Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Venezuelan ATR 72 crash

This was just reported. Major death toll. Need to get moving. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh, behind the times (as usual) - Santa Barbara Airlines Flight 508. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah. ATR 42 and flight 518. That's what you get for jumping the gun I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 55

New article has been created for American Airlines Flight 55, a no injury burst two tires/tyres on landing not really notable incident. Prod has been attempted by an other user but was removed. Comment ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Two blown tires don't really qualify as a notable incident in my book. Blown tires occur every day. Unless the editors interested in keeping the article can associate this to some bigger problem (like the world's supply of brake pads gone bad) then I say this fails to meet notability. --Trashbag (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started an AFD for this article. --Trashbag (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision - Xiamen Airlines 737

I created this article 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision but I need more information and also some people need to access the paid newspaper archives (I found some articles about this!) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents for Airport project

The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest -

• Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
  • The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
  • The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cal Poly football team plane crash

Good day all, just stumbled across the above article. Looks like it could use some help as no references are given and does not meet any format. Thanks,--Trashbag (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this wasn't responded to sooner, I'll look for some refs :) Anynobody 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents at Airports

I've noticed that the reporting of incidents on WP pages for airports is very inconsistent. Are there any guidelines? Where can I find them? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look a couple of lines above the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Flight 19 up for WP:FA

Figured y'all might want to know. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Flight 19 Anynobody 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Renamed categories

I'm sure the editor who made these changes was only trying to help, but the result is most unhelpful by being long and needlessly redundant in several instances. For example the words Accidents and incidents, from the main Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, have been added to several categories making them incredibly long:

• Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners caused by bird strikes
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving controlled flight into terrain

There are other minor issues too, but before I go on I wondered if anyone else noticed this and were concerned about it as well. Anynobody 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm split here. After all, renaming these is making it more accurate, but already long names are now quite ungainly. Hmm... Pwrhaps an entirely new system of naming these? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD debates

I have nominated two articles within the scope of this task force for deletion. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Cessna Compton crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Cessnas collision‎. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter ambulance accident

I just saw this report: 6 die as medical helicopters collide over Arizona. We might want to decide if this is notable or not. Given that it's an apparent mid-air collision, which is relatively rare, I'd say it'll have no problem being notable. - BillCJ (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First signs are that it is unusual enough to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#New C-class rating and another update to the project banner for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of United Airlines Flight 93 now open

The FAC for United Airlines Flight 93 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

XL Airways Flight 237

Just for information I have added a proposed deletion notice to this article created today, a non notable aircraft diverted for drunken passengers event. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

fyi, not sure if an article exists yet or not, but

from the main page, *A Raytheon Hawker 800 corporate jet crashes in Owatonna, Minnesota resulting in at least eight deaths. (AP via Google News). I added this one liner to the Owatonna, MN article "history" section, but I'm not sure if an article would be appropriate (the plane crashed today, few details known). Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

This has been much discussed, maybe it's time we put electrons to screen. Here's some suggested criteria to start things off:

---

Feel free to add/delete/change to this section An incident/accident/crash is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if:

• General criteria:
  • It involves unusual circumstances.
  • One or more of the passengers on board is notable.
  • The flight crew, military, airline, airport or air traffic professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions
• Air carrier criteria:
  • It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life.
  • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
  • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target
  • It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner
• Military aircraft:
  • Accidents/incidents to military aircraft (as opposed to civilian aircraft) are not in the purvue of this discussion.
  • Loss-of-life is not necessarily a valid criteria (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
  • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
  • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
  • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.
• General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft:
  • Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability.

