Talk:2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 29 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash → 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash – Per WP:PRECISE. The Piper PA-46 is a commonplace general aviation aircraft that is typically involved in a significant number of fatal accidents in any given year, most of which do not meet accepted community guidelines for notability. The present title does not convey adequate information to tell the reader which PA-46 crash is discussed. The proposed title complies with community guidelines and was broadly endorsed during discussion of the previous proposal to move the page to "2019 Emiliano Sala air accident." Carguychris (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support: I'm not sure if this is a big improvement on the current title. Some people think that the word "Malibu" is confusing, but there are various Piper planes and the Piper PA-46 is one of them. The phrase "Piper Malibu" would be known to someone who is familiar with light aircraft. It doesn't mean that the crash occurred in Malibu, California.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I've changed my mind here, as I don't believe that dropping the "Malibu" part and adding "English Channel" is a great improvement, or broadly in line with the accident naming conventions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So you think it's an improvement nevertheless, even if not "great"; why oppose it then? And having the place of the event in the title is in line with naming conventions – see WP:AATF. It's the current title that is not in line. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that people are going to think that the accident was in Malibu, California on the basis of the current title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support – per previous discussion. Definitely an improvement from the current title, with any ambiguity about the location removed. It is also fully compliant with current WP:AATF article title conventions. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly due to the dropping the correct aircraft name, allegedly to help confused Americans. As far as I am aware it is the only noteworthy Malibu accident in 2019. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We drop the model name and leave only the model number all the time, if it's unnecessary or makes the title too cumbersome (and it's not just Americans who know about the city of Malibu and could get confused). Besides, is there a good reason not to follow project guidelines? --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Did someone mention Malibu? Better than two bottles of vodka, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash involved a Piper Saratoga but the crash was not in Saratoga, New York.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

