Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Style guide	talk
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ New articles (archive)	talk
Assessment department (Log)	talk
Collaboration department	talk
Peer review department	talk
Contest	talk
Showcase
→ Featured articles (15)
→ Good articles (54)
→ Featured picture gallery
Portals
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Aircraft accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk Featured article advice
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents 1 "Type" (cause) of crash in infobox 2 Proposed template for article lead 3 Time standard 4 "Notable victims" 5 EC-121 shootdown incident 6 1996 CT-43 Croatia crash 7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897 8 Coordination for improved productivity 9 Comment over at WP:DM 10 Template:Infobox Airliner accident 11 Notability guidelines 12 New template ATSBLink 13 Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 14 Concorde crash 15 Flight 952 16 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash 17 2005 EC 135 Air Methods crash 18 Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 on AfD 19 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion 20 Newsbox? 21 TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 22 List of notable incidents and accidents involving general aviation 23 Another incident AfD 24 AfD record 25 Second opinion 26 Input sought on this article 27 Posting transcripts 28 1996 Charkhi Dadri air mishap 29 Articles of questionable notability 30 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 nominated for WP:GA 30.1 Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories to be nominated for WP:AFD? 31 Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 source found 32 Flight 19 33 China Airlines Flight 120 34 Thai Airways flight 358 on AfD 35 CH-46 shootdown in Iraq (February 2007) on AfD 36 FedEx Flight 14 37 Major work on Adam Air Flight 574 38 Collaboration help 39 2007 Radom Airshow accident 40 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash 41 Thai Airways Flight 358 a hoax? 42 Help on Korean Airlines Flight 007 43 United Airlines Flight 858 44 2 new articles on AFD 45 British airshow crash 46 Colin McRae 47 Thai crash 48 Proposed deletions (WP:PROD) 49 Airliner shootdowns 50 American Airlines MD-80 engine fire 51 Crash in Congo 52 V-22 accident page 53 Found page 54 Lufthansa Flight 2904 55 Guideline deleletion 56 New Dash 8 landing gear article 57 Project Maintenance 58 ValuJet Airlines 59 Brazil Learjet crash 60 Other opinions on this photo/screen grab 61 Adam Air Flight 574 62 British Airways BA38 63 Asian Spirit Flight 321 63.1 Suggestion 64 Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? 65 2008 Cessnas collision 66 AirAsia Flight 104 up at Afd 67 Ethiopian Airlines 68 About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased? 69 Does this look like someone... 69.1 Please give your opinion on this image 70 Venezuelan ATR 72 crash 71 American Airlines Flight 55 72 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision - Xiamen Airlines 737 73 Accidents and incidents for Airport project 74 Cal Poly football team plane crash 75 Incidents at Airports 76 Flight 19 up for WP:FA 77 Renamed categories 78 AfD debates 79 Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open

[edit] "Type" (cause) of crash in infobox

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

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

Interesting idea for dealing with such infoboxes. Several of us are in the process of getting a Task Force together under the Aviation Wikiproject to deal specifically with air crash formatting issues. The initial draft material is on my Sandbox (eventually, it will be moved to become a subpage of the Aviation project). I'd like to invite you to join us, and I'll also copy your comments over to there. As to the proposal itself, since there are already categories for the different types of crashes, maybe the Type (or Cause, as it may become) should be a link to the cat so, for instance, to use the one from KAL 007 which was the fastest for me to pull up, the link would look like this: Shootdown Just a thought. Akradecki 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tail number field. Currently in the Infobox Aircraft accidentes the "Tail number" externally links to a not-so-useful Airdisaster.com page. If it externally links at all, maybe to a page where user could see the history of that airframe...don't know the right webpage for that, but an example of what I am thinking is [1] Also, wouldn't this field be better called would "Registration number" or "Registration code" or something? Lipsticked Pig 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template for article lead

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

Alaska Airlines Flight 261, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft, crashed on January 31, 2000 in the Pacific Ocean about 2.7 miles north of Anacapa Island, California. The 2 pilots, 3 cabin crewmembers, and 83 passengers on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. Alaska 261 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport (PVR), Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), with an intermediate stop planned at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).^[1]

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and catastrophic failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly’s acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly."^[1]

1. ^ ^{a b} http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.htm

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

[edit] Time standard

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

[edit] "Notable victims"

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

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

[edit] EC-121 shootdown incident

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

Really good question...military incidents don't seem to be as well covered as commercial ones. This one definitely needs a better name, and I don't see why we shouldn't follow the existing guidelines - we've already sort of set the precedent with 2002 Jalandhar India MiG-21 crash, 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash and 1989 Belgian MiG-23 crash, among others. Maybe 1969 Navy EC-121 North Korean shootdown? Or something similar? AKRadecki 02:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor BillCJ refers too. I've been working on EC-121 Warning Star and expanded the description of the incident in that article. It was moved to this page (reasonably enough) and I found myself researching it--everything sort of snowballed from there. I'm not happy with the format either, but the incident is significant (the first major foreign policy crisis of the Nixon administration) and I will be rounding it out shortly with a summary of its import. As to reorganizing it, I hope someone will take an interest to bring that about.--Buckboard 09:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job thus far. Don't worry too much about re-organising it (obviously feel free if you want to), we'll work out how to do it between us here; collectively we've enough experience we should get it looking nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job Buckboard, I learnt alot from the article about an event I had never heard of. It's amazing how many of these types of shootdowns happened during the Cold War...so many RB-50s and the like over many years. While there won't be enough info for articles on all of them, a general article listing incidents would be great at some point. Lipsticked Pig 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 CT-43 Croatia crash

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 897

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

[edit] Coordination for improved productivity

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

[edit] Comment over at WP:DM

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Airliner accident

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

[edit] Notability guidelines

This has been much discussed, maybe it's time we put electrons to screen. Here's some suggested criteria to start things off:

---

Feel free to add/delete/change to this section An incident/accident/crash is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if:

• General criteria:
  • It involves unusual circumstances.
  • One or more of the passengers on board is notable.
  • The flight crew, military, airline, airport or air traffic professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions
• Air carrier criteria:
  • It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life.
  • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
  • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target
  • It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner
• Military aircraft:
  • Accidents/incidents to military aircraft (as opposed to civilian aircraft) are not in the purvue of this discussion.
  • Loss-of-life is not necessarily a valid criteria (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
  • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
  • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
  • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.
• General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft:
  • Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability.

