Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

B-class[edit]

I have reassessed the article as B-class, based on the criteria. It is well-sourced, neutral, and relatively complete. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Details from Internet buzz[edit]

According to specialty forums, the aircraft are N71MC, a Piper Cherokee Lance (AKA Piper PA-32R-300, a Piper Saratoga variant) registered in Port Washington, PA and N45xAE (the third number being unknown ATM), a Eurocopter EC130-B4 Ecureuil. Circeus (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Last night, video of the crash became available. The video shows what happened, but doesn't really add much to the discussion, except that the video was shot by the friends of the Italians killed in the chopper.Jeffutz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PD Images[edit]

Not sure if any Public Domain images from the US Coast Guard could help this article, but I found a few if needed.

-Marcusmax(speak) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted inaccuracies[edit]

My edit about the elevation and the timeline was reverted without comment here. These were material corrections to inaccuracies in the article. The 1,000 vs. 1,100 issue is important in whether air traffic controllers should have been involved. The info on handoff between Teteboro and Newark was also significant. Americasroof (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I regret giving no comment for this, but after discussion with Americasroof on my talk page, I decided to put the information back, but I still refrained from putting the 1100 feet correction back in. The sources that mention both figures are conflicting. If anyone knows an official source for the statistic, please feel free to edit 1000 and change it to 1100. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the most recent NTSB report from 8-14-09 says 1,100', I think that is the most definitive reference. I have changed it back to 1,100'. Seanfranklin (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a newspaper[edit]

How does this article pass WP:NOT? It's newsworthy for two news cycles, but make the case that it is belongs in an encylopedia. patsw (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While this is not part of WP Aircraft, the guidelines there I think are reasonable (see WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents. Unless and until this accident "result[s] in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)" it is not notable enough to warrant an article. Seanfranklin (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Crash information[edit]

I have worked on this section, because it was confusing, and left out important information inferring that this was the Piper's fault (NPOV problem). I am a licensed private pilot, and owned the same model plane, and flew the corridor many times in the old days. Familiarity with procedures is important to the proper understanding of what took place initially, and so far at least, blame cannot be assigned to either of the unfortunate crash participants. A look at this site will perhaps be helpful. Professional Pilots Rumor Network JohnClarknew (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA-nomination[edit]

I might be trying to push this article too quickly to GA-status, so please stop me if that is the case.

I think that this article has the qualities of a good article:

  • 1. It is generally well-written, and complies with MoS as far as I can see.
  • 2. It is factually accurate and has multiple sources (21 right now), all of which are credible news articles and documents by credible sources (e.g. NY Times, CNN, US Supreme Court).
  • 3. It is broad and covers all aspects of the event without excessive detail, and has info about the crash, recovery, investigation, and aftermath.
  • 4. It adheres to NPOV, and any statements that might possibly be considered points of view are all reliably sourced.
  • 5. There is no edit war and the article is stable. As far as I can tell, all of the edits in the past few days have been constructive or simply fixing errors.
  • 6. Though there are only two images, both are free US Coast Guard pictures, and if needed, there are additional pictures available.

Should we nominate, or hold off on it for some time? WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 13:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • After privately consulting other editors, I have nominated it for GA-status.

Auto Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hudson River collision of aircraft.jpg[edit]

What is this crap? I understand what it is but obviously it's terrible cropped and of every low quality. I don't think it adds much to this article. Any other thoughts? --Kuzwa (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NTSB report of August 14[edit]

The report was issued today, and since it clears up much of the speculation in specific factual terms, I have printed the full text in the article. Adjustments or deletion may be necessary in some duplicated parts of the story previously written. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that the report should referenced, relevant parts of the report be incorporated into the article and the report itself should be removed from the article. I also noticed the parts about the air traffic controllers being removed from duty are missing as it most of reference nytimes2. - Jeff Jeffutz (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to try this, but huge job, because trying to explain the report in every detail with the multiple necessary references would be IMO extremely time consuming and ultimately unsatisfactory. As for removing the reference to the TEB controller on the phone to his girlfriend, the report shows that there were in fact 2 controllers on the job right up to the moment of the collision, which creates a conflict with the previous report which said there was only one. Better at this point anyway to leave it out. See what develops. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The report doesn't need to be explained in every detail. Those who want every detail can read the report itself. Regardless, the text of the report should not be part of the article.Jeffutz (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A skimpy summary has replaced the report itself. OK, but I have provided a link to the report, which was missing. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt[edit]

