Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 229: Line 229:


::For large civil aircraft the "or" is there to show that any one of these parameters would qualify. ''Serious damage to the aircraft'' does not include dents, but would include hull loss or the need for depot level type repairs. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
::For large civil aircraft the "or" is there to show that any one of these parameters would qualify. ''Serious damage to the aircraft'' does not include dents, but would include hull loss or the need for depot level type repairs. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
{{clear|both}}


==CGI-type images==
==CGI-type images==

Revision as of 23:10, 23 July 2013

AfD

2010 (UTC)

Negligence

Cases where there was no loss of life or change to regulation can be significant if there was negligence on the part of people. Northwest Airlines Flight 188 where pilots ignored indications they had flown off course is a obvious example. It is an incident, not an accident. patsw (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a useful point, but as you point out in that case was not an accident. Do you have another example of an accident you think should be included that the current criteria would exclude? - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that your proposed text would add "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process." I think that is far too broad. For instance a Cessna 172 that was being flown IFR and crashed because the pilot did not go around at Decision Height on an ILS approach when the runway environment was not in view would qualify under your criteria as it would be a failure to follow regulations, but would hardly be a notable accident. Probably half of all the accidents that occur each year involve some rule-breaking and therefore could be construed as negligence. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Are you saying that a accident where the investigation finds negligence to be a factor is not to be included in the Wikipedia? Is negligence really that common? patsw (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past this guideline has tried to cover every eventuality and frankly got itself in a right muddle and was often discredited and used by both side in the same AfD discussion. At the moment it is a general guide for accidents and incidents but if you think that an accident and incident would meet the general notability guidelines and WP:EVENT for stand-alone article for other reasons then it would not be a problem as long as it could be justified if it went to an AfD. A personal opinion is that the quoted incident is not actually that notable unless it eventually causes a change in the regulations so perhaps should be tested at an AfD. In the end they had licences withdrawn and a were sent a stern letter it didnt go to a criminal charge. MilborneOne (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually accident investigations in most countries (USA, Canada, UK, Europe) are not allowed to make findings of negligence. The accident investigators, like the NTSB in the USA, TSB in Canada etc are only allowed to determine cause factors and are prohibited from assigning blame, or that criminal changes should be laid. The reason for this is that if they were assigned those functions then no one would cooperate with the investigation and most accident causes would not be accurately determined. The purpose of accident investigations is entirely to prevent re-occurrences. Accidents may separately result in lawsuits or criminal investigations, but in most countries these legal proceedings are prohibited from using the accident investigation reports in court. Instead the plaintiffs or prosecutors must conduct their own investigations from scratch to pursue the case. So getting to your point: in most countries the accident investigation is prohibited from finding negligence in an accident, instead they list cause factors, which is quite different. If there was a separate criminal or civil legal proceeding regarding an accident that certainly could be mentioned in the article on the accident and in fact some articles where this is a factor this is mentioned, but as I indicated above the current criteria for including accidents in an article or for a stand-alone article is not a finding of negligence. As mentioned the majority of aircraft accidents probably involve rule-breaking, especially more recent accidents since there are now so many rules that prohibit almost anything that could cause an accident that it is harder to crash an aircraft without breaking a maintenance or flight rule or regulation. If we use this as a criteria then it would justify articles on every minor accident. For example: a pilot can't start his PA-18 Super Cub because the battery is dead, so he hand props it after setting the brakes. The first attempt doesn't work, so he increases the throttle setting and the aircraft starts, runs away and hits three other aircraft before stopping. In Canada this would be a clear violation of CAR 602.10 and also probably CAR 602.01. It is also a clear case of negligence, should the owners of the other aircraft wish to sue, and so would qualify for its own article or at least a write up in the Piper PA-18 article under your criteria, but clearly this is a non-notable accident that happens at least a few dozen times a year and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What your source for the above? Accidents and incidents can be caused by negligence, and investigators make findings of negligence all the time. Do you understand what is meant by negligence? It is not limited to a finding of a civil or criminal liability.
  • The article I cited above Northwest Airlines Flight 188, would be deleted by the guideline as currently written (i.e. no deaths, no damage, no reg changes). Do you endorse that outcome? It would be a change from existing practice.
  • I am not advocating that articles such as your hypothetical be included. Could you offer an actual article or proposed article as an example of the point you are trying to make?
  • The Wiki-lawers constructing the guideline wrote it as accidents or incidents "should only be included if  ..." which in plain English is "must include ...". Negligence is a reason for including an article in Wikipedia apart from the other three criteria, so I added it to the guideline. Addition of a negligence criterion doesn't mean that any negligence-related topic is automatically included, on the contrary, it creates only the possibility of being included, subject to all the other criteria for article inclusion. patsw (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually aircraft accident investigators do not make findings of negligence at least not in non-third world countries, in most western countries they are prohibited from doing so. A good example of this is the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, whose mandate specifically says: "In making its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of a transportation occurrence, it is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. However, the Board does not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board’s findings. No finding of the Board should be construed as assigning fault or determining civil or criminal liability. Findings of the Board are not binding on the parties to any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings." The rules for the US NTSB are very similar as are all European ones too.