---

Okay, start flinging those flaming darts! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally pretty close to what I was thinking. We should establish something more on millitary aircraft i.e. while generally loss of life is not notable on a trainer, often crashes are notable simply due to loss of life on an unexpected crash of a combat aircraft or transport aricraft or similar. Also, maybe some kind of damage critereon for airliners (i.e. if the aircraft was completely destroyed)? I'm thinking aloud more than anything here, may hove some beter ideas to follow. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've added terrorist action to notability for airliners (for things like Air West Flight 612, which would otherwise fall foul of these guidlines). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to a non-task force member who is casually involved in accident articles, usually as a result of editing aircraft-related articles which mention the incidents, and then hounding Alan (Akr) to create or expand an incident page :) I do often deal with whether or not an incident is notable enough to list on an aircraft page, and these standards could definitely be applied to some degree there. - BillCJ 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a random comment/resource, on the UA897 AfD, Lipstick dropped this NTSB reference which probably should be noted in a footnote to the guidelines somewhere, as it's quite applicable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]

I learnt yesterday from that link that most media-reported "engine fires" aren't even really engine fires (just a fuel control fault...flames might be coming out of exhaust, but engine is NOT on fire.) Lipsticked Pig 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We even see that occasionally on the helos. Kinda impressive at night.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty thinking of a civil counterexample, where something meeting the ICAO definition of accident fails to meet the proposed notability criteria above. If there are no lessons learned and applied then it signifies something broke down in the investigation and response process. That itself would be notable. (Donning nomex underwear now.) It can be reasonably argued, for instance, that more prompt implementation of lessons from TWA800 could have prevented SWR111. This plays into the metamanagement of interaction between investigatory, regulatory and industrial/economic forces. I'd propose to simply accept the ICAO definition of accident as defacto confering notability.LeadSongDog 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything done on this in almost 2 months, but we do need to get some guidelines posted. One issue we need to cover is when to have separate carsh articles, and when just mentioning it in the aircraft type article is sufficient. There will be occasions when there is just not enough info to warrant a separate page, but the crash may be notable to the aircraft itself, or worth a mention for other reasons. Some ideas on how to determine which is better would be good. - BillCJ 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I built the listing of the AfDs, to mine those for consensus direction and supplement the existing proposal. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New template ATSBLink

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

[edit] Southwest Airlines Flight 1455

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

• I said "Keep" but with reservations; some editors questioned your rationale for nominating it for AfD, but based on the guidelines above (a work in progress though) I see your point. Lipsticked Pig 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I also said keep, along with some comments that addressed the notability issue, so that this one can be referenced in our criteria. I'll repeat one of the comments here, though...one of the criteria listed above is "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.", and this article documents that this indeed is the case, in the "Survivability" section. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I basically stated my agreement with what Akradecki said (as one particular famous quote from whom I annoyingly can't remember goes, "'Tis what I oft have thought, but ne'er so well expressed"). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't thought that it "materially contribute[d] to a change in industry or aircraft procedures." but that's why I asked. Given the basic unaminity of the responce, I'll probably withdraw and close the AfD. Eluchil404 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think something that the AfD process on this article has brought out it that what can make a bordeline incident notable is that it is "intriguing", especially in the circumstances, and in what could have happened. Just seeing the comments in the AfD, and reading the aritcle, piqued my interest to read more, and having the additional sources made that easily possible. I also noticed that just about everyone who commented seem to find it interesting in some way. We might want to add "intersesting" or "intriguing" to the guidelines for notability. I know that is highly subjective, but then much of the borderiline incidents will be. It is somewhat akin to the "unusual" qualification, but different too. An incident might be intriguing without beibng highly unusual. - BillCJ 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point... How on Earth could we word it so people don't immediatly say "I find it interesting, it must be notable", missing the point that that doesn't mean everything that has vague interest. I'm getting a voice in my head telling me there's an obvious answer, but somehow if there is I'm missing it... maybe I'm just up too late. I'l sleep on it... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. It definitely needs some thought. It might be something that only a PROD or AfD will determine, as in this case. - BillCJ 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, notability must be asserted in the article. The nominator merely makes a reccommendation beased on what is in the article. If AfD nominators were required to research notability beforehand, there would be a lot less frivolous AfDs nominated by the "deletionist" crowd. I honestly feel this was a good-faith AfD (and I have been though some that weren't, ie the "required" Pop-culture article deletions), and because of it the article was improved. Might the same thing have been accomplished with a PROD or a less extrem tag, perhaps, but we all know AfDs get people's attention. At first glance, I thought this was a delete too, and origianlly voted as "weak support" after reading it more carefully. But after the sources were added, including one from two years after the incident, notability was firmly established. At that point, the nominator withdrew the nomination. - BillCJ 03:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with PROD is that sometimes it is possible for something notable to be deleted in a situation where had it been examined by many people in an AfD, it might have survived, but as a PRODed low-traffic article, people might miss the tag until it is too late. I sometimes dream of taking PROD itself through MfD for that very reason, but that's unlikely to receive consensus, because it needs replaced by something, and there's nothing, and PROD is just a tad well-established. Sorry for the rant. Also, the crash wasn't obviously covered by our guidlines (although to those more familiar with accidents and their terminology it obviously was). Maybe we need to try and make them more understandable for the layman? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in the Week Keep camp. "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures" has barely been met, if at all. No changes to ATC proceedures, since the controller shouldn't have cleared the 737 to land so high and fast, and the pilots shouldn't have accepted that clearance. The latch covers on the forward escape slides on older 737s should be replaced with new latch covers. A small part replacement isn't in the same category as the total redesign of (ex.) DC-10 cargo door latching mechanisms. My point is systematic changes, rather than a specific part, so when the propeller on Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529 failed, more sweeping changes to inspection proceedure, applicable to all propellers, were implemented, rather than just use prop X instead of prop Y. The worst accident in the history of SWA means a lot less considering SWA has never had a fatal accident (since we are then talking about $ value, I'd say the worst accident in SWA history was the decision to go ahead with the reality show "Airline" on Bravo).