This article doesn't stand a chance to become a GA in it's current state. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, not all the investigations have been completed, much less a final decision on whether the aircraft access rules for the Hudson corridor are going to be changed as a consequence of this . patsw (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POV issues[edit]

"One thing that is being considered is requiring all airplanes in the corridors around NYC to have Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B)" - with 2 references, neither of which says a word about requiring ADS/B for the corridor.

"Debora Hersman, chairwoman of the NTSB, as well as Mayor Bloomberg and many others called for safety improvements in the corridor." References don't say that either of those people are "calling for" safety improvements, only that discussions are under way and a vague blurb that Mayor Bloomberg would "welcome responsible changes in the oversight" of the corridor.

I have nominated the article for deletion but if it's going to stay, the POV needs to be improved. Seanfranklin (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some reading into the references a POV which is not being expressed by the people being quoted. I reviewed the WP:SNG for aircraft accidents and it seems to be a very low bar and in place for some time, so I withdraw the WP:NOTNEWS objection I raised above and concur with the WP:POV objection. patsw (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the "Aftermath" section. First, it is far too soon to be discussing the "Aftermath", the investigation is barely begun. Also, both paragraphs misrepresent the referenced articles with WP:NPOV issues. For example:
"Debora Hersman, chairwoman of the NTSB, as well as Mayor Bloomberg and many others called for safety improvements in the corridor."
The reference doesn't support this. Hersman said that unspecified suggestions had been made in the past about safety improvements for helicopter tour operators, but said nothing about the Corridor specifically. Mayor Bloomberg said that he would support changes, but did not "call for" them.
"The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents small aircraft owners and pilots, argues that the corridors are safe"
No such statement was made, the AOPA simply said that the most recent collision over the Hudson was in 1963.
One thing that is being considered is requiring all airplanes in the corridors around NYC to have Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B)
Neither reference says this. There are discussons of ADS-B technology, but I can find nothing in the quoted references, or elsewhere, indicating that mandatory ADS-B is being considered for the Corridor.
I considered attempting to rewrite with NPOV but since this is such a recent event, and no action has been taken as a result of it, I decided that the better solution was to remove the Aftermath section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanfranklin (talkcontribs) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph about "barbequeing a dead cat" - the prior paragraph covers the fact that there was a phone conversation, and that it appears not to have any relevence to the crash. NPOV. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there! I will be reviewing this article. Please be patient as I look through everything, despite the deletion discussion.--Edge3 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. I shall continue with the review. Here are my concerns:

Yes check.svg Done - These issues have been resolved, please look over the article to make sure it is in good shape. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll continue to review the article, but I won't make my final decision until the deletion discussion ends. --Edge3 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The NTSB report should be summarized. Readers don't need to see the whole thing. --Edge3 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Summarized and added a source to additional info about the report. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 19:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Authorities said the Piper's "low wing" design made it difficult to see below the aircraft and the helicopter's rotors make it difficult to see above. In addition, neither small aircraft was required to have a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder." Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Add info on public and government responses to the crash. I know that the NTSB hasn't made any recommendations yet, but at least provide some info on what people think should be done to make the airspace in Manhattan safer. --Edge3 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is going to be very difficult to do while maintaining NPOV. I removed the "Aftermath" section because it poorly represented the references and had POV issues. I chose to remove it altogether since the "Aftermath" is not going to be known for some time. I will, however, attempt to write a section that has NPOV and fairly summarizes all sides of this issue.Seanfranklin (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - New Aftermath section added. Seanfranklin (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to preserve NPOV. I understand that this is a very delicate article and will consider that fact when I make my final decision.--Edge3 (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "An investigation is being conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which sent a Go Team on the day of the crash." What is a Go Team? Provide a link if possible. --Edge3 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Added link to Investigations subsection on NTSB page, which contains info about what a Go-Team is. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Steven Altman, the pilot, his brother, Daniel, and his nephew, Douglas" and "Michele Norelli, Norelli's son Filippo Norelli, Fabio Gallazzi, Gallazzi's wife, Tiziana Pedroni, and Gallazzi's son, Giacomo Gallazzi": Putting appositives within a series can look very confusing; is there a way to tweak the wording here?--Edge3 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I have split the two family groups into separate sentences and added appropriate transition words; please tell me if anything more is warranted on these sentences. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Over the next several days, all of the bodies were found, and on the afternoon of August 11, all the bodies were accounted for after the last two bodies were discovered in the plane's wreckage." This sentence is redundant. If it first says that all of the bodies were found, it doesn't make sense to say that two bodies were found in the second part of the sentence. Maybe you could say: "All of the bodies were accounted for by August 11, when the last two bodies were discovered in the plane's wreckage."--Edge3 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Changed the sentence to "On the afternoon of August 11, two bodies were found, bringing the body total to nine and ending the search for bodies." Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Try to keep the last two paragraphs of the "Rescue effort and recovery" in chronological order.--Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I did this but then realized that the "Rescue effort and recovery" section could be renamed to "Emergency response" and two subsections "Rescue", comprised of the first paragraphs, and "Recovery", comprised of the last paragraphs, could be created. I'd say this addresses the problem. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is plenty of relevant info that you can add from this article. (The controllers unsuccessfully tried to contact the plane, the FAA placed the controller and his supervisor on leave, the NTSB rebuked the FAA for making comments about the controller's actions, etc.) This would add a lot of valuable details to the article.--Edge3 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the article adds anything relevant to the topic. Statements from both the NTSB and NATCA agree that the telephone conversation did not affect the outcome of the flight. Yes, the conversation was improper, but the specifics of it are fodder for slow-news days and tabloids. If the NTSB says that the conversation is not relevant, then it is not relevant. The NTSB initial report shows that the controller handed the Piper off to Newark tower 7 seconds prior to the accident helicopter even appearing on the controller's radar screen. When the helicopter did appear, it was at 400' - the Piper was at 1,100'. Within 30 seconds after instructing the Piper to contact Newark the controller made two separate attempts to contact the Piper again, unsuccessfully. Newark attempted to call him as well with no answer.
I do not have a problem with saying that the controller and supervisor were put on leave, that the NTSB rebuked NATCA (not the FAA) for their comments, and even that NATCA has been removed as a party to the investigation due to their actions. These are all Facts. However delving into the details of the conversation, when the currently released information indicates that the conversation did not affect the outcome, is simply being salacious. Seanfranklin (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said that the article should discuss the content of the controller's phone conversation; you're putting words in my mouth. I only recommended that the info I put in parenthesis in my previous comment be added. (I'm pretty sure the news article says FAA, but feel free to correct me) The fact that the controller unsuccessfully tried to contact the pilot is important. --Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, the NTSB rebuked both the FAA and NATCA that day. Lots of rebuking going on. I will review that article and see if there is some wheat amongst the chaff that would be useful to the topic. Seanfranklin (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Reviewing over the discussion about this item, I added the essential info from it to the article in a NPOV manner and sourced it. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Tourist flights out of the West 30th Street Heliport are scheduled to cease on March 31, 2010, and the heliport is scheduled to close on December 31, 2012, as a result of a court agreement between helicopter operators and a group called "Friends of Hudson River Park", who had objected to noise from the heliport." This event isn't a direct result of the crash and should be removed. --Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Agreed as unnecessary and removed. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Collision" section needs to be as comprehensive and detailed as possible. Try this source if you want. --Edge3 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I added the missing information from the source given and I believe that it has all the available info now. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article looks ready to pass. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Good job! For the part the rescue and recovery, not all of the agencies that responded were included. I added ones as I saw them mentioned in the newspaper articles as I read them. It says nothing about the Hobokem police or FD. I can't imagine they didn't respond. Weehawken is just up the river, they have responded. If they responded, unless they had specialized equipment or dive teams, I suspect that they were just turned back after they arrived on scene. The section is incomplete as far as who did the actual recovery (It is clear from the news stories and pictures that NYPD and NJ state police did the dives, the Coast Guard provide the big boats and the dives were done from NYPD boats, but there may have been other agencies involved), or what roles they did. In addition, there was a safety zone set up around where they thought the wreckage was, but, the article talks about it for only one day. In all likelihood, the safety zone lasted until Aug 14 or 15, though the area was probably modified.Jeffutz (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Investigation: Controller joked about barbecuing cat[edit]

