Talk:Air safety

Navigation aids

I added VOR route navigation, to that section, and provided both internal and external links.

--EditorASC 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine Failure

I revised the part on the Gimli Glider. Much of the wording was taken word-for-word from other websites, without attribution. Also, the phrase "electro-hydraulic system" was fantasy nomenclature, to put it mildly. There is no such system on the 767, or any other airliner, that I know of.

--EditorASC 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalling

The following has been removed from the Stalling section – seems original research to me.

Stalling the engine of an aircraft (i.e. causing it to stop working), although a rare problem, is thought to have been the reason for the 1973 crash of the Tupolev Tu-144 "Konkordski".

Please substantiate if willing to re-merge. BACbKA 20:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Fortunately, the fatal incident rate has continued to decline steadily ever since, and since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 miles flown, making it one of the safest modes of transport." Who can prove this is correct? What about the August-2005 fatal accidents?

Fire

I cleaned up some of the wording of the ValuJet DC-9 accident. Oxyen generators are installed only in seatbacks, not in the overheads. Revised confusing statements about air tight cargo compartments.

Oxygen generators in the seats? They're in the overheads. The rest looks great. Dbchip 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--EditorASC 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My apology; it was late at night and I was pretty fatigued. I screwed up my own wording. I meant to say that the oxygen generators are not ONLY in the overheads but also in the seatbacks. The difference is between some wide bodied and narrow bodied airliners. The "overhead" is too high above the passengers, in some of the wide bodied planes, so they install the generators in the seatbacks. DC-10s are done that way.

Since I screwed it up on my last attempt, I will leave it to you to choose the way to word it, so that it won't give the impression that the generators are found ONLY in the overheads.

EditorASC 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What is a hull-loss accident?

I'm no expert on these things, and I'm trying to work out exactly what a "hull-loss accident" is. I presume that it means when the "aircraft" as a whole is unrecoverable but are there subtleties to this, e.g. you write off the fuselage and recover the engines? It just seems like a strange use of the word "hull" which doubtless means something. I can't find anything on Wikipedia which elaborates further. If someone could enlighten us (or suggest a source and I'll happily write an article) then that would be great. The only thing I've been able to find is on Boeing's website [1] which states that a hull-loss is when the "airplane" isn't "economically repairable". Is that all there is to it? Iancaddy 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After Googling around, I get the impression that it's an insurance term. Sort of how the average person would use "the car was totaled" to mean it wasn't repairable. Or, rather, that it wouldn't be economically worth it to repair it. I think that's the case with this phrase. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hull losses are when an aircraft is damaged to the point where it is not used again (ie scrapped) Some incidents can be classified as 'hull loss' even if the damage is reletively minor. Often if an elderly aircraft is damaged it is not worth repairing since it was due to be scrapped soon.

---

It simply means that the plane was not repaired and put back into service. Such decisions are almost always based strictly on economics. For example, if repairing the plane would cost more than it would to buy another used one like it, after considering what could be earned by selling the wreck for salvage, then the plane will normally be written off as a "hull-loss." Another scenario would be that it was planned to be soon retired from service anyway, and sold for whatever the secondary market might bring. In that case, all but the most minor repairs, would make it much more sensible to use the money for new aircraft purchases.

There is one exception, that I know of: The Qantas 747-400, that ran off the end of the runway at BangKok. It should have been written off as a hull-loss, especially since what was left, would have recouped a lot of that loss, if sold for salvage parts. But, Qantas made a PR decision to spend several millions more, to have the plane rebuilt and put back into service, so they could continue to tell the world that they have never had jet hull-loss.

--EditorASC 03:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delamination

I believe the crash of A300-600, AAL587, was not a result of delamination - it was a result of the attachements failing, rather than the tailfin itself. The huge metal anchor that kept the tailfin attached to the fuselage failed because it passed the ultimate load due to "rudder reversal" not because full rudder authority being exercised.

Rudder reversal is where full rudder is applied in opposite directions in quick succsession at highspeed and most airliners are liable to suffer fatal structual failure because of this. The safety bulletin issued regarding rudder reversals was ALSO released by Boeing, not just Airbus - and stated that fatal structual failure could result on any of its aircraft because of high-speed rudder reversal. Delamination may have occured, but the accident would have happened with or without it.

