Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Untitled

See also: Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Holding zone

American airlines crash at Buffalo NY in early 1950's?????129.44.246.73 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

does anyone remember or have details of a convair Amer airlines crash in Cheektowaga, NY in the 1950's? 129.44.246.73 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of American Airlines accidents at American Airlines accidents and incidents MilborneOne (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Air NZ/XL Airways Crash - France, November 2008

Main article: XL Airways Germany A320 Flight 888T

Details: "On 27 November 2008, (28 November New Zealand time) a leased Air New Zealand-owned Airbus A320-200 (ZK-OJL) registered D-AXLA, on a post-maintenance flight (flight GL888T) crashed into the Mediterranean Sea seven kilometers east of the French city of Perpignan, near the border with Spain. The seven people on board were killed, including four Air New Zealand representatives. The aircraft was on lease to XL Airways Germany, a European-based airline. ZK-OJL was unique in that when sequestered to Freedom Air, was painted in a remarkable Warner Brothers cartoon character colour scheme." Is this worth including? -- Danreilly123^(talk) 09:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I remember from last time this was mentioned as it was a training/test flight it didnt meet the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

From the BEA's interim report], it seems there are procedures that will change. Regulation of test flights will improve in order to prevent some of the ad-hoc characteristics of this one. But agree, this is probably not notable in the WP:ADL sense.LeadSongDog come howl 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Time line in tabular form

The data could be used for further study.

As such, it would be convenient to have the date, time (utc), location of accident, etc. in a tabular form.

A downloadable .xls file would be nice.

Thanks.

akxyz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akxyz (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

location could have the latitude & longitude —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akxyz (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The latitude and longtide are in the related articles - remember this is just a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Date	Airline	Fli	Aircraft	Location	Notes	D	Ref
1998-02-02	Cebu Pacific Air	387	McDonnell-Douglas DC-9	Philippines, Misamis Oriental, Mount Sumagaya, near	Crashes into a mountain, the plane is flying an unfamiliar route not well documented in maps following an unscheduled stop in Leyte to drop off two mechanics. All passengers and crew members are killed.	104
1998-02-16	China Airlines	676	Airbus A300	Taiwan, Taipei	Crashes into a residential area while attempting to land. All people on board are killed, in addition to six on the ground.	202
1998-03-22	Philippine Airlines	137	Airbus A320	Philippines, Bacolod City	Overshoots the end of the runway while landing, plowing through several houses. None of the passengers was harmed, but three people on the ground were killed and several more injured.	3
1998-04-20	TAME Airlines	422	Boeing 727	Colombia, Bogotá, El Dorado International Airport	Crashed into the mountains when it was taking off at about 16:45 local time. The plane was owned by TAME, an Ecuadoran airline, but leased to Air France. The accident was caused by foggy weather and all passengers and crew were lost.	53
1998-09-02	Swissair	111	McDonnell Douglas MD-11	Canada, Nova Scotia, Halifax, near	Crashes into the sea because of an on-board fire. Everyone on board perish.	229
1998-12-11	Thai Airways	261	Airbus A310	Thailand, Surat Thani, near	Crashes during poor weather. 146 people on board.	102

Being sortable this means it can replace this page, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, and List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-03t16:01z

• Please see my response to this suggestion when it was brought up previously. I believe all previous points are still valid today, and in addition, in your own example above, if you use a somewhat larger font size, the table becomes very odd looking, since the actual description fields are much longer (taller) than the others. I think as bottom line that this list article should be an easy to read chronology of the more important aviation accidents. Trying to force it into a table format would be bad for all the reasons mentioned. Crum375 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to support Crum375 I dont think a sortable table would add any value. All the key points (aircraft, airline, location, cause) are all covered by categories which would be a far better method of finding accidents then sorting this list. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was developing a template for listing shipwrecks awhile back, it's at User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2. The headings could be changed for this list if there's interest. Shinerunner (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

