Talk:Wheel-well stowaway

"Male"

If all entries on the list are males, should it be mentioned separately each time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In future there could be females as well (and maybe in the past, though I haven't seen any), so I think gender is important. Brandmeister^talk 12:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

life-threatening conditions

It doesn't look like freezing and hypoxia are the only problems one faces on a trip like this . The list of people who've attempted this shows that falling from the wheel well during landing and takeoff are definite hazards, including being crushed by the wheels. It's amazing that more aren't crushed. You'd have to know where to situate yourself in advance so that when the wheels did swing up into place you'd avoid them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I've rewritten the lede to explain this. --pmj (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Paul Manyasi"

The entry on the 2019 incident where a stowaway, probably already dead, fell from the wheelwell of an Air Kenya jet into a backyard of a swanky London neighborhood, a mere meter away from someone sunbathing, seems to have not been updated since the first Sky News report purportedly identifying him as "Paul Manyasi", to the point of defensively dealing with a challenge to it. However, as this much more recent Guardian piece reports, after later reporting by Kenyan media not only cast stronger doubt on the identity but found that persons unknown had paid off the guy's purported family to say it was their son, Sky retracted the story and we're back to UID on this one.

So, I will be updating this entry. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. That entry also has some stuff worth adding to the intro (like the survivor's first-person account). Will do later. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

---

List of wheel-well stowaway flights → Wheel-well stowaway – No need to keep this as a list-of article. There are more than sufficient sources to establish the notability of the subject itself. It can still contain a list-of sub-section. Dhaluza (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Carguychris (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment "Wheel-well stowaway" suggests just the individual. Would "Wheel-well stowaway flights" be better? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123:, I think "wheel-well stowaway" adequately summarizes the topic, and "flights" may lead to nitpicking about instances where the perpetrator is discovered before the aircraft leaves the ground. Carguychris (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see. By "nitpicking" I assume you mean "reasoned argument about the facts." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Upon further consideration, perhaps "wheel-well stowaways in aviation" would be better still, as it clearly states that this is an aviation-related topic without implying that incidents on the ground don't count. Carguychris (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I considered this, but I don't know of any notable cases of wheel-well stowaways outside of aviation. Can you cite any? Dhaluza (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just to note that wheel well currently redirects to Fender (vehicle)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• "undercarriage stowaway" (or "under-carriage") seems widely used in mass media. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, common in British sources. I added undercarriage to the list in the lede. But I think we should stick with the American term since the definitive database is kept by the U.S. FAA, and they have published original research on the topic. BTW, they call it wheel-well passenger stowaways, but I think passenger is unnecessary and redundant, so no need to use the longer form of the name. Dhaluza (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• When aircrew or cabin crew start to stowaway in the undercarriage, you know you're in trouble... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite a lot of "aviation" activity happens on the ground? But I think your new suggestion is better. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Support: Per nomination and additional discussion. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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.

New photos

I'm sorry but I don't think any of the newly added images do much for the article, the adding editor's claims notwithstanding. One may even need to be removed.

Spot the stowaway!

Spot the wheel well space!

• This image does show someone fitting himself into the wheel-well space ... but as it's in grayscale and minimally lit, it's hard to tell at first. I would honestly not expect someone who doesn't hang around large airliners all the time (i.e., someone like me; I really thought on my first glance that it was just some trash bags or something up there) to have a clue what this is supposed to show, much less where the simulated stowaway is, on first or even third glance, without someone telling them. Perhaps if it were in color and cropped, it might work better.
• And in this one, again thanks to the not-lighting and the use of grayscale, what we are supposed to see and learn from is in deep shadow.

  Also, these two pictures are DC-8's!! I honestly cannot remember the last time I flew on one, and I've been flying since the 1970s. I think images like these would be better if taken on a more modern aircraft.

• Lastly, the use of the third image fails fair-use criteria 3 and 8. To meet 3, it must be cropped down to just the image of the man falling from the plane (and further reduced to 300px in width, as indeed it has already been tagged as overly large for a fair-use image), as the other images, text notwithstanding, have zero relevance to the subject of wheel-well stowaways. To meet 8 there needs to be sourced and cited reliable third-party commentary on the image itself in the accompanying text. The text in the file's fair-use rationale which is supposed to address this criterion—"This shows the relative importance of the photos as judged by editors of a major weekly photo journal in near real time. This cannot be conveyed by the accompanying body text alone."—in fact gets this relationship completely backwards ... under the NFCC, it is the body text which must justify the use of the image. Cf. a fair-use image I put in Anna Wintour, of the first Vogue cover she was in charge of as the magazine's editor, which is the subject of sourced and quoted commentary in the accompanying text.

