Talk:American Airlines Flight 587/Archive 1

Archive 1

Weasel words

"Some people believe that Flight 587 was a terrorist act covered up by the airline and the United States Government because the impact on US travel would have been severe. With it being so close to 9/11, and President George Bush saying himself it was safe to travel, it would have impacted the US economy heavily. Some believe the plane was hijacked and shot down by the US Government before it could be used to crash into another US landmark." Some people think these two sentences containing unsourced speculative statements should be removed from this article. DeweyQ 18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mayol/Majol

I have seen both spellings, Mayol here and Majol at Snopes.com. Which is the proper spelling of her last name? Crisco 1492 16:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigation

It is recounted in a top secret Canadian Security Intelligence Service report written in May 2002 and made public on Aug. 27, 2004 by Stewart Bell in Canada's National Post.

· Its source is Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a 22-year-old from St. Catharines, Ontario, said to be of "unknown reliability."

· Jabarah in turn is reporting on what he heard from Abu Abdelrahman (a Saudi Al-Qaeda member who worked for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the organization's highest ranking operatives). KSM's information has usually turned out to be reliable.

So, the information that follows is not exactly rock-hard, but it is a real lead.

And this is it: Abu Abdelrahman told Jabarah who told CSIS that

the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation. Abu Abdelrahman informed Jabarah that Farouk the Tunisian conducted a suicide mission on the aeroplane using a shoe bomb of the type used by Richard Reid.... "Farouk the Tunisian" was identified from newspaper photographs as being identical to Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen who had resided in Montreal." Is there any information regarding the investigation on this incident?

That is nonsense. No such story was ever reported by the National Post. Search for yourself. – jaksmata 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Youtube Video

There is a video on Youtube of Flight 587's takeoff and a clip taken right after the crash. Should this be added to the article, or will it be a violation again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with videos like that is that they are usually copyrighted by news organizations, and Youtube will delete that video when they notice it, making the link only valid for a short time. It would be better to link to a video on a news site, since those tend to be in the same place longer. – jaksmata 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

the video seems to be an amateur one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, amateur videos are frequently purchased and subsequently copyrighted by news organizations. Still, because the copyright is unclear, it would be better to link to a video on a news site. If the video really is in the public domain, many news sites will have copies of it. – jaksmata 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abderraouf Jdey

From that article: On November 12, 2001, he may have detonated a small bomb on American Airlines Flight 587 over Queens, New York. The incident was initially reported to have resulted from mechanical problems after takeoff. He is reported to have used a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe-bomber Richard Reid.

Is that article wrong, or is this article missing pertinate information? Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 19:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the Jdey article is a tad presumptious, and it should state that these are theories, not really "conspiracy theories" as such, but definitely not the official story either. So as your parents, and mine, told us for years...The truth is probably somewhere in between ;) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (putting a story to the face, and a face to the name)} 23:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, as the NTSB told us, the crash resulted from pilot error and an overly sensitive rudder mechanism. Additionally, how could a passenger, hiding a tiny "shoe bomb" and yet seated in a passenger area, remove the entire rudder and elevator structure from a large aircraft?68Kustom (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Jdey citation

I noticed the sources for the Jdey citation come from Daniel Pipes and from The Jamestown Foundation - I'm not sure if they pass WP:RS http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2053 http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/uploads/ter_003_015.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't think we should even say "Although al-Qaeda did later claim responsibility" because Jdey is not a man who represents al-Qaeda. If Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri said that AA 587 was destroyed by them (and there would have been a video tape), THEN we could say "al-Qaeda claimed responsibility." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AQ claimed responsibility in a listing of their successes since 9/11, Jdey is "presumed dead" seven years after his suicide note was found -- whether it was related to 587 or not, he's definitely not the one who claimed responsibility. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheru, do you mind if I see a source that states this? Who was the author of this list? And even if he is the one who claimed responsibility, how does that refer to Al-Qaeda? the definition of Al-Qaeda is itself murky, so usually it best to avoid actually saying "AQ claimed responsibility" unless it is one of the people who is unanimously considered to be representative of the group, i.e. Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden. Outside of those two and maybe a few others, I don't think one could attribute to what they say to "Al-Qaeda" WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance of BBC Coverage

"Due to the proximity to 9/11, the BBC once again stopped regular programming on BBC1 in favour of BBC News 24's coverage of the air crash. Normal programming was resumed once it was made clear this was not a terrorist action." Is there a reason why this is significant? Can we delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.136.131 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Lottery Tickets

"New Jersey Lottery holds two Pick-3 lottery drawings per day, and on the day of the crash, the numbers selected for the evening drawing were 5-8-7. The afternoon drawing was 5-7-8. So many people chose the combination for the evening draw that the prize was $16 for each 'winner', whereas $275 is the typical straight bet payout for Pick-3[4]."

This as well. I visited the wikipedia website for information on this crash. And this is not relevant at all. Why don't they post sports scores along with the day's lottery drawings.