---

Okay, start flinging those flaming darts! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally pretty close to what I was thinking. We should establish something more on millitary aircraft i.e. while generally loss of life is not notable on a trainer, often crashes are notable simply due to loss of life on an unexpected crash of a combat aircraft or transport aricraft or similar. Also, maybe some kind of damage critereon for airliners (i.e. if the aircraft was completely destroyed)? I'm thinking aloud more than anything here, may hove some beter ideas to follow. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've added terrorist action to notability for airliners (for things like Air West Flight 612, which would otherwise fall foul of these guidlines). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to a non-task force member who is casually involved in accident articles, usually as a result of editing aircraft-related articles which mention the incidents, and then hounding Alan (Akr) to create or expand an incident page :) I do often deal with whether or not an incident is notable enough to list on an aircraft page, and these standards could definitely be applied to some degree there. - BillCJ 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a random comment/resource, on the UA897 AfD, Lipstick dropped this NTSB reference which probably should be noted in a footnote to the guidelines somewhere, as it's quite applicable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]

I learnt yesterday from that link that most media-reported "engine fires" aren't even really engine fires (just a fuel control fault...flames might be coming out of exhaust, but engine is NOT on fire.) Lipsticked Pig 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We even see that occasionally on the helos. Kinda impressive at night.... AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty thinking of a civil counterexample, where something meeting the ICAO definition of accident fails to meet the proposed notability criteria above. If there are no lessons learned and applied then it signifies something broke down in the investigation and response process. That itself would be notable. (Donning nomex underwear now.) It can be reasonably argued, for instance, that more prompt implementation of lessons from TWA800 could have prevented SWR111. This plays into the metamanagement of interaction between investigatory, regulatory and industrial/economic forces. I'd propose to simply accept the ICAO definition of accident as defacto confering notability.LeadSongDog 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything done on this in almost 2 months, but we do need to get some guidelines posted. One issue we need to cover is when to have separate carsh articles, and when just mentioning it in the aircraft type article is sufficient. There will be occasions when there is just not enough info to warrant a separate page, but the crash may be notable to the aircraft itself, or worth a mention for other reasons. Some ideas on how to determine which is better would be good. - BillCJ 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I built the listing of the AfDs, to mine those for consensus direction and supplement the existing proposal. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a point-by-point comparison against WP:ADL for consistency? E.g. exclude commercial airliner on a non-commercial flight (repositioning, technical, etc.)? LeadSongDog (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 31 on AfD

I just listed American Airlines Flight 31 at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief...we need to move the Task Force's notability criteria off the talk page as a proposal and onto the project page so we have something better to ref in the AfDs. Anyone want to give it a re-read and any final comments/changes? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan, you might be able to cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aviation accidents in the meantime. It's based on what you put together. Thanks to Trevor (I think) for getting that up. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang...go away on a wikibreak for a while and things happen...sorry, didn't realize that that was already there. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I was only "gone" two days this time! I don't want to miss all the "excitement"! ;) Trevor has done a lot of work on the WP:AVIATION project pages, even this past month. Be sure to look around there, if you haven't had a chace yet. The Task Force may still want to expand on the guidelines anyway - if there's anyone left besides us! You might post on WT:AV and WT:AIR, and see if some of the newer editors might be interested in joining in. - BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the guideline should continue at wt:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aviation accidents to avoid duplication.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A. D. Williams Engineering crashes

I've raised this at the Aviation Project's talk page, and been referred here. Are these two crashes sufficiently notable to justify the existence of the article? Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really skeptical of articles that speculate without providing refs to RS which echo the speculation. I've tagged. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Remembering WP:AGF but the article appears to be there provide material for the sabotage speculation. Certainly neither accident appears to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The two events within five months involved three generations of the same family (the pilots were father and son). The company lost its founder, president, two CFOs in succession and other executives. The sole survivor was the three-year-old granddaughter in a car-seat. You can argue that it's not encyclopaedic (whatever that means) but it certainly is notable. The suspicion of sabotage should be deleted, it has no place in the article without a reference.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the events may have been newsworthy in the community and industry, but certainly not notable or encylopedic, and drawing any connection between the accidents (including writing about both of them together in one article), or speculation about sabotage, is clearly original research by synthesis. I think the article should be deleted. --MCB (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See this diff]. I removed the unwarranted speculation/synthesis directly after my previous post, roughly while MCB was commenting. It is a red herring in the notability discussion. We never wait for the official investigations to report before creating articles. We start them when we can and improve them as better source information becomes available. Without trying too hard we can all think of accident articles that reached start-class on nothing better than network news content. If editors have to spend their energy in deletion discussions, they aren't improving articles. I know which I'd rather do: Just fix it.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this is not a accident article the information should be either in the company article or the individual victims articles, but as far as I can see neither the company nor the people have an article which may indicate lack of notability. My opinion is the information would be more appropriate in an article about the company. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use photos in articles on plane crashes