This is a deleted edit:

On 2009-08-18, in transcripts obtained by the Associated Press, an air traffic controller was joking on the phone about barbecuing a dead cat minutes before the accident.
Lowy, Joan (2009-08-19). "Transcript: Controller joked about barbecuing cat". Associated Press.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

I made this edit because it confirmed in a very specific way, information which was only until the release of the transcript part of the record as tentative and vague leak. Objectively, it is a big addition to the story. I can state this because it led the local television news on Tuesday and newspapers on Wednesday. Had it been an insignificant to the August 8 accident in the judgment of others following this story, I would have not added it. Any accurate account of the accident should mention the transcript. Follow-ons to this story discuss the loss of "situational awareness" that the distraction of personal phone calls create. What do others think about this edit? patsw (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Patrick. I put this on your Talk page, you may not have seen it - Patrick, I removed the paragraph you'd added to 2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision regarding the content of the controller's phone conversation. I don't doubt that you considered it relevant, I am not accusing you of vandalism - but I do feel that the prior (remaining) paragraph covers the fact that there was an improper conversation, and that it appeared to not be a causal factor in the crash. The information you added, IMO, put a POV tilt on the article. I hope you understand my perspective on this. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition to the above, it's important to be truly objective. The mainstream media is not doing so. If you were to read or listen to most news reports, you might be under the impression that the controller was just chatting away instead of telling the accident pilot about traffic conflicts. In fact, if you read the (poorly worded) original NTSB press release, you'd find that the controller handed the Piper off to Newark tower prior to the accident helicopter even appearing on his scope - then within the next 30 seconds, when the helicopter had appeared and was showing as a potential conflict, he twice attempted to reach the Piper without success - the Piper had apparently changed frequencies, but not to Newark (they tried to reach him too). What frequency was the Piper on? We don't know. This is exactly the kind of speculation I'm trying to keep out of this article, and the main reason I believe it should be deleted until after the NTSB Probable Cause report is issued, which will contain facts. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sean, I've laid out my case and you have laid out yours. My purpose in doing so is to get the feedback of other editors. To reply to what Sean wrote above, a good place to start to look at things objectively is to take yourself out of the picture and look at how others see it.
  • It is not my subjective assessment this adds to the story, it was the assessment of everyone looking it now, from news editors to aviation bloggers.
  • The transcript's release is a fact.
  • The impact of the transcript on the story is a fact.
The transcript has not been characterized by anyone as being fabricated -- which it would have been if it were not what Carl Turner said on the phone on August 8 -- and Sean's characterization of it as speculation is misleading. Its omission makes the article incomplete patsw (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The transcript's release is a fact - Agreed.
The impact of the transcript on the story is a fact - No, the impact of the transcript on news reporting is a fact. The impact on the event is speculation. Wikipedia is not news. Seanfranklin (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bury the lede[edit]

A few days later, the AP story from 2009-08-18 is back in the article. Sean, I thought you thought the Wikipedia was not news -- so what's the point of adding this insignificant detail:

Due to the accident, the FAA put the controller and his supervisor on leave and made comments about their actions. However, the NTSB rebuked the FAA for doing so, stating that only the NTSB has the authority to determine the controller's contribution to the incident.

But not this:

On August 18, 2009, in transcripts obtained by the Associated Press, an air traffic controller was joking on the phone about barbecuing a dead cat minutes before the accident.

