment....William 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm - that's what I'm thinking too. There's also a question of quoting actors in reconstructed scenes, and what the show's producer choses to omit. For example, had someone a while back delete a paragraph about the official investigation into SA-295 because it wasn't covered in the Mayday show, which instead chose to focus on conspiracy theories. Anyway, would like to understand what the consensus is with respect to existing refs that use Mayday. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the show is fictionalized, sensationalist and puts poor emphasis on the wrong aspects. I would treat it as "fiction" and not as a WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Accident articles not biographies

I've been cleaning up pre-WWII Aviation accident templates. Many of them were linking to people articles not accident articles. For as long as I've known these templates, they have been for aviation accidents and incidents that have their own article....William 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree individuals are not accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was doublechecking due to this edit[23] by an editor who's done very good work on aviation articles....William 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you do realize that the "General Machado" was the name of a flying boat? It was not the eponymous human who sank. Or did you mean to give a different difflink? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'General Machado' aviation article. Nevertheless, it was edited[24] into the 1928 template. I removed it as per policy that accidents and incidents must have a independent article to go in the template.

Now that, I can understand. But it has nothing to do with "biographies" of "individuals". Simply an assertion that the templates shouldn't show a nonexistent articles, just as the lists shouldn't. I'm not entirely sure I agree with wp:REDNOT, but I do understand it. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's policy that once gets a crash article gets deleted, it gets taken out of the templates. The template link has become a redlink....William 10:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks, Airport bombings

When they don't involve aircraft, should they be in the templates? For example Lod Airport massacre, LaGuardia Airport bombing, Domodedovo International Airport bombing are examples. There might be a couple of more....William 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion would be no - they're transportation incidents, not aviation ones, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with The Bushranger on this. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

All right I'm going to remove these(plus aviation incident categories out of the bombing articles) and the others out of the templates but at the same time leave an explanation at the template's or incident's talk pages so to explain what I've done and welcome anyone who disagrees to come here and we will discuss it some more....William 19:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Rivet Amber

Just added a proposed deletion tag to Rivet Amber crash the loss of an RC-135E with 19 on-board. Note already mention at Boeing RC-135. Welcome other views on the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OK no comments and the PROD has been contested so I have taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivet Amber crash. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion- Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909

Here's a link[25] to it. The issue of whether biographies or aircraft should be in accident templates has been raised....William 15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching doesn't appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I just nominated it for deletion.[26]...William 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The notable feature of this accident is as follows. About 15 years ago Australia made a significant change to its aviation regulations in the area of minimum fuel requirements. In a nutshell, the new regulations said "Let the operator and the pilot decide how much fuel is needed; pilots won't make a mistake as basic as not carrying enough fuel." There have been plenty of incidents and even a few minor accidents related to fuel exhaustion, and they have begun focussing attention on the adequacy of the current requirements for minimum fuel. And then came the ditching of the Westwind in 2009. That really focussed everyone's attention on fuel requirements. The enquiries into the matter are close to being finished, and it appears inevitable that the current regime for minimum fuel requirements will be radically overhauled.

The notability of this subject isn't the accident itself, but the consequences it will eventually have for fuel planning and minimum fuel requirements on long-range flights, and particularly over-water flights. I will add a comment to the deletion discussion. Dolphin (t) 06:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That would definitely meet WP:AIRCRASH if it does result in reg changes, but the article needs to note that. - Ahunt (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We're waiting for the official report. Anyway, no point in commenting in two places, so this discussion can surely be terminated and the deletion discussion left to run its course? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the policy for templates covering aviation accidents and incidents

I'm asking because A template covering the years 1900-1909 is undergoing a TFD here[27]. It has been my understanding a crash or incident has to have a independent article. That the template isn't for people who died in aviation accidents. It was briefly discussed here[28].

There are no accidents that occurred between 1900 and 1909 with their own articles. The template was full of links to people. Can we settle on what the policy is? If that template discussion comes out as a keep, are we going to have one policy for that template for that template and a different one for all the others, are we going to let into the templates?...William 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as has been said before the nav box is for accident articles not for articles that mention an accident. The navbox is not a list it is to navigate between similar or related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Category for deletion nominee of the day?

It's this one[29]. Just in case another aircraft is taken down by a crocodile getting loose. Most 'illegal baggage' accidents involve bombs. When nominating this category for deletion I pointed out the crash may not even belong in it. No where in the media reports does it say taking a crocodile onto a airplane into the Congo is illegal....William 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The collapse of the Kamov - 27 in Kazan November 26, 1980

The collapse of the Kamov - 27 in Kazan November 26, 1980!! well at least the bad translation was amusing. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks to be copied from somewhere. Shouldn't it be CSD for copyright violations?...William 20:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the AfD, I think it is machine-translated from the Russian article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, I just tried feeding the Russian article through google translate and got the same mashup. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That explains a lot! Yikes! - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Category reorganization help needed

We need input at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 9#Category:Mid-air collisions of military aircraft on reorganizing the mid-air collision categorization. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian Airlines Flight 440

I did something a little bit odd with this article. Last March an editor created a article[30] about a 1993 hull loss[31] that had that flight number. The article was unreferenced and very sketchy. A few months later, another editor turned the article into a redirect[32] to Indian Airlines.

Yesterday I learned there was another Indian Airlines Flight 440 crash[33]. This one taking place in 1973. It was a fatal accident, the second ever involving a 737-200. I wrote an article about this crash over[34] the redirect for the 1993 accident.

I guess the original 440 article writer could object. Any comment on what I did?...William 10:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash

Just for information a deleted article 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash has re-appeared out of a sandbox, it was moved to user space to allow bits to be added to the IDFAF article but has been re-instated. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Would not WP:CSD criteria G4 " Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" apply? - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 1

Qantas Flight 1 appears to need cleanup, the introduction makes no mention of the incident that the article was written for, and there's a requested move to change the name of the article on its talk page -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1915

This and several other templates are being considered for deletion. Please come here[35] and join in the discussion....William 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Article on plane crashes in Nigeria

Please see this article, which can be a source:

• Uduma, Uche. "Nigeria: The Safety Failings of Nigerian Airlines." AllAfrica. Leadership. 9 September 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1989 Jamba Hercules crash

How many people died on this crash?

• 1989 Jamba Hercules crash = states 13 people (7 passengers + 6 crew)
• CIA_Memorial_Wall#People_honored_on_the_Memorial_Wall = states 15 people (6 CIA operatives + 11 UNITA members)

Which is correct? Also asking Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dunno - and there's another problem. Which airport did it happen at (there are three Jamba's in Angola - and the one with the "JMB" airport code listed in some sources for this accident is not the one in SE Angola where Unita had its headquarters)? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mayday (TV series) vs WP:RELY

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I can't find the answer: What's the official position regarding the use of this series as a reliable source in aircrash articles? (i.e. Fact or drama?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Mayday shouldn't be used. It's a TV show and prone to dramatize rather than 'just the facts'. Example- Their episode on PSA 182 saying the crash helped to create the sterile cockpit rule. The NTSB report didn't criticize the flight crew for non pertinent conversations, so why was this on the show? There's other facts they've fluffed on but that's the one I can remember at this moment....William 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm - that's what I'm thinking too. There's also a question of quoting actors in reconstructed scenes, and what the show's producer choses to omit. For example, had someone a while back delete a paragraph about the official investigation into SA-295 because it wasn't covered in the Mayday show, which instead chose to focus on conspiracy theories. Anyway, would like to understand what the consensus is with respect to existing refs that use Mayday. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the show is fictionalized, sensationalist and puts poor emphasis on the wrong aspects. I would treat it as "fiction" and not as a WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this discussion as my removal of Mayday references for not being reliable is being challenged and reverted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the original discussion (I learned that it is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_5#Mayday_.28TV_series.29_vs_WP:RELY) - I had the impression that one quotes the interviewees (including people involved in the accident/incident, industry figures like NTSB officials, Mary Schiavo, etc.) on the programs, but not the actors themselves in the reconstructed scenes since obviously they are reconstructed. When I used Mayday as a source I quoted the interviewees themselves. In regards to PSA 182, has anyone tried to e-mail the producers and ask them why they stated that? - I want to be able to use Mayday episodes for the interviews that they have. For instance in the episode about Air France Flight 8969 some flight attendants who were on the flight discussed aspects of the hijacking, and I want to be able to use their interviews in Wikipedia articles. I did also use what the narrator said when I used Mayday as a source. For the program about Aeroperú Flight 603, when I heard a Miami lawyer say that some people on the plane died, I added the content but attributed it to the lawyer (as in "the lawyer said that WYX"), since I was not aware of any such conclusion being reached in the accident report.

One could say "if the producer/narrator of the show says X but it doesn't show up in the report or other reliable sources, then don't use it" - It would also be nice to continue the discussion at the Wikipedia:RS noticeboard so this discussion is in the archives there, so people who don't follow the Aviation accident task force are aware about aspects of the program, and so people who have more general knowledge can comment too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I watched the PSA 182 episode. Towards the end of the episode, the narrator said that because of the accident there were new rules governing conversation in cockpits below 10,000 feet. They had John Cox (labeled as an "aviation expert" but with no other information) talk about how today's regulation requires things, and the regulation back then did not, but I do not believe he said anything directly about the PSA crew. I sent Cineflix an e-mail asking if they got this info from another source, and that I couldn't find anything about it in the NTSB report. - Earlier episodes had NTSB officials, etc. appearing. Maybe the program's quality is starting to decline? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To re-iterate some of my concerns about this show as a WP:RS:

1. Its content is selected for dramatic effect to make good television. That agenda is inherently at odds with an encyclopedia. For example, coverage of SA 295 focused entirely on the conspiracy theories, ignoring the official report.
2. We're seeing the event through the eyes/POV of the show's producers/editors, who are not subject WP's WP:V or WP:RS requirements when writing the script or editing the show.
3. Seems that some folks at WP believe the show absolutely, to the point that content about the official enquiry has been removed from the SA 295 article in the past with the logic that if-it-wasn't-covered-in-the-show-then-it-can't-be-relevant.
4. The show uses actors and writes dialogue for continuity - we run the risk of quoting fiction as fact.
5. The industry "experts" who are interviewed are sometimes third parties who were not involved in the investigation, but nonetheless comment on it in a manner that gives an impression that they were.
6. Won't quotes from interviews of people actually involved in these accident constitute primary sources? Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In many cases seen on WP:RS noticeboard is that one doesn't throw out the entire baby with the bathwater, but instead uses caution in how the source is used. There had been controversy with the Daily Mail, a mid-market British newspaper, for instance: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source - Many articles are used as RSes, but editors caution against using it for scientific and medical topics.