*The Day the Music Died involved a Beechcraft Bonanza, but it was nowhere the Ponderosa Ranch. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support For reasons in previous discussion. I believe it is the best compromise for this article title. - Samf4u (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - no need, no confusion - new title is worse. Keep the full name of the plan, no need to add the location of the crash. GiantSnowman 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for your input here GiantSnowman but you may want to read Accident article naming conventions. - Samf4u (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean the guidance which suggests the : <year> <airline> <aircraft> <event> format (which this is, minus name of airline, which is irrelevant?) GiantSnowman 14:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No, he meant the format <year> <place> <event>, which is the recommended one if the Airline/Flight No. scheme is not applicable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: as per MilborneOne and ianmacm. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: (sorry Martin) I agree with Samf4u, this is probably the best compromise according to current guidelines, although it's still a bit cumbersome. I didn't contribute to the other move discussion (mainly 'cos I wasn't sure at the time) but I do think that including Sala's name in the article title is perhaps not the best solution here, as I suspect a lot of people (like me, not in the slightest bit interested in football) had never heard of him before this crash happened (unlike JFK Jr. for example). Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd have to concede that this request is better than the previous one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Query: I notice that two editors voted in favour of this exact article title in the previous RM (19 May) but they've not commented here and we're already 4 days into the discussion. Would it be OK to ping them so their votes get counted here? Or would that be a form of canvassing? At the end of the day, I'm only asking because they voted the same way as me, and I might have kept quiet otherwise... WP:CAN says it's OK to inform editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, provided you inform equally those who are for and against an argument. In this case, there was no-one who specifically opposed using the title that is currently being proposed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my !vote above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Originally I planned to close this discussion, but I thought it better to participate. I find the arguments of the supporters more convincing. Those in favor of the move claim that the new title would be more precise and is recommended by the guideline on accident article naming conventions. Those opposed to the move argue that the current title is precise enough as there is no need to disambiguate this from other 2019 crashes. But even if the current title is precise enough to disambiguate as the opposition argues, per WP:PRECISION Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. The other naming criteria in this case seem to be consistency and naturalness. The existence of the WP:AATF guideline suggests that there is wider consensus for articles like this to prioritize consistency (which would be the <year> <place> <event> format as there is no airline involved) and naturalness (I don't think we should expect our readers to know the plane model in order to find this event) over being no more precise than necessary. While, yes, the fact that it didn't take place in Malibu is clear from the article, the point of an article title is so that readers know they've arrived at the right place. It is very possible that readers may not read the article and realize this after seeing a title that says "Malibu crash" when they were looking for the one in the English Channel. For users on the app searching, they may not even click to read anything more than the title. All of this suggests that the WP:AATF guideline makes sense here and should be followed. I agree with the support arguments put forward so far. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear and unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current title fits the accepted naming convention for aircraft accident articles. There's no strong reason to deviate in this case. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? it's the current title that deviates from the accepted convention, because it lacks the place where the event occurred. The proposed new title, instead, fits the convention fully – It's all laid out at WP:AATF. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be AATF that is at odds with the generally accepted naming convention. Where a non-scheduled flight is involved, articles usually take the form of <year>(<airline>)<aircraft><event> with further disambiguation by month if necessary, as with the two 1926 Air Union Blériot 155 crashes. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice that AATF also indicates the more general format : <year> <place> <event> , which has already been widely adopted? e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in the last two years alone. Why should this article not follow the same scheme? --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support; the nomination's point is definitely valid - there have been at least eight PA-46 crashes this year, and seven of those involved a Malibu or a Malibu Mirage. Most of them are, completely correctly, not notable enough for an article here - but the current title of the page could unnecessarily describe any of them. Additionally, given that most of the PA-46 crashes seem to be some variant of a "Malibu" model, the addition of the word to the title offers virtually zero extra clarity, while also offering a wholly unnecessary opportunity to confuse the reader with any of the locations (or indeed beverages) called Malibu. As the press didn't really settle on a catchy name for this incident beyond "the Emiliano Sala plane crash" or variants thereof, I think that disambiguating it via the well-known location of it is vastly preferable to including the confusingly-named plane model. ~ mazca ^talk 15:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that article renames should be based on the fact that a few Americans might be confused. Malibu is the type of aircraft and leave out part of the name will confuse the rest of the world who know the aircraft as the Piper Malibu. A lot of aircraft are named after places should we rename them as to not confuse. I am not opposed to a rename just object to removing the name of the aircraft nad the "Americans would be confused" reasoning behind it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not just "a few Americans": I'd argue that more readers worldwide have heard of Malibu, California (considering all the films it's featured in) than those who know what a Piper Malibu is. "The rest of the world who know the aircraft as the Piper Malibu" are probably just a minority of aviation nerds like us. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Precisely; this is not an American issue - I am not American; I've never been to Malibu, California, and honestly none of the myriad things on Malibu (disambiguation) are all that close to my heart. It's just a genuinely terrible piece of disambiguation in the article title - almost nobody is going to, after remembering this is a PA-46 crash, disambiguate it by the fact that it's a PA-46 Malibu. I'd think about the month it was in, or the place it happened, or the people on board, well before I started specifying based on the plane model which is itself somewhat ambiguous because there are multiple PA-46 models that contain "Malibu". It just feels like producing a wilfully confusing article title for literally no purpose other than a highly debatable adherence to an obscure aviation project guideline. ~ mazca ^talk 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, Mazca already said it better than I was going to. I myself was confused about the location when I first saw the article, thinking it was in Malibu, California. (I did not, however, think it was a flying bottle of rum). RecycledPixels (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per RecycledPixels. I had exactly the same thought about Malibu, California. bd2412 T 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post mortem photos

In the news today: [1][2] The Worcester News source gives a clear explanation of how the images were leaked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There is further coverage here today but they will not be sentenced until Monday (23 Sept) so it should be added then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Crash report due

According to BBC News here. Also, it is reported that David Henderson will face no further action.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Report is out now :BBC News.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

AAIB reportNigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm not sure that the final report supports the theory that pilot error was the primary cause of the crash. Ibbotson lost control of the plane and crashed it at high speed, but without finding his body it would be hard to say if he was drowsy or confused due to the presence of carbon monoxide in the cabin. The main finding of the final report is that neither the pilot nor the plane were licensed for this type of flight, and that the plane was not in good mechanical condition.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit: The final report says "The pilot lost control of the aircraft during a manually-flown turn, which was probably initiated to remain in or regain Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). The aircraft subsequently suffered an in-flight break-up while manoeuvring at an airspeed significantly in excess of its design manoeuvring speed. The pilot was probably affected by carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning." If Ibbotson was drowsy or confused due to carbon monoxide poisoning at the time - which he probably was - then his judgement would have been impaired for reasons that were beyond his control. This is not quite the same thing as simple pilot error.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ibbotson's colour blindness