References

R101

I updated the inclusion criteria to clarify that a civilian aircraft operated by the government with a civilian crew to carry passengers, otherwise meeting the minimum passenger seating requirement, is eligible for inclusion in the list. Crum375 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems daft. "Commercial" implies that money changed hands, but the R101 never carried any fare-paying passengers. It was no more a commercial aircraft than the Space Shuttle, which has also carried civilians. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of money changed hands. The large crew were all civilians and paid for their services. The passengers were mostly government employees, so the government effectively paid their fare, just like soldiers being transported by a charter operator, which we already include. Certainly this was no military operation, nor private, so it best fits into "commercial", if we adopt a broad view. The Shuttle would potentially be covered, if it transported civilian passengers with a civilian crew, and had enough passenger seats to qualify. Crum375 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is a broad view. However if that's the consensus here then I will accept it. Is it? --76.117.164.50 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good source for those who'd like to read about the R101. Crum375 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty minimal source but seems fairly accurate apart from the odd typo. I have a couple of books with more detailed info I can use to improve the R101 article. It needs it. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the current R101 is not in good shape. Your help there would be very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Loss of structural integrity on an aircraft

This might be added as an internal link: Loss of structural integrity on an aircraft (WP:O). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Editnotice

At Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, I requested the addition of "Entries in draft form may be placed in the Holding zone until ready for use." (with a link to the Holding zone) onto the Editnotice, which is editprotected. Are there any objections? LeadSongDog come howl 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested a change to the description for qualifying aircraft. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria?

Are we not in danger of now beginning to add every mickey mouse event which unfortunately is part of living in the 21st century. Can the criteria not be adjusted to exclude such events. Modern edits relating minor events are in danger of engulfing major events which are of more significance. Should the criteria not include 'injury'? Your views are very much appreciated --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As this list is based on stand-alone articles only if they have met the notability criteria the criteria for this page doesnt really need to address the issue. This sort of issue should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability which has long discussion on the subject of notability of accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines- Jamaica Airport December 23, 2009

American Airlines Flight Crashes at Jamaica Airport; 40 Injured Wednesday, December 23, 2009
reported as runway over shoot
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580942,00.html
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

JAMAICA: American Airlines plane (737) from Miami crashes in Kingston Wednesday, 23 December 2009
http://www.cnweeklynews.com/content/view/4242/66/lang,en/ --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No deaths in Jamaica American Airlines accident,Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:10pm IST
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-44936720091223

“MIAMI (Reuters) - An American Airlines Boeing 737 overshot the runway while landing in driving rain at the international airport in Kingston, Jamaica on Tuesday night, but the company said there were no fatalities or serious injuries.”

“The Jamaica incident is the second runway mishap for American this month. On Dec. 13, the wing of American MD-82 struck the runway in Charlotte, North Carolina, while landing, causing damage to the plane. No one was hurt.”

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for restriction of includable incidents

Please comment here. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Western Airlines plane crashed December 15, 1942 - 17 killed

Here is a link to an news article: Western Airlines Plane Crash. I am new to Wiki so I'm not sure how to proceed with adding this.

KordelB (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thany you for the suggestion. It is already covered at Western Airlines#incidents and accidents, but until there's a full article on it, it can't go onto this list per the WP:ADL criteria. User:LeadSongDog come howl 08:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was do not merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article List of accidents and incidents involving a Boeing 777 be merged with this article. I am not sure of how much content can be lifted from that article, but I thought I should try a merger before aiming for deletion. Wikipedia certainly does not need dozens of lists detailing the "accidents and incidents" for every kind of airplane, especially when there exists a perfectly serviceable article like this one. What say you? Bobnorwal (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need for any notice or any change here. If you'd like to AfD the other article, that's your prerogative, but I don't see how that has any effect on this one. Crum375 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The action I would prefer over deletion, as I have already stated, is merging that article with this one. To that end I followed Help:Merging as closely as I could, including adding Template:Mergefrom to this article. As I know very little about both article merging and air plane crashes I have asked for advice here. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, before: should List of accidents and incidents involving a Boeing 777 be nominated for deletion or merged with this article? Bobnorwal (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You made yourself very clear, but this list article has very specific inclusion criteria, and as User:MilborneOne notes below, we can't accept any kind of "merging" from other articles. The proper course of action, if you believe the 777 article is lacking, is to nominate it for AfD, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge as a lot of the entries dont meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. Perhaps because some of the entries are not particularly notable was the reason for a daughter-article from Boeing 777. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (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.