A reminder, please remember to "sign" your posts with four tildes "~~~~" so thtat we all know who said what. While I agree that it's very creepy, what's relevant about this is not that the numbers 5-8-7 and 5-7-8 came up, but that there were significant numbers of people who picked those numbers, and that there were so many winners that the payoffs were reduced. And we actually have a verifiable reliable source for this information. Weird? Yes. Heebie-jeebie inducing? Yes. Does it belong in this article? I say yes. Alansohn 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Heebie-jeebie inducing? Well, I politely disagree. If there are two drawings each day, then the odds are great that something during each day, in different areas, will involve those 3 digits. It's easy to say "Wow what a coincidence, freaky" But if you look closer and calcuate the probability, it's not. For example, yesterday, September 12, 2006, one of the numbers picked was "065." After doing a google news search, I noticed 65 people in Iraq were found murdered on the same day. Anyway, that just my opinion, if people want to keep that in this encyclopedia then so be. (and thank for the wiki etiquette tip)

These lottery drawings are always going to come up with a three-digit number by definition, and I agree that any three-digit number drawn is always going to match something. There is no significance to the ability to match the numbers drawn to some current event after the fact. What makes this significant is not that 5-8-7 and 5-7-8 came up, which is just a weird coincidence that is not newsworthy or encyclopedic. What is significant is that so many people deliberately chose the number 5-7-8 for these drawings after the crash, using the flight number as their choice for a winning number, which is what I find "Heebie-jeebie inducing". I don't think the Lottery discloses number preferences for non-winning numbers, but the fact that these numbers did come up brought this to public attention. Note: Use increasing numbers of colons to indent replies. Alansohn 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying it's significant that after the crash of Flight 5-8-7 lots of people chose 5-7-8 in the lottery? Maybe it means a lot of people are numerically dyslexic. 59.167.49.42 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Dave

No. One can "box" a set of numbers (see Parimutuel betting#Parimutuel bet types) which involves selecting a set of numbers that will win if any permutation of the three numbers selected is chosen as the winning number. The New Jersey Pick 3 standard payoff on a three-number box is $45.50, one-sixth of the $275.00 payout for a straight bet. I'm sure that there may have been a few dyslexics among the gamblers, but I think a more logical interpretation is that bettors had chosen the box option. Alansohn 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was only the evening draw that had that many people picking those numbers. It could just as easily be argued that people picked those numbers because they had won in the afternoon, not because they were the numbers of a flight that had just crashed. How many people picked 5-9-2 on May 11, 1996? How many chose 8-0-0 on July 17, 1996? What was the average payout on other days when the afternoon and evening draws produced the same numbers (which must happen a couple of times a year)? Without the answer to these questions, this section is just trivia. 82.1.63.98 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaksmata - discussion regarding NYTimes article

You removed edits that I made regarding the tail delamination and the previous turbulence event - I drew no conclusions from the information merely stated them as fact - they were part of the investigation and no one has disproven them - I felt it was pertinent because of the Allied Pilots assertion that composites have been brought to light as a result of the investigation - if you feel it needs clarification then provide some but don't omit the information as unreliable - they are facts, both events occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.104.83 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the user who reworded the entry regarding the NY Times article - I also feel that mentioning the incident in 1997 with flight 903 where significantly higher rudder inputs were documented on an A300 with no structural failure as the result - it is mentioned in the Allied Pilots report as well as the NTSB investigation. Any takers??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.104.83 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise I reduced your addition quite severely, but after careful consideration, I still think it was the right thing to do. It is better to have text that is understandable to the average encyclopia user, and that inevitably means removing some details. Your version contained too much aviation jargon for most readers. (Anyone who is sufficiently interested will go the Allied Pilots report and read it there). The sentences were too long and there were a number of non-sequiturs, e.g. "They questioned..." where it is not obvious who they are.

However, you're not the only one who thinks that the NTSB was too lenient on Airbus, the following source could perhaps be added to the article: [1]. Even more useful would be the outcome of the court case, who paid compensation, etc. I can't find anything about it (it's not still ongoing is it?).

BTW, it was me that reworded your bit on the NY Times article (my IP address appears to have changed in the meatime - guess I should set up a user account). 82.1.62.101 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your comments - I still feel that it is parsed too much - I will work on it - there is alot of relevant data that you omitted that I feel is important to be a part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.104.83 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Death toll

The second paragraph lists the death toll as 264, while the info box on the right lists it as 265. Which is correct? Mkemper331 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Airbus incidents/crashes

I’ve removed info in the Misc section on three apparently unrelated incidents. This article is about Flight 587, not about everything that’s ever happened to an Airbus. Other air incidents/crashes should be detailed in their own articles. If there is a pattern of Airbus crashes, that fact should probably be mentioned in its own article or on Airbus A300-600. Jaksmata 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually those are all related incidents. User:Lord_Hawk

^{[citation needed]} – jaksmata 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism fears

I remember that immediately after the crash there was a scare that this might have been a terrorist attack, with "9/11" still fresh in mind, however that was soon ruled out. Is this relevant for the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IIVQ (talk • contribs) 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What has never been reported is that the 12th November 2001 was the fourth anniversary of the conviction of Ramzi Yusef in New York of the original World Trade Centre bombing.

• Refer to the New York Times article of 13th November 1997 [2].
• Refer to the article published in the Australian Financial Review (AFR)by respected Australian political commentator Paul Monk [3]
• The AFR article is reprinted in full on the Australian Thinking Skills Website[4]
• Paul Monk clearly drew a link between Ramzi Yusef's conviction date, terrorism anniversaries, and the September 11th 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack
• After reading Paul Monk's article in AFR, I did some research on other dates significant to Yusef, and November 12th was to me the most obvious one, and I was watching the date as it came up.
• I can only acknowledge it may all be coincidence and the above contains no causal links, but there are enough pieces of related data to raise questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilAuckland (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Like TWA 800 there are people that disagree with the official findings. Do you have any interest in the following? http://www.rockawave.com/news/2005/0318/Community/090.html http://usread.com/flight587.html http://usread.com/flight587/WNBCRpt102504/WNBC102504Rpt.mov Arydberg (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Type of Accident, Other Things, Questions

Should the type of accident field read "Adverse pilot coupling" (which the NTSB determined resulted in in-flight structural failure)? DFDR data shows rudder oscillation, not just deflection, on the order of five full-opposite deflections within seven seconds, including several which exceeded the rudder travel limiting unit, before the rudder data flat-lined and was assumed lost.

It is near inexplicable to me why an experienced flight crew would oscillate the rudder so quickly and so abruptly, but regardless, the rudder travel limiter unit should not permit an exceedance of maximum travel for that airspeed.