In the end though, the "Die Hard" or "Speed" factor I think merits inclusion (aircraft fuselage + gas station = notable). Not that I think a conflagration was assured if it hit a gas pump (they must have some safety mechanism, right?). But I think almost ALL runway excursions are Hollywood spectacular, so should we also have articles for:

• This TACA Airlines 737 overrun in Guatemala City
• This Tradewinds 747 cargo (spectacular) overrun in wet weather
• This Quantas 747 (spectacular) overrun in Bangkok

All, I believe, are non-injury accidents. I'd probable say yes to just Quantas. How about this "runway overrun" resulting in the 747 being written-off? Just kidding. Again, I think SWA 1455 IS notable, but not as much a slam-dunk as everyone else. Lipsticked Pig 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This was not a "non-injury accident", there were 42 injured, and two met the criteria for serious injury, plus there were many lawsuits as a result. The real issue is whether there is enough material for an article, and clearly there is. It may not be interesting to you, but it may be to someone else. Dhaluza 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, I looked at the article now, with all the changes Dhaluza put in, its so much better and obviously notable. Lipsticked Pig 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But that is exactly my point--all I did was a little web research, no magic. Anyone could do the same, *before* starting an AfD (not after!). Dhaluza 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't magic, but it was enough, when considering your other work as well, to prompt me to award you the Wikiwings on your talk page. Fly high, my friend, and thanks for all your hard work! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To address the good/bad AfD mentioned above...while I'm fully aware that AfD isn't for testing notability, the reality is that in borderline cases, where community dicussion on keeping or deleting an article is desired, this is an effective way of getting it. One of the interesting, if unintended consequences is that when you track AfDs on a certain subject, and compare/contrast them, they really do provide a valid tool for developing an overall community consensus on notability criteria. Seriously, how many of the folks who commented on just this AfD would have said the same thing on the article's talk page? With so many people commenting on this and other such AfDs, a very distinct community view comes out, and in the end, like it or not, this is one of the most efficient ways of getting that kind of view. Because of that, I have no problem if articles like this get nommed. Just my view, though.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde crash

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

[edit] Flight 952

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

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

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

[edit] 2007 Mogadishu TransAVIAexport Airlines Il-76 crash

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

[edit] 2005 EC 135 Air Methods crash

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

I'd say it definatly deserves to keep it's current mention... Also, per this I would say the accident probably does deserve it's own article; the other crash shows that enough RSs will have covered the other one to make a decent article about it, IMO. Interestingly, I don't see how it compares to our guidlines for notability... A hole in the guidlines? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree and say I dont think it is notable, but then I didnt think Mercy Air 2 was notable either ! It is still not that unusual for helicopters to crash and as more are used as air ambulances in sometimes difficult situations then the odds are that a few will crash tragically. Not sure why an air ambulance is more notable than any other helicopter accident. As mentioned by Blood Red Sandman perhaps the notability guidelines should be more specific on helicopters. MilborneOne 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to risk accusations of COI and comment here...I would agree that, as tragic as Air 2 was for the industry and me personally, notability is questionable. There just were not any factors in the crash itself that make it so unusual. The EC 135 crash is a bit different, as there are a number of "interesting" factors involved. Currently, from what I understand, it's looking like the wake tubulence from a departing airliner might have been the causual factor. Helicopter air routes through the DC area are extremely restrictive and, some critics have said, force unsafe operations. Also, the survival of one of the crewmembers, and the nature of how he was thrown clear has some interesting safety implications for the EC 135 and the use of survival gear in particular. I don't know how much of this can be gleaned from published sources, so notability again becomes problematic. I guess all I'm trying to say is that between the two accidents, the EC 135 one has factors that would tend to indicate notability, whereas Air 2 doesn't really. Just my opinion, and again, please keep in mind my biased position here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your bias is really a problem; if you were going simply on bias alone you would almost certainly have wanted a memorial to the Air 2 tradgedy. The fact you don't find it notable means - to me at least - that your bias is definatly not getting in the way of your judgement. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant see any signs of COI if the factors you mentioned are citable then I would agree that it meets the notability for an article.MilborneOne 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic Airlines flight 4912 & SkyWest Airlines flight 5741 on AfD

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

It was snowballed as a "Keep" Lipsticked Pig 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And, FWIW, I left a comment on the nom's talk page about jumping the gun. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And the DRV seems to be going against you. Corvus cornix 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Petty. Very petty. Sorry, had thought you had filed the DRV. I assume you didn't "alert" the nominator to the problem, or otherwise make sure he knew about it? - BillCJ 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, are you trying to make Aradecki cry? If so, I suggest instead that you tell him that helicopters are "girly birds" and real men fly fixed-wing aircraft; that works everytime. In the meantime, enjoy your "victory" Corvus, I was being a dick, and I sincerley apologize. Lipsticked Pig 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider any of this a "victory". I wouldn't even have felt the need to post the above, had I not become the subject of a series of personal attacks from the WP:OWNers of the article who happen to be members of Aradecki's WikiProject. Corvus cornix 01:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, the worst I have EVER been treated on Wikipedia is during the AfD process. I have had 5 articles I participated on that were AfDed, and not ONE nominator EVER showed enough courtesy or good faith to contact me or another editor about their concerns first. At least they all waited longer than ONE minute! Also, by the tinme I found out about the AfDs, just a few hours usually, there were so many people commenting it was strange at first! And I saw the same people commenting on each AfD. To me, the entire AfD list is a big canvassing page for deletionists, and they swarm like flies to every AfD they see there.We in WP:AVIATION are the first to acknowledge we don't own the articles, but that doesn't mean we can't try to save articles we think are notable just because it's in our project. I can give you 4 or 5 incident pages in the past month or so, most listed above on this page, that were deleted because we did NOT feel they were notable. There was even a proven hoax that should have been speedied, but wasn't. So please, if you're going to play hardball by nominating articles that have existed for only ONE minute for AfD, DON'T cry about abusive treatment. You haven't even begun to experiance real wiki-abuse until one of "your" articles has been nominated. What you've gotten becuase of your ill-timed (not bad faith) nomination is very minor. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. - BillCJ 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