"On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 260 persons aboard and 5 more on the ground. Both the engines of the Airbus A300-600, the rudder and the tail fin separated from the plane before impact. The pilot had been trained to use full rudder deflection to recover from wake-induced turbulence, which overstressed the fin. Numerous modern aircraft developed related problems, but most were discovered before they caused a catastrophic failure."

"Full rudder deflection" - that didn't cause it alone, it was swinging full left to full right and doing the same repeatedly that caused it. See the following: http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudder.pdf - UK AIS http://www.wingfiles.com/files/flight/useofrudderonairbus.pdf - NSTB

This sounds like something from the anti-Airbus lobby. It never actually says delamination caused it but it implies so and I've removed the text. If I am in error feel free to add it back in. Also the engine deattachement wasn't due to the use of composites either - I think. I am pretty sure about the rudder failure tho - delamination was not the cause, and presenting as so is unfair.

I can now backup my claims at this link http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/board_mtg_anim.htm . The Video clearly shows repeated rudder reversals before failure.

---

NB: Notice someone has reverted it but not mentioned this here, hence I am putting it back to my edit...

Alleged cell phone hazard

I think this statement, near the end of the human factors section, should be removed:

        "Some plane crashes are believed to have been caused by the use of cell phones."

While such allegations have been made, they have never been backed up with hard evidence. Whenever anecdotal reports of interference with navigation systems have been made, they have never been able to reproduce it with subsequent scientific testing. So far, such allegations are nothing more than classic Post Hoc reasoning. I am not aware of any accident, where the official invesitgative report found that the use of any passenger electronic device, was the cause of the crash.

I think there should be some hard evidence to support such claims, before they are included in an article like this.

--EditorASC 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the allegation that cell phones have caused crashes. That simply is not true. Also cleaned up the wording on cell phone use, to reflect the fact that it has been the FCC regulations which prohibit inflight use, unless the planes are specially wired and certified (that is happening now, but very few planes meet that new tech requirement).

EditorASC 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nautical miles or statute miles?

Can somebody clarify what kind of miles is used in risk estimation figures? I'd also appreciate a translation to kilometres.

Shure can do. Normal miles were use in that article, despite the fact that nautical miles are used in aircraft. NathanJunyk (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seating position matters

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article? I'm not sure where to put it, though. Esn 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive internal links

From September 16th to today, 66.108.191.45 (talk · contribs · logs) has slowly been adding a HUGE number of internal links throughout this article, which range from barely relevant (like Active noise reduction) to totally irrelevant (like Timeline of AIDS.) See this difference between revisions, most of which (but not all) was done by that user. In order to cut down on overlinking I'm going through the article and getting rid of most of the unimportant and irrelevant links cluttering it up. If anyone thinks some should be put back, feel free to restore the good ones. Also, please be alert for later edits by 66.108.191.45. Not all of their edits were bad, but the link creep has gotten excessive. Thanks. -- HiEv 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, should the "Accidents and incidents" and "Regulation" sections (both are collections of internal links) be incorporated into the "See also" section? Should some items be deleted from any of those sections? It looks like there should be more organization there if it's going to stay this large, perhaps grouping into categories. -- HiEv 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has there been consideration of a "flight safety" section where, perhaps some of these issues could find a home? --Michaelsbaum 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone bear in mind

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html

Air is NOT the safest form of transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.164.119 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Passenger hours versus miles

While the article mentions the oft-quoted statistics about safety based on passenger-miles traveled, has anyone ever done a comparison based on passenger-hours traveled? Seems to me that that would be a more realistic measure of travel safety. This measure would probably correlate to the lifetime odds of dying. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the New Scientist web article linked to in previous post above mentions,

The most accurate method is to compare the number of deaths with the number of journeys made. So accurate, in fact, that this is the measure used by the industry and its insurers. This makes much more sense, because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went. Also, it enables comparison of different types of jet, both long haul and short haul.

By this measure, air travel takes on a rather different complexion. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airliners compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains. Only motorbikes, at 100 deaths per 100 million passenger journeys, are more risky than aircraft on this basis.