• 1. We do use sources that are biased, or do have an agenda. Various newspapers are known for having biases, for instance. It is a matter of, are they reliable? Wikipedia can mix and match various sources, so ultimately no one source colors the point of view of the article. We can use sources frequently, or we can use sources sparingly. We can declare aspects of one source reliable, but say its coverage of other matters is not reliable.
• 2. The "dialog" is clearly delineated from the actual interview statements; one can distinguish the actor's voice and the actor's footage from the interview footage of the real person and his or her voice.
• 3. In regards to the type of person interviewed; that's why it's important to pay attention to the titles of the people involved. If the person is NTSB/etc. that needs to be noted. With Aeroperu 603 Richard Rodriguez, identified as an NTSB investigator, comments on how he initially was wary of the selection of Guido Fernandez in the Peruvian agency, for instance. That piece of info is valuable in the article. Guido Fernandez then comments on why he believes a poor Peruvian man who received criminal penalties for his role in the accident should not have been sentenced in the criminal justice system. These comments made by these investigation officials are in English or subtitled in English, and/or may not show up in other sources. One could say "on this matter, let's use the comments by the investigation officials, but not use the comments by this guy who is identified as an "expert" but has no other info, and who we can't find anything about through other reliable sources."
• 4. On whether interview footage on a TV show counts as a primary source, that's a good question, and something for the noticeboard. I'll do a search to see if somebody answered. While the interview footage is of a person's statements, it was "published" by a third party (a self-published book, for instance would be a primary source). In the event that the material is treated as a primary source, articles are to rely more on secondary sources than primary sources, but Wikipedia absolutely can take primary source information with limitations.
• 5. Not all aspects of a crash have to do with the pure technical analysis. They can also involve cultural analysis (how did a culture treat the event? What significance did it have?), business analysis (did it cause financial problems for the airline?), legal analysis (did people receive criminal charges?) etc., stuff which is left out of the final accident reports. And some of the incidents on Mayday are purely criminal incidents with no known technical report available to the public (the Air France hijacking, the Ethiopian crash in the Comoros, etc.)
• I do support the idea of using caution with Mayday and using it selectively. I do not support completely ignoring all of the interviews with NTSB officials/involved crew/etc just because the show has other things that are not encyclopedia-worthy. Another idea is to simply link the noticeboard with this thread so people who have experience with dealing with these issues can make comments.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So looks like there are some good points for discussion there. I'm very keen to see an agreed, clear and consistent approach that's easy to apply. Maybe a tall order, but let's have a go - happy for you to invite more comment as you see appropriate. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I started Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mayday_.28TV_series.29. Please add any other information about the discussion here WhisperToMe (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, regarding how some users believe X source is the gospel and is to be taken above everything else, we can install page notices for individual accidents reminding people to place accident investigation reports, etc. above other sources, and/or to not rely on Source A for aspects W, X, and Y WhisperToMe (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

RE PSA 182, I got an e-mail back, but so not to take away from the general discussion I brought up the specific issue of PSA 182 at Talk:PSA_Flight_182#PSA_182_and_non-essential_conversation - The Cliff Notes: It turns out that the PSA 182 report does refer to irrelevant conversation in cockpits; in this case the conversation is not a causal factor but the report discusses the potential harm WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, are there any other comments? The discovery regarding the PSA 182 crash should make the regular Mayday episodes more credible in terms of being used as an RS, although, again, you can say it's best to rely on the actual accident reports and just use Mayday episodes as a supplement and/or to discuss aspects not in the actual reports. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Still cant see anything in an entertainment program that makes it a reliable source for anything, but it does no harm to use it to find better sources. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about using Mayday for the interview content for NTSB officials, etc., especially about non-technical aspects that aren't in the final reports (such as in the examples, i.e. Air France hijacking, the NTSB distrust regarding Guido Fernandez)? And according to a user who replied to the noticeboard post, an interview that is excerpted for a television program would most likely be a secondary source. Also remember that there are middle market newspapers which have entertainment as a motive, but still try to present facts; they are still used as reliable sources although they are considered inferior to the high end newspapers. Also Mayday can be helpful when the literature about the crash is otherwise in another language; while WP allows other language sources, English sources are preferred. I agree that in terms of technical aspects it's better to quote from the final report, although some reports are not in English WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I cant see why you cant say that Foo from the NTSB stated during an interview on Mayday epsiode x that y was z it is then up to the reader to measure the quality of the source. What we have to be careful of is bias and weight and that the information is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright - that sounds fair to me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How do we address the issue of weight or blame - e.g. AF447, where the official report seems to go to exceptional lengths to avoid explicitly blaming the pilots, yet many 3rd party opinions are rather direct and to the point on this subject, and arguably also putting more focus on pilot error than other factors. The debate has been rather heated over this subject. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Difficult area when does an alternate theory (or blame) move from fringe to something worth reporting. We can report that certain organisations dont accept official findings and have an alternate reason for the accident but you need to measure the weight, certain people or organisations will never accept official investigations but we cant detail them all. In most cases unless they get a lot of media coverage they are just noise and not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that when it comes to alternate theories one needs to find multiple sources to find if belief in them is significant and/or widespread. Perhaps checking names of some of the people commenting in these episodes is good, because maybe other news articles have written significant commentary on the accident, based on what they said. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, on a specific article, when I had written Partnair Flight 394 I was not aware that the final report had been released in English, so I linked to the Norwegian final report but sourced details to Mayday. However I have since discovered there is a final report in English. Is anyone interested in re-sourcing technical details to the final English report and clarifying, if necessary? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Official reports like AF447 and KAL007 do not blame the pilots anyone because they are not allowed to do so under their terms of reference. Third parties have no such restrictions and consequently do not mince their words around this delicate subject (i.e. it's sensitivities, not alternate theories at play.) Anyway, back to using using this show as a source - we can't, except as stated above to directly quote real world reliable secondary sources where the show happens to interview them. "NTSB officer X said Y", however this should not extend to primary sources like "passenger A said B happened". Any dialogue/analysis/commentary/acting/video/animations etc. should be off limits. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the users in the RS noticeboard thread stated his belief that an interview counts as a secondary source if it has been edited and incorporated into a production, so Mayday interviews are secondary sources because the Mayday producers "published" and "edited" them. They would only count as primary if it is raw, unedited footage. The distinction of primary versus secondary is whether a third party has "published" the material, and for a TV documentary program that edited the footage, it would be secondary. It would be like a person's statements being quoted in a newspaper.

Having said that, the statement of an NTSB investigator would be far more valuable for technical aspects than the statement of a passenger who is uneducated in the matter, but that would be the case whether the comments are published in a newspaper, or whether they are published in Mayday, or whether they are published on a TV news interview. So passenger testimony on Mayday could be excluded, not because it's Mayday, but because it's passenger testimony. In the Partnair article we have testimony from a business executive, Leif Terje Løddesøl, but it has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the crash. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The point of choosing secondary sources is to get the benefit of a reputation for fact checking and their editors' efforts to help achieve balanced POV. We defeat that purpose if instead we choose sources which have the opposite reputation, for using unchecked or uncheckable "facts" and injecting sensationalism. I would only use them to support direct quotes from expert interviews, and then only to clarify something that another, secondary, and reliable source has taken note of. That way the sensationalism does not work against wp:UNDUE. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I am aware about the "reputation for fact checking" and with that in mind people use sources which would conventionally be reliable sources but have been accused of being sensationalist/not doing enough fact checking. People have leveled both accusations against the Daily Mail countless times (Do a search for "Daily Mail" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). People on Wikipedia more or less still use the Daily Mail, but it is considered inferior to a high market newspaper (The Independent, The Guardian). The Daily Mail is a sensationalist source and Wikipedia still uses it. There may be reasons not to use the Daily Mail in certain contexts, but we do not restrict Daily Mail usage to interview quotes only. Considering that the PSA 182 incident really did include issues with non-related conversations, editors here or on the noticeboard will have to re-assess Mayday in terms of reliability, which may even be a separate question from a "sensationalist" tone.

In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail for instance one user argues that the Daily Mail should not be used as an RS because it had put up a fake article. Another user argues then, by that standard the NYT would be unreliable because it too had done the same thing. Another argument states that the DM had "pre-written" an article in the event that a person had died, and a counterargument stated that other newspapers do the same thing (for instance in a murder trial there are two articles "pre-written" so that no matter how the verdict goes, the deadline can be met)

2. A source can be "reliable" in most aspects and "unreliable" in other aspects. Most journalism articles are considered "reliable" but those same articles are usually not reliable in medical contexts. So we can say Mayday is reliable except in terms X, Y, and Z. Therefore the edict to only use direct quotes can be inappropriately restrictive especially in non-technical investigation contexts. With that in mind, for the technical investigation of course the actual reports are better than Mayday and should be used instead of Mayday. But not all aspects are related to technical investigations, and one can deal with conspiracy theory concerns by requesting that the theory appear in more than one RS.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

KAL007 soapboxing?

Based on the edit history of KAL007 it seems like a user is still trying to soapbox about the "KAL007 survivors" theory http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007&action=history

• This edit, he adds a link to a change.org petition without secondary source coverage of this petition - It would be one thing if this was covered in a newspaper article, but so far it has not.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've warned him several times about promoting his website & theory - it's time for a sanction. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CAA fee information

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2200/Comparing_airline_charges.pdf (Archive) discusses airline charge fees across various UK airlines. Would this be a useful source? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

A user decided to be bold and split the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft into two lists covering 20th and 21st century. The split has been reversed pending a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the list shouldn't be split. Every major air disaster can be found on the one list, plus it is easier to maintain one list than two for those of us who keep an eye out for vandalism or good faith additions of articles that don't meet list criteria....William 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)

Shouldn't we have an accident article for this instead of incorporating the barest summary in the song article? The current content is what is expected to be found for a song article based on an event, and the motivation for writing the song, except for the accident infobox, which should be a song infobox. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

This article is scheduled to appear on the front page on 21 Jan. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether the article should be renamed to the Thule accident. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note

Just a survey about fatal civil helicopter crashes in one typical month:

• 5 December 2012 LN-OMY a Helitrans Eurocopter AS350 went missing and was found 25 metres down in Lubeck Bay, two killed.
• 10 December 2012 N119BK of Rockford Memorial Hospital MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 crashed 70 miles west of Chigago in bad weather, three killed
• 15 December 2012 "07" Nigerian Navy Agusta A109 crashed killing six occupants.
• 21 December 2012 RA-27003 a Mi-8 of Kogalymavia shot down in South Sudan working for the United Nations, five killed.
• 25 December 2012 Ukranian Ministry of Internal Affairs Mi-8 crashed after take off killing all five on board.