Maneuvering speed means a speed at which it is safe to make full or abrupt control deflections at or below.

Additionally, I'm moderately surprised that there is no mention of the significant questions raised by [usread.com] about this accident, or about the additional concerns that several pilot's associations have raised about this accident. There's been several other incidents (not accidents) with A300/A310 rudder and tail problems (most notably an A310 belonging to Transat lost a tail recently).

Conspiracy no...questions yes.

Just a few things...factual accuracy mostly not in dispute, but questions abound. DolphinCompSci 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a picture.....thanks...but i don't know how too....so can you people who work at wikipedia add one....thanks....bye...........................

Shortly after the accident, there were reports in the press that the first officer, while having racked up tons of general aviation (GA) flight hours (as in cessnas and pipers) was relatively new to commercial aviation. When the unexpected happened, he reverted back to his GA background and kicked the rudder to try and regain control, just like one might do in a light aircraft. Unfortunately, an A300 isn't a Cessna, and the aerodynamic forces were too much. Now, I must agree that it would appear odd that Airbus failed to make it abundantly clear to its customers that the tail couldn't handle the strain of such unorthodox manuevers, and equally odd that they hadn't installed any limiters on rudder travel to keep those customer's aircrews from getting in trouble from applying too much rudder that they didn't know they couldn't apply because Airbus hadn't told them they couldn't with sufficient clarity... Jmdeur (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between losing the horizontal stabiliser ( i.e the whole fin you see on an airlplane ) due to pilot induced stresses exceeding the design limits by a wide margin and loosing parts of the rudder ( the movable part at the rear of the h-stabiliser ) due to longtime ingress of hydraulic fluid ( a maintainance negligence ). UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.119.31 (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The rudder is attached to the VERTICAL stabilizer, not the HORIZONTAL stabilizer. The VERTICAL stabilizer was the first part to break off the plane, which initiated the accident sequence. EditorASC (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

One user has taken it upon herself to consistently remove even the mention of the fact there was much initial hype regarding whether this was a terrorist attack, muchless the fact Al-Qaeda listed it as such, and a known Al-Qaeda operative said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's lieutenant spoke of the operation. I'm not saying it was terrorism, but it does demand a "Belief in a terrorist plot" section that is not consistently removed to fit a single user's perception. A quick search of Google news shows Newsweek, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, BG and WP all talking about uncertainty whether it was a terrorist crash, and concluding that "in the end, the NTSB ruled that pilot error, not terrorism, was the cause", which is the same as we should do. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use a reliable source and I might not have a problem. -- Veggy (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I put the US Congress transcripts and you removed them. Somehow, I doubt this is Good Faith on your part :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Kept the Congressional trnacript that actually had something to do with AA 587. Got rid of everything else. The rest of it was from slanted sources ("no doubt Clinton covered up the shooting down of TWA 800 and Bush shot down UAL 93", please!). I seriously doubt this is good faith on your part. The list from al-Qaeda seems a notable fact...IF you can get it from a reliable source, not another right-wing fringe publication. Veggy (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Right Wing and al-Qaeda are in cahoots...I've restored the information, since you removed large swaths of properly-sourced material. You have not identified problems with using the National Post, for example. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess by "properly sourced" material you mean pundit blogs and fringe crap. Please read WP:RELIABLE, thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The section you are removing is sourced to US Congressional Hearings, the National Post, a book written by Stewart Bell, an award-winning Canadian author, Accuracy in Media, CNN, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Janice Kephart the Commissioner for the 9/11 Commission. In addition to these sources, there is also Rense, Stich and Jamestown, which are "far-right pundits"; however their addition in no way merits deletion of the entire section; you can instead delete their place on the list and leave only the mentioned respectable outlets...however this still leaves every sentence of the section with a "reliable" source, except the closing sentence "Some, including author Rodney Stich, have theorised that the NTSB falsified its investigation for political purposes and to avoid allowing the "failure" of a terrorist attack so soon after 9/11." - which is sourced to Stich's book. It is the only part of this section which can be disputed as giving weight to theorists. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(sigh). In reverse order then:

• What makes Rodney Stich Nobody a notable author on the subject?
• Rense and Jamestown: admitted (by you) "far-right pundits". Not within guidelines.
• Janice Kephart: if you bothered to look at my edit instead of spasmatically reverting, you'd see I kept her transcript and testimony as a mention of the terrorism speculation.
• CNN: mentions absolutely nothing about Flight 587. Stop pretending.
• AIM: "Clinton covered up TWA 800 and Bush shot down UAL 93"... no thanks.
• The other Congressional Hearing doesn't mention Flight 587. Stop pretending.
• That leaves the National Post which I'm going to leave, despite the weak notability.