So, no, air travel is not the safest mode of travel. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the above argument assumes that the choice is between flying vs choosing an alternative destination that's within driving distance. But if getting to a given destination is a requirement, so you're comparing flying vs other means of getting somewhere that's X miles away, then the mileage comparison is the correct one, and air travel is indeed safest. Joule36e5 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"because what matters to the individual is the journey, not how long it took or how far it went" - erm no. What matters to the individual is still being alive and in one piece at the end of the journey. There is a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that common statement "You're more likely to die on the way to the airport than on a plane flight from there" is generally incorrect, based on a typical length of a car/bus ride to the airport vs. typical flight and considering per-passenger-trip statistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

It would be good if someone could find the actual DETR survey report on which all of these statistics are based. Until that is done, I don't consider the stats verifiable. Meneth (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The DETR survey that is cited is from 98/99 statistics, which makes it quite old. The US Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2006 http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2007/pdf/entire.pdf. Also the Aus Dept of Transportation has a report with statistics up to 2007 http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/39/Files/ATS_2008.pdf. Maybe someone is willing to compile this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.198.12 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Something not adding up - According to Nat'l Transportation Board, car accidents account for 94% of transporation fatalities. Odds of dying from car 1/20,000, odds of dying from plane 1/500,000. Please see both references -> [2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.102.115 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to verify one figure in the stats: aviation fatalities. According to NTSB report about accidents on regular airlines, the best (non-zero) year was 2004 with 0.006 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours. This is 60 deaths per billion hours. The stats on the wiki page says about 30.8 deaths per billion hrs, which is twice less. But I took the best year only. If we count other years too, and other flight types (non-scheduled, air-taxis, general aviaton), the number will increase to several hundreds. So I'd rather don't consider the stats as valid at all. All numbers in the table were taken from one article which doesn't have any references to official statistical data used in calculations. Bronx (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to know whether the air figure there includes private planes (which are much more unsafe) or only commercial airlines. John C PI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Here is another statistical report (from EU) comparing various modes of transportation by fatality rate (per distance and time traveled). www.etsc.eu/oldsite/statoverv.pdf This is a good read, and some of the numbers appear to be quite different from those referenced in this article. Perhaps it is worth reviewing the numbers and using those from the report instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.41.250 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail on ValuJet

The Fire section had way to much detail on the Valujet crash. I've deleted the following:

"The investigation determined that improperly packaged chemical oxygen generators (used for the drop-down oxygen masks in the aircraft cabin) had been loaded into the cargo hold. Oxygen generators produce oxygen through a chemical reaction that also generates hundreds of degrees of heat. When installed for use in the ceiling above the passenger seats they are surrounded by heat-resistant shielding and present no fire hazard. On this flight they had been put loosely into a cardboard box for shipment from a maintenance facility.

"It is likely that one or more of the generators ignited, during or immediately after takeoff, producing an oxygen-rich environment. The cardboard box containing the generators would have quickly caught fire from the heat of the ignited generator. The fire spread to an aircraft tire that was also carried in the hold. Ordinarily the fire would have smothered itself, because of the airtight design of that cargo compartment. But the oxygen generators kept feeding oxygen to the fire, defeating the smothering design of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 cargo hold. The fire rapidly burned through the passenger cabin floor, incapacitating all aboard with smoke and poisonous gases very quickly. The pilots, although having smoke masks and separate oxygen supplies, had no hope of maintaining control as control cables and electrical wiring burned through.

"The maintenance facility (SabreTech) was subjected to large fines and ValuJet, due to this accident and other irregularities, was grounded. The airline reemerged as a smaller airline and eventually merged with AirTran Airways, a smaller carrier. Adopting the acquired airline's name, the airline has since provided safe service. For the airline industry, rules for the shipment of oxygen generators was severely restricted and cargo holds on larger airliners were required to have "fire bottles" installed."

69.7.41.230 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

External link

I recently cleaned out the external links section in accordance with WP:EL and there was a link I removed which appears to be a reliable source so I'm listing it here if anyone wants to use it to improve the article.