There's an interesting discussion here on this; it will obviously apply to quite a lot of articles and it would be good to have some more eyes on it. --John (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Itek Air 737 crashes

Reuters and BBC. Death toll looks likely to exceed 100... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Created 2008 Itek Air crash‎ this but not convinced its got the right title. Still, it's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Volée Air Flight 180

What is the standard on fictional aviation accidents? This article uses all the standard accident item's; infobox, categories, etc. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category renaming/standards

There are several categories I'd like to rename. In general all categories in Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners with the name "Airliner crashes caused by...". I'd like to rename them to "Airliner accidents and incidences caused by...". This would allow us to properly categorize incidents in these categories. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea. Assuming you mean "accidents and incidents", "accident" is a euphemism for which "crash" is a better word, whereas most "incidents" are not notable. --John (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the issue is that "crash" is terribly imprecise and often misused, whereas "accident" and "incident" are terms of art in the field (not euphemisms) that have relatively precise meanings, which helps for categorization and lists. So I think Trevor's proposal would be a help for the project. (Trevor, you do mean "incidents" rather than "incidences" above, right?) --MCB (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, of course I mean incidents. I agree, accident is not at all a euphemism. The basic category for accidents, crashes etc is Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, the basic article is Aviation accidents and incidents. I would just like a constant standard to be applied. I cant find it right now, but I believe the term "crash" is discouraged in this project, whereas "accident" and "incident" are well defined. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree the normal term is accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated them for rename at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 3, but this is just a formality. If no objections are raised there I'll start combing through the category tree and start renaming. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Emirates Airline Cabins and Emirates Airline Services

...are up for deletion. Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Cabins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Services. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Ohrid 172N crash

Is this notable? Not according to Wikipedia:AVIMOS#Accidents notablilty. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be particularly notable one of hundreds of C172 accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded, we'll see if that's sufficient. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been de-prodded. I'd say it fails the notability test as no notable people were involved according to the article. Maybe better to AfD the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ohrid 172N crash‎ and comment, please. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines are ... where?

I was examining an AfD and saw that the nominator provided a link to notability guidelines (WP:AIRCRASH); that link, however, is a redirect to this TF page, which in turn directs the reader to a proposed guideline on the talk page – but there is none. A bit of searching turned up WP:ADL, but it seems to date to 2007. This oversight needs to be cleared up. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They got archived to /Archive_3#Notability guidelines but somehow the link to that archive never got added. Now fixed. Of course they aren't yet guidelines, only discussion draft guidelines (but don't get me started on that.) LeadSongDog (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they were incorporated as guidelines (I asked this same question a month or so back). They were put here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Notabilty. I'll update the WP:AIRCRASH link. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Aviation accident

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash

The 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash has been created, and the accident appears totally notable to me. Performers Travis Barker and DJ AM both survived the crash, so the page is likely to attract the attention non-aviation enthusiasts for some time. Could use help watching it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

• Note the Nom's explanation! - BillCJ (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

B-2 crash article

Does anyone know if there is an article on the B-2 Guam crash on Feb 23, 2008? I've searched, but not come up with one. As the only B-2 loss while is operational service, notability should not be a problem. The B-2 Spirit#Accidents section in the B-2 article is really too long, but should make a good start for an accident article, with a short summary remaining. I have started a discussion at Talk:B-2 Spirit#Crash article, and would welcome comments on this matter. Also, I've not created a crash article as yet, and really do not feel ready at this point, so if someone is willing to create one, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks all. - BillCJ (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill, I don't have time to work on this right now, but there are some good Air Force PD photos of the crash, if you pursue it. Copies were posted to my blog a couple of weeks ago, if you want to go dl them, and they're elsewhere on the web for sourcing purposes. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, I'll try to look for those later today/tonight. I may just slap an article together, and let others improve it. I really was surprised this crash didn't have an article yet (that we know of anyway), but then all the info has been going into the B-2 article. Btw, what would be the best title? Would 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-2 crash work? - BillCJ (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be consistent with both Projects' naming conventions. I agree that I'm surprised it's not been covered, especially since the probable cause has been publicly discussed in detail. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the article is now up. I didn't have to go out today, so I had time to do it. I haven't looked for crash pics yet, but I will try to do that later. If you get a chance to look over the article, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we use accident in the title and not crash! MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I just copied the title of 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-52 crash, but I didn't pay attention to the fact it used "crash". - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed we use crash a lot including in the examples on a project page not far from here! Seriously perhaps we should at least change our own guideline as I think crash is a bit tabloid! MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I renamed a few categories from "crash" to "accidents or incidents" a while ago. I think either accident or incident should be in the title, since they are specifically defined terms. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm renaming the B-2 article to 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-2 accident. Btw, should 2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-52 crash be renamed to another location? It didn't crash at the base like the B-2, but into the Pacific ocean over 25 miles from the island. Any suggestions? - BillCJ (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD for AA Flight 268 now open