Veggy (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, one Congressional source says "Jdey downed American Airlines Flight 587", the other says "Jdey downed American Airlines Flight 587 with a shoe bomb"; though both are speculative, those are exact quotes pulled from the sources - how does this merit saying it "doesn't mention Flight 587, stop pretending"? I'm not sure how you think the National Post has "weak notability", and one of its many quotes is "Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001. The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid"; and as for what makes "Rodney Stich Nobody" a "notable author", I would propose the fact he has published at least three books on commercial airline disasters, and is a former commercial and military pilot himself, makes him a "notable author" - even if I don't agree with much of what he says. You don't have to be Dostoyevsky for your book to be used as a footnote. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rodney Stich should never be used as a source for anything in Wikipedia. He is an ax-grinding, agenda writer, that has consistently twisted and left out pertinent facts, which give a very different picture of an accident, from the one he seeks to present. He was an on-campus FAA airline crew training inspector at the United Airlines training center in Denver, until the FAA finally had to remove him. He hated United Airlines and blamed virtually every accident they ever had, on UAL's refusal to reorganize their cockpit crew training courses, according to his often ridiculous demands. I have all of his books and they are filled with hordes of inaccuracies. One good example is the aborted takeoff crash of a UAL 727 at ORD, in 1968. Any lay person reading Stich's account of that accident would conclude that a plane load of innocent passengers died by fire in that crash. What he deliberately left out (because of his relentless hatred of United Airlines), was that it was freighter. Only 3 cockpit crew were on board and they all got out before the plane was destroyed by the subsequent ground fire. Only the captain was hospitalized, for a brief period (back strain while evacuating), while the first and second officers required no hospitalization at all. They were treated for minor cuts and bruises, and then released. I could write page after page here, about all the errors (mostly deliberate, in my opinion) in Stich's books. He is a total fruitcake, in my view. EditorASC (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a Request for Third Opinion, since the two of us are locked in this. Please leave the section so it can be viewed in its current context, and we can look to see what consensus on the matter dictates regarding the Stich quotation (which I've agreed is shaky), or the main material. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the section until RTO comes through and gives an opinion on whether the section is as terrible as you claim it is. They can't view what you've erased, so leave it as-is for a day or two until they give an opinion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've arrived here from third opinion. I'm still looking through the article and the references which is taking some time. However one point immediately comes to mind: most of the sources presented here are not reliable per WP:RS. Quoting one low-quality source after another does not make an argument. Indeed, all it means is that there is more junk that needs weeding out. I've looked at probably the first ten references and can immediately rule out seven of them. Only one is unarguably reliable and I am still undecided as to the remaining two. I'll carry on going through this section but it may be tomorrow when I have some properly prepared arguments. There certainly is solid ground to support a terrorist theory but my first impressions are that this is being made more forcefully than is justified and being given undue weight in the article. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. A passage or two from reliable sources is deliciously adequate. Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm trying to trim the section; I agree the "over-heavy footnotes" were a little over the top - I've removed some of those that are from "pundit" sources. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Rense.com, Debka.com and The Jamestown Foundation since there were complaints of their partisan nature; this leaves only the US Congress, National Post, The Examiner, Wave of Long Island and other "reputable" sources. I erred on the side of leaving Accuracy in Media in the section, since it is the earliest known reference to a shoe bomb being used on the flight; in early 2002. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I further trimmed the section after checking the publishers and checking whether sources were accessible. As per WP:Undue we cannot represent very small viewpoints as if they were larger than they really are. The articles from "US Congress, National Post, The Examiner, Wave of Long Island and other "reputable" sources" are still there. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot remove a source claiming "RM "Global Islamic Media Group, List of Successes Since the Planes Operation, May 28, 2004" - as I don't know how to access this source" since it is both irrelevant whether or not you are able to find a way to access it (Can one really easily find a way to access a 1947 newspaper account cited that doesn't appear online?) - and you have removed three sources that all back up a fact...and then removed the fact claiming that it has no sources. I know that the GIMG cannot be used as a source to say the plane was bombed, but it meets WP:RS guidelines to report that they claimed it was bombed - which is how we word it in the article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of a newspaper there is a clear way to find and/or access it (if not online, and many newspapers are online - one can go to the archives of the library of the metropolitan area where the newspaper was produced) according to its citation. But the Global Islamic Media group does not give enough information on how to access it. Was it in print? Was it online? Where?

My argument is based on Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight - which says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." and it also says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." - Based on the caliber of sources I see, the viewpoint that states that AA 587 was bombed is in a very tiny minority, and should not be included in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Except we are not reporting that it was bombed, we are reporting that Global Islamic Media noted that al-Qaeda was claiming to have bombed it. It's no different than pointing out that people claimed Richard Jewell was the Atlanta bomber. It's false, yes - but that doesn't mean the claim wasn't notable and shouldn't be reported. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that detail, but how do I confirm that " al-Qaeda was claiming to have bombed it"? The definition of al-Qaeda and who is in it has been disputed. Did this come out of the mouth of al-Zawahiri or OBL? If not, would there be a more precise name for the group? Is it significant? Do secondary sources state that al-Qaeda claimed to have bombed it? - The viewpoint thing was relating to the bit about people claiming that the US Gov't covered up AA 581; even if there are people who believe this, if the viewpoint is not significant enough, it shouldn't be reported. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Victims

The victims are described in a paragraph as being 90% Dominican. However the link (no. 28) does not cite this percentage at all. And the percentage is clearly contrary to the diagram box of victim nationalities. Please update ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

About two thirds of the way through the referenced Guardian article it says "Ninety per cent of those on the plane were of Dominican extraction." [sic]

That percentage does not contradict the list of victim's nationalities because nationality is not the same as descent, extraction or ethnicity. For example, someone can be an American national (citizen), but be of Dominican descent. – jaksmata 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Engines Ripped Off

American Airlines Flight 587 ENGINES CAME OFF Last words in the cockpit get out of it, get out of it - Thrust reverse? engines don't come off just like that. A potential cover-up would have to be silent on that, and guess what? The official report (and this wikipedia article) is 72.234.173.14 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a pathetically out-of-date source. It was written less than a month after the incident, when nobody knew what had happened, and speculation ran wild. This article, on the other hand, is written to reflect factual information instead of ignorant imagination. – jaksmata 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, airplane engines are designed to come off just like that, when stresses in the pylons exceed a design limit. This is due to safety reasons e.g. in hard landings or outright crash landings where the detachment of engines increases the probability of passenger survival. See e.g Turkish Airlines Flight 1951. In AA Flight 587 the aerodynamic stresses during the uncontrolled descent exceeded engine separation limits.88.114.220.99 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

More sources

• Caruso, David B. "NYC marks 10th anniversary of Flight 587 crash." Associated Press at the Miami Herald. November 12, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some working links at the ntsb

Brief & full narratives (text) http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1 http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20011130X02321&ntsbno=DCA02MA001&akey=1

Factual Report http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/uu2ltkux1j22qny4q3slvenr1/J07082013120000.pdf

Brief (pdf) http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/ayvtwi45c3yk4255raxhna451/M07082013120000.pdf --Vonfraginoff (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Al Qaeda Responsibility Claim

Why is there no mention of Al Qaeda's claiming responsibility of the crash in 2004:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=51498

20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 69.122.127.162 (talk)

'Cause it's baloney: [5]. Wikipedia does not give undue weight to every lunatic claim on the internet. – jaksmata 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Terrorists claimed responsibility to a Flash Air Boeing 737 which crashed in the sea due to either mechanic faults or Spatial disorientation. --2.221.82.238 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Second deadliest?