...well, now that I think about it more, they (civil aviation runway incursions) are all notable I guess, and since this is Wikipedia, screw it, lets have an article for every one. Lipsticked Pig 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LP, the creator of the incident article actually did add one sentence on the incident to the Airport Movement Area Safety System page. But please, spare us "let's cover all articles of this type" hyperbole. It's even less useful than frivoulous AfDs. One day, perhaps Wikipedia will be a place were deletionsts actually deign to "discuss" there concerns first. But we don't have to stoop to their level. If you genuienly feel much of this article should be merged to the AMASS page, then propose it. The idea does have meret. Let's discuss it like real Wikipedians who are actually interested in making articles better, instead of just trying to delete the ones that aren't quite up to par whole hog. - BillCJ 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I took me a sec to realize you thought I was being sarcastical...but I wasn't! I always loved that United 1448 video, but in searching for more info on that incident I got a google hit for...1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion. I realized there isn't any need for qualifiers for a serious runway incursion involving any civil aviation aircraft; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we really can (eventually) have an article for every one. It was my mistake thinking "why should we have a article for SkyWest 5741 instead of this (pretty hairy) incident"; we should have both. Lipsticked Pig 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! Those two incedients would be fine, but I really don't thinkl every runway incursion would be notable. But I could be wrong, as they should be jusdged on their own individual merits. I can't say just because x-number of incursions occured that some would be non-notable, not without knowing the details. But in theory, I really doubt they all woulb be intrinsically notable. - BillCJ 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as a general guideline we could say only those that would be classified as "Severity A: Separation was decreased and participants took extreme action to avoid a collision." (Republic Airlines flight 4912/SkyWest Airlines Flight 5741 appears to be such). Or Severity B too, dunno Lipsticked Pig 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Newsbox?

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

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

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

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

[edit] TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054

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

[edit] List of notable incidents and accidents involving general aviation

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

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

OK, Roberto Clemente. It was a charted DC-7. Lipsticked Pig 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another incident AfD

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

[edit] AfD record

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

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

Makes sense.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

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

agree AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input sought on this article

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

[edit] Posting transcripts

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

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

[edit] 1996 Charkhi Dadri air mishap

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

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

[edit] Articles of questionable notability

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

[edit] Korean Air Lines Flight 007 nominated for WP:GA

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

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

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

[edit] Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 source found

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

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

[edit] Flight 19

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

The article has come along nicely and to me reads like a WP:GA, so I nominated it - Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Air transport. Anynobody 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It passed, so that's another WP:GA for our project. Anynobody 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Airlines Flight 120

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

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

Wl219 is correct. The fact it has just happened does not mean it is not notable. John Smith's 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I admitted I couldn't satisfy the guidlines. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability section on this project page is blank, but I would suggest that an incident that results in the write-off of a commercial airliner would be considered notable. We ought to get the notability guidelines hammered out sometime so we have something to point to when we remove "flight diverted because of a cockpit indicator of smoke in the baggage hold" type of entries from the Accidents and Incidents section of airline articles. -- Hawaiian717 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the notability with this incident has to do mostly with the fact that it occurred on the ground. I read that the crew described difficulty with the engine before landing, why didn't they shut it down? Or if they did and it blew up anyway, then the incident would be especially notable because deactivated turbofan engines shouldn't spontaneously combust. Anynobody 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there, Anynobody. Also, it shouldn't have spread that quickly to the centre wing fuel tank. My initial thoughts were that the wing tank must have gone off, and that that had in turn set off the centre tank, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that happening in the footage. Also of interest, what kind of 'trouble' were they having with the engine? Was there good reason why they didn't stop on the runway, open up the left had evacutaion slides and have a fire crew spray that engine? So, I'm talking, like I said, a combination of OR and BALLS, but it's the best I can do for you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the NTSB has done a preliminary report, that's gotta help notability a tad.

I actually enjoy the OR aspect of talk page discussion, as long as one self-admits the OR nature of one's comments of course which I am doing now. Those are good questions, why would they let an aircraft taxi toward the terminal if it could be experiencing such trouble? I also noted that the wing looked intact and scorch free for the most part considering what happened to the rest of the plane (underneath, on the fuselage side I'm sure it's a different story). I think this'll turn out to be a maintenance screw up of some kind as the cause of engine flamage. What the pilot/tower/etc. were thinking about when as it happened will be interesting to find out. Anynobody 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree. I hopwe this will result in some sort of standard procedure for emergency landings, but in the post-landing phase. This seems indicative of the problem that efforts have previously been focused on getting the plane down, and what to do if an aircraft unexpectantly bursts into flames - nothing on how to handle an 'in-between' situation, that is to say, how to prevent a situation on an aircraft known to be in distress from becoming an all-out disaster, as this very nearly did. All that said, there are now reports contradicting earlier evidence, suggesting they didn't realise they had a problem. Hmmmmm.... The plot thickens ;-). All the same, I cannot help but be reminded of Saudia Flight 163... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, now I'm wondering if FOD could have had something to do with it since all was well until the end. Anynobody 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thai Airways flight 358 on AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai Airways flight 358. I think the AfD will close soon, but it hasn't been listed here before and there is still some debate as to notability, sourcing, and factual errors in the article. FYI. Wl219 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the one ref in the article indicates that it meets the draft notability guidelines (resulted in a change in regulations). AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CH-46 shootdown in Iraq (February 2007) on AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CH-46 shootdown in Iraq (February 2007). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound negative, but this really isn't an "accident". I got to thinking about the subject of shoot downs being accidental after the Il-76 shootdown. If a missile is fired at an aircraft the shooter knew he/she wanted shot down it probably shouldn't fall under the accident term. (An incident like when the USS Vincennes shot down what they thought was a F-14 would probably be a better fit.) Anynobody 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it remains relevant all the same - we also deal with things like terrorist attacks on commercial airliners etc - the draft notability guidlines state that any terrorist activity, including a hijacking, is notable. But that's an interesting point, and one which needs more full debate than just the two of us... anyone? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion on Talk:List of notable incidents and accidents involving military aircraft on inclusion criteria for that page which did not include combat losses. Not saying that they should not be considered by the project but there have been a large numbers of combat losses in the last hundred years mostly non-notable. This is a good example of it was on the TV or paper and must be notable approach (refer BillCJs comments on the China Airline flight). Sad it may have been but combat losses with loss of life are and have been regular occurences. Would not like to included in a project the need for example to document every combat loss with more than five people - how many B-17s, B-24s, Lancaster etc is that? Obviously there will be combat losses with notable factors - political and technical. MilborneOne 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments: first, in regards to "If a missile is fired at an aircraft the shooter knew he/she wanted shot down", I would actually differentiate things from the other perspective: a commercial airliner would not expect to be shot down, and so it would be an incident, whereas a military aircraft goes into a combat zone with the understanding that being shot down is a hazard of the trade of war, therefore it's a combat loss. As to this loss, I commented in more detail on the AfD, but essentially because combat losses are the "norm" (after all, that's what war is about, inflicting losses), there needs to be something about a loss that is significant or remarkable for it to carry encyclopedic notability, IMHO. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am debating whether to continue with that outlook myself, for example I would have considered a terrorist bomb to be accidental too since the crew of the commercial jet had no control over an aspect like that. However somebody else did, the bomber, he/she intended the plane to explode and if it happens because their bomb was aboard or the plane was sabotaged, it's no accident. I guess my point is that if steps were taken to knowingly destroy an aircraft it's either an incident (peace) or a casualty (war). If nobody intended the result, it's an accident (generally speaking of course). Anynobody 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FedEx Flight 14