Re this edit: generally speaking, edits should not be removed with a HTML comment as it makes the article history harder to follow. Also, "This claim is contradicted by the Alain's final report, see page 9" isn't clear enough and needs to be explained with an exact quote of the text involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"At his initial medical in 2001, it was identified that the pilot had colour vision deficiency (CVD) and a restriction was placed on his CAA-issued medical certificate. In 2012, the pilot underwent more detailed tests... The pilot’s colour vision was sufficient to pass these more detailed tests as ‘colour safe’ for the purposes of flying and the restriction was removed." and "At the time of the accident, there was no restriction on his licence or medical certificate which would have prevented him from completing the required training for a night rating and holding such a qualification. However, the investigation found no evidence of the pilot completing any night flying training" - both from section 1.5.3 on page 9 of [4]Nigel Ish (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this shows that the most pressing problem was that Ibbotson was not qualified to fly the plane at night. Possibly the part about the colour blindness should be removed, as the BBC News source was correct at the time but superseded by the final report. It does correctly point out that Ibbotson was not qualified to fly at night.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• This BBC News article may explain how the discrepancy arose. It says "The CAA's database listing for Mr Ibbotson's flying licences and ratings was "incomplete and contained numerous errors… this mismatch between database records and a pilot's licence is not unique and previous AAIB investigations have encountered similar discrepancies". The other key problem was that Ibbotson's rating for this type of aircraft had expired in November 2018. This was a EASA Single Engine Piston (SEP) Rating.[5] The fact that Ibbotson's SEP rating had expired shows that he cannot have been very experienced at flying at the time of the crash, explaining his comment that he was "a bit rusty". The colour blindness issue was therefore not one of the factors in the crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As it stood, the sentence in question in our article was drawing an incorrect inference from the BBC Wales report it was sourced to anyway, as the news article makes two statements - he was colour blind, and he was not allowed to fly at night. We were incorrectly synthesising that into that his colour blindness caused him to be disqualified from flying at night. The report indeed contradicts this. I've made an adjustment to the "it was reported" sentence to make sure we're not saying more than the news article is, but I'm fairly neutral on whether that sentence actually needs to be there at all. ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The final report made clear that Ibbotson should not have been flying at all, day or night, in a single engine aircraft at the time of the crash. This makes the colour blindness something of a side issue, so I'm tempted to remove it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no real disagreement there, while technically correct I don't think that sentence is actually aiding anyone's understanding of it. ~ mazca ^talk 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

Copied from Mjroots' talk page. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Must disagree with your reverting of my edits. '13 nautical miles' gives a perfectly good idea of the distance; anybody wanting a more precise measurement can be sure of finding it in the main article. And mentioning the AAIB does not alter the perception of the inquiry; it would obviously have been conducted by the official body, which - again - would be detailed in the article. The lede is meant to summarise the topic in the shortest number of words. Valetude (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valetude: It was an undo, not a revert, as you made the edit in good faith. Per BRD, we are at the D part. It's probably better to bring this up at the article's talk page and get some input from other editors. Am happy to go with whatever consensus emerges, it may be that your edit gets reinstated. BTW, please leave an edit summary, a lack of one can be an attempt to conceal non-constructive editing (it wasn't in this case), which means that some editors pay more attention to edits without an edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There were three parts to Valetude's edit

(1) To remove the distance in km and miles, leaving nautical miles only.

(2) To remove the attribution for the CO poisoning from the lead.

(3) To add a third comma in the last sentence.

Looking at each point separately, I would say: (3) the sentence is grammatically incorrect without the extra comma; (2) in the lead we only need to state as a simple fact the the pilot was impaired by CO poisoning, it is covered more fully in the investigation section; (1) I have no preference.

PS what's the difference between an undo and a revert? 86.4.163.59 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@86.4.163.59: - I've added a link to your post, so that all editors can see what we are talking about. Taking the points numerically, (1) - my preference is to convert nmi to km only. Previous consensus is that mi and km are converted here. (2) - I feel that we should state in the lede who found that there was evidence of CO poisoning. (3) - I missed that, and agree that a comma is better there. Will reinstate it so we can put that particular issue to bed. For the difference between undoing and edit and reverting an edit, see H:RV. Basically, reverting is for clear cases of vandalism and is done by the rollback function, which many editors with accounts have access to. The edit in question was clearly made in good faith, so it would have been inappropriate, and an abuse of the tool, to use rollback. Hence it was undone and WP:BRD came into play. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree about the nautical miles. It is commonplace to use conversion templates on Wikipedia. It is useful to give this in everyday miles and kilometres as not everyone is familiar with nautical miles (1 nautical mile = 1.15 statute miles). As for adding AAIB to the lead, I don't think this is harmful as it shows that it was an official finding of the crash investigation. The third comma is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Wot Ian said. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)