Opening paragraph says this is second deadliest crash after AA Flight 191. The article for that flight says that it was the deadliest until the 9/11 attacks. So shouldn't this article be changed? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The AA 191 article states "In terms of all individuals killed, Flight 191 was the deadliest airplane crash incident on U.S. soil until the four deliberate crashes of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2] In terms of the total number of aircraft occupants killed, it remains the deadliest single aircraft crash on U.S. soil to date (followed by American Airlines Flight 587)." It might be number based on the criteria in the first sentence quoted, but it is ranked second in "total number of aircraft occupants killed". Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph also talks of it being the second-deadliest aviation 'accident' after Iran Air 655 - which was not by ANY definition of the word I've ever encountered, an accident Johnpeat (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is confusing. "No commercial airplane crash since then that was ruled accidental and not criminal has surpassed that death toll, though before 2001, there had been deadlier incidents of this type." ??? Gerntrash (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Airlines Flight 587. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420004450/http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011112-0 to http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011112-0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5469

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What AA Pilots "believed"

Aviation Wiki Editors,

I have made an edit to a paragraph in the NTSB findings. The statement that "Most American Airlines pilots believed that the tail fin could withstand any rudder movement at maneuvering speed." is not referenced and is non-factual. As one of the instructors in the American Airlines AAMP course I can validate that such information was not taught to the AA pilots. The statement "pilots were being trained to react more aggressively than was necessary." was removed as there is no evidence of that - and certainly no evidence expressed in the reference (7) to the NTSB Press Release on 10/26/04 [6] If anyone objects to these edits, I would be very interested in discussing it here. Deekaygee (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Deekaygee

Define Flat Spin

Summary Section references flat spin. I went to the link and was over powered by the discussion. It would be great to have a sentence describing what a flat spin is.Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Usually in a normal spin the aircraft descends in a rotating spiral with the nose of the aeroplane pointing downwards. In a flat spin the aircraft descends in a rotating spiral but with the longitudinal axis of the aeroplane relativity horizontal, i.e., with the fuselage not nose up or nose down. This attitude is usually very difficult to recover from, as there is little or no moving air over the wing or control surfaces and so the flying controls have little or no effect.

Normally to recover from a spin one must first stop the rotation, and then lower the nose to allow the aeroplane to accelerate back to flying speed. In a flat spin this is much more difficult to do. Aircraft that are incorrectly loaded with the centre-of-gravity too far aft are particularly prone to flat spins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Without a vertical stabilizer it's almost impossible to stop the rotation. A very similar incident occurred with BOAC Flight 911, in which the engines also detached, but at much higher altitude. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Airlines Flight 587. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NvQa7scI?url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/17/smn.21.html to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/17/smn.21.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6MCNbtwxj?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040719190549%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2FEvents%2F2001%2FAA587%2Fexhibits%2F241569.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20030802063737/http%3A//www.bea.aero/anglaise/actualite/com011112.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20021013105941/http%3A//www.bea.aero/francais/actualite/actu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In culture / dramatization

I added a section to add material references to this incident in culture, and a cited description of a TV episode that devotes significant time to discussing this incident. That was deleted. The same user has been deleting already existing references to TV episodes or cultural references to other pages. I already started a talk page discussion for this on Talk:British Airways Flight 38. Please discuss there. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, if a "refimprove section" tag is present, the correct response is to add references to the parts of the section needing them, not to delete the whole section. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Hi all. I've made some changes to this page, but User:Spintendo keeps reverting them. In my opinion, too much of certain sections are just seem like they are hard copied-and-pasted from the NTSB report etc. Take a look at the version as of 10:32 on 22 Jan 2018 and the previous version. Do you think my changes should have been kept? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the text in question and replaced it with paraphrased text. Have a look at the article as it now stands and advise on suitability. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Park Slope crash

An IP keeps adding a "see also" link to the 1960 New York mid-air collision on the grounds that they were both crashes into populated areas of New York. That's true, but the events are otherwise dissimilar in their nature and origin, as opposed to their effect. The See Also section is best suited for links to events that have a similar origin, so a loss of control accident would be more suitable. I'd argue that the USAir Flight 427 crash is a better see also candidate, as it was a rudder control accident, but I'm not advocating its inclusion either. 101.x is welcome to use this talkpage as requested on their talkpage to make a case for inclusion rather than simply re-adding it. Acroterion (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Unrelated You're absolutely correct that they are completely different accidents whose only connection is that they both occurred in the New York area. Even though it's called the Park Slope crash, that accident — which occurred 41 years prior to AA 587 — involved three different locations and none of them are anywhere near AA 587's crash site in Rockaway:

1. The 1960 collision over Staten Island, more than 30 miles west of AA 587's crash site
2. The TWA's impact location, also on Staten Island
3. The United's impact location in the accident's eponymous neighborhood, more than 10 miles northwest of Rockaway.