Also a few other accidents which bent a few helicopters, some with serious injuries, as far as I know none of the fatal accidents are mentioned in wikipedia. According to our "guidelines" should they have been included somewhere, none as far as know involved anybody wiki notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Here[36] is a medical transport flight that crashed near Chicago in December 2011. Four people were killed, among them a couple who parishioners of my church and the wife had talked to my wife the morning of the crash. Tragic, received a fair amount of press at the time, but not notable....William 19:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just trying to show that helicopters crash frequently, some of them tragic but very few are actually notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Having flown helicopters in Canada for several decades I can tell you that we have hundreds of them here each year, mostly when helicopters hit stationary objects, like trees, cranes, buildings, mountains, etc. Most get zero press at all as they happen in remote areas. Both the civil companies I worked for had major accidents every year and none are Wikipedia articles. These are very common. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really getting any of your points here. So one helicopter crash is not the same as another. Some crashes kill people, some don't. Whether you've flown helicopters or not (and that's not at all relevant), we all know helicopters and other aircraft crash. The point is that if a crash, civilian or not, deaths or not, is notable for our community, it should be covered by a global online encyclopedia. What this project seems to miss is that a crash could be notable for reasons beyond this particular project's essay on notability. A shame that this project seems to be hell-bent on deletionism. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You really should do your homework before you come in here accusing us of all kinds of things. Members of this task force have worked hard at AFDs to retain many accident articles that were notable that others have sent for deletion. The point on this accident is that helicopter accidents are very common, probably number a thousand or more a year world wide. Most are not notable, just like most car accidents are not notable. Regardless of WP:AIRCRASH, Wikipedia-wide standards such as WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER make it clear that events like this have to have some enduring consequences or outcomes to be retained as articles. As discussed above the members of this project are more than patient enough to wait a few months and see if this accident results in any enduring outcomes, such as Airworthiness Directives, changes to ATC procedures, aircraft modifications, equipment fitments requirements or anything else. I can't speak for anyone else here but personally I prefer to spend my time writing new articles than putting AFDs together, so I'll be happy not to send it to AFD if it meets any criteria for retention at all. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no breach of civility at all. You should retract that. You have all demonstrated above that you can't wait to start the deletion process on this particular article. That's fact. Looking forward to the AFD. Until then, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If in fact any of us here really couldn't "wait to start the deletion process" then it would already be underway. As I said, personally I don't see any hurry. I am keen to see if there are any lasting effects of this accident and I am more than willing to wait a while to see if that occurs. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Old Soviet accident reports

Do any of you have old Soviet accident reports available? The State Supervisory Commission for Flight Safety is the agency in charge of accident investigation prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union. Do you know if the IAC/MAK keeps copies of the reports and sends them out to people who request copies? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for flight numbers

An editor has been creating these. Flight 168, Flight 1103, Flight 1602 etc. Does anyone feel these pages are necessary?...William 12:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes there are mentions of the flight number itself, i.e. "Flight 191" is infamous for having multiple fatalities, and I think some media reports go by "Flight 447" etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No disambiguation neededf as they are re-directs.--Petebutt (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lauda Air Flight 004

Anyone interested in using the accident report to beef up Lauda Air Flight 004? I used other sources to beef it up, but it needs more stuff from the Thai accident report, which is in English and available online WhisperToMe (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

CGI-type images

A number of accident articles use CGI type images used to give an impression of the aircraft/crash, the one at Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 I notice is now at a 45 degree angle, it was different before. I believe that the use of such images is really original research and could give a misleading interpretation of what actually happened. Should we remove such made-up images in air accident articles? MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to draw a map to illustrate an aspect of an article - since these can be compared to published maps - it's another to create an image purporting to accurately portray a crash. Unless it was produced by a Reliable Source. Changing a photo to make it more dramatic doesn't sound like taking a NPOV either. Sticking with stock photos of similar airframes is safer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these are WP:OR unless they come from a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just copied the above three comments from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents for more exposure and comments, if supported we need to tweak the page guide to show current consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur. They are OR....William 16:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) and Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence/doc. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a basis from an accident report (a diagram) then how do you ensure it is not OR? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Attention fellow editors, the argument that these are Original Research is wrong for two reasons. First, it DOES NOT APPLY TO ILLUSTRATIONS BASED ON DATA FROM ACCIDENT REPORTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS: WP:OR says "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1]". Guess what accident reports and photographs are, reliable published sources. The only rules that apply to them are WP:IUP#User-created_images.

Second, original research is information that comes from no source other than the editor who said it. My images are like others already being used in other subjects, like File:Proterosuchus BW.jpg. There are no photos of one of these, but books describe what they looked like according to science, this person took that description and made an illustration. Which is exactly what I do, nothing in any of my images comes from original information on my part. Take Helios flight 522, it's well known that the plane was intercepted by two Greek F-16s, which is what the illustration shows.

In short, this issue has been brought up several times throughout the years, but the policies encourage adding free images and that's why the ones somebody has removed from pages like Helios 522 are used on DOZENS of other wikis according to its usage information. Anynobody(?) 17:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The case is, these aircrash renderings are not only a possible violation of WP:OR, but also (in my opinion much more evident) of WP:NPOV. Adding them leads to an over-dramatization of the event à la Seconds from disaster, which is not desirable in an encyclopedia (I can only speak for the English Wikipedia, so your argument that "dozens of other wikis" would use them, is void.) --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a featured article: Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event it's got two images you should consider overly dramatic if a simple image of a 737 and two F-16s bugs you. I've included them here in case you don't want to see the article. I've also read WP:NPOV more than once, can you please show me where it supports your argument that "over-dramatization" is to be avoided? You can't because it doesn't say that, the simple fact is that an airplane crash is a dramatic thing. Know what else is dramatic, asteroid impacts:

This was made by another Wikipedia editor like myself and comes from the featured article Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

So does this one. If being overly dramatic were really a rule, or possibly being misled were a concern: Neither of these would be in a featured article.

By the way, the various language Wikipedias all operate under the same rules. Would it make much sense to have one language accept NPOV or OR and the others not? All you're doing is defacing the articles you've removed them from.

PS Don't give me a "well that's natural history, this is aviation" argument, it's b/s because the rules are the same across the board. Anynobody(?) 02:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

i think the difference might be between things that might have been observed and recorded and things that no man could have observed and which the reader expects to be the creation of an artists fancy. The image of the extinction event has been when the article was last reviewed (mid-2008) for FA has been renamed or deleted[37] and its merits were discussed Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event/Archive_2#The_main_impact_image. Its not clear if that was a different image. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. An artistic representation of an asteroid impact or an extinct animal is very, very different from "here's a crashing plane". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A crashing plane can be like an extinct animal in that it's not recorded in person (that happens a lot) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's documentation of review you want;

It was the image shown in the DYK template that day, follow the link at the bottom of the box to see if you don't believe me. Would one of my images be on the freaking front page and recorded as such if they were violating any policies? Anynobody(?) 03:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Had a look at the official accident report for HCY522 and as far as I can see it has no representations or images of the intercept by two F-16s so File:Helios522.png is clearly made-up and that makes it original research. As far as I can see making up an image can also be deemed to be not-neutral and not a true representation of the events that happened. These just amplify the reasons why the task force concluded we should not use such images in accident articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, in the case of Gol 1907 the report contains exact diagrams of how the accident occurred. Would it be fair to say that if one has these diagrams and/or data, then one can craft a picture in a manner that doesn't violate OR policies? Also, if need be, it can be taken beyond the task force to the OR noticeboard, where we have an even broader audience and the ability of having this question logged on the OR noticeboard archives. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed it on the OR noticeboard: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Computer_generated_images_.28CGI.29_for_plane_crashes WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok MilborneOne, please take a look at page six of that report and note this paragraph:

At 08:23:51 h, during the sixth holding pattern, flight HCY522 was intercepted by two F- 16 fighter aircraft of the Hellenic Air Force. The F-16s made close visual contact with the flight in the holding pattern, at FL340. During the interception, the F16s communicated on the military radar frequency and with Athinai ACC. One of the F-16 pilots attempted to attract the attention of the flight crew using prescribed interception signals and radio calls on the emergency and Athinai ACC frequencies, without success. He maneuvered around the aircraft to acquire various views from the right and left sides of the cockpit and the fuselage in an effort to identify the reasons for the lack of radio communication. No external structural damage or fire/smoke was observed.

Now that I've established the F-16s were not made up, let's get back to my last point you ignored. If it were a violation of ANY Wikipedia policy, would they have used the image of American Airlines Flight 96 that I linked to above? (The DYK template notice)

In case you missed it, here's a summary; the illustrations are fully allowed because they put one on the front page. Moreover, mine are all based on published data and HAVE ALWAYS gone out of the way to be captioned as CGI, RENDERING, ILLUSTRATION etc. to let people know they aren't photographs. I must warn you that I'll be forced to take the diff of my point and your total disregard of it to the admin's noticeboard if you continue to ignore it. Anynobody(?) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont think anybody said the F-16s were not real it the the CGI that is original research, I did read the report and it doesnt give any data that you could make anywhere a factual interpretation of what happened, the image is just made up. It doesnt mention anything about the distances involved or the actual relationship to the aircraft it is just what you thought they did. I have no doubt that the images are always correctly labelled as made up stuff and the fact that it was used as part of a dyk does not make it legit File:Aaflight96dc10.png has six different interpretations of what happened. So if we return to the main point images are powerful triggers to the reader and if they are made up they just give a certain point of view that may not be true and can be misleading. Oh and perhaps you may want to think about the "I must warn you" stuff it doesnt help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 Kenya Police Helicopter Crash Inquiry

An editor created this article for the investigation of 2012 Kenya Police helicopter crash. The article is barely more than a stub and so far as I know, we've never had separate articles for crash inquiries(And if we did, it wouldn't be this small an affair). So I WP:BOLDed it into a redirect. I'll have to wait to see if the article creator objects. If so, an AFD might be the next step. Unless the consensus here is to keep....William 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Support your redirect - cant see any reason for a separate article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing it I agree, no need for a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bellview Airlines Flight 210

Less than a month ago, the crash report on this eight year old accident was finally released. I put its conclusions into the article with sources (including the report itself which I quoted). The cause section of the article could probably use some formatting fixes to make it look better but I'm not sure how. Could someone take a look at it. Thanks....William 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 5601

I created this article after it was deleted due to being created by one of Ryan kirkpatrick's sockpuppets. Flight 5601 is the worst civilian aviation disaster involving a CASA/IPTN CN-235.