Article has just been created - Freighter MD-11 - no fatalities but a hull-loss does this meet the draft notability guidelines?, also has the statement Upon landing the aircraft turned over and caught fire which does not make sense. MilborneOne 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Agreed "turned over" doesn't make sense, and needs to be reworded. During the crash the aircraft ended up inverted on the ground and on fire. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote that section to make the description more accurate. How does it sound now? AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reads a lot better now, are you assuming notability on the fact that although no one was injured it was a total hull loss in a spectacular fashion. Not tying to argue either way just another test case for the proposed notability guidlines. MilborneOne 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major work on Adam Air Flight 574

Flyguy and I have been discusing cleaning up this article. Anyone who would like to help out with this (it's a rare example of a GA on a crash, so quite important to the project) can head on down to the talk page and join in! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I've made it the Collaboration of the month if anyone cares ;) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration help

...Speaking of which, does someone want to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Coordinators as the accident task force liason, to help get info (such as the topic above) to the other task forces/projects members? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've signed. I must be mad to take this on, but I'll do it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Radom Airshow accident

I havent been able to find an existing article on this recent event. Some bold person with time should give it a go.

• Gulf-Time.comTwo pilots killed in mid-air crash

--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article currently exists at 2007 Radom Air Show crash. For my part, I have created [a Wikinews article on the accident, which I will add to the crash article and the air show's article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not have thought it was really notable for an article of its own, accidents at flying displays are not really uncommon even with fatalities. Is it covered by the draft notability guidelines? MilborneOne 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash

Just thought I'd let you guys here know that I recently added the above article. It was on the BBC's "On this day" (it happened 55 years ago today) so I thought WP could do with an article of its own, particularly notable since it was the last time a member of public was killed at a UK airshow. Let me know if I did okay, and if there's anything more I could do. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I learned something new today, thanks! Lipsticked Pig 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it a highly interesting article, informative, well written. Consequently, I have nominated to apear on the Main Page as part of DYK. Good work! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well shucks, I'm flattered! Thanks for your support. The Rambling Man 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nice job...the only change I made was to move the image code so that it didn't create w/s between the "crash" header and the ensuing text. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should create a category for airshow related incidents, since including this one, we have several good articles.

• 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash
• Ramstein airshow disaster
• 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash
• Sknyliv airshow disaster

To name a few. Anynobody 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Already exists: Category:Airshow accidents AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So it does, went ahead and added our FA to it and laid some guidelines for inclusion... Anynobody 05:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thai Airways Flight 358 a hoax?

Due to concerns raised on the article's talk page, I have reason to believe this article may be a hoax. Could others please read the article talk page? Thanks, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this everyone. The AfD, started by Dalillama, is here. I've started investigating who the perpetrators of this are. I'll post here when I have more details, and if I find evidence of further hoaxes. Preliminary research indicates some sockpuppetry. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur, involving these accounts and an IP:

• NicolasLord (talk • contribs • logs)
• Lasagnelazane (talk • contribs • logs)
• Despoh (talk • contribs • logs)
• 85.71.211.66 (talk • contribs • logs)

Anynobody 06:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Korean Airlines Flight 007

Hello everyone, there is an IP user posting a questionable source to this article and its conspiracy spin off. It is evidently the site's author who is replacing it again and again. Akradecki and I have tried to reason with this editor in different ways to no avail. Here is the latest diff, identifying both the IP and site involved: Rescue 007. Anynobody 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'll agree with you, but I'm sure I'll agree with you. Lipsticked Pig 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand :) Anynobody 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours, and he has since responded that he won't do it again. Besides the COI problem with it, the material he was posting was just plain wrong. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Airlines Flight 858

New article just created on UAL858, stowaway found dead in landing gear bay. Not an unusual occurance happens frequently I dont think we need to describe every incident - must be a candidate for AfD? MilborneOne 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just reading the lead paragraph, it makes it sound like a perfect flight...stowaway isn't even mentioned till later down, and stats clearly make this a non-notable event. I'm about to hit the road, so don't have time to nom it, but if someone else hasn't, I will later. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 858. Nominated. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 new articles on AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 Maybe not notable individually, but immediately after this incident SAS grounded all their 33 Dash-8/Q400 planes and, a few hours later, Bombardier recommended that all Dash-8/Q400s with more than 10,000 flights be grounded until further notice. Should be combined to one page, but not sure what to name it. Several related incidents are covered on Flight 1209 page. - BillCJ 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, my suggestions on the AfDs were to keep the 2748 article and merge the 1209 info there. My reasoning was that because the 2748 incident was the one that immediately preceded the grounding, it has the most claim to notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British airshow crash

Details - not much to go on right now but probably worth keeping your eyes peeled.... The Rambling Man 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this on the news! Definitly worth watching. I'll go write something on it on Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews: Aircraft crashes during mock dogfight at Shoreham Airshow in the United Kingdom Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. The Rambling Man 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Update now on BBC - pilot of a Hurricane killed. Same link as above. The Rambling Man 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews article accordingly updated. My condolences to the family and friends. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin McRae

I noticed this story after reading about the above airshow crash, Colin McRae is feared dead in helicopter crash. IF he is, do we cover this incident? Anynobody 06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest news confirms his death. I suggest we should create an article and maintain it actively at least for the immediate time being, so as to ensure it is not messed up the way a typical current event like this might be. According to the notability guidlines, a notable death makes a crash notable. If there's nothing much to say, we can merge back the content into Colin's article later. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. There are some sources in his bio page here, if anyone needs a head start. - BillCJ 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thai crash