And don't get me started on the causes of these crashes, which are worlds apart. I fail to see any connections here. Furthermore, if one looks at the talk page of the account making these changes you will see message after message of editors complaining about that user's edits. In following WP:♠ I'd have to say that this IP is WP:NOTHERE. Spintendo      09:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Departure delay

The ASN source mentions a security related delay occuring the morning of the flight. However, the ASN source does not indicate where this information originated from. Additionally, the NTSB only mentions the following as delaying the aircraft:

Statements provided to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department by American Airlines maintenance and avionics personnel indicated that, sometime between 0730 and 0800, the captain reported that the number 2 pitch trim and yaw damper system would not engage. Two avionics technicians were sent to the airplane to investigate the problem. They performed an auto flight system (AFS) check, which indicated a fault with the number 2 flight augmentation computer. The circuit breaker was then reset, another AFS check was performed, and no fault was detected. In addition, an autoland system check was performed, and that test also did not detect a fault. The avionics technicians estimated that they were in the cockpit for 5 to 7 minutes.

This would place the timeline at about 8:15am-8:17am when the technicians left the aircraft (given that the latest the captain would have called for their assistance, 8am, and a response time of 10 minutes plus work time estimate of 5 to 7 minutes). The ASN source said that the aircraft doors were closed and locked at 8:38am, and the aircraft pushed back at 9am. That leaves only a 21 minute possible security delay (from 8:17am to 8:38am, when they closed the doors) which does not seem really notable enough to mention. As there is no good evidence otherwise for this, and mentioning it is problematic, it should be removed. Additionally, the text as it was added to the article was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. .spintendo⋅⋅) 23:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Accident versus incident, and the greater inclusion of rankings within the article's lead section

The lead section already describes this as the 2nd deadliest aviation accident in US history. To include the 9/11 attacks, this wording would have to be adjusted along with an explanatory note giving the difference between an accident and an incident. I think both items could be included, saying something like "To date, it is the 2nd deadliest aviation accident on US soil and the third deadliest aviation incident following the attacks on 9/11 and AA 191..." What are other editor's thoughts on this?  spintendo  17:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid rag we need to be very suspect of listing such “my disaster is more than your disaster” sort of stuff. In this case I would leave it as it is - including the 9/11 death toll unexplained in such counts is at best problematic. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

GA time?

Hello, @Spintendo:

I feel that it is time to finally submit this for the GA process. I am pinging you as you seem to be the most active on this page. Do you want to nominate it? Do you want more work to be done on this article? Or are you fine with me nominating it?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I think that's a good idea. You can take it there if you'd like to, under the Engineering and technology section. I can be available to help answer any questions during the review process if need be. Taking a look at the article, I see:

1. 4 dead reference links that need to be fixed  Done
2. I would want to go over the Investigation section specifically the NTSB Investigation and Findings subsections line by line to make sure everything is properly summarized and that there are no stray sentences which do not belong. Because the NTSB report is referenced often in those sections, I'd like to make sure that we use the {{RF}} template to add page numbers from the report wherever the information is located. I can take care of that.
3. Under the Accident section I think we could do a better job of paraphrasing this information (even though we don't have to — because as a government report, its language is available under a Creative Commons license) but I still think it could be improved to be not copied so much.
4. The quotations from the New York Times and the Guardian both look properly attributed in the article, so that's good. I still think that the death of the dogs carried in the cargo hold and on the ground deserves to be in the lead section (I'm a dog person) but another editor objected to that and I didn't want to fight that fight.  Done
5. Just today an IP editor began changing the date style of some of the entries in the main prose from DD/MM/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY which I guess is alright, seeing as how its used mostly in the US. But now that conflicts with the dates in the references, so perhaps I could change all of the dates in the article to be displayed as MM/DD/YYYY.  Done

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Regards,  Spintendo  12:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: The copyvio tool is not working for me so I cannot do the paraphrasing yet. Could you do the RF? I do not know how to use that template correctly. Everything else looks good. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The copyvio results arent bad, they are high because of the quotes from the NTSB, but that's all. I will add the {{rp}} templates soon. Since it may take awhile for an editor to select the article for review, you might as well begin the process now, if you'd like to.  Spintendo  08:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Road to FA

@Spintendo:, Congratulations we have passed the GA review. Our next goal should be to prep for a FA run. What should we get done in the article before we nominate? AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Airlines Flight 587/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and hope that we can get it to GA status. Giving it a quick once-over makes it look like the article is already in pretty good shape. I didn't recognize the accident by the flight number alone, but it jogged my memory when I began reading the article. I distinctly remember being at my elementary school for a Veterans Day event and watching the newscast, and thinking it was another attack shortly after 9/11. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks for taking this review. I remember that day. I remember the newscast and the feeling like we were being attacked again. Sad day. Thank you again. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review template

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   I would either use "Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic" or "Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic" to clean up the grammar in the first sentence. My vote is for the former, as I don't think the capital portion is necessary to describe, but that's a style choice on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Accident