• The Adolescence of Aviation Psychology

ThemFromSpace 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Business & Econimics Research

A Basic Analysis of Aging Aircraft, Region of the World, and Accidents seems like a paper that could be used for incorporating into this article. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic Ash + airline safety--resources mentioned elsewhere

This article already seems to have a number of references to government documents and SKYbrary regarding volcanic ash. If you want more references (and possibly more info) for this section, I noticed that several resources, including scientific publications, were mentioned at Talk:Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption/Archive_1#Nice_article_on_the_engine_topic. In the popular press, the Wall Street Journal published an article, How One Airline Skirts the Ash Clouds, on April 21st discussing Alaska Airline's safety measures for dealing with ash.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Shooting down by hostile country

Adding Ukraine's shot down of the Russian flight from Tel Aviv to a list where countries responded to either a violation of their airspace or as part of a military operation within a conflict is misleading as it suggests there were hostilities between Russia and Ukraine at the time of the shot down or that the airplane was shot down as a response to vioolation of Ukrainian airspace. 189.141.57.87 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Saladin

Purpose of image

Under the heading "Navigation aids and instrument flight" there is an image of a runway map of an airport in Israel and a comment about how the map was misprinted. I can't see the relevance to this article, and the misprint is not mentioned in the article on that airport. Am I missing something? 59.101.18.204 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

True, misprint is not (yet?) mentioned in the article – but - supplying the pilot with a wrong airfield traffic pattern chart might be regarded as a major contributing factor leading to a flight failure. As such it seems to me natural to be included in the Air safety article. Actually, any misinformation given to the flight crew, be it on the radio, by printed material or by devices such as GPS, VASI, lights etc., might be regarded as air safety risk as well. Consequently I would add a MISINFORMATION section to the article, in which such topics are discussed and referenced. I think the map is highly relevant to the article but if you find a better place please suggest one. Inserting the map in the specific airport article is irrelevant. On the other hand you can find it well in error. Etan J. Tal 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

DVT or Deep Vein Thrombosis

I'd like to see this briefly discussed, especially with the aging population in the US.

198.22.21.50 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Related documents

• "36th Annual International Seminar ‘Investigating New Frontiers of Safety’ Sept. 12–15, 2005 Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.." International Society of Air Safety Investigators

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hypoxia / G-forces

I would suggest briefly mentioning the effects of hypoxia or high G-forces on a pilot's ability to maintain situational awareness and control of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.214.156 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Other possible health hazards

I think the following paragraph should be removed:

Other possible health hazards

Other health hazards may include cosmic rays (when flying above much of the Earths atmosphere), Deep vein thrombosis (from lack of movement), and chemical contamination of cabin air.

First one (cosmic rays) is too much like a weasel word statement, not to mention that radiation from the Sun is a health hazard all over the planet, not just in airliners. If we are to include such dubious "hazards" as that, then we should also mention that stepping out of an open door, while the meals are being loaded at the gate, can be fatal to passengers (that has actually happened).

Deep vein thrombosis is extremely rare and it has yet to be proved that the risk is significantly greater on an airliner, than in autos, trains, boats or just sitting too long around one's own home.

The "chemical contamination of cabin air" links to the article on Aerotoxic Syndrome. However, after reading that article, there is nothing in it which establishes that ANYONE has ever been harmed by airliner cabin air. The section of that article, which discusses media hype of that subject, indicates it may be a way to sell newspapers, but there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that breathing airliner cabin air is hazardous to health.

If we are to put crap like that into an otherwise excellent article as this, then maybe we should include the risk of collision with alien spacecraft?

An aside: It appears that the article has been "protected" against us IP Editors, but I can find no discussion as to why? The revision history doesn't seem to indicate a vandalizing problem, so would appreciate the removal of that "protection," if there is no good reason for it. Thank you, 66.81.53.103 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that paragraph to make clear that these are possible health hazards that have been investigated and added some references to show this. I think the article should have wikilinks to the articles on these subjects and it's better in the text than in a long See also list. This article doesn't attempt to say whether aerotoxic is real or not - it just links the reader to the article that discusses the details. As for this being "an otherwise excellent article", I have to disagree - why for example does the terrorism section have a paragraph on cellphones and mid-air collision doesn't get mentioned in the text? I'm slowly working through a long list of things. If you can find a reference to a serious study into the risk of collision with alien spacecraft then that might be worth adding as well! DexDor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears you were correct about the quality of the article overall. That's what I get for commenting after only a rapid skim thru, instead of taking the time to read it all with careful consideration. I like the way you took care of the undue emphasis on the minor "hazards" like DVT, etc. Reading the medical literature on that subject, indicates that it is standard for doctors/hospitals to warn all post surgery patients about prolonged sitting in ANY situation, including too long in a chair at home. Which is why I didn't think that kind of risk merited any mention in an article like this, because the location of the patient, when sitting too long, is not what causes the danger. It is just the sitting, too long ANYWHERE.

