Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accidents

@Ahunt: re your removal of the section I added, maybe we can thrash out some criteria for inclusion here. I appreciate that there have been over 200 accidents involving C208s, but in both cases I added the aircraft was operating a scheduled passenger service. In one of the two cases, a wikinotable person was a passenger. Obviously not all of the 200+ accidents a going to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. But scheduled passenger flights and those involving a wikinotable person should be. If the section gets too large, a stand-alone list can be created. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The article was lacking an #accidents section, I've added it with a link to ASN which shows every accidents. (I must say 215 hull losses for 2,500 aircraft produced is impressive) ASN is a better place than wikipedia to have an exhaustive list, and is the source for most accidents anyway. If we were to start a list, it should start with the worst accidents: 6 are 11+ fatalities, 11 are 10+. Others should not be presented here but in a separate list if it is really wanted, but could be also left to ASN.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue here. We actually already have a consensus standard for which accidents to include for light aircraft at WP:AIRCRASH. Basically is says we don't list them (because there are so many for most types, including the 208 and therefore Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill) unless they involve the death of a wiki-notable person (someone with a bio on Wikipedia) or if the accident results in a change in procedures, such as an airworthiness directive, change in ATC procedures, etc.

I like User:Marc Lacoste's accident summary now in the article.- Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following is from User:Ahunt's talk page, reposted here for further discussion:

The 12/21/2017 accident in Costa Rica caused 12 fatalities. Seems significant to me, even though it may not strictly meet the criteria you cited. Lahaun (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The 208 has had over 200 fatal accidents, most very much exactly like this one. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There appear to be only three 208 crashes, including this one, that have their own wiki article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Cessna_208_Caravan) And, the Costa Rica wreck has the worst death toll of the three. Perhaps a better approach would be to info about the other two accidents to the 208 web page, not to delete the one that I added. Question should be, is the article better with or without the info in question. I think more info about serious individual 208 crashes improves on the sterile statistical summary which now provides the only info about these accidents. Happy New Year. Lahaun (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One of then three accidents is up for AFD as not notable and I have reviewed the other two and they should probably also be sent to deletion for the same reason. If you read the accident reports for all the 206 fatal accidents on the C-208 they are all generally pretty similar, which is why they are simply summed up in the type article. Light aircraft accidents are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, a common occurrence, just like car accidents are, which is why we don't have articles on each car accident. - Ahunt (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Simulation for Caravan 208

I'm a new editor here at (Wikipedia/Aircraft maintenance technician A&P) and have been trying to improve some of the aircraft articles by adding information about where the user can learn more about the aircraft itself, systems and variants, for example, there is a simulator that was released a while ago By Feelthere that won an award https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?877 Please review the source link I shared and let me know If I could create a category that includes simulators. The reason why Caravan 208 has been so successful is the maintenance cost/airworthiness ratio + reliability I would like to include a knowledge source where a person interested in the aircraft can learn a little more about how it operates, a sense of what it feels like being a pilot and even opening the possibility to others starting a career in aviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielazo (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources only, thanks--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Marc Lacoste, Flight sim Webpage is indeed an authority third party website specialized in reviewing flight simulation games. Particularly for the field of videogames and simulators, this webpage has background and authority, not to mention that they write reviews about the simulator showing its flaws, and upside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielazo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but flight simulator games featuring this aircraft don't belong in the aircraft type article, because it isn't about the actual aircraft. We usually put these in Aircraft in fiction, but in this particular case it seems to be an expansion aircraft module for an existing simulator game and so would not be notable enough for inclusion there, either. The talk page Talk:Aircraft in fiction gives the inclusion criteria and specifically excludes cases like this. Overall this seems far too promotional. I have reviewed all your edits made to date and every one of them has been trying to insert promotion text and links to the company that developed this video game add-on or arguing for that. I also see that you claim that you do not work for the company. We get a lot of people on Wikipedia here to promote companies and products and all of those fit the same pattern as your edits. You can note we do not allow promotional editing, whether paid or unpaid. For an explanation please read WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

eCaravan takes to the air

9 June 2020 eCaravan takes its first flight: https://www.aerotec.com/magnix-and-aerotec-announce-successful-first-flight-of-the-worlds-largest-all-electric-aircraft/ and https://aemo.com.au/news/largest-all-electric-commercial-flight I don't know how to build this into an entry but I believe this needs to be made part of the main page as a new development for an old plane. Iloxton (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It was already added two weeks ago.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, found it. Was wondering how to update the page links, especially the Aerotec page. Also would like to see something about the engine being developed in Queensland, Australia. So far it just reads as a USA-only entry but it was international cooperation that made it happen. maginiX is from Singapore: https://aemo.com.au/news/largest-all-electric-commercial-flight and PV_magazine has an article /electric-aircraft-engines-could-take-to-the-skies-over-australia/ which carries these words... "Invented in Australia At its Gold Coast facility in 2017, magniX – which is owned by Singaporean conglomerate Clermont Group – solved a number of challenges confronting the design of an electric-powered aircraft motor. The engine maker subsequently ran eight versions in rugged conditions, at all temperatures and for more than 1,000 hours, to stress-test reliability. In late 2018, the magniX team began using the motor to turn aircraft propellers and then unplugged from the wall to demonstrate that propulsion capability could be based purely on battery power. “That was a very significant milestone,” Ganzarski told pv magazine last year." Iloxton (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

MagniX details are in the MagniX article. AeroTEC is empty for now. It is possible to create it, but there are some requirements for the notability of companies.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

image

Was going to add this to the article but wanted to confirm I've got the right aircraft first. Also considering cropping it so the plane is emphasized. I have another shot of the inside that I've not uploaded yet, it does not look nearly as fancy as the current interior image. This was a rough-and-ready bush plane in Alaska, used for both passenger and freight, often simultaneously. In one instance my traveling companions and I had to wait to board while the pilot re-installed our seats. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is a Cessna 208, but the aircraft is far too small and far away to be used in an article. The image is too small to be cropped too. Basically it is of no value here. As far as the interior photo goes, I am not sure what value another one beyond what we have would be, but it is hard to tell without having seen it first. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right, it isn't a great shot. We were super excited just to get out of there, it was the only plane to make it in or out that day, so I snapped this and then we practically jumped on board with our stuff. The interior shot just shows a more "bush plane" configuration and has passengers in some of the seats, but I'm not sure it would add that much to the article. 01:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)