The problem I have is that by including your wording it would justify writing articles on tens of thousands of minor accidents. If you want to see an example of a real world accident that your criteria would justify creating a stand alone article then consider this one. The Cirrus SR-20 was 235 lbs over gross weight when it departed, a clear violation of the regulations and most lawyers would probably argue was gross negligence. In this case the over-weight Cirrus was involved in a loss of control over the mountains at night and came down under parachute, there were no injuries and in fact the aircraft was repaired and flew again, so it wasn't even a write-off. There were no Airworthiness Directives issued or other changes to rules or procedures and no criminal charges were laid or air regulations sanctions were assessed as a result of this accident, although perhaps they could have been. As you can see in that investigation the findings do not include any mentions of negligence or even that this violates any rules or regulations. This report is actually very typical of TSB reports and also of those from any western country. While an interesting story it is clearly non-notable in Wikipedia terms and thus does not have an article on it. With the addition of your criteria, despite your comment "Addition of a negligence criterion doesn't mean that any negligence-related topic is automatically included, on the contrary, it creates only the possibility of being included, subject to all the other criteria for article inclusion" if this article were written then it would be pretty much impossible to get it deleted as the TSB article clearly establishes notability and your inclusion of "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process" would justify having an article on it under WP:AIRCRASH. There are tens of thousands of accidents like this that involve rule breaking and have enough refs to establish notability, but are otherwise non-notable and should not be in Wikipedia.- Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for taking note of the distinction between negligence and a legal finding of liability. The guideline criteria are necessary but not sufficient. The guidelines list criteria for establishing the possibility of an article being included, not the mandate to include it, or even the certainty of it being included. I want to list negligence among death, damage, and reg change as criteria for the possibility of including an accident/incident related article. Please stop assuming that my motivation for this is to introduce trivial articles. My motive here is to include articles on significant aviation accidents/incidents in which do not include death, damage, or reg change such Northwest Airlines Flight 188, which would be deleted under this guideline as written. The example given, Report Number A04P0110, is trivial, if it were proposed for Wikipedia, I would nominate it for deletion. patsw (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might nominate it for deletion, but it would be hard to argue that as it would comply with both WP:N and WP:AIRCRASH. By no means was I indicating that you were advocating the creation of a large number of articles on trivial subjects, just that the changed text you proposed: "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process" would allow other editors to create these articles and that they would not be easy to argue for deletion at AfD. If your interest is in including articles where a court convicted a participant of criminal changes including negligence then I think we can look at that. I wouldn't want to include civil negligence as a great number of accidents that go to court end up with someone found liable and these can be for very minor things like damage to property as in the hand-propping accident I described above. In that case, if the pilot had no insurance, then the other aircraft owners whose property was damaged would have to sue the pilot to get their aircraft fixed (or their insurance companies would) and the courts would find him civilly liable and order him to pay. I don't think we need to go that far as, again it could justify a lot of trivial articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: how about we just add to each category "or criminal conviction"? Would that cover it? - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at that one article that you brought up Northwest Airlines Flight 188. I find that a difficult one. I am not sure how you could write a guideline that would include it or even if you should. Consider this: the flight overflew destination because the crew was asleep or distracted (depending on who you believe) and then turned around and landed. No one got hurt, no equipment was damaged and the crew got licence suspensions. No criminal charges were laid, no findings of civil or criminal negligence were done either. If this had been a military aircraft or any kind of light aircraft then this would have barely made the news, if at all. If anyone wrote a Wikipedia article about a Cessna 150 that flew past destination and then turned around and landed safely and resulted in a licence suspension I am sure it would be deleted very quickly as totally non-notable. I am not convinced we should have this article at all, it seems more like a WP:NOTNEWS case to me. Assuming you think we should have this article then I would suggest that we not try and write the inclusion criteria around it, because it would be impossible to include this and not include thousands of similar non-notable incidents. Maybe it would be best to stick to a relatively tight criteria and then look at that one article under WP:IAR if people think it should be kept regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said NW188 doesnt appear to be notable so I dont think we need any changes. As Ahunt has said if an incident resulted in some criminal charges then it wouldnt need this guideline the general notability guidlines could be used. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of that Northwest Airlines Flight 188 article I tend to agree, I don't think it is a notable incident, it was more a like a "slow news day". I am not going to nominate it for AfD, but if someone else did I would