Details. At this time 66 reported killed on budget flight from Bangkok to Phuket. The Rambling Man 14:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, being well handled at One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269. The Rambling Man 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 15 September 2007 - expires 20 September
  • September 2007 Scandinavian Airlines Q400 incidents (PROD by User:81.151.39.252; "In September 2007, two separate incidents of a similar failure occurred within four days of each other on SAS Dash 8-400 (Q400) aircraft.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it as a bad-faith PROD by an anon user - very tacky, esp since the 2 articles are still in AFD, and the likely results are "Keep/Merge". - BillCJ 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I should've made a note on the talk page indicating that it was a proposed article as a solution to the two others. Don't know if that would've actually changed anything in this case, but nonetheless seems like a good thing to do going forward. Anynobody 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles in place now are Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209LeadSongDog 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airliner shootdowns

I've noticed that several of our articles discussing airliner shootdowns have sections, or mentions of other airliners which have been shot down. In order to remove these, yet still provide the same information, I created a more specialized list than List of aircraft shootdowns which could also include military aircraft shot down called List of airliner shootdown incidents. (One more or less expects military aircraft to be shot down sometimes, but not airliners.)

Korean Airlines Flight 007 used to have such a section, but I've substituted it with a

Main article: List of airliner shootdown incidents

Anynobody 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've raised a concern over there about alledged shootdowns. Input from any project members apreciated. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines MD-80 engine fire

I had just removed the entry in American Airlines about the recent (29 Sep) incident. User:Blood Red Sandman has just added it back in. Somebody tell me what makes it notable other being todays news. Nobody hurt just an engine fire - not that uncommon - have I missed something? MilborneOne 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had removed it. I stuck it in as a mini-go-team was launched, and because actually requiring fire trucks to meet you on the runway is more serious than most accidents. But I knew at the time it was right on the fence, and seriously considered a second opinion on it first - feel free just to revert me, I don't have a problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i have removed it for now - didnt want to revert somebody else from this task force without consultation.MilborneOne 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Treat me as an exception to that - I tend to include stuff on the basis that it will be quickly removed if not notable. Just use your judgement with me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash in Congo

Report here... The Rambling Man 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V-22 accident page

I've just split off the Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey page from the V-22 Osprey article. I'm intending to follow the pattern of the Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen page as far as layout goes. Unfortunately, my health is acting up today, so I can't put in much time on it right now. I was going to ask the task force to help out or comment anyway, so any assistance would be great. Thanks all. - BillCJ 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the page per the Gripen article, but left the under construction tag pending approval. Hope you feel better soon. Anynobody 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Sorry for taking to long to reply. - BillCJ 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Anynobody 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Found page

I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lufthansa Flight 2904

I just reread this account, and noticed that the technical description of causes and what the pilots could have done to prevent the accident contradict each other. Then I noticed that others noticed that and mentioned it on the talk page in May and September, but so far nothing has been fixed. So I added templates requesting expert help in both the offending section and on the talk page, but thought this might be a good place to mention this ongoing problem. --Mareklug ^talk 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

12 November 2007: Help. I am having a completely unproductive exchange of views on the talk page of this article with the author of one of the newly added graphics. He cannot understand the fact that what he intended to depict and what he actually ended up depicting are two different things; worse, the graphic imparts the opposite meaning from the one intended to the viewer. Could some of you take a look at the problem and/or help resolve it? --Mareklug ^talk 10:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline deleletion

The Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format page is up for deletion. I didn't even realize it existed. I thinks it's something that can be moved top the TF's space, and perhaps expanded upon to be more general. - BillCJ 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support BillCJ comments we need to rescue the guideline and bring into the project. The guideline has been usefull in keeping non-notable and non-relevant stuff out of the association list. MilborneOne 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline pre-dated the task force, but was crafted with a lot of discussion and input. As I've commented, my perspective is that the proper place for it is as a talk subpage. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Dash 8 landing gear article

I have proposed merging all the Dash 8 landing gear incident articles (currently 3) together into one new article, alosng with related minor incidents from the Dash 8 page. THe proposal is at Talk:De Havilland Canada Dash 8#Merge proposal, and a sanbox of the potential new article is at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Q400 (not updated with the new info yet). Thanks for your participation, whatever your views on the issue. - BillCJ 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Dash 8 crash articles have been moved/merged to 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents. THere is still some clean-up needed on the page (mainly in the Similar incidents section), and perhaps removing orphaned links to the original crash pages. Also, the Lead could be expanded. Thanks again. - BillCJ 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Maintenance

There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ValuJet Airlines

I stumbles upon the ValuJet Airlines article, and it's a big mess. Half the article covers just the accidents the airline suffered. While a mention of these is warranted, perhaps most of the detailes outght to be spun off to a separate page. The most catatrophic crash, ValuJet Flight 592, is rightly covered on its own page, but the others don't seem worthy of separate coverage. One incident I'm not certain of is ValuJet Flight 597, which was originally a stub, and (sloppily) merged back in to the airline page about 2 years ago. The text in the airline page STILL has a circular link to the article! Also, on small screens, its very hard to read the comments in the incidents table as the columns are too narrow. I'd like to remove this table whether or not we spin off the section. - BillCJ 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just done a bit of tiding up, removed all the unreferenced non-notable incidents and moved some stuff around. Still dont like the table and I am still not sure that the incidents I have not deleted are notable. MilborneOne 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil Learjet crash

I have twice removed this incident, as I can find no proof though internet searches such a crash has happened. It is also listed on the Portuguese Wikipedai Learjet 35 page, but also with no sources. Has any seen any proof this event acctually happened? THanks. - BillCJ 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network has a prelim report [3]. MilborneOne 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See Reuters or CNN or Bloomberg LeadSongDog 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured stories would be out in time if it was true, but we've had enough hoaxes on here that I don't leave unsourced, inconfirmed incidents in place. - BillCJ 04:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other opinions on this photo/screen grab