13APR2010 Cathay Pacific CX780 emergency landing at HKG

On 13APR2010, Cathay Pacific Airlines flight CX780 from Surabaya, Indonesia to Hong Kong made an emergency landing on the north runway at Hong Kong International Airport (HKG/VHHH) at 1343 (local time, GMT+0800). The aircraft involved was a 12-year-old A330-300, with 309 passengers, 11 cabin crews and 2 cockpit crews on board. It was reported that engine No.2 failed during mid-flight, and the flight has requested emergency landing to HKG. On final approach, the other engine encountered failure and the thrust cannot be adjusted properly. The plane was landed at a high speed and brought to full stop at the end of the runway, with all 4 tyres on the left landing gear and 2 of 4 on the right deflated. There has been small fires with the tyres. All passenger was deplaned using the emergency slides as a safety precaution. In the incident, 8 passengers were injured and admitted to hospital for treatment.

Source quoted: http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=e1eb1244996f7210VgnVCM1000000ad21c39____ http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100413/4/hhjo.html (Mingpao Daily, Chinese report) http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100414/4/hhr1.html (Mingpao Daily, Chinese report)

119.237.146.139 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless something more comes out of this, I don't think the event is notable enough for its own article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently one engine was at flight idle, and the other at 70% thrust, leading to a high speed landing...[1]. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

How come the plane crash that killed a Polish pesident and other people are not on the 2010 part of the list? B-Machine (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because this is the list of commercial aircraft, and that accident was a military aircraft. The event is included on the military accident list. Crum375 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent Aircraft Article Vandal

IP 71.198.180.243 (talk · contribs) has been making subtle, unreferenced, and other changes to aircraft articles. I have reverted one here, as apart from poor English, the plane had only 9 aboard (inclusion criteria is 10 minimum) DIFF. Their second entry (June 30, 1951) [2] needed re-writing. FYI, regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One more to add

I think this could be added to the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_933 Feel free to delete this section once added. Tempel (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

VH-BAG Lodestar Coolangatta 10 MAR 49

This isn't in the list. I might get around to it but if anyone wants to follow it up, please do. www.adastron.com/lockheed/lodestar/vh-bag.htm Wodawik (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An article now exists about this accident and I have added it to the 1949 list. See 1949 Queensland Airlines Lockheed Lodestar crash. Dolphin (t) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

LANICA Airline Hijack Dec 12, 1971 ( Should be added to the list)

Dec 12, 1971. A LANICA (Lineas Aereas de Nicaragua) BAC 1-11 jetliner is hijacked on its route Managua-San Salvador by a cell of the clandestine FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) and taken to San José, Costa Rica. Costa Rica's President Pepe Figueres carrying an automatic weapon takes charge of the situation and on the ensuing affray and gunshots a fire breaks up aboard the plane, one kidnapper gets killed, the other 2 are captured. No one else is seriously injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickbol7 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Javdc10020030374dioramaie0.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Javdc10020030374dioramaie0.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding 2012

Whoever keeps adding 2012 to this page, please stop. We don't know for sure whether there will be any crashes this year and 2012 should not be added until there is.--Greggy123 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the only editor who holds the less than intelligent belief that there won't be any accidents in 2012. Have you looked at all at how many aviation articles there have been in recent years? Or that there is at least one accident every year for over 70 years? There won't be any aviation incidents this year and there will be snow on the ground in South Florida before the first day of spring. You've been reverted again.- William 17:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't just be sitting and waiting for a plane to crash. It looks stupid if 2012 is empty. You don't see a Wikipedia article labeled "Deaths in 2013", do you? Of course there will be celebrity deaths in 2013, but none have died in 2013 yet, so there doesn't need to be an article. The same applies for this article. --Greggy123 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, it is 2012 not 2013. Be aware one more reversion and you'll be in violation of 3RR which could end with your editing privileges being suspended. A possible case of sockpuppetry could be made also. I see you reverted again. I am reporting you.- William 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need of for unsubstantiated threats. There is also no need for an empty section in any article. When there is a 2012 event, then the section should be added. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition of commercial aircraft

On 7 January 2012 a commercial operation involving a hot air balloon went horribly wrong in Carterton, New Zealand. The balloon crashed killing all on board – a pilot and all ten passengers. Wikipedia now has an article on the subject – 2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash. I opened a new entry for accidents in 2012 and added this accident. See my diff.