   State which company the aircraft was delivered to (I'm assuming American Airlines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified #N14053 was delivered new to American Airlines on July 12, 1988.  Spintendo  10:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. I would move "On the day of the accident" to the beginning of the sentence, and then describe the configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Insert "(JAL)" behind your first use of Japanese Airlines to indicate that it is the acronym/shorthand for the airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Do you have timings to include for the JAL flight (when it took off, when the controllers we cautioned)? I know you state the takeoffs are separated by roughly 1:40, but since much of the report focuses on by-the-second times, I think it is appropriate to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Make the tense consistent when describing the takeoff. It should say "and left the runway at 9:14:29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I would change "From takeoff" to "After takeoff" as you are describing a sequence of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shouldn't the mean sea level acronym be capitalized? That is how I'm used to seeing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   From "just in" and have the sentence state "the JAL flight in front of it" as "just in" is a subjective measure of distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I'm fairly unfamiliar with the parts describing the attachment of the stabilizer and rudder, but is lug the appropriate term? The only use of the word I can think of is lug nuts on wheels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The correct name for this component is a main attachment lug which actually consists of two parts: the part of the fitting through which a pin passes to fasten mating parts, which is the lughole — and the area that immediately surrounds the lughole, which is the lug portion of the fitting.  Spintendo  07:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. I would rewrite the first sentence of the third paragraph, as it comes across slightly editorialized. I would remove "At the moment" and just state the the aircraft pitched downward after the svertical stabilizer detached. Additionally, I would remove the part about heading straight for Belle Harbor, because that seems to imply (at least in my mind) that it was flying consistently toward it, and not chaotically crashing out of the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Was anyone/anything damaged from the separate engine impacts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The left engine caused minor damage at the location where it was recovered, a gas station located at 441 Beach 129th Street about 800 feet north-northeast from the main wreckage area. The right engine was recovered partially embedded within a home and driveway at 414 Beach 128th Street, where the home and a boat parked in the home's driveway received severe damage. This was about 800 feet northeast of the main wreckage area.  Spintendo  10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Investigation

   Initial terrorism concerns

   I never realized how serious the terrorism concerns were. From my memory (as an 11-year-old) I remember the newscasters talking about the possibility of terrorism immediately after the crash, but don't recall further widespread belief that it was terrorism (I would like to reiterate that I was 11, and terrorism concerns in New York City weren't at the forefront of my mind). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Reword the paraphrasing from Ted Lopatkiewicz. My personal opinion is to remove any direct quotation and just state that the memos claim was lessened by, and state the evidence. If you would like to keep the quotes, at least reword "ultimately evaporates" as that is a colloquialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I want the description of Jdey using his passport to stay consistent with the wording used by the Canadian memo, but if possible, make sure that the tense stays consistent with when the investigation took place. As the memo was from 6 months after the fact, it should state that Jdey "used his Canadian passport" as the action was already completed (according to the memo; it didn't play out that way) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified The Jdey memo was written in May 2002, but the statements repeated in the memo allegedly pertained to a time ostensibly before the accident occurred, so the phrase "was to use" would be correct in that context.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. NTSB investigation

   The section starts off with an immediate retelling of events. As this is about the NTSB investigation, I would preface it with that the NTSB found this information. I would combine the sub-sub sections into the overal NTSB investigation section. You have multiple times that you describe the First Officer's excessive rudder inputs, and I think that should be collected into one area in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   @AmericanAir88: Sorry if I was unclear on this guidance, but my intent wasn't met. My point is that in the start of the NTSB investigation section, it immediately jumps into a retelling of events, with no preface about this was the NTSB's finding. I think the section should start with (something to the effect of, I don't know the details): "On the afternoon of the crash, the NTSB launched an investigation into its causes. Over the next 3 months they conducted 349 interviews, and collected and reconstructed the 15,000 (no idea on the actual number) pieces of the aircraft." The information they found (about the 747, jet wake, etc.) should be in the Finding section (I know I had given guidance to remove the Finding section entirely, but I think moving all of the findings info to it could justify a separate sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Balon Greyjoy: I updated the beginning but fail to see the reason of removing the recount of events. The "findings" section is reactionary to the crash description. Could you please be more clearly on what you want me to do? Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   "was a cause of concern because they are used" I would change "because" to "as"  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   I would rewrite the contributing factors sentence, and break it up into several sentences. Personal choice, but I don't like the mid-sentence colon to begin listing factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Query It's unclear what is requested here. Could you rephrase what changes you'd like to be made? Thanks  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, I fixed the issue. The user wanted a re-write and I agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you  Spintendo  23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Victims

   Were any other types of pets killed on the ground? I noted the comments on the Talk page about the inclusion of the dogs as they were part of the accident report. My opinion to leave dogs out of the list of victims, or at least have them in a separate sentence, as I don't think they merit the same attention as people who were killed. But I understand that people disagree with me on this point, and don't think including the dogs invalidates the quality of this article/section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarified Only two dogs were killed—one had been placed in a transport approved kennel and was flying as part of American's parcel service cargo transport, while the second dog was on the ground. No other domesticated animals were carried on the aircraft and no additional domesticated animals were known to have been killed or injured on the ground beyond the first 'ground' dog.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would combine the first and third sentences of the seconds paragraph. Additionally, is there a better word than "relatives," as I'm sure some people friends meeting them at the airport. My take is "Friends and family of the passengers, some of whom were unaware of the crash, gathered at Las Américas International Airport." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done I've changed relatives but was unsure which sentences you wanted to combine. Please clarify.  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You still managed to make the edit I was hoping for, even if I wasn't clear! My point was that the sections started out by just saying relatives gathered at the destination airport. It was a short sentence, and it's context wasn't very clear. Were they gathering because they were unaware of the crash, or in an act of solidarity with one another. It became clear later that it was the former, and I felt that it was best to lead with that, vs. having ambiguity initially. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would remove the reference to "Heartbreak Hotel" and just that that the JFK Ramada Plaza had previously been used to house airplane victims. I think stating that it "became known" is a bit of an overstatement, as it may have been referred to as such by new agencies shortly after the crash, but it's not a universally recognized nickname for that hotel alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I would streamline the beginning of the baseball players sentences. My take is "Some early reports erroneously..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Remove "it turned out" and just state that "but Soriano was booked for a flight a few days later" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Make the description about Enrique Wilson a separate sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  Spintendo  07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Change "12 Nov" to "November 12" to be consistent with the rest of the date naming throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balon Greyjoy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No major issues. I put any comments in the previous section.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Standardize the date formats on all of your citations. There are a few examples (Buster Olney, the Allied Pilots Assosciation, and Kleinfield) of using the yyyy-mm-dd format, where the rest of your citations use the month name dd, yyy format.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Add more information about the Stewart Bell reference.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   I have never seen the {{IMDb title}} template before. I like it.

