Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thai Airways flight 358 on AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FedEx Flight 14

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

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

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

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

Major work on Adam Air Flight 574

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

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

Collaboration help

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

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

2007 Radom Airshow accident

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

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

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

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

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

1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thai Airways Flight 358 a hoax?

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

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

I concur, involving these accounts and an IP:

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

Anynobody 06:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Help on Korean Airlines Flight 007

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

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

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

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

United Airlines Flight 858

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

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

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

2 new articles on AFD

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

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

British airshow crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin McRae

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

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

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

Thai crash

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

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

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

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

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

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

Airliner shootdowns

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

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

Main article: List of airliner shootdown incidents

Anynobody 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

American Airlines MD-80 engine fire

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

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

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

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

Crash in Congo

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

V-22 accident page

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

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

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

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

Found page

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

Lufthansa Flight 2904

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

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

Guideline deleletion

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

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

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

New Dash 8 landing gear article

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

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

Project Maintenance

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

ValuJet Airlines

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

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

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

Brazil Learjet crash

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

Aviation Safety Network has a prelim report [1]. MilborneOne 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Other opinions on this photo/screen grab

File:JAL123CABIN.jpg

Photo of the cabin minutes before the crash of Japan Airlines Flight 123?

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Air Flight 574

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

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

British Airways BA38

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

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

Asian Spirit Flight 321

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Cessnas collision

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

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

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

AirAsia Flight 104 up at Afd

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

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

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

Ethiopian Airlines

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

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

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

About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased?

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

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

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

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

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

Does this look like someone...

File:Vincennes shot.jpg

Iran Air Flight 655

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

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

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

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

Please give your opinion on this image

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

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