Something tells me this isn't what it claims to be. (I really doubt the plane was stable enough that a guy could be standing in aisle like that, a 747 sans tail and hydraulic fluid would not be in level flight, seems like it would be swinging the oxygen masks around not being worn by some passengers as well as making it difficult to stand upright in the aisle.) Anynobody 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it depicts the actual incident all I would say is that it does not add any value to the article. MilborneOne 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Definatly does not depict the final moments. It would be Hell on that plane - this looks to me like a calm drill; at best, an image of a minor depresureisation incident. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ZOMFG. Absolutely faked, I removed it. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. This photo and the link to it were the editor User:Alexgeo's only contribution, made over a span of minutes. Image metadata shows it was produced in Photoshop CS on a Mac 2007-11-29T15:03:20, log shows it uploaded at 18:10 the same day. Image quality is awful, so Photoshop evidently wasn't used to adjust contrast or colour balance. Reeks of hoax. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Air Flight 574

The above article, which falls into the scope of this project, is up for WP:FA. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Air Flight 574. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I had a 737 model ready anyway I created one in the Adam Air livery documented on Airliners.net to replace the image of the 737 with overall orange. Anynobody 08:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Airways BA38

The article British Airways Flight BA38 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways Flight BA38. All comments welcome. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately it looks like the nominator realized the inherent notability of this being the first 777 crash. Anynobody 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Spirit Flight 321

Just removed this from List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, article Asian Spirit Flight 321 does not appear to indicate notability - no fatality, aircraft repariable, aircraft just overrun and damaged propeller and landing gear - should it be PROD/AfD ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:MCB has restored the entry, along with the dubious Air Canada Flight 190 on the grounds they meet WP:ADL which they dont. As I have removed it twice can anybody else help (or tell me I am wrong) please. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Send the two articles to AFD if the accidents aren't notable. If they aren't worthy of bing on the list, then they certainly don't qualify as notable enough to have their own articles. This is particularly true of Asian Spirit Flight 321, in which the page doesn't even attempt to assert notability. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADL more carefully. It covers both accidents and incidents. An accident is defined as an occurrence "in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage". An incident is defined as ""an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations" of a flight. If you look through the contents of the article, many incidents are included as well as accidents. The Air Canada flight indisputably incurred an accident (due to serious injuries), and is being investigated as such. The Asian Spirit flight's overrun was probably an accident (due to substantial damage to the aircraft; take a look at the photo in the news article!) but even if not, it is indisputably an incident, and is being investigated as such. (As a rule of thumb, if there's an ASN write-up plus media coverage, it almost certainly qualifies.) --MCB (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to prove they are accidents or incidents, but you're totally ignoring notability. Per WP:ADL#Rationale:

Also, Wikipedia in general, and this List article specifically, only allow inclusion of notable and verifiable entries. If each individual List entry is already wiki-linked to its own existing Wikipedia article, then by definition its notability and verifiability have been (or will be) proven and maintained elsewhere. (emphasis added)

If the two articles are deleted for not meeting notability requirements, then they are not to be included in the list. So, please focus on proving the items are notable. No one is disputing that they are accidents or incidents! - BillCJ (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But no one has proposed deleting the articles (except in your comment above mine); given the citations to reliable sources I don't think there's any serious question of notability or verifiability. --MCB (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Those verifiable sources prove the event happened, not that the accidents are notable. You might want to read this task force's (proposed) notability guidelines, as they go into much more depth than WP:ADL. Granted, they aren't enforcable, but they are often cited in AFD discussions for these types of articles, and some have been deleted for not meeting the TF's notability standards (and by extension WP:N). I believe the Asian Spirit Flight 321 page is certainly not notable, and am simply waiting to see if someone else will nominate it, as I hate doing AFD noms! Btw, no one but you has even responded here since my suggestion of AFD, particularly MB1. We'll see what happens. - BillCJ (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. the AC page has had a {{Notability}} tag since Jan 11 (which I did not add there), and the China page does now too (which I did add). - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are either accidents or incidents as defined by ICAO but the list (and being an article) requires them to be notable. I would support an AfD for both as I cant see them being notable, on the Asian Spirit nobody was killed or even hurt and aircraft just ran off the end of the runway - not an unusual occurance. The Air Canada just had a turblence problem from the links it does not appear to have been serious or unusual. Just being in the paper the next day does not make it notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated both for deletion. Let's see what happens next. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

While I agree that the nominated article doesn't really deserve to be an actual article from a notability standpoint, it could be included as part of a list. I also edit shipwreck articles and noticed that we could probably create yearly lists like this one: List of shipwrecks in 1982 for aviation incidents which receive press coverage, but not enough to create an article. Anynobody 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem would be that there is a large numbers of non-notable aviation incidents a year and the list would soon get out of hand. Not sure they would add to the value of wikipedia all we would be is creating a list for the sake of a list. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping it limited to incidents covered in major media, because indeed MilborneOne is right, the list could become huge if any and all reliable sources were used. For example did anyone realize there have already been more than ten aviation deaths this year? In six incidents, recorded by the NTSB (which means there have to be dozens moroe since accidents happen in places not covered by the NTSB: 1 2 3 4 5 6) Anynobody 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961?

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? I have never seen one?

If the list has country info for each passenger that would be good. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Still dont think that the list of nationalties of victims and survivors is relevant to the accident or is notable but it is appearing in more accident articles! Should we have a task force view on this? MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationalities of the people involved is relevant to the extent of establishing what nations' representative agencies are legally entitled to participate in the investigation. It is not necessary for this purpose to know how many of each nationality, just which nationalities are involved. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I undertand your point but nothing I can see in ICAO Annex 13 that involves national representives of countries where the passengers are from having anything to do with the investigation, the states where the accident occurs will lead the investigation, other parties involved are the State where the aircraft is registered, the State where the airline operator is from, or the State where the aircraft is designed or manufactured. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not there, but para 2.2 here speaks to the subject, albeit rather circumferentially.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the lists are valid anytime two conditions are met, 1) The info comes from a reliable source and 2) is at least mentioned in media reports. For example:
Government aviation agency reports deaths on a recent crash as: 300 total, 50 nationality x, 50 y, 200 z. A newspaper article says a plane with 300 people went down, 50 of which were x nationality.
Even though the paper doesn't mention nationalities y and z, the government aviation agency does. Given that we're supposed to be writing from of world view, including y and z is just doing that. Anynobody 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand Anynobodys point - what was concerning me was more and more detailed lists appearing were injuries are broken down by nationality etc. So it is not the mention of nationalities but the expansion into more and more detail summaries which could be referenced out. An example of the detailed lists and text that have been appearing refer to Singapore Airlines Flight 006 where a detailed list of some of those killed and their repatriation is included in a section repatriation and distribution of bodies even those that are not-notable. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid concern, but the asian news sources seem to touch on the issues expanded on by using the government reports. (To me it's not really that notable, but it is to more than one news source touches on the nature of injuries and nationalities involved. I chalk it up to differences in culture (why the press over there goes into detail about nationalities and such). Anynobody 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Cessnas collision