   Glad to see someone else using the {{rp}} format to specify pages from a book.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No concern. I'm glad that the History Channel and Discovery Channel are only cited to reference the airing of the show, and not used as reference material about the crash.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There aren't any citations for the second half of the second paragraph under the "Accident" section.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   There is only one for the second paragraph under NTSB investigation, and no citations for the testing of composite materials.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

   There aren't any citations for the second half of the first paragraph under "Findings"  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No concern. Earwig lists a large amount of copied text, but it almost entirely quotes used in the article.

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No concern.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No concern.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No concern.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The content of the article isn't likely to change, as (to the best of my knowledge) there are any pending future updates to the situation/reporting about the crash. It appears to have some back-and-forth on the inclusion of flags between Andrewgprout and Spintendo, but it is civil and no cause for concern. Looking at the discussion and my interpretation of of WP:MOSFLAG, my personal opinion is for the inclusion of flags.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No concern.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Thoughts on changing the caption slight to explain the inaccurate time on the picture about to take off? To someone unfamiliar with Daylight Savings Time, I think "it had not been adjusted for Standard Time" could be a little confusing.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Are there any other pictures of the memorial available? The current one doesn't show the entire wall, and is pretty dark. Also, I would change the caption to something more descriptive than "Memorial."  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

   Not a huge fan of the new picture, but it's definitely an improvement over the previous one. But, you work with what you have! The caption is much better. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shorten the caption of the picture with the vertical stabilizer. Just use "NTSB" and don't use the entire name of the organization, as the acronym is spelled out in the lead section.  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have completed my initial review, and am placing the review on hold. You have done a good job with this article; the only issues that I see are lack of citations in certain parts and a reorganization of the NTSB investigation sub-section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Just a heads up, I will be out of contact January 19-22; great if we can get this review wrapped up by then, but no concern if we need to put anything on hold until afterwards. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: No rush, but I'm ready to pass the article if you or someone else can get the final citation comments done. I know you have vacation coming up, so I'll hold off on expecting changes until the end of the month. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I will finish the citation edits very soon. This review should be finished before I go away. No need to hold off. I’ll get to it soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that no one feels rushed to meet vacation deadlines. The GA review can wait if need be. There is still quite a bit of missing references here, as well as other areas which should be addressed. Those include:

1. The article spends an entire paragraph discussing concerns over delamination of the vertical stabilizer. It describes in depth what theories thought about the possibility of the composite material not being strong enough. Then at the end of the paragraph, it states how it turns out that the composite material was strong enough all along. Does the article really need this diversion?
2. Another paragraph discusses the many witnesses who claimed seeing the aircraft on fire as it dove towards the ground. The article then states that those eyewitnesses were incorrect. So why is this being repeated?
3. The engines caused minor damage to a gas station and major damage to one home and a boat — not to "homes (plural) and a gas station".  Done AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
4. The claim that American Airlines never explained to crew members on the dangers of heavy use on the rudder, leading the first officer likely to not understand the aircraft's response to full rudder at high airspeeds or the mechanism by which the rudder rolls a transport-category airplane. I have no clue where this claim is coming from, it's not cited. It's essentially saying the co-pilot doesn't know how to use the rudder — only problem is he did know how to use it, it was just used excessively. American did explain the problems with rudder usage, but the main issue was that they taught using the rudder for wake turbulence recovery, which should not have been done. Did anyone have any ideas or concerns with what to do with these areas, please advise. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for providing a second look. I was only picking up on the uncited information; it's good to have someone else checking the article for other issues. I hope it didn't come across as I was rushing the review; I meant it as more that I wouldn't be enforcing a hard 7-day deadline for the article to either pass or fail, regardless of the circumstances. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: and @Balon Greyjoy:,

I am writing this from the airport and will probably not be active until tomorrow or Saturday. Ill keep updating you. Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Section break

@Balon Greyjoy: and @Spintendo:,

I am back from my vacation and I am all done with all changes you needed me to address. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I feel that the article is ready for GA status. I disagree with your comment that there shouldn't be information about the incorrect theory of the delamination of the vertical stabilizer; I don't think including that info detracts from the article. As you were heavily involved in critiquing and editing this article, do you have any issues to address with the article as it stands? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If I gave the impression that the delamination issue should not be mentioned then I apologize. I just felt that an entire paragraph on the issue may have been unwarranted. The delamination issue, while pertinent for investigators to address, was always a red herring. The tests done by the NTSB and Airbus did show translaminar fractures and delaminations of the lug in question, but tests showed that the delaminations alone did not contribute to any weakening of the lug, and that it was aerodynamic loads which caused the lug to fracture with the delamination not being a factor. The report states:

The accident lug and the tested lugs fractured because of a tensile static overload. The physical evidence and the structural analyses showed that the accident lug’s and the tested lugs’ fracture features were consistent with a cleavage-tension failure observed in composite-bolted joints. The structural analyses also indicated that, after the right rear main attachment lug fractured, all of the remaining lugs fractured sequentially. The fracture of the right rear main attachment lug initiated a nearly instantaneous separation of the vertical stabilizer from the aft fuselage.

So in other words, delamination is a possible effect of using composite-bonded materials, but that delamination in this case wasn't a factor — as aerodynamic loading initiated the failure of the lug. I just questioned needing a full paragraph to state this. But then again, the Jdey issue, another red herring, itself gets its own paragraph, so perhaps the length shouldn't be an issue here either. Beyond that I don't have any other concerns, and I think everyone here has done a great job. Thanks!  Spintendo  15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Awaiting more notification. Take your time if you spot any more issues. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.