When creating the article, I tried looking for sources other than Aviation Safety Network aka ASN. Oddly I found nothing at either airdisaster.com, planecrashinfo.com, or google news. The last is the strangest one. Even obscure African crashes from the 70's you'll find at least news article[38] on. ASN gives two sources for its entry- Air Safety Week 26.10.1992 (5) and Scramble 161. Is there anyone who can verify this crash happened through another source. I might ask the article be deleted if we can't find a non-ASN source for it....William 11:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This source gives a brief description of the accident.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jetstreamer. I just wanted to make sure it actually occurred....William 12:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned on p206 of World Directory of Airliner Crashes by Terry Denham. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The web searches I did didn't turn much up, but I think the three refs found do establish that it happened and also notability. I think the problem is that it is an obscure aircraft type and it happened in a remote area, so not much press. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The accident is mentioned in The Business Times, 30 October 1992, Page 3. A Singapore-based editor will be able to extract details via their local library. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I added the brief mention in Flight International. There didn't appear to be any more coverage on the crash. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The link you put in is to another incident. One involving a F27 that killed 12, not 31....William 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave the wrong URL to the right article - was working with 64bit IE and PDFs open separately. Corrected now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Vauxhall Incident

Does the incident in Vauxhall this morning count as notable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean this one? The inclusion standard is at WP:AIRCRASH. This accident sounds like a helicopter hit a crane and crashed into the street killing the two occupants. Helicopters hitting objects happens very commonly and isn't notable unless a wiki-notable person was involved (meaning we have a biography article on the person already) or there will be changes to ATC procedures, an AD issued, etc, as a result of this crash. In this case I wouldn't think it was notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Like all of these sort of accidents it has been on the 24-hour news channels live all day, although they mainly repeat the same images and stories, this means that the people think it must be notable. As Ahunt says in the end is is just another accident to a helicopter, certainly sad but not really notable. We may have to wait for the 24-hour news inertia to slow down before others outside of the project will agree about it's notability so any attemps to delete and otherwise related information will meet resistance. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone who nominates lots of non notable crashes for deletion will get around to Vauxhall eventually. I hear he agrees with Milborne too about the likelyhood of resistance....William 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Respect to the two that died but Vauxhall helicopter crash being added to Category:Disasters in London is a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the inevitable WP:NOTNEWS article has now been created. There seems to be some hint that regs may be reviewed, but otherwise it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. Plans to send to deletion or wait a week or two first? - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was nominated for CSD, but that didn't last more than one minute! - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It has now been tagged several times for things like notability and the tags swiftly removed. A discussion has started on the talk page about notability. As usual with these sorts of articles there seems to be two camps, one that says "it's in the newspapers so obviously it is notable" and the other that points out WP:NOTNEWS. We had a very similar accident in Canada this week that closed a major freeway for six hours. The only difference was that no one was hurt and it involved a semitrailer instead of a helicopter, although it caused far bigger traffic problems than the helicopter crash did. No one would even think that we should have Wiki articles on every car accident, but some editors seem to think that just because the press likes to sensationalize aircraft accidents that we should have an article on them too. I would suggest that we wait a month and then re-visit this and see if it looks like there will be any lasting effects and if not send it to AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Had the same accident happened in Evansville Indiana, Tacloban Philippines(My wife's hometown) or Melfort Saskatchewan, there would be minimal buzz and the AFD would already be under way....William 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual the responses are that it must be notable because of x y z, and what this task force thinks is outdated if it cant class this really important accident as notable! As we have found with this sort of in the news accident perhaps we should wait a few days (or weeks) to see how it sizes up. The 24-hour news people soon moved on to the Algerian hostage thing instead. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait a month and see if this has any lasting effects and if not we can discuss what to do with this then. I have diarised it for another look in a month. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just note, all of you, that this article isn't entirely in your own jurisdiction. You may have essays like WP:AIRCRASH which may be meaningful to your contributors, but there are other interests in this article which transcend this particular project. I see four Wikiproject banners on the talk page right now. Of course, anyone is entitled to nominate an article for AFD, but it would be highly arrogant of a project to claim that their essay-based guide is more important than any other project's. I'll also "diarise" the article's impending AFD. That being said, of course the article now meets your project's essay because the deceased pilot has his own article... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really since the pilot biography is strictly as a result of his death in this accident, which WP:AIRCRASH addresses. Otherwise, sure, other projects may argue that the article should be retained for their own reasons, but it still has to meet WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which it currently doesn't which is why other editors, not connected to our project have also proposed deleting it and or tagged it. In fact this is a classic "not news" article. You don't have to "diarise" the article for AFD, if anyone nominates it the article itself will be tagged. - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, WP:AIRCRASH is simply a poorly expressed essay with no relevance outside this project. I note members of other projects have expressed a direct desire to keep the article. I'll keep the article's due date "diarised", so I see when someone AFDs it, which the contributors here are already keen to do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that wp:aircrash is the result of inputs mainly from users outside of the project over various afd discussions. It didnt really reflect the community consensus, but it has since been changed to reflect what had been going on in deletion discussions. Sure it is only an essay but it is a starting point in such discussion with a wider community. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see no need to take the article to AfD as Ahunt says we will just wait and see how the aftermath develops. We have made knee jerk reactions to this type of accident in the past and as a task force we are learning that it not allways wise to rush into a deletion process while all the facts are not known. It is not our business or actually goal to remove as many articles as we can but actually to add and develop more and to give a consistent coverage to aviation accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. But you and your colleagues here should note this incident transcends just an aviation accident, it has pertinence to other wikiprojects who may not have such a motivated and active task force. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well more than a month has passed since this accident occurred and the article was created, so, as noted above, I thought perhaps it was time to review whether it now makes WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

Even though the formal accident investigation has not been completed there is no public information at this point to indicate that the accident was anything other than a "continued VFR into IMC and collision with obstacle" accident, a very common scenario. There is no evidence that there were any equipment malfunctions nor any indication of service bulletins, airworthiness directives or other materiel changes on the way. While both the Lord Mayor and the PM indicated that there should be regulation reviews, there is no indication that these have happened or that these statements were anything more than the usual "someone ought to do something" comments made by politicians after one of these accidents that are quickly forgotten.

As far as the reporting goes, all but two refs cited in the article were from the day of the accident or the day after. Two were from six days later, but essentially the story disappeared from the media completely in under a week and hasn't resurfaced.

As far as the physical effects went, two people were killed (pilot and a ground bystander) and there were road closures in the immediate area for the rest of the day of the accident, but it seems that roads were reopened the next day. An article, Peter Barnes (pilot), was started on the accident pilot, but it is clear that his notability does not extend beyond being killed in this accident.

So what I see a month after the accident is that was a common type of helicopter crash, similar to hundreds of others that happen each year, with two regrettable deaths and so far no lasting press coverage or any other long term repercussions of any type. It seems that the only reason that this got any press coverage at all is that it happened in the built-up area of a major city and therefore in close proximity to many news outlets, making press coverage convenient to undertake. At this point in time as far as I can see it still fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

As I mentioned before, personally I am in no hurry to take any action on this article. We can wait until the air accident report is complete in a year or two and see if there are any recommendations for procedural changes such as weather limits or VFR routes or procedures. What does everyone else think? - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well since more than a week has passed with no comment here, I will suggest that we simply come back to this in a month and see if the article meets notability then. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

More than another month has now passed and the accident under discussion here is now more than two months old. The article itself is stable, mostly because the vast majority of press sources stopped reporting on it after the first 48 hours and all stopped carrying mention of it after six days. It looks like none of the noises made by the politicians has amounted to any changes in procedures nor is likely to do so. It seems clear to me, as I discussed above, that the article doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and in fact this is a classic sort of article that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, a Wikipedia policy, was written to to exclude on Wikipedia.

Unless anyone can put forward some indication that this meets any applicable notability guideline, I think this should be sent to AFD for a complete debate on whether it should be retained or not. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well lacking any objections for the past two weeks, I think this article needs to go to AFD for a full debate, so I will formulate one. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can note this has already been closed as a snow-keep. It seems the "I like it" style of arguments prevailed over Wikipedia policy on event articles. Well at least we had the debate and can put the question of this article's future to bed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You brought it to the fore which was right but perhaps it was too soon for people to notice that it turned out to not be that much of a event. I suspect that when the report does come out there will be a few lines in the British press and that'll be it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we did have the deletion debate, no matter how foreshortened it was. I don't have any investment personally in either keeping or deleting the article, just a belief that Wikipedia policy exists to make the encyclopedia better. That said, if a consensus of editors want to keep it then that is fine with me. I just wish the "keep" arguments had been based on policy rather than just emotional reasons, as they were, and that the closing admin had seen and considered weight of argument, rather than just counting votes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have had a chance to comment but it was closed within 8 hours, it should at least allow for views from different time zones. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with that! A lot of the potential "delete" votes weren't heard from. This really got railroaded by certain parties in favour of keeping it regardless of policy. Recommendations? - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From an outside (of this project) perspective, albeit one which wanted to keep the article intact, there seemed to be a certain level of "ownership" by this project and some of its contributors over the article. It's worth noting that while this was an aviation accident, it also was a significant event for London. It had an impact way outside the remit of this project. Most of the people who contributed to the AFD took into account more than just the "Wikiproject Aviation"'s wishes. If any of you think it was closed prematurely or incorrectly, you should take it to WP:DRV and we can continue the debate there. I also note it would be better to identify the "I LIKE IT" votes and discuss them, it's easy and insulting to state that was how it was kept. Many people put reasonable arguments for keeping this article, Ahunt was the one who nominated the article and immediately skewed the debate with the nomination wording. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

Hi everyone! Feedback is needed here. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence

A user has requested a change to the protected template due to a bun fight on its use at Air France 447, the suggestion is to depracate "type" and add a new "summary" to replace it, comments at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cuatro Vientos crash

2013 Cuatro Vientos crash doesnt appear to be particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I reviewed and seconded the prod. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's creator took down the Prod, so I AFD[39] it....William 09:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Air France Flight 447 regarding the Summary in infobox

An RfC (Request for Comment) has been initiated at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? The RfC is about the Summary in the infobox of the article. There has been extensive discussion and edit-warring about the issue, so please participate in this RfC. HeyMid (contribs) 08:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cappadocia mid air collision