My edit was promptly reverted with the edit summary Since when is a hot air balloon considered a commercial aircraft? See the diff. I reverted this edit to restore the information about this accident.

I am not aware of Wikipedia having a formal definition of commercial aircraft. I am assuming that any aircraft being used in a commercial operation is potentially a commercial aircraft. A two-seat training aircraft can be used in a commercial operation but there would be an obvious problem if this article listed all accidents involving two-seat training aircraft. Consequently I think this article should list accidents involving commercial aircraft where the size of the aircraft excludes small aircraft of the kind that might be used in recreation. The accident in question killed all 11 people on board so it is a larger balloon than would be used in recreation.

We probably need to define what constitutes a commercial aircraft for the purpose of this article. Be aware that the word aircraft is not restricted to power-driven machines, and it includes gliders and balloons. Dolphin (t) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this talkpage, you will see a link to the "dedicated guideline" covering inclusion criteria for this list. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I see the eligibility criteria specifically exclude aircraft in operations under 14CFR Part 91 in the US or equivalent elsewhere so I have removed the accident from the listing. Dolphin (t) 07:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A good faith addition, but unfortunately outside the scope of this list. It is linked in elsewhere, such as the list of aircraft by tail number. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reconsidering linking in this article

It seems to me this article's readability and usability would be much improved by a drastic reduction in the number of links. By design, this article is a chronological index into the specific WP articles about each incident, so what is the point of the convoluted double linking of the form [[Airline]], '''[[Airline & flight number|Flight number]]''', and the links to the aircraft type and the location? Anyone who wants more information about a specific incident can click on the main link and get it all there. The vast majority of the links here are superfluous; never likely to be used and just cluttering up the article, which would be much more usable if it were formatted like a disambiguation page. I propose just one link per incident, with a brief (link-free) description to allow the reader to decide whether to click the link for more detail.
(Also the style guidelines for this sort of article are badly out of date; they haven't been updated to take account of the deprecation of date linking several years ago.) Colonies Chris (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Support and agree with suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think Colonies suggestion is a good one. It was me who recommended he bring it up here.- William 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The links clutter the article and make it difficult to read. Exok (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I added a notice of this at the talkpage for WP:AVILIST, as this is the prototype for all the av accident lists. It occurs to me that at least conceptually, a little bot cleverness might be able to put this oneliner into (or get it from) the infobox on the article page, for example if the infobox had a |nutshell= added. The ongoing discussion of article UIDs would also pertain. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2 1949 Douglas DC-3 accident Boeing Field Seattle 14 fatals Yale students

This accident is not listed. Should be. It was a major accident in the US in 1949.

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=3700

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19490104&id=V_hOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IU4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3537,5038271

Kenneth D. Smith Anchorage Alaska ksmith6502@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.26.211 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An accident can't be listed without an article. This crash doesn't have one...William 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But an article could be started. Other sources [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] are available for starters. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead, An article could be written but this takes time and work. I've created over a dozen crash articles, Northwest Airlink 5719, Linea Aeropostal Flight 253, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630, Laoag International Airlines Flight 585, Viasa Flight 742, and Viasa Flight 897, to name a few. I have a list of incidents in my head that I'd like to create articles for. The Allegheny Airlines Crashes near Bradford Pennsylvania in 1968 and 1969 and a 1971 disaster in New Haven Connecticut plus three aviation disasters with over 100 fatalities are just a few I want to get around to. This particular accident isn't very high on my list.

However feel free to create one yourself using the sources you provided....William 15:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion was directed at the OP, though I failed to say as much. Cheers.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing two crashes