I am trying to help improve some of the paragraphs, that you correctly observed as needing improvement. Please let me know if I make any blunders; I don't have many hours to work on Wiki, like a lot of editors, so I am far less experienced. Cheers, 66.81.52.109 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good edits - I've just tweaked slightly. Letters to editor aren't WP:RS, but IMO better than no ref. Re post-operative DVT - (I'm aware from real-life that) it can be fatal, but that's a reason to mention it in the appropriate medical article (it probably is) rather than remove from Health hazards of air travel. I hope you'll continue editting and recommend you get a wikipedia account. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the link to that letter-to-editor, until I read it. Not the usual LTE type of post. The response to the initial person inquiring, goes into considerable detail about the findings of the NTSB investigation into that AMR Eagle crash, so I didn't see grounds to remove that cite link, especially since so many Wiki Aviation articles cite similar web aviation articles as being properly authoritative. Whether or not such articles are in response to a LTE type of inquiry, shouldn't be determinative (as to reliability), IMHO. Seems the substance and details provided in the article itself, should be the guideline. But then, I am not an expert on Wiki rules; just trying to use some common sense and logic as to what should be considered a reliable source.

Thanks for adding the cites needed tags. Most of those statements were already there, when I did the revision. Now, I know what needs to be supported with proper cites. Will see what I can find. 66.81.52.181 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the cited website when I replied earlier (morning rush). I'm not sure how RS that website is (and it calls Boscombe Down "Bascombe-Downs"!) Also does it actually compare straight/swept wings? This article's got pushed a bit down my to-do list, but I'll get back to it one day. Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US). DexDor (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hmmmm, hadn't noticed the spelling difference between BAS vs BOS. That might be related to the differences in the way Brits and Yankees spell various words. I tried Googling and found quite a few spelled with the Bascombe version: [4], [5]. This American Newspaper spells it "Bascomb Downs."[6]

As to straight wings, vs swept wings, that is a logical inference on my part. I am not aware of any turbo-prop airliners that have swept wings. I think they all have straight airfoils which enable them to operate on much shorter runways, than can swept wing airliners. The downside is that the straight airfoil is much more susceptible to airframe icing, than are the swept wings.

Another point that might need to be clarified, is that the turboprop airliners usually have de-icing boots on both wings and the tail section. But, most modern day pure jet airliners, with swept wings, do not have any de-icing or anti-icing system at all, for their tail sections. One of the sentences I was trying to edit, seemed to make no distinction, about tail de-icing/anti-icing systems for the tails of those two different types of planes. I was not sure how important it was to clarify that. It would require a bit more additional text, I think, to avoid any misunderstanding of Wiki readers on that rather esoteric point. Would appreciate your opinion on the importance, or not, of correcting that passage.

Thanks again for all your help. I am learning a lot from your vast experience. 66.81.53.2 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Bas/Bos - If the one fact I know in some text is wrong then it does make me (perhaps wrongly) doubt the rest. If you've common sense and good intentions then IMO making edits and learning from any adjustments other users make to them is a better use of time than reading rules. If you've any queries that aren't directly related to the article they'd be better on my talk page. I'm no expert on leading edges and haven't got time at moment so can't really help you there - just make sure you're not straying into WP:OR. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive examples and diversity of accidents

In response to your comment of:

"Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US)."

I agree, and I did consider trimming back some of those excessive lists of accidents, as you eventually did. However, because those lists were placed there by others, I have been a bit reluctant to remove what other editors have posted, lest I be accused of trying to start an edit war. Probably better for someone like you to do that, as I haven't had enough experience yet to cut out a lot of the edits of others, without worrying too much about it causing offense. Instead, I have attempted re-writes that improve clarity, while trying to preserve as much as possible, that was posted by previous editors.

As to adding accidents from around the world (not just US), I did do that; possibly you missed it because you have many other projects to work on, besides this article. For instance, I added three new, non-American accidents here: [7]. 66.81.53.113 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my comment was becoz I've seen articles where some editors seem to think "Foo" means "Foo in the US" not your particular edits. If you've a good reason to delete stuff then be WP:BOLD and make sure you explain in edit summary. In cases like this you're not deleting the info from WP - it's still in the edit history and in the main article for each accident. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to other articles

There should be something about water safety or ship safety, i.e., safety of relating to travel on the water. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)