The Cappadocia mid air collision involved two hot air balloon which collided over historical region in Turkey on 20 May 2013. Two people have been reported died and 23 injured. Can this accident notable for a stand alone article. link here ---> [40] User talk:86.186.204.42 16:33 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.105.102 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:AIRCRASH - no it isn't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

I have raised this on the aircraft project page as well but just to notify that I have added a proposed deletion tag on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities, it is a featured list candidate and was a DYK yesterday, but it does duplicate some of our other accident lists and is a bit of a jargon filled sortable table. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's creator(I have long believed article creator's or IPs shouldn't be allowed to do this) took down the Prod. So I nominated it for deletion. Come on over and join the debate[41]...William 17:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Boeing 777 crash lands at San Francisco Airport

Heads up breaking news has an Asiana Boeing 777 crash landing at San Francisco Airport. Look at for a deluge of related articles, have not seen anything on reliable sources yet. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 has been created by another user. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well that is not a surprise! Looks like it makes WP:AIRCRASH from early reports, though as a hull-loss. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation (from ASN only?) in various articles

Indian Airlines Flight 605: Well, aviation-safety.net and this accident are older than Wikipedia. Perhaps there are more articles that have been copied between WP and aviation-safety.net? I don't know yet if I will get around to rewrite this article, so if anyone wants to... --Mopskatze (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite to a stub done. --Mopskatze (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Solved: Version history has been purged, rewrite is in place now. --Mopskatze (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Formatting as a list:

• Here is another that has been copied from ASN: Avianca Flight 011 --Mopskatze (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Solved --Mopskatze (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Air Algérie Flight 6289 --Mopskatze (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  Solved --Mopskatze (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Section Air France Flight_447#Final_report: Full quote from the final report from BEA without proper attribution. --Mopskatze (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Solved --Mopskatze (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Section Delta Air Lines Flight 1141#Crash has apparently been copied from ASN with some changes --Mopskatze (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks as if ASN lifted text from the official report (NTSB/AAR-89/04) with some minor edits, then an editor here re-copied it. Since the official report is PD-USGovt, there may not be a real problem here.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

    The second part of the ASN article is marked as a quote, and it is indeed a copy from the official report, page 94 in the linked document. But the copyvio that I reported would be from the first part, which I assume originates from ASN editors. (This partition is similar to many other ASN articles that I have seen.) At least, I cannot find the matching lines for the first part in the report - can you show them to me? --Mopskatze (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Have a look at the Executive Summary section of the official report. It seems to have most of the text marked by the duplicate detector.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't have time to spend on this matter, but Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd rewrote the section, so this one has been solved, too. --Mopskatze (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

List referencing

Just for information following a difference in opinion on some of the accident lists following the List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities discussions and in particularly List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, I have gone to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#References in Lists for further external input, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash

The 1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash article was proded because the article didnt agree with the source, I removed the prod and added another CAA/ICAO source for 28 fatalities. Since the article was created using ASN the ASN article has been changed to show no fatalities, Flight doesnt list it as a fatal accident and said no injuries at the time. Anybody know any more about this accident, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As well as not appearing in Flight as an incident with fatalities, does it appear under the list of non-fatal incidents for 1977? It'll probably be in the January 1978 issues.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Flight lists it as a non-fatal accident, both in the half-yearly accident list and in a very short news article at the time of the accident. More discussion at the accident talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good clue it is in the non-fatal list with injuries as nil but no figures for crew or passengers and the circumstances says "No details". MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For once I managed to find it 21 January 1978 p184 without going through page by page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking for opinions

Does anyone think we need a category for Korean Air Lines Flight 007? One does exist[42]...William 16:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable victims being deleted from American Airlines Flight 191

An IP is holding that either all of the victims must be listed or none can be listed. This is not my usual bailiwick so I would appreciate attention from the regulars. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

List of airline flights that required gliding

Not an article visited by task force members but just came across List of airline flights that required gliding, I am sure that just loosing power and then crashing is not really gliding as per Gimli glider. Suggest it needs a prune although I suspect it would not leave many entries. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well these days nothing surprises me here. At least it isn't List of airline flights that serve coffee. Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian Air Force Flight 203

It's this crash[43]. 203 was a military flight that crashed into a mountain killing 98. It was the worst ever accident involving a Antonov-12 and the worst accident in India at the time. The wreckage wasn't located till about a decade ago and they just found one of the bodies. Do you think its notable enough for an article?...William 00:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to meet WP:AIRCRASH for military crashes, as there were no notable people on board and it doesn't seem to have resulted in any procedural, design or similar changes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Category for discussion- Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Please come over to this CFD[44]] and give your opinion....William 13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2000 Heathrow runway near miss

Go home Ryan, you're banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the 23 April 2000, an British Airways Boeing 747 and an British Midland Airbus A320 was involved in a runway incursion. It was classed as a serious incident just like 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion and 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion but would it be notable for a stand alone article? Here is the investigation report --> [45] -- The West End Boy 17:27, 3 September 2013 (GMT) Thank you Ryan for paying us a visit. I just tagged for speedy deletion both the crash articles you created today in violation of your ban here....William 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion needs input

Please consider commenting at stalled merge of Sikorski's death controversy and 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash at Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash#Merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aviation accident edit summary of the day?

I couldn't help myself[46]...William 19:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That just links to the history page, not directly to that diff. I think the summary you meant is here or here (see template:diff2 for a short way of linking) 220 of ^Borg 05:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles that need scrutinizing

Indian Airlines Flight 113, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, and Vietnam Airlines Flight 815, all three of which have been seriously redone by a brand new editor. I couldn't help thinking Ryan k is back but this editor doesn't do the things Ryan usually does. More detail is good, but I think its also excessive in places. Alot of detail about lawsuits after one trash, the last transmissions before the Garuda crash, mentions of people who lost loved ones in the crashes. The Indian and Vietnam total fatalities have been changed and the new titles don't jive with other sources. I could use some input before taking a wack at these articles. That's unless someone else wants to do the wacking....William 01:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of citations in the Indian Airlines article are pointed to what appears to be a legal document, hosted on Google Docs. I'm not sure what the reliability of this sort of thing is. The legal document by itself I'd consider WP:RS, but given that it's hosted on Google Docs, where unknown edits may have happened previously, I'm not too sure. I'll see what I can find, source-wise, for the incidents. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 04:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

AJet Flight 522 redirect.

Please come and discuss whether this[47] should be kept....William 20:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163

I am writing to ask for some opinions. Today I edited out[48] of the Saudia article somebody's Eye witness account of what really happened to the flight. The reason I removed this section- WP:RS. The section I removed is all based on one person's webwriting. It wasn't published in a mainstream publication so far as I know. There is a link to the article in the EL section of Saudia Flight 163. I'm fine with that. I'd like to hear other's opinions on the edit I did....William 19:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good call in removing that! The source is self-published and not a reliable source. It is the same as a personal blog and cannot be used as a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree all appears to be speculation so has no place in the article, I think it doesnt need an external link either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

External link has now been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who made the edit. I apologize. I didn't check the source carefully. I thought the article was pretty bare bones and wanted to add more detail but I did so in a misleading way. - Drewax11 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No sweat - collaboration works! We always get it sorted out sooner or later! - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The end of Google news archive searches?

When either starting news articles, or attempting to improve existing ones, I have used Google News archive countless times. Google News Archive was merged into Google News over two years ago but you could still search it archives. That may have ended. Since yesterday when trying to do a archive via a archive search page I had long ago saved, I have been receiving 'The search option you have selected is currently unavailable'. Any links to archived articles still work. This for an example[49]. However if you try to do a archive search from that page, again you are stymied. I don't see a way to do an archive search from Google News main page either. It appears Google News archive searches are at an end. With it the job of working on anything that is dated from 15 or more years ago has become much harder....William 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing happen. It's very frustrating. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your identical post over at WT:AVIATION. Short version: filter on date. It works much better for specific crash topics than general aviation topics, as a specific crash or accident or incident happened at a discrete point in time. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is that you're seeing, it seems to work for me. Did you use the "Link to" function from your initial link? It generates [50] instead of the earlier[51]. From that page, the "Search Archive" button seems to work fine.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 015

Is a new accident article that I just created. The article could use some cleanup work. A few problems- Air Disaster.com and ASN have differing totals as to how many people were on board. News reports at the time are conflicting too. Also- The date Air Disaster and ASN have for this accident is incorrect. One of my references is dated November 17 but those accident websites have the crash taking place on November 19. I am dating the crash as the 17th but it needs confirmation....William 16:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The UK CAA document I have which quotes the ICAO Summary says the 19 November. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Aeroperú Flight 603

Does anyone besides myself think this accident should not be classified as CFIT?...William 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

From the CFIT article: "Accidents where an aircraft is damaged and uncontrollable (also known as uncontrolled flight into terrain) are not considered CFIT." Since the instruments of Aeroperu 603 were malfunctioning and the pilots had no reasonable way of controlling the aircraft, I'd say it was uncontrolled flight into terrain. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 21:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1954 BOAC Constellation crash

is a new accident article created today about the deadliest plane crash ever to occur in Singapore. Me and another editor are aiming to make this a DYK article. Before that can happen, the article could use more work. I'm inviting other editors to join in. Here's a link to a newspaper archive[52] with lots of articles on the crash....William 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bermuda air disaster

The notability of an standalone article on the 1964 Bermuda air disaster in which two US Air Force aircraft Douglas C-54 Skymaster and Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter collided in mid air soon after taking off from Kindley Air Force Base in which seeing in this airbase article has no mention of the disaster. The collision claimed the lives of 17 airman. Can this accident be a standalone article or linked with Kindley Air Force Base. Video of the disaster here ----> [53] User:DDCEX User talk:DDCEX 20.47 25 January 2014 (GMT)

Just a note for info HC-54D 42-72590 http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=155073 all 17 onboard killed and HC-97G 52-2773 five out of 12 killed http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=148476 MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that User:DDCEX has been blocked as a obvious sock of community banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mayday TV

Is an appearance on Mayday really that notable to be mentioned in the accident article, as far as I can see as an entertainment program it has covered loads of accidents but has not actually made any contribution to the accident investigation. I removed a mention on XL Airways Germany Flight 888T but was reverted on the ground that every other accident article mentions an appearance. Just looking to see if anybody has any strong views on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it is not worth mentioning unless they contribute to the investigation somehow. It is like listing all the news programs that reported the accident, essentially trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Newry Road

Does anyone think this is an aviation accident or incident and should be categorized as such plus be included on the year template for when it happened?...William 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an incident, but not an accident! - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Should it be in the category and template?...William 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188

This article for creation has previously been deleted per AfD. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 concerning what to do with the AfC and would welcome your expert opinions. Ochiwar (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Indigo brake fire

I have removed from IndiGo a non-notable brake fire incident (twice), and the user has restored it again, second opinion welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Watched, reverted again and warned. You can note he busted the WP:3RR. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One to watch

Ordinarily, the crash of a Tiger Moth killing one of two on board wouldn't be notable enough to warrant an article.