2008 Cessnas collision a mid-air collision between a Cessna 150 and Cessna 172. Wouldnt have though it was notable enough for an article, comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's non-notable as written, though definitely interesting in a macabre way - both aircraft falling on 3 car dealerships, and an engine killing a man in one of the dealership's offices - freaky, but definitely different. We probably ought to see if there has been any more covereage since the accident, and if there are repercussions from it - that's what lends notability to GA crashes for the most part. If nothing is immediately apparent, then we can send it to AFD as non-notable. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that there doesn't apear to be anything of note here, although it is interesting. Perhaps it will expose a flaw with ATC procedures or something similar, but that would be gazing aimlesssly into a crystal ball. If nothing shows up soon with a bit of research, then it's AfD. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AirAsia Flight 104 up at Afd

I have put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirAsia Flight 104 up at Afd as it not a notable accident inline with either this task force guidelines, nor with WP policies. Interested parties are encouraged to put forward their views at the Afd --Russavia (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With the recent survival of Asian Spirit Flight 321 and Air Canada Flight 190 both clearly non-notable but kept through 'local' support is it time to look at the notabilty guidelines again. It appears the task force guidelines sometimes dont help in these cases as we quote the ICAO guideline which covers a lot more than was intended. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Asian Spirit Flight 321 has been converted to a redirect because "This accident it not meet notability guidelines within the WP:AVIATION project, and all details already exist in main airline article, no need for duplication." Since the result of the AfD was "Keep", I don't think one user should be able to do this on his own, even if I agree with the result of his action. I'm not reverting it myself as I am trying to stay out of most contentious issues for awhile, but I did think the bypassing of an AFD decision needed to be noted somewhere. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian Airlines

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? I have never seen one?

If the list has country info for each passenger that would be good. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

? See above. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased?

Comair Flight 191 and Gol Flight 1907 have their leads phrased differently.

• Comair Flight 191, or Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair. On the morning of August 27, 2006, the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet that was being used for the flight crashed while attempting to take off from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky, four miles (6 kilometers) west of the central business district of the City of Lexington.
• Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP, registration PR-GTD, on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus, Brazil to Rio de Janeiro, which collided in mid-air with an Embraer Legacy business jet on September 29, 2006 over the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. All 154 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 737 were killed as the aircraft crashed into an area of dense rainforest, while the slightly damaged Embraer Legacy landed safely with its seven occupants uninjured.

Which one is better? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no preference, they both seem ok to me. Anynobody 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comair/Delta has two flight numbers I presume the Delta is a codeshare, as some routes can have more than two codeshared flightnumbers should the lead just show the 'official' one? with the codeshares mentioned later? MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this look like someone...

...aboard an A300 shot down at around 9000 feet over open water? And more importantly is the site that it comes from reliable? Anynobody 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say if it is real. No matter what, there are some WP:NPOV issues with this and the source is not reliable. Furthermore, what does it add? How many other airline crash articles include victim pictures?--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This special case ,is the worst case of Aviation accident cased by a military force in whole history of Aviation , so showing the victim may increase the pressure on military forces to act with more caution and not to react in hurry. More than that, in this special case , the government (USA) that has made the mistake did not officially apologized. About the reliability, there has been a conversation about that matter here--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This image is up for deletion, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg Anynobody 04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please give your opinion on this image

At Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg. Obviously I think it needs to go, for several reasons, but a few others have been rather vocal about it staying due to various misunderstandings of policies and its stint on WP:PUI being some sort of shield.

If you think it should stay then please understand I'm not going to badger you or anything, I'm just making this post because I think the rather vocal and lengthy pleas for its rescue are scaring off admins and making this look a lot more complicated than it is. So to solve this one way or another I'm hoping y'all'll (Actually heard someone say that today) drop in and give your opinions. Anynobody 04:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venezuelan ATR 72 crash

This was just reported. Major death toll. Need to get moving. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh, behind the times (as usual) - Santa Barbara Airlines Flight 508. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah. ATR 42 and flight 518. That's what you get for jumping the gun I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 55

New article has been created for American Airlines Flight 55, a no injury burst two tires/tyres on landing not really notable incident. Prod has been attempted by an other user but was removed. Comment ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two blown tires don't really qualify as a notable incident in my book. Blown tires occur every day. Unless the editors interested in keeping the article can associate this to some bigger problem (like the world's supply of brake pads gone bad) then I say this fails to meet notability. --Trashbag (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started an AFD for this article. --Trashbag (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision - Xiamen Airlines 737

I created this article 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision but I need more information and also some people need to access the paid newspaper archives (I found some articles about this!) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and incidents for Airport project

The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest -

• Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
  • The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
  • The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cal Poly football team plane crash

Good day all, just stumbled across the above article. Looks like it could use some help as no references are given and does not meet any format. Thanks,--Trashbag (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this wasn't responded to sooner, I'll look for some refs :) Anynobody 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents at Airports

I've noticed that the reporting of incidents on WP pages for airports is very inconsistent. Are there any guidelines? Where can I find them? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look a couple of lines above the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 19 up for WP:FA

Figured y'all might want to know. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Flight 19 Anynobody 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renamed categories

I'm sure the editor who made these changes was only trying to help, but the result is most unhelpful by being long and needlessly redundant in several instances. For example the words Accidents and incidents, from the main Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, have been added to several categories making them incredibly long:

• Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by bird strikes
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving controlled flight into terrain

There are other minor issues too, but before I go on I wondered if anyone else noticed this and were concerned about it as well. Anynobody 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm split here. After all, renaming these is making it more accurate, but already long names are now quite ungainly. Hmm... Pwrhaps an entirely new system of naming these? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD debates

I have nominated two articles within the scope of this task force for deletion. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Cessna Compton crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Cessnas collision‎. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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!