In November 1951, a Miami Arline DC3 crashed into the Elizabeth river in Elizabeth on take off. In January 1952 a National Arline not an American airline inbound from Miami, crashed behind Baton high school also in Elizabeth. In feb 1952 the American Airline DC6B crashed on take off on Salem Ave in Elizabeth N.J. Four Blocks from my house and Two blocks from Phil Rizzutos House. This Plane went right over our house. The following day Newark airport was closed for one year to re-route the runways. 173.63.207.10 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)David Alcott173.63.207.10 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If they don't have an independent article, the crash isn't on the list. There are at least 4 air disasters with over 100 dead, much bigger than the crashes you cite, that don't have articles and aren't on the list....William 01:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Miami Airlines crash has already been added Meltdown627 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sabena DC-4

why is the Sept 18, 1946 crash of Sabena DC-4 in Nfld, not included in the list of aircraft accidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.152.195 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody has written an article about it and by consensus restrict this list to those with articles. It is mentioned in Sabena and is a notable accident so I dont think it would be long before somebody writes an article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing air disaster - Piedmont Airlines Flight 230 / August 10, 1968

The Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft does not list this accident that occurred on Aug 10, 1968. It will require a Wiki page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.88.227 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 191 is not listed in the article.

Delta Air Lines Flight 191 was an airline service from Fort Lauderdale, Florida's Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, by way of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. On the afternoon of August 2, 1985, Delta Air Lines Flight 191 crashed while on approach to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport during a thunderstorm, killing 8 of 11 crew members, 126 of 152 passengers on board, and one person on the ground. Two people also died more than 30 days after the crash, bringing the total fatalities to 137. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.237 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that the same accident as already listed on 2 August 1985 as Delta Flight 191 ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing Aero Ferinco plane accident

In September 12, 2001 an Aero Ferinco plane crashed near Chichén Itza, 19 killed.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_1541000/1541304.stm (In Spanish)

Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

References

This list has a handful of individual references and nothing more. I added a {{ref improve}} template which seems justified since most of the information here is not referenced within this article, but it was reverted. We have many quality list articles which individually reference each item and don't rely on sub-articles. Why should this be any different? After all, it's impossible to know if the articles which this list links to have any sources either. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE has no reverted me twice without bothering to demonstrate where the so-called "consensus" for having just a few of the entries referenced, less than 1%. What a curious approach to reference a handful of entries and leave all the others unreferenced. Please link me to the consensus claimed or else I'll replace the tag. Especially as there has been no discussion forthcoming despite a request to do so from WilliamJE. Seems like another example of aviation project members' ownership of articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_103#Citations_on_linked_pages may be relevant. While I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of the discussion, there seemed to be widespread resistance there to the idea of tagging or delting bluelinked articles in lists on the assumption that there are references at the other end of the link.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There also appeared to be be consensus at the VPP discussion that list articles are not immune from the requirements of WP:VERIFY and that it is reasonable to tag lists with refimprove or similar, just not to tag-bomb individual bluelinked items. It may be worth reconsidering the guidance at Wikipedia:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format re references to make sure that it conforms to policy.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so in conclusion, there's no clear consensus that this specific article should be immune from having a {{ref improve}} template. In that case, and thank you Nigel Ish etc, I'll re-add the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I always understood that blue linked list items dont need a reference, pretty sure we didnt make that up. So as far as this page is concerned it probably doent need any more references, if that is wrong then it is a popular misconception on wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can point me to the policy that backs that up, I'd be pleased to stop requesting references. In four or so years of FLC work, I've never heard of such a policy. How can you be sure that a subarticle has any references? How can you be sure the claim as written in this list is correct? How can a reader trust a list without direct references? And why are a handful of the incidents referenced? Are they special somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I will have a look around, policy or not it is standard practice on most of the lists I have come across not to reference linked articles and only provide references for redlinked stuff. Perhaps this is one of the problems projects have when they come across "featured" type reviews we are clearly using different sets of rules! If it is not allowed then we have many list across wikipedia that are not referenced for the same reason. MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Different people have different interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Citing sources with most people using this to say that referencing in not required, although apparently it is mandatory for Featured Lists which explains why we have problems. MilborneOne (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that link really does support the argument that if elements of the list are challenged (e.g. by a [citation needed], or in my case a {{ref improve}} tag), then inline references should be used. It says you don't need to reference apple in a list of fruit, but you ought to be referencing data and information about aeroplane crashes inline. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#References in Lists for a wider audience than this one article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In the mean time I have challenged the contents of this page, so I see no problem with putting the tag back, wouldn't you agree (per WP:MINREF which you noted)...? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I seem to have missed this litle spat.