OMG! A blown tire! Write a Wikipedia article! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268 (apologies for the cynicism) AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the cynicism really bothers you, you can always strikeout that part;/) It's not about the tire, its about the electrical failure that gave rise to the emergency landing. Please read the NTSB prelim rept.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I went and read it, and still am not convinced. Believe it or not, electrical problems aren't all that rare. I still don't see this rising to encyclopedic notability AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Choosing to fly 100 minutes overland on a 30 minute battery reserve better be rare or AA is in bigger trouble than I realized. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

2008 Piper PA 28 plane crash - a tragic GA crash that killed four people; looks like big headlines in Ireland, but is it notable? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've AfD'd it...feel free to comment. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Continental Airlines Flight 1404

An article that you have been involved in editing, Continental Airlines Flight 1404, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1404. Thank you. Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Alaska Flight 528

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 528. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Airlines edit war merits discussion

There's an edit war between an IP and another editor that's being discussed at Talk:Pacific Coastal Airlines which merits the group's input. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Munich air disaster

Hi there everybody. I've just requested a Peer Review of Munich air disaster, so if anyone on this project feels like commenting on it, the PR discussion page is here. Thanks, – PeeJay 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I added a few minor suggestions, but biggest one being the way the article is named, as it currently doesn't meet the guidelines of this or the disaster management wikiproject. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PAL crash article on AfC

Anyone want to help out with this proposed article at AfC? It's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Philippine Airlines Flight PR158- BAC OneEleven Crash in Antipolo...looks like it would be a good addition, but I can't devote the time to it right now. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007

Currently trying to get this one over the GA line - any help from a fresh set of eyes would be appreciated. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Our own stub template

The task force now has its own stub template, {{Aircrash-stub}}. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456

I have just proded this not very notable hard landing and nose-wheel collapse, I suspect it will be de-proded and might need to be AfD. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Add link BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been de-prodded. I've tried to do an AFD, but it's too complicated! - BillCJ (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just AfD'd it, comments either way are invited. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have added the AfD link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) Now that this bruising round is over, it occurs to me that the approach I've taken on this and a few in the past might be wrong. Seems that a lot of the responses came as a result of new or infrequent readers checking the article out as a current-event news item. I wonder if there would have been the same response if this had been posted in a few weeks from now. Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just leave these articles alone for a few weeks then assess their notability when the media flurry dies down. As you say the quick reaction to what is obvious non-notable to us does not appear so to the casual reader when it is still in today or yesterday's newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a good test of that...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Spirit Flight 321 (2nd nomination). AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Kenosha helicopter crash

The AfD for the above article has become rather controversial (although I stress that everything is civilised and there is no drama) and in particular there is a question concerning how to interpret a fuzzy bit of wording in WP:AIRCRASH. My response to a message at User talk:Chergles may also be worth reading to get a feel of the issue. Basically, I want some more eyes at the AfD from those within the task force, since at the moment I am begining to look like a WP:DICK with constant responses. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the "Air Charter" clause in the notability guideline WP:AIRCRASH is being used to keep the article. Can I suggest that the wording is made clearer particularly that accidents to "air charter" aircraft (or helicopters) with less than five seats are not notable unless they meet other criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for flights