That said, there is a BBC news story that the police are investigating such a crash in 2011. I'm not proposing to create an article at the moment, but want to test the waters re such a creation in certain circumstances.

Should there be a prosecution and conviction, would this accident then be above the notability threshold for an article? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably follows on from the passengers family taking action against the pilot, not a reliable source but have a look at http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/air-accident-investigation-branch.html or do a search for "Rogers v Hoyle" for more information. Not sure even if convicted it would be notable but lots of legal stuff going on about using the accident report as evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this result in civil action, then I would agree that it isn't above the notability threshold. However, a criminal court conviction would be a different matter. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree a criminal conviction could make this worthy of an article, just due to the precedent and its rarity. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

PIA Flight 705

In July last year I removed a long list of victims and survivors of PIA Flight 705, an editor has now reverted the deletion and restored the list of names, comments on talk page welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is getting silly

The 2014 accidents and incidents template and the taking down and then putting up the bold and smallcaps on Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. This[54] says is everyone is declared dead....William 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont think they actually "declared" only that is was the only conclusion, never thought the bolding added that much value to the accident template. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been plenty of plane crashes where the aircraft or bodies have never been found or not . Flight 19, A crash off Hawaiian in the 50's, a transport lost between Philippines and Guam in the 60's etc. We have them as dead however. They are presumed dead....William 22:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont disagree with you but it is still the case that until they find 9M-MRO, or bits from it, then it still only presumed they have died, in the end it is probably not worth making a fuss over in the template. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is a WP:RS?

I am talking about this page[55]. It is being used as a source for 2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash....William 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The "About" seems to indicate that it is self-published. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The content is a bit iffy, the accident article uses an image and a video from other accidents and the site creater didnt appear to notice that the video was not a jet! would not recommend using as a source for anything. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Another issue- This website says one of the people on the aircraft was a DJ. But here[56] it says he's an attorney. Which is he? Note- I edited out the words 'well known' out of the article because of NPOV and the fact only a headline was saying he was well known, not the article itself. I'm going to remove the self published source that's being used as a reference....William 19:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD discussions

There are four at present concerning plane crash articles.

• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash
• WP:Articles for deletion/ALIANSA Colombia DC-3
• WP:Articles for deletion/Eastern Airlines Flight 935
• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Jämijärvi Comp Air 8 crash

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether these articles should be kept or deleted....William 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's status in Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014

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.

---

Hello there. I want to help settle the case of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's status on this template - Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014. WilliamJE says that MH370 has crashed and all of its occupants are dead, putting MH370's article name in small caps. However, Sim(ã)o(n) and I disagree because there has been no article highlighting confirmed wreckage of Flight MH370, nor were any flight recorders found. Of course, the passengers could be declared dead in absentia after a long time, but as of now, there has been no article that has confirmed the fate of MH370 and/or its occupants. Therefore no one knows for sure as to what happened to MH370; just because the passengers and crew were presumed dead, it does not mean that they really are. I would suggest keeping the Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash as the deadliest aviation incident of 2014. Thanks for reading this message. TehPlaneFreak! talk 05:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They never found Flight 19? Maybe they're collecting social security these days. How about Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 or 1951 Canadian Pacific Air Lines Douglas DC-4 disappearance ? Those planes could still be up or the crew on some island in the Pacific. Oh and Flying Tiger is over 50 casualties. The tags should be getting removed by you. No wreckage of an aircrash doesn't mean it didn't happen. Other flights with no wreckage 1951 Atlantic C-124 disappearance, 1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance, 1950 Douglas C-54D disappearance, BSAA Star Tiger disappearance. There is a whole list of them

Templates are supposed to be for links to articles on common subjects. Maybe the best thing to do is remove all the italics and bold markings in these....William 20:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Unless the flight was abducted by aliens, there is no way that it can still be airborne now. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that all on board are now deceased. Should this be proven not to be the case, then the template can be altered. Until a deadlier accident occurs in 2014, MH370 should remain marked as the deadliest. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is eminently reasonable to assume that the crew and pax are all dead. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I'm amazed at how many of you would dare to put your hands in the fire to claim the plane has crashed. I'm not saying it did or it didn't; I'm saying that what I believe any reasonable person should say at this point is that no-one can prove whether it has crashed or not. I've just been going through that list of planes that have disappeared; and guess what? On most of those, few people disappeared. The most recent (excluding this one) where more than, for example, 20 people disappeared was in 1974—check for yourself—which means that, since 40 years have passed, those onboard could be presumed "dead in absentia", as TehPlaneFreak said. This means that, apparently, few or none of those disappearances would have had the problem we're having now about this template, since none of the most recent ones would have had the potential to be the deadliest ones of their years, and the ones that would can now be legitimately presumed to be very likely to be dead. So I guess the examples you've given basically mean nothing. And, unlike some of you seem to be inferring, "not airborne" does not necessarily mean "crashed"; there's another state, called "landed", which is where MH370 could be. No wreckage of an air crash doesn't mean it happened, that's true, but I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm just saying it may have not happened, which is different. Please stop using straw-man arguments and claiming we said something we didn't say. Finally, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone onboard is dead; only two and a half months have passed, and no bodies have been found. It is instead reasonable to assume that the plane may or may not have crashed. It may have landed on an island without anyone knowing it. It may have crashed in the ocean but with many survivors who may have swum to an island, and now no-one knows they're there. You have no evidence to prove that any of those scenarios didn't happen, nor to prove that it crashed, so you are the ones being unreasonable when claiming at all cost that it has crashed and everyone is dead. So I believe I have just debunked all of the arguments you've used. I'm anxious to read what else you've got. Since there is no evidence about how many people are dead, or about whether the plane has crashed or not, we should stay neutral (I call for keeping a neutral viewpoint and avoiding crystal ball) and do something that will display only the evidence we have so far, and not jump to conclusions about anything, since those may be found not to be true; I propose that the Algeria crash be kept as the deadliest in this template and that a note be added to this one saying something like "(missing—may be the deadliest)" or similar. We're discussing here exactly how to do it. Please consider that we have nothing to lose if we keep a neutral viewpoint, since we have no evidence to prove either side is right. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting this statement from Malaysian Airlines '"Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond a reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia's Prime Minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the Southern Indian Ocean."[57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

You also appear to be ignoring the fact that assumptions and facts are completely different things. When you assume something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's factual. When someone changed the fatalities on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to the total number of occupants when Malaysia Airlines made that announcement, someone else reverted its status to "Unknown". It's been that way ever since. If you don't agree with me or the "unknown" status of MH370, then you should be changing the survivor number to 0 on the main flight page. TehPlaneFreak! talk 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

William, I have come to notice with great sadness that many people like to talk about what they have no idea, and, worst of all, they like to affirm "beyond any reasonable doubt" things for which they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It would be the first time in the history of logics where it would be reasonable to affirm you are certain about something with nothing to prove your claim. Oh wait! Logics is an immutable science, isn't it? There's no "history" in logics, is there? Then, I'm sorry, but your claim is just illogical and irracional. There are a few simple rules about such claims. You can't claim to be sure about something unless you have irrefutable proof of it. If you have very compelling but not irrefutable evidence, you can only claim your conclusion is probably, but not certainly, right. If you have nothing, which is the case, you can claim nothing but "I don't know", which is in fact often the wisest thing you could say. What do you have? The plane fell off radar? Oh, and every time a plane falls off radar, it's certain it has crashed, isn't it? Interestingly, though, this crash seems to have happened thousands of kilometres away from where the plane disappeared! Who would guess that? What else do you have? A series of pings received by a satellite? Well, how can you tell they're from that plane? How does that determine where the plane is? What kind of pings are those, anyway? I've never heard of anything like it being used to find presumably crashed planes! What is this, then? What else? Malaysia Airlines told you the plane had crashed? Wow, those guys at Malaysia Airlines must be unfailing gods, am I right? If Malaysia Airlines say the plane has crashed, the plane has crashed! No questioning their word! What did they base upon to say that? Do they have proof? Anything? No? Not a single piece of wreckage? Not a human body? No oil? Not a part of anything in the plane? No? Nothing? Wow! Surely Malaysia Airlines's statement seems compelling now, doesn't it? Come on, man! You've got nothing! Once again, I've debunked your arguments and used simple logics to demonstrate how you can't tell for sure what happened to the plane. If you can show me proof of the crash, I'll accept your theory. Otherwise, that's just another theory, and we still should remain neutral to any possibility. Again, why don't you consider Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy? Let's be rational and not affirm what we don't know anything about, shall we? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

From The Canadian Press today: Australian "Transport Minister Warren Truss said ... We're still very confident that the resting place of the aircraft is in the southern ocean ... Opposition lawmaker Tony Burke offered his party's condolences to the victims' families. "The hopes of many have been dashed," he told Parliament." So officially it has been acknowledged that the best information is that the aircraft crashed and everyone is dead, even if the final location of the aircraft is not known. If you know more that the lead government for the search does, then please do present your evidence. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your quotation does not say they are assuming everyone is dead. It just says they assume the plane is "resting" in the Southern Indian Ocean. I do not know more than the government. All I'm saying is that the government know nothing! How can they be so confident? Ask those guys how can they tell the plane has crashed there. What do they have to say that? Any aircraft wreckage? Any human body? Any part of the aircraft? Any part of any human body? Any oil? Anything? Well, no! They've got nothing! They have no idea what they're saying! Ask them how can they prove their statement, and they'll tell you nothing because they have nothing! Tell me: do you believe anything any government tells you? Are governments made up of gods who never fail and never lie? Omniscient gods? Well, no! It's not a news article that says some government claimed the plane had crashed that actually constitutes proof the plane did crash! Your article proves nothing! Furthermore: in the very same news article you've pointed, it's written, in the final paragraph: "The families of the victims — many of whom have been highly critical of the Malaysian government and, in the absence of any wreckage, have been unwilling to accept that their loved ones are dead — had been asking for the raw satellite data for many weeks so it could be examined by independent experts. Malaysia initially balked at doing so, but then reconsidered." Wow! So the families are also suspicious about the claims of the Malaysian government! It would be the first time in history you could say a plane has crashed without presenting evidence of it. All plane crashes leave wreckage behind. In this case, though, interestingly, no wreckage has been found of the plane, but the government are saying they're sure the plane crashed! Furthermore: they can even tell you exactly how many people died, even though they have no plane wreckage and no bodies! I have never seen this sort of thing before! Have you? I'm not saying the plane didn't crash, but merely that we can't know whether it did or not—even less can we know about how many people died onboard! Let's just say what we know: that the plane is missing. Let's not speculate and assume our speculations are pure truth everyone must accept, because they aren't! I'm changing that template because you obviously have nothing to use to prove the plane has crashed! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you have descended into farce. A govt. official says the plane is resting in the Southern Indian Ocean but that means they know nothing. Australia, Malaysia Airlines, and CHina have all said the passengers and crew are dead. However that's not good enough for you. That's pretty sad. You wrote-