My 2p worth is that in lists such as these, the established practice is that refs are not necessary iff the article corroborates the claim. Rather than tagging a problem if one is found, a better solution is to fix it. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be ideal to have the time and resources to research and fix all the issues, but I don't. But the issues do need to be fixed as this is the way the aviation project wants to keep the top-level list unreferenced, relying on references within the target articles. I wasn't allowed to ask for references at the list level, so this is what I've had to do, and I'm a little shocked at the number of issues I've discovered. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1920 Golders Green Handley Page O/400 crash

Just curious - why is this included? The STOP! editnotice says "Only commercial aircraft larger than 10 passengers are includable [sic]". This had four crew and four passengers. I couldn't find any data telling me if the 0/400 was "larger than 10 passengers"... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody reads the edit notices! this particularly aircraft has seats for seven passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So it should be removed, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And 1934 Hillman's Airways de Havilland Dragon Rapide crash? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you removing the O/400, although please note the current consensus is actually eight seats before 1940 so the Dragon Rapide is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the current consensus, I just read the editnotice... Perhaps that should be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure thats called for The Rambling Man, you should know better, if you have an issue then raise it, or did I miss the smiley. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the first time he has accused the aviation project(s) of WP:OWN. I made a complaint at ANI about it, but nobody there seems to think rules apply to administrators. You're the third person to voice dismay at what TRM continues to say....William 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You guys need to look closer to home before all the histrionics you're currently displaying. Dismay? I feel it. Check out the discussion about the edit notice on the 50 fatalities talk page, then read about irony, then move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is an editor allowed to be an administrator when he continues making personal attacks? This article which you tagged as unreferenced both here and at the article, is in fact referenced. ASN is just a reliable source for aviation articles as is baseball reference is for baseball player articles and the later there are hundreds of which only use BR as an EL but its considered referenced. No where does it say the reference has to be a inline citation. Now besides being insulting to the aviation members, you're failing WP:COMPETENCE....William 09:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:MINREF and avoid personal attacks. (And see the link below regarding project ownership claims). You've been warned by several others about wasting community time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A link for your convenience.

Removing this item from the list. User:MilborneOne, please could you show me the consensus about "eight seats before 1940" so I can suitably update the edit notice, thus preventing further confusion to our editors? (I can see the guideline, but no consensus for it). Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked the edit notice to make it clearer that the editors needs to have a look at the inclusion criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Definition of includable 'commercial' aircraft in the inclusion guideline mentions the "eight seats before 1940" and is linked from the edit notice. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but it was simply added at the behest of a single editor, back in the day. No consensus or debate? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As it has not been challenged and has been in use for many years it doesnt actually need a discussion or debate. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will mull that one over. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I recently added the article back into the list, having not seen this discussion; though I doubt seeing it would have changed my mind, because I disagree with this particular case. It struck me as strange that this article was not present, considering it seems to be the very first fatal crash of an airliner in regular airline service. (The 1919 Caproni crash predates it, but that airliner was being operated by the manufacturer on special flights and apparently never entered regular airline service.)

It seems to me that the "eight seats before 1940" guideline, while a generally good one as you get closer to 1940, may be a bit too restrictive for the first decade or so, since practical airliner capacities grew rapidly during this period as engines grew in power, technology improved, and competition increased. The O/400 may fall below the pre-1940 guideline, but in 1920 it was a monster of an airplane, one of the largest planes of its era. Also there may be special-case crashes, like the 1930 in-flight breakup of an all-metal Junkers, that may warrant inclusion anyway.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with CDH above. The accident should be included. Therefore I'm going to make a proposal. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

For aircraft types first manufactured before 1921, the criteria for inclusion shall be four passenger seats or more. The "in commercial service" criteria shall still apply. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing criteria but till a new consensus is agreed to then both the 1920 and the Junkers crash don't belong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Since we're talking about adjusting the list guidelines, shouldn't we move this discussion to the guideline talk page? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll copy this over. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (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.