If the rebuke belongs in the article, the phone call transcript summary belongs in the article. It was the headline and the point of the story. (Lowy, Joan (2009-08-19). "Transcript: Controller joked about barbecuing cat". Associated Press.  Check date values in: |date= (help))patsw (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that, Whaatt did. I do think it's apples and oranges, though. You can note that there was improper conduct without being salacious about the details.
For example, in the Bill Clinton article it's noted that there was an improper sexual relationship with an intern - but they don't quote the titilating details (though they did make headlines at the time) from the transcripts. The article on John Geoghan summarizes the crimes he committed in general terms, but doesn't detail the specific acts he committed (with one exception, and IMO that should be removed).
Does anyone besides Patrick and I have an opinion on this? Seanfranklin (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to remain impartial during the GA review, but since the review is now over, I shall now share my opinions. We need to maintain a balance between too little and too much detail. The section as it currently stands has too little detail, whereas Patsw's proposal has too much detail. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the FAA put the controllers on leave for misbehavior pending an investigation, but pointed out that their actions probably didn't contribute to the collision. By stating the facts this way, we are giving readers an idea of exactly what comments the FAA made without going into too much detail over the content of the phone conversation. --Edge3 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After reading reading the reports, we certainly can't say if the controller's telephone conversation contributed to the crash. I think the NTSB said the chopper was on the radar screen even the controller didn't see it. I think the best thing to do to say that because of concerns of improper behavior around the time of the crash, the guys were releived of duty pending further investigation, with a link that talks about the cat talk. As Blumberg said, until the NTSB determines what did and didn't happen or contribute, we don't really know. The FAA and the controller union have said that cat talk didn't contribute to the crash, but we can't go by these, either.Jeffutz (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You raise a valid point. It was an FAA statement saying that the controller and supervisor were suspended for "improper behavior", and they also stated that it appeared that the controller's actions did not contribute to the accident. As I understand it, the NTSB quarrel did not deal with the first part of the statement, but with the second. In essence, the FAA is welcome to suspend anyone they want, and issue statements in that regard, but they may not (are not supposed to, anyway) make statements about how such actions are related to an ongoing investigation, and certainly not in regard to causation. The NTSB may only release statements of that sort, and they have not done so.
Since the (barbequed) cat is "out of the bag", I think it's proper that this article mention the suspension but it should do so very carefully. These controllers are people, subject to the same expectation of privacy and neutrality as anyone should get under WP:BLP. Though an extreme example, consider the fate of Peter Nielsen. He was an air traffic controller who had a mid-air occur under his watch, and he was later murdered by a family member of some of the victims of the crash! Seanfranklin (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
After the US Air 1549 ditch, the air traffic controller took a leave of absence for a few months. I don't know that this air traffic controller or his supervisor would automatically be put on leave or took a leave.Jeffutz (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfc: Is the phone call relevant[edit]

This article is mostly written by specialist editors one of which has deleted a short reference to a widely reported phone call by a air traffic controller. Another editor considers it reliably sourced and relevant. patsw (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Of all the arguments I had heard against any edit, the idea that adding 15 words of text (the cited reference is already in the article) -- the lamest is "too much detail" -- that's 0.06% growth, or six ten thousandths to the size of this 2,400 byte article. I know that there are axes to be ground here -- players in GA, ATC, FAA, NTSB, etc. A whole alphabet soup of potential spins and editors with an special expertise and a special interest in the public presentation of the case. The Wikipedia is not a court of review of the actions of the participants in the accident. It's certainly not a matter of what we know or we don't know. The wrong criteria are being used on this edit. Since the transcripts were reported by the AP and run in newspapers throughout the world, and its authenticity was not denied we have reliably sourced content. The Wikipedia is not censored.