  To be honest, I'm not sure that third image could ever meet FUC 8; even with sourced commentary if some could be found. It is sufficient for the purposes of this article and its subject to know that wheel-well stowaways can and do fall to their deaths; if readers want to see the photo described in the text, well, that's what we have {{external media}} for. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I reworked the first photo in Lr and dropped the second. For the third image, I reduced the size from the original prior to upload, and the bot will reduce further as needed. The other images in the layout have no relevance to the main subject as you point out, but they are relevant to the sub-section subject, which is how the main subject was covered in media at the time. So they are essential context, because the photo is not being used to illustrate the article subject per se, which would not be fair use. And the accompanying text is also essential to the context of the fair use. Dhaluza (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that accompanying text needs to include reliably-sourced commentary on the image itself. That's been a standard for FUC 8 compliance for years now, even if the criteria themselves do not say so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't have unwritten rules at Wikipedia, so can you cite your source for this? Dhaluza (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Easily. See Nos. 8 and 9 at WP:NFCI: "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate." Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Kabul Airport evacuation

Surely the three named men were not actually wheel-well stowaways? There seems to have been a fourth person, whose remains were later discovered in the landing gear (presumably the next time the aircraft landed) who was a wheel-well stowaway. Reuters report here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: "Surely the three named men were not actually wheel-well stowaways?" Well, no one is sure where exactly they were, we will have to wait for the Pentagon report. Confirmed facts based on the eye witness reports are that they were clinging on to something related to the landing gear. 2 of them were seen falling in a few moments, while the third Zaki Anwari (19) was found dead after landing. The viral video showed more than half dozen people just on side of the taxing C17, I wonder what fate they had.

This 2 day old Reuters report is referring to the case of Zaki Anwari (19), without naming him. What makes you call it a fourth case and not third? FYI, Zaki Anwari (19) found two days ago was identified today. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact they are two different reports used as sources in the article. It seems I have mis-interpreted. You may wish to revert some of my changes. But my main question still stands. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo news names Zaki Anwari (19) but then also says: "News of Anzari's death comes as the US Air Force is investigating after human remains were found in the wheel well of one of its C-17 planes that departed from Kabul."? So the remains were his? I assume "landing gear flaps" means "landing gear doors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, presumably. Pentagon is investigating the incident. This article [1] cites the official source of the identification of the stowaway.--Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. The phrase "found in the landing gear, hours after take-of" looked a bit odd to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a better phrase in mind? Quote from ibtimes.sg : "Anwari was among the three Afghans who got killed after clinging onto the plane. Two others fell hundreds of feet to the ground as the aircraft took off. After the crew discovered Anwari's body stuck in the landing gear, the plane had to make an emergency landing."--Venkat TL (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just read the new source and seen the graphic image, so have adjusted the wording. "Discovered" or "found" sounded to me like post-landing and wheels down. It's still unclear to me if the aircraft made an immediate emergency landing and, if so, where. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. All the reports until today were inferring that the discovery was post landing. I dont know where it landed immediately. I have read that most planes were destined for Qatar, a few for Dubai, UAE. In any case, the fact that the C17 had to make emergency landing is relevant for the reader, the airport, I guess, is not so much relevant. I saw the image of the cloud without realizing what it showed. Very depressing.  :-( Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RAAF Boeing C-17 landing at Kharkov

Look at the landing flaps in the pic, the way it is open it can serve as a platform where it is possible to sit and grab, but only till the landing gear is out. I was discussing this with my friend a pilot, who said the plane takes off at 250 kmph and quickly reaches 400 and then it is not possible to continue clinging by grabbing on to something on the outside. Venkat TL (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

23 Jan Stowaway

Add that the flight was via Nairobi. According to multiple sources. Also, add that he was identified to be from Kenya and is 22 years old .2A02:2121:343:B9F9:5D5C:1E2:FE5E:F5E2 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some good source(s) for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Colour coding

Should the table be colour-coded by Stowaway's fate? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)