The issues of naming for the Continental Connection Flight 3407 aka Colgan Air Flight 3407 article is apparently complicated by the fact that we don't have a naming convention for articles on scheduled flights when it is operated by another airline. Apparently some editors believe that the article name should reflect the company that was operating the flight and not the company that the flight was for. In this specific case, this was marketed as CO3407. I think simply adding a statement that makes it clear we should be calling this Continental Airlines Flight 3407, to reflect the company that assigned the number and sold the tickets. Based on my reading of the guideline it should be Continental Airlines Flight 3407, but I do admit that is not clear for many. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Unfortunately, it looks like haphazard naming is going to continue for awhile, as there seems to be no interest in standardizing such flight names at this point. Keep up the good work, Veags, and hopefully interest will rise. I'd suggest posting a not at WT:AVIATION and WT:AIR to try to garner some more interest. - BillCJ (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The NTSB press release http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090213.html calls it Continental Connection Flight 3407, the aircraft was using the callsign COLGAN 3407 take your pick! I would say that calling it Continental Flight 3407 because the tickets were sold using that may cause problems in the future with codeshares as it becoming more common to have a ticket which bears no relationship to the aircraft you are flying in, and some flights can have multiple identities. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is an order of preferences. In this case, only one airline sold tickets, so the flight was its. In the case of a codeshare, it would be the operator of the aircraft if they sold tickets. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one situation where the Wikipedia convention of using the most common name makes sense to me. All of us could probably make an effective argument for a number of variations, but in deference to the "general public" nature of our readers, I would think that Continental Airlines Flight 3407 makes most sense in this disregard, and since we can have virtually unlimited redirects, having the main article under the "common" heading and a redirect for each of the variants makes the most sense to me. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I have been a bit a nay sayer in this process but I just can not see us naming flights based on who sold a ticket. For instance if I booked a flight on Expedia, Hotwire etc. the name of the flight would not be Expedia flight **** because that is not who operated the flight. the fact remains that the plane used was owned by colgan, the flight crew were employed by Colgan even the continental website states when a flight is not operated by them. I would also add that just because it was under continental colors doesn't mean it was a continental flight, that would be like saying because I am wearing a sports jersey I play for their team. I think the standard should be to go with what the government, or jurisdiction calls the flight. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jerseys?? Bad analogy. Colgan has legal agreements with Continental, unlike you and your fave ports team! THey can't just paint themselves in some airlines colors because they like them! I think the crucial question is who sells the tickets for the flights? DOes Colgan sell a portion of its own seats? If they do, then they are the primary "operator"; but if not, then they are operating solely on behalf of COntinenteal, and thus the flight should be for Continental. - BillCJ (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The only viable answer has to be based on the Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate. For passenger airlines in the US, this is controlled by 14 CFR 119 and 14 CFR 121, other countries have similar systems. In essence, this is the license to carry passengers and it is based on numerous technical qualification bases. There is exactly one certificated carrier for a flight. There can be any number of codeshare ticket sellers. They are effectively irrelevant to the operation of the flight beyond the boarding gate.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay my analogy sucked, I admit it. But the fact still remains that naming an article based on who sold you the tickets seems irrelevant. We DO NOT KNOW where the people on that flight purchased their tickets, it is likely that a large sum of them purchased the tickets from a third party travel website. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The operating carrier bears all legal liability for a flight. Despite whomever the marketing airline is, the Operating Certificate defines the airline that operates the flight. That's how it needs to be named. Use this analogy - Air Canada Flight 408 (fake flight numbers) crashes between Toronto Pearson and Chicago O' Hare. However, the first person to create the article is from the Chicago area, and WGN-TV first identified the flight as United Airlines Flight 8383. While the flight did carry the United Airlines flight number, and some people may have bought a ticket for United 8383 on United.com, it was still an Air Canada flight. Should the article be named United Airlines Flight 8383 simply because it was codeshared, even though the flight was actually Air Canada? I don't think so. A regional airliner flight is the same way. Or perhaps a US Airways plane is chartered by Bob's Vacations. Everybody on the flight bought their packages from Bob's, and US Airways never sold tickets on the flight. We would not make the wikipedia article as Bob's Airline Flight XXX, we would call it US Airways Flight XXX. Colgan Air Flight 3407, Comair Flight 191, and other regional aircraft incidents, are all named appropriately. --CorSter (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)