It would be the first time in history you could say a plane has crashed without presenting evidence of it

Also note I pointed out a half a dozen instances of no wreckage ever being found. Your statement above shows either a lack of knowledge of aviation history or an intentional disregard of it....William 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, WilliamJE. Try to keep your cool and say something more civil to Sim(ã)o(n) rather than "Your statement above shows either a lack of knowledge of aviation history or an intentional disregard of it." See WP:IUC. TehPlaneFreak! talk 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TehPlaneFreak, but nevermind. William may actually think I'm displaying a lack or disregard of knowledge about aviation history. That was not an offensive comment. If only what he is saying by that were true, that would have simply been an observation of a fact. However, it is not true. As such, watch how I can, once again, easily debunk one more of his arguments. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe everything the governments of Australia, Malaysia, or China say. To see a list of countries whose governments I don't thoroughly believe, see List of sovereign states. I can believe more easily the investigators—and they've never said they were sure the plane had crashed, have they?—, but even for their affirmations I need proof that they're right. Just use some common sense: if no wreckage has been found, how can they tell the plane has crashed? Don't just blindly trust everything they tell you: question it. How can those guys know how many people have died if they haven't even found the plane? Have you noticed you haven't yet been able to give me a proper answer? Now, you're saying that my statement presents a lack or disregard of knowledge about aviation history, since there have been other occasions where no plane wreckage has been found. Well, that claim of yours in fact shows that either you have failed to understand my point or you are again deliberately using a straw-man argument. There may have been other instances, but my point is precisely that in none of those instances—where planes simply disappeared and were never found—could you claim the respective plane had crashed, because you have no evidence of it. Regardless of how many such cases you point out, if you ever claim those aircraft have crashed, you will be basically jumping to conclusions when you have no evidence to reach them. How can you tell any of those planes have crashed? You can't! If you're thinking rationally, you just can't! And if I'm wrong, prove it! You keep getting straw-man arguments, presenting the same kind of "evidence" over and over again, when I've told you that 1) the other disappearances mean nothing, since not even then can you tell the planes have crashed; 2) governments aren't completely reliable; 3) no-one has any proof the plane has crashed, since nothing that was inside it has ever been found; 4) no-one can tell how many people died from and how many survived this "hypothetical crash"; 5) I've never said the plane was still airborne; 6) logically, it makes no sense to defend a position and forcing others to accept it when you have no evidence to support it; and 7) the best thing to do is obviously follow Wikipedia's policy of keeping a neutral viewpoint and avoiding "crystal ball". In the end, it seems to me that you have nothing to prove that the plane has crashed and that everyone has died, so you can't keep your case. Please, let's stop this discussion which is obviously leading nowhere because you lack evidence to prove the plane has crashed. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources treat all those aboard as dead, then for the purposes of the articles we can treat them as so. Should the situation change then so would the article and its inclusion in lists, categories, navboxes as necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (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.

• Mjroots, instead of dropping the stick, they took this disruptive stalemated argument to the template talk page. I'm trying a different approach to resolving the issue, and everyone here is more than welcome to voice their opinion there: Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014#RfC: Moving forward straw poll. Seeing as this is the wikiproject that would be most likely to take care of that template, I probably should have stopped by sooner to notify you all of the RfC. Anyways, you're now notified! Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

1958 plane disappearance - found in 2014

I have searched on many of the Wikipedia aviation lists & can find no mention of a 1958 aviation disaster.

I am not knowledgeable about creating an article. I would like to suggest that an article be added here ...

Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated PBY Catalina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

This is is regards to a plane carrying 11 American servicemen & 4 Taiwanese civilian crew members that disappeared mysteriously in October 1958. In 2014 the plane wreckage was found in the Taiwan Straits.

Here is one of the many news reports regarding its recovery ...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/travel-news/wreckage-of-us-military-jet-that-mysteriously-disappeared-during-the-cold-war-found-in-taiwan-straits/story-fnjjv9zl-1226943540845

Would anyone be interested in creating this article please ?

Thank you!

(Picnics (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

+50 fatalities list

Just for information a Request for Comment about splitting up List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Air Lines Flight 304 - Article improvements

I've started work on running down references for this article. I have managed to locate the original US accident report and it's now linked in as a source. But I would like some help in running down contemporary news reports (Preferably online copies if possible.)

Two other things that might add to the article would be a map showing the start point of the flight, accident location and both the planned destination and the actual landing point along with, if possible, an artists reconstruction of the incident.

Graham1973 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try these two:

Propeller slices through plane The Argus - 11 July 1956, p.2 (National Library of Australia) Retrieved 2014-07-06

Woman Killed By Piece Off Propellor The Canberra Times - 11 July 1956, p.3 (National Library of Australia) Retrieved 2014-07-06

Dolphin (t) 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'll add them as sources while I work out just how to use them. If anyone can find contemporary US or Canadian reports I would be eternally grateful.Graham1973 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Graham1973: -- Have some North American-sourced articles:

• "'Flying' Prop Kills One, Injures Five". The Deseret News. Salt Lake City, UT. UP. 10 July 1956. p. 4. Retrieved 2014-07-23.
• "Propeller Tears Loose, Kills Passenger Aboard Airliner". The Wilmington News. Wilmington, NC. AP. 10 July 1956. p. 1. Retrieved 2014-07-23.
• "Propeller Flies Off, Kills One". The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec. CP. July 10, 1956. p. 1. Retrieved 2014-07-23.

Also, here is the Google news archive search I used as a source; though Google has made it rather difficult to find their historical news articles these days you can generally make do with a clever application of search terms. Hope that helps somewhat. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Have added them to the article as sources but will take a few days to go through and sort out how to make best use of them. Graham1973 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of news aircraft accidents and incidents

I've started cleaning up the references for this list. I've noted a number of incidents (Date/Location Only) which I've listed below where there does not seem to be a link to an official accident report. Obviously with the Asian/Latin American reports there may be a language issue. If anyone can help with tracking these down I will be grateful. I plan to go over the Australian incidents over the next few days.

News Aircraft Accidents and Incidents without an official accident report

• 2010-06-18, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• 1995-07-10, Mexico City, Mexico
• 1984-07-31, Akashi, Hyōgo, Japan
• 1984-09-19, Jecheon, South Korea
• 1982-01-01, Pagosa Springs, Colorado
• 1971-05-20, Isle of Portland, United Kingdom
• 1970-07-26, Japanese Alps, Japan
• 1960-05-02, Chicago, Illinois

Graham1973 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The title seems a bit nonsensical. Until I actually clicked into it I had no idea that it was actually a list of accidents and incidents involving media-operated aircraft. Perhaps a rename is in order? Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I'm also thinking of adding a column to the table for the Uninjured, that's one reason I put out a call for the accident reports since that information will be there. I've had a look over the Australian TSB website and could not locate accident reports for two incidents covered in the news media (1982-04-07, Adelaide, Australia & 1966-12-10, Sydney, Australia.). The other thing is that the location naming needs to be 'formalized', there seems to be four different naming conventions being used, City only, City/State(Province/Region), City/Nation, City/State(Province/Region)/Nation, my preference is for the last as it conveys the most information. Graham1973 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the location names to be City/State(Province/Region)/Nation as appropriate and have raised the question about the seperate non-media operations accidents which in my view are not notable to the list. Perhaps we need to find a name that makes it clear that these accidents are during actual media operations. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription

Your Hot articles subscription is complete. The daily list can be found here. Feel free to integrate this into your WikiProject page however you like by adding the WikiText {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Hot articles}}. Kaldari (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it looks (live):

28 edits	American Airlines Flight 327
27 edits	2024 in aviation
19 edits	List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Syrian civil war
19 edits	Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771
18 edits	List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
18 edits	QantasLink Flight 1737
15 edits	Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145
14 edits	September 11 attacks
13 edits	China Airlines Flight 611
13 edits	TWA Flight 800

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 12 December 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

I went ahead and added it to the main page. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Ethiopian Air Force An-12 crash

Military transport aircraft accident 2013 Ethiopian Air Force An-12 crash has been proposed for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsurpisingly the article creator took down the prod. So I sent it to AFD. Which can be found here[58]....William 14:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Airlines of Foo accidents and incidents

I presumed that this family of categories (like Category:Airlines of Asia accidents and incidents) were meant as parent cats for the airline accident cats but more and more individual accidents are creeping in. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that there were "Airlines of <continent> accidents and incidents" categories. I thought that "<Airline name> accidents and incidents" categories were directly parented by "Airliner accidents and incidents by airline". On the one hand, it would make sense that an accident whose airline has no category itself would end up in the "Airlines of <continent>..." category, but on the other hand I really don't think it should (the accident is not an airline article itself). I'd support removing the continent-level sub-categories and reparenting all "<airline> accidents and incidents" categories with "Airliner accidents and incidents by airline". Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 21:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Crossair Flight 498

Can someone help resolve a simmering edit war here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.176.168 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in [YEAR]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early per a request on WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus to mark the deadliest accidents, however there is not a consensus to use the 50+ mark to mark accidents. The general feeling on how to mark these seems to be to use italics, which gives a slightly different appearence, but does not create a significant change. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