The only question at this point is whether the phone conversation ("barbecueing a cat") which preceded or occurred during the accident has some lasting relevance to to the story or will become irrelevant. For editors looking at this fresh I am appealing to WP:MTAA (non-technical) and WP:MTTMP (broad audience). If there's any account written for a general audience since 8/18 which omits any mention of the telephone, let's see it, but I don't think one can be found. In summary, it is relevant and it belongs in the article. patsw (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're arguing that the article should mention the phone call, the conversation is over. It already does, and no one is saying it shouldn't. The question is, should it mention the detailed content of portions of the conversation that do not have anything to do with the accident. Some of the news media actually do continue to report on the event without being lured by titilating conversations about barbequed cats: Aug 25 article, Aug 23 article, Aug 22 article.
The fact that there was a phone conversation is certainly relevant. I would be shocked if the NTSB Probable Cause report did not address the phone conversation, even if just to say that it was not a factor. For now, saying that the conversation was not business related and that it should not have occured while the controller was working traffic is enough. Linking to the transcript (if available, I've only seen articles quoting phrases from it but have not found a link for the full transcript) is fine - in the same way that we link to the NTSB Factual Report without regurgitating minutia from it. Quoting the content of the conversation just because it's a funny topic is not relevant. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have explained my position, I believe it's clearly a WP:POV and WP:NOTNEWS issue. The fact that there was a non-business related telephone conversation is relevant. It's an improper conversation, which resulted in his suspension. The content of the conversation is not relevant, and it is unnecessarily inflamatory. It wouldn't matter if the conversation were phone sex, or ordering a pizza. The best information we have (NTSB Factual Report) indicates that the conversation did not contribute to the accident, because the accident helicopter did not appear on radar until after the Piper had changed frequencies.
Which of the 5 pillars do you feel supports adding this information? The only argument I'm hearing is that "CNN said it", which only supports my WP:NOTNEWS objection. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • examiner.com is a group blog, and that particular article included the author's own speculative reconstruction of the accident: Sean, do you know exactly when Carl Turner saw a blip? Michael A. Harris seems to know. Do you want Harris' reporting added to the article? Also, since examiner.com also incorporates AP stories, barbecuing a cat was mentioned in the linked articles.
  • the stuff.co.nz article was describing the funeral of a victim, three other stories on this site on the accident mention barbecuing a cat
  • at least two other UPI.com wire stories covered the transcript's release and mentioned barbecuing a cat patsw (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy that directly affects us now since you opened up a request for comment. Not enough editors have commented yet, so it might take a while to figure out what should be written on the article.--Edge3 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS applies as well. --Edge3 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The phone call and its topic being mentioned in news accounts doesn't create a presumption for excluding it. For crying out loud, it is/was the AP's headline, hence, the previous section heading was titled "Burying the Lede". There are many other accurate details which appeared in news accounts which I would advise against including on the basis they are not going to be significant in the long term to tell the story. I think what separates me from specialist editors here is that I think in terms of a complete story, not the anticipation of the final NTSB accident report. patsw (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think what's important is that the controller was on the phone during the crash, and the exact content of the conversation is merely extra info. As I said, we're here to form a consensus now, not to interpret guidelines. --Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand: Consensus is a not a matter of polling people, it is interpreting policies and guidelines and applying them to resolve an editing dispute. What Wikipedia policy or guideline requires text I characterize as "headline" and "lede" and what you characterize as "extra info" be excluded? patsw (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
But there is no guideline that directly affects our situation. Notability requirements normally apply to stand-alone articles, not sections or statements. Consensus is a necessity in all collaborations, as there will always be situations in which we cannot cite policy. Therefore, what I am essentially arguing is that the barbecued cat shouldn't be mentioned not because of policy, but because it doesn't add a lot of useful info to the article. --Edge3 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The current text is fine in that it mentions the phone call, no need to go into details. It doesnt appear to be relevant to the accident at the moment, the tower controller had already handed the aircraft over to Newark so did not have any responsibility for the flight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Error regarding flight rules[edit]

"Within this corridor, aircraft operate under visual flight rules, under which the responsibility to see and avoid other air traffic rests with the individual pilots rather than with the air traffic controller." - the flight rules (VFR or IFR) under which an aircraft is flying does not automatically determine if the pilot is responsible maintaining separation to other aircraft. Instead, it is the combination of airspace classification (A to G) and flight rules that determine whether or not the air traffic controller provides separation between aircraft. Hence the statement in this article should be rephrased. 91.152.41.79 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can get around to this after my long wikibreak...in the meantime, why don't you attempt editing it? Thanks, WhaattSpeakContrib 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, reviewing the article from which this statement was sourced, I believe it is correct information...could you please provide some clarification on what you are trying to say? Thanks, WhaattSpeakContrib 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)