1951 Ringway Dakota accident

This is a cargo aircraft crash, the Douglas C-47 Skytrain article states it could carry a payload of 2,700 kg, thus not meeting the criteria for inclusion in this list. Unless I've missed another unwritten consensus on cargo aircraft before 1952? Can someone confirm this should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree can be removed MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1958 Dan-Air Avro York crash

This is a cargo aircraft crash, the Avro York article states it could carry a payload of 9,100 kgt hus not meeting the criteria for inclusion in this list. Can someone confirm this should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1959 Air Charter Turkey crash

This is a cargo aircraft crash whose article indicates a maximum payload of around 5,500 lb. However, 12 people died. What's the inclusion deal here, and how is it best phrased in the editnotice? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Tudor had been converted into a dedicated cargo aircraft so I suspect the maximum payload was a lot greater, I will have a look around and see if I can find some figures. MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The converted aircraft had an all-up weight of 83,600lb and could carry at least 11,000lb payload so easily meets the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I assume you've added all that referenced material to the article? Could you link it here please? (Incidentally, I thought the criterion was 10,000 kg, not 10,000 lb...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Source for figures is [12], no I have not done the metric conversions yet but the inclusion criteria says with a gross takeoff weight of at least 20,000 pounds . That said for its day it was a serious freighter used to carry missiles from the UK to Australia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not 10 tons though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No not 10 tons but clearly more so it meets the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused? A gross takeoff weight of 20,000lbs isn't a cargo of 10 tens is it? Not even close. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK where does the 10 tons come from have I missed it in the guideline? MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, has it been removed since the discussions in the preceding two sections? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Just seen why we are both confused you are right the This page in a nutshell says "Only accidents with cargo aircraft larger than 10 tons are includable." but I was reading the body of the article which has something different! MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's not "includable" then? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The guideline has always said 20,000lbs since it was created in 2006 and the nutshell just said "larger cargo aircraft" it changed in 2007 to say larger than 10 tons but the main article body stayed the same! I would argue that the main body text has a greater weight than a nutshell. As a side note this aircraft accident may be notable as it was carrying secret rocket bits and they had to send a team up to destroy everything! all the figures aside for its day it was a run of the mill freighter but in my opinion should be included it was by no means a small aircraft for the 1950s. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So do you intend to adjust the inclusion criteria to include "interesting" aircraft incidents that don't necessarily meet the inclusion guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No it wasnt really the interesting factor but the size of the plane, I need to look at other contempary freighters of the time, probably DC-4s and DC-6s, perhaps we should have a seperate article for cargo aircraft accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft to supplement this list, if we have no objections then I suggest that cargo flights be moved to that article and removed here, with the guidance suitably adjusted. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And of course this list to be renamed "... involving commercial passenger aircraft"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Close to near-copyvio paraphrasing on this list (and its associated "target articles")

I've noticed, going through this list in some detail, that enormous amounts of text is literally copied-and-pasted from the Airline Safety Network site. Also, text within this list is copied-and-pasted almost verbatim from the target articles. Is this a commonly adopted approach from those who contribute to aviation lists and articles or does Wikipedia have special permission to use ASN text word-for-word? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No it is clearly wrong and should be tagged or removed depending on how serious (that is close to the original) it is. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Not wishing to make any excuses as it is clearly wrong but a lot of obscure accident articles were created by User:Ryan kirkpatrick and one of his hundreds of sockpuppets, as the user had a bad command of English it was usual for him to directly copy from the source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right, that's no excuse, nor is it a reason to replicate that copyvio when creating this unreferenced list of "target articles" which it now appears not only correctly reference challengeable claims (per WP:MINREF) but also violate copyright. What a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vieques Air Link Flight 901A

This appears to involve a Britten-Norman Islander which our article states seats up to nine passengers. As such it's not "includable". Can we concur on this and remove it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bar Harbor Airlines Flight 1808

This accident involved the Business Executive version of the Beechcraft Model 99 with seating for just eight passengers. Thus it should not be included here. Can we concur and remove it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The NTSB report says it had seating for 15-passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So is the article incorrect when it claims it be a BE variant? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked the article, no mention in the NTSB report or elsewhere that N300WP was not a commuter variant, I suspect "BE-99" is just sloppy abbreviation of Beech 99. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport bombing attempt

On Friday, December 13, Terry Lee Loewen was arrested for attempting to bomb the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.

