Talk:American Airlines Flight 191

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] amount of man hours

this was taken out by someone today -

"Macdonnel Douglas the manufacturer advised airlines to remove the engine then remove the pylon but American Airlines developed a shortcut by removing both as one unit, using nothing more advanced than a forklift truck, this procedure saved 200 man houres and $1000's for each of the airlines 40 DC-10's, however it had problems, if the forklift is in the wrong position the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points."

I didn't put it i.. but i'm wondering whether that is an accurate figure on the manhours etc. if it is ..i would like to see it put back in the article -- maxrspct ping me 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the NTSB report... I think the number is there. --J-Star 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Hey, my move was not whimsical, I was attempting to follow a wikiproject naming convention for disasters. Speciate 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content deletion

Hi everyone, I'm, being bold and deleting content in this article that I always thought should not be there:

  • Lindsay Wager: The "source" for this trivia is the IMDB database; in this case this unsourced trivia present on her IMDB page does NOT meet the standards for WP:RS.
  • I deleted this: Another flight with the same number, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, crashed at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 1985. Most recently, Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, operated by Comair as Flight 191, crashed in 2006 killing 49 people. All three carriers have since retired the flight number 191, as is currently customary after major accidents on most airlines. However, United Airlines still uses 191 as an active flight number. In addition, Puerto Rican airline Prinair also had a fatal flight numbered Flight 191. The only fatal X-15 crash was also Flight No. 191. >>> I mean seriously, WTH? The fact that two different flights, different airplane types, but same flight number crashed means...nothing. It doesn't even qualify as trivia, it is meaningless numerology.
  • Deleted the statements that some guy had psychic powers and predicted the crash of AA 191, and (even more incredulously) that the FAA took him seriously. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted "The Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation issued a 1979 pamphlet by Kenny McComas titled The Sad Fate of Flight 191" >>>completely non-notable
  • Deleted "This crash was mentioned by the character Casey Singleton in Michael Crichton's Airframe and "An episode of Cold Case Files also featured the crash of Flight 191. The episode concerned a man who blamed a woman's death on this plane crash, but she was never listed to be on the plane." >>> non-notable tangential trivia.

[edit] Citations needed

I added {Unreferencedsection} tags to most of this article...simply stating facts which are true is not sufficient; EVERY statement of fact should have an in-line citation as to its source. For an article like this isn't that hard to do so: almost every statement of fact can be sourced by the NTSB final report. Please look at 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash for what is required for a encyclopedic article (I actually think there should be even more). Also, I record every Seconds from Disaster and Air Emergency that is on, but they are NOT source material: statements like According to the History Channel program "Crash of Flight 191... are not acceptable. We need a primary source. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And while sourcing is badly needed, something like this [1] source, which I removed, is not. Pure tin-foil-hattery. Lipsticked Pig 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I updated most <ref> to {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. The NTSB report is the source for most of the article, but do we really need to put a reference to the report on every statement? Does it improve the article? Nisselua 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of crash is irrelevant to definition of "deadliest"

Guys, look at Continental Airlines Flight 11, SilkAir Flight 185, EgyptAir Flight 990, PSA Flight 1771 (and many others). The fact that a civil airliner crash was the result of a criminal act does not mean it wasn't a "crash". The NTSB investigates these accidents, and when evidence points to a criminal act the process is handed over to the FBI. 9/11 was a unique case: the NTSB participated in the investigation, but did not (and never will) issue a report; nonetheless they were airplane crashes. We include fatalities on the ground in crash infobox (rightfully). Both aircraft that struck the WTC caused more deaths than AA 191, regardless of the cause. The lead in this article should convey that this accident was the worst domestic (US) crash apart from the 9/11 attacks; this gives the reader the proper historical perspective (worst crash, apart from a unique event). I don't think that this is too wordy or nitpicking. Lipsticked Pig 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Booth ‘psychic’ prediction

This is covered in one of the extras on the R1 DVD release of Premonition (2007 film). It shows an interview with this Booth guy, claiming that a vision of this crash came to him in a dream, and it also shows an interview with someone identified as "Jack Barker, Former Public Affairs Director, Federal Aviation Administration". A Google search indicates that the FAA did at one time have a spokesperson named Jack Barker, though I can't find confirmation that he held the title "public affairs director". In any event, on this DVD the guy says that when he worked at the FAA, he received a call from David Booth talking about this dream. He goes on to say, "it hit me as to how accurate he [i.e. Booth] was; what he dreamed was in fact basically what happened... In the 30 years I was with FAA that was the only time anybody ever called in with any kind of a dream like that, that I'm aware of". It would be interesting to debunk this by doing a FOIA request of the FAA to see what notes were made by Barker about this matter. Some other references to David Booth were deleted from the article on July 10 2007 [2]. It's misleading to put this sort of info under the heading "Close calls and premonitions" but there may be some NPOV way to mention this in the article. --Mathew5000 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I would like to take the time to thank every one involved in the writing of this article concerning American Airlines flight 191 . Over the years I have read countless articles as to what had transpired that day . What you writers have compiled is by far the most accurate report that I have seen yet . I know this because my families name was Courtney ! This disaster has touched me in several ways . Many years later I had learned that a good friend of mine of 20 years had lost his cousin in an airline disaster . He was telling me of his injured cousins suffering of being burned alive in what he termed as a plane crash . He then went on to tell me how this cousin clung to life for a short time with most of his body chard. With tears in his eyes he continued telling me of his cousin . I was 21 years old listening to one of my best friends poor his heart out. I knew his cousin ! It seems that this cousin was one of our employees he was 1 of the 2 men that perished on the ground that day .(Both men where employees of Courtney Velo) .

In any event I thank you for the attention to detail that one just doesn't see anymore . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.116 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Type?

The accident template includes a heading called "Type". It was recently changed from "Engin eseparation" to "Metal fatigue". I think this heading is... vague to say the least. This accident - as with so many others - cannot be described or categorized in 1-3 words like that. It was an engine separation that led to loss of flight controls, induced by mechanical damage caused by faulty maintenance procedures which over time caused the weakened pylon to suffer from metal fatigue that eventually caused it to fail.

So how the heck do we label this? Multifactored mechanical failure?--J-Star (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)