---

For what is a simple template for navigation is does cause some issues (particularly in the 2014 version). Can I propose that as they provide no help in the primary use to navigate between articles that the marking of the more than 50 victims and the deadliest accident is ; depracted and removed from this series of templates, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the 50 victims is an arbitrary level, and is a lower hurdle for modern large aircraft than eg pre-war aircraft, and the difference between deadliest and next deadliest is but one fatality ( 0.125% of the possible capacity of a A380) I can see a good reason for removing the emphasis between entries. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. The templates are for navigation. Not about statements on this or that crash....William 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose — I find those indications useful sometimes. With just a glance, you can see the deadliest accidents of a certain year, with the top one highlighted. For some time, I even thought something else could be done: highlighting in some other way accidents or incidents where there were no casualties. I've never proposed it, but maybe that could be useful as well... I'm sorry to be swimming against the tide, but I really find those indications useful. About the issues it caused in the 2014 version, they have been corrected, and consensus has been achieved of not listing MH370 as the deadliest, since there hadn't been confirmation of their deaths yet. I have proposed also that the italics be removed from it, since we can't confirm either that 50 people died, but I made it clear from the beginning that I wouldn't go ahead with it if I found too much resistance, which seems to be the case now. Problems, like any others, can be solved with simple discussions, in favour of usefulness. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As we only had one objection consensus is that these entries are not needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus? What consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote, it's an evaluation of the weight that an editor's argument gives. Even so this proposal hasn't been advertised enough and that is the reason why there has only been one objection. On the basis of weighing consensus, I'm reverting your changes and starting a proper RfC when I am done. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 06:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. MH17 is now the deadliest accident of the year. I think italics and bold small caps are very useful for identifying serious accidents. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose' and strongly question the rationality of User:MilborneOne. As far as I can see there is one support and one oppose vote and very little other input, except people saying that the conclusion that there is consensus here is absurd. I think the templates should be changed back to include an indication of at least the deadliest crash and also probably other very serious crashes. The indication of the most serious (in terms of lives lost) crashes added to the usefulness of the template and I see no downside, except in cases where the 'most deadly' is disputed. However these cases are rare... -2A02:120B:2C41:6ED0:D9BC:4093:DA4C:FAA9 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only are they rare (which—let's be honest—doesn't mean anything when they do happen and the problems need to be solved), the problems they cause can be fixed by discussing the issue. It has recently happened with MH370, generating a huge discussion at the 2014 template's talk page about whether that incident should be regarded as the deadliest or not (before the crash of MH17, now the deadliest). I actively participated, defending my position that it shouldn't be marked as the deadliest for two main reasons: 1) no evidence of the crash and of anyone's death had surfaced; and 2) no significant amount of time had passed so that it could be safely assumed that, due to the circumstances, everyone was dead (the so-called declaration of death in absentia). When either of these requirements were met, then it would be reasonable to list the accident as the deadliest of the year. Eventually, consensus was reached not to list MH370 as the deadliest, as I had said it would have been better. In such cases where the deadliest is disputed, the creation and enforcement of a simple rule, like the one I've presented above, will suffice to avoid great discussion, as long as it is respected. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on this topic

original motion is above ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 07:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm on the fence with this issue. While the template is indeed used for purposes of navigation, it shouldn't put any weight on a certain page to be visited; at the same time many of the deadlier disasters are the most notable (not always the case but it can be). ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 07:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support the change and comment As I wrote above- 'The templates are for navigation. Not about statements on this or that crash'. I'm also reverting the edits made to the templates. There was a consensus and you don't like it. That doesn't change the fact there is one. Till and if that consensus changes, the removals stand....William 14:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support indication of the deadliest accident I think the templates should indicate the year's deadliest accident as the number of fatalities is one of the most important things in aviation accidents and incident. 50 deaths is redundant and an arbitrary parameter, however. Btw, the legend "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics Deadliest incident shown in Bold SmallCaps" in all templates still remains, so far it makes no sense. Brandmeister^talk 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal per my opening statement above and the conclusion that was reached, a user reverting the change because they didnt like the conclusion rather than discussing it was probably not the best way to go. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indicating of deadliest, but not the "at least 50 deaths" indicator. Deadliest, I believe, is a matter of interest and/or notability, while 50 deaths, as Brandmeister indicated above, is an arbitrary figure that was more relevant as a significant fatality count in historical incidents and older-model aircraft with fewer passengers. I do believe, however, that a better way of indicating said "deadliest" accident should be considered. There was a discussion on one of those template pages some years ago about the fact that the 'small caps' and italics styling were not good choices for emphasis because they did not follow WP conventions and did not provide users with screen readers the same information (among other arguments). Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indicating deadliest and 50+ — Again, as I've said, these are useful indications. The deadliest of the year is the most significant of the year, and I think it makes sense to mark that if we're making templates separated in years. The 50 figure may be somewhat arbitrary, but it was chosen for being a reasonable figure that would mean only the most relevant accidents of each year would be highlighted. There is an article which lists aircraft accidents and incidents with 50 or more fatalities. 50—half a hundred—is a reasonable number. A full hundred—100—might be too much. There aren't many accidents that cause more than 100 fatalities in one year, so 50 is a reasonable figure. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question, can someone please put this RfC into plain English? It appears the ivotes above are all aviation project members. That doesn't help a WikiProject Virus editor who is here because of a bot notice. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• @SW3 5DL: -- Effectively we're discussing a series of navigational footer templates. One example can be found here: Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009. These templates are included in the footer of all articles for the equivalent year's plane crashes, so in the previous example, all aviation accident and incident articles in 2009 have that template in the footer. What is up for discussion are two bits of "extra" data that are not part of the navigational aspect of the template: the indicators of the deadliest accident (by death count, shown in small caps), and the indicators of all accidents that had at least 50 fatalities (in italics.) Certain editors are of the opinion that neither should be indicated, as this is primarily a navigational template; other editors believe that one or both of these indicators merit keeping for a variety of reasons. The actual templates themselves are not under contention, just these extra indicators. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• (As a side note, the templates currently do not have the contentious styling as they were removed after the original discussion above, prior to RFC. The template, styled originally, looked something [this], but with a footer explaining that the styling choices. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

@Mukkakukaku: Thank you, for that well written explanation. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support indicating deadliest but not 50+. I would add the 'deadliest' should not have any enhancement to the term. Such accidents do have more interest but enhancing the term with italics, etc., seems sensationalist to me. WP isn't the Daily Mail. As for the 50+, it is arbitrary as others have noted, and it also seems, albeit unintentionally, to trivialize loss of life. I remember one accident where one person died all others survived, and reporters proclaimed, 'only one person died.' Of course, if that one person is your loved one, it's no small matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support indicating deadliest, with comments. (I'm not an WP Aviation member; I opted into RFC notifications.) From an outsider's perspective, I think I would expect to see casualties in parentheses rather than an arbitrary threshold for highlighting casualties over some number (such as 50). Were that implemented, I would no longer support emboldening the accident with the highest death toll.
  As an aside, I strongly oppose the use of small caps, per MOS:BADEMPHASIS and would prefer that you guys used something like an asterisk or bold-and-italics. But it's your WikiProject not mine, so I'm not gonna push the issue on that one ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  PS: Again thank you to Mukkakukaku for the comprehensive summary.

The idea of indicating casualties in parentheses after the incident link is an interesting one. It wouldn't necessarily add much to the size of the template, and aside from the question of whether there could be a no-human-deaths accident that was "worse" than (eg) 25 deaths, it would leave the value judgement of "deadliest" to the reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Indicating the actual number of dead versus souls on board is a good idea in any event. As far as continuing to use 'deadliest,' if the actual number is used, it would still be a good idea. I was thinking that the press and (maybe the various countries' NTSB's) make that claim anyway. The term then is WP:V and is in itself of interest and is a searchable term. I'd support continuing to use that. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support casualties in parentheses — Excellent idea! I hadn't thought about it! No (according to some, unnecessary) highlight, and no arbitrary limit. Only a concise, specific, unbiased indication of the number of deaths. Better yet, maybe even the number of casualties and the number of souls on board. That would be even better. I support any of them. If that happens, I will stop supporting indicating the deadliest and 50+. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would have to include the number of souls on board, otherwise the casualty figure would not be informative on the scale of the disaster. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Support indicating deadliest and 50+ fatalities I suppose this constitutes opposition to MilborneOne's position that all entries in the template (i.e. all accidents / incidents in a given year) look identical. I don't want to be required to click through all the listed accidents and incidents to find the most significant accident. The fact is, safety in air travel (and any mode of transportation) is most obviously measured in terms of fatalities. If I break an arm in a hard landing, bummer, but it's not as final as death. So for people interested in airline safety, denoting the biggest failures of airlines to keep passengers safe is useful. -2A02:120B:2C41:6ED0:D9BC:4093:DA4C:FAA9 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You dont have to click through as we have an sortable article that lists all accidents with more than 49 victims, this just a navigation box not an article, all the information can be found in List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. If users think they need all the detail then perhaps a list article for accidents by year to include all the detail they need rather than use what is a navigation box. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Mark deadliest but not 50+. I understand what the different sides are proposing be done, but I'm not quite clear what "support" and "oppose" mean by themselves. 50+ appears arbitrary; is it used by scholars or aircrash fans (those analogous to roadgeeks for highways) outside of Wikipedia, or is it exclusively based on what people are saying up above, that it's a nice and convenient number? Unless it's often used offwiki, I see no reason to give it, especially because of what someone said above, about how this would be unhelpfully weighted toward post-World War II crashes with their higher passenger numbers. Deadliest, on the other hand, is clear and helpful: anyone can understand why one specific flight would be marked, and it's independent of passenger numbers. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guys, I'm confused. The heading of this debate box summarises the content by saying: "There is a clear consensus to mark the deadliest accidents, however there is not a consensus to use the 50+ mark to mark accidents. The general feeling on how to mark these seems to be to use italics, which gives a slightly different appearence, but does not create a significant change". But, as I look through the templates for each year, I can't see any marking for any deadliest accidents! Is there any reason why this isn't done yet? I don't have the time or the ability to do it, but I'm guessing it should probably be done by now, since the discussion was closed over a week ago with "a clear consensus" to mark the deadliest accidents. Could there be any other reason I'm missing? If not, can anyone please do us a favour by marking those deadliest accidents once and for all? Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 15:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Any aviation publication reviews of Dealing with Disaster in Japan?

I started an article on Dealing with Disaster in Japan, a book about Japan Airlines Flight 123. I found reviews in social science publications and newspapers but I want to know if Flightglobal or any aviation specialist publications have reviewed the book. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about how to define a shootdown

Talk:Kweilin_Incident#"Shot down" versus "attacked and forced down" - This would also affect Korean Air Lines Flight 902 since some sources described it as a shootdown. Here is a question: What definition of a "shootdown" is used by aviation specialist dictionaries? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)