So? Even if it had an article, it wouldn't go here. It isn't a aviation accident or incident involving a commercial aircraft either. This list's inclusion criteria can be found here[13] Should an article be made, it wouldn't go in the yearly templates either. It was discussed[14] a long time ago and airport bombings or terrorist attacks that take place at a airport don't get put in the template.

References

BOAC Constellation plane crash landing Singapore's Kallang airport March 1954 33 dead omitted from "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft"

Please note there is no mention of the above crash in the List comprehensively documented via Google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.98.44 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note there is no mention of the above crash in the List comprehensively documented via Google search. 82.26.98.44 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason it isn't on the list is simple- No Wikipedia article on it exists. Every entry on this list requires a Wikipedia article. So get at it if you want that accident on the list....William 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If no-one beats me to it, I'll knock something up tonight. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do it, since its the deadliest aviation accident to ever take place in Singapore. Just wasn't sure what to name the article. The flight had no number. I asked[15] another aviation editor for help with the title....William 15:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Start with 1954 BOAC Constellation crash and move it later if necessary? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started work on it. An article will be up some time today....William 15:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you enhance the current stub! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nairobi 1972?

There was a big crash of an international flight just after takeoff from Nairobi in February or March 1972. Valetude (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No such crash exists according to Aviation Safety Network[16]. Lufthansa Flight 540 crashed after departing Nairobi in Oct 1974. That's already mentioned on this list....William 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

LAN Chile Douglas DC-3 on 3 April 1961

Why is this crash which carried members of the Green Cross Chilean football team not included?

I hesitate to add in case I have misunderstood the criteria.

1st September 2015. In the absence of any comments I have added this incident to the page.

The wreckage has just been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kacey110 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasnt included because it had to have an article, the article was only created this year so you were right to add it now, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

West Air Sweden Flight 294

This is listed here but does not meet the qualifications at the bottom of the page. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you precise which condition is not met? Wykx (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

List guidelines and United Express Flight

I'll quote- An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

The aircraft was not being operated. It was still at the gate. See JetBlue flight attendant incident which isn't on this page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: People had boarded the aircraft with the intention of flight. There was an incident in which a person sustained injuries that have put him in hospital for several days, there is an article. Therefore it is correct that the article appears in the list. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not an aviation incident. It has nothing to do with a flight. The entry in the article was citing it as a PR disaster. It sure is. But it isn't a aviation accident. Passengers are removed from flights regularly usually for some form disorderly conduct and against their will. Is everyone of these a aviation accident because it took place on a plane at the gate? How about a drunk pilot who couldn't fix his seat[17] at the gate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

:::A bit on the fence on this one, I understand WilliamJEs point about it as having nothing to do with the flight but it did involve a commercial aircraft as per the article title. While it uses Infobox Aircraft occurrence infobox then it should be listed here. I dont actually think it should be treated as an aircraft occurence but as a customer service failing but that is up to the talk page of the article to sort out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I agree with WilliamJE I was commenting on the accident nav box in the wrong talk page, put it down to age. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, it better fits into the airline article. I'm inclined to second WilliamJE on this. This is surely not a standard aircraft occurrence. It took place on board an aircraft but this "administrative event" could also have happened at the boarding gate or elsewhere outside the aircraft.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think United Airlines Flight 3411 should be listed alongside other air accidents/incidents. I would consider as key questions the following: is this an event that aviation agencies (NTSB, AAIB etc) would take an interest in? Has it got anything to do with flight safety or security (= unlawful interference with flight ops)? Only if the answer is yes in both cases, then add it to the list. In fact, the people who directly caused the incident (the security officers) were completely unconnected with flight operations. I have indeed proposed to rename the article United Airlines overbooking incident and agree that the infobox Aircraft occurrence should not be used. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is against the inclusion. Should there be a hidden note to inform other editors not to add this event. @Deeday-UK: suggestions re infobox should be made at the article talk page. If you can find a better one, feel free to suggest it. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A hidden note is fine though we have to expect some editors won't see it. Look how many times the note in red (About the need for a dedicated wikipedia article) above the edit box isn't read or ignored.

If the article isn't listed here, it shouldn't be in the 2017 template either. Is that in agreement also?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree that the incident should not appear in the 2017 template either. It should really be treated just like the Nut rage incident, without any infobox too, for which I'm going to start a new discussion there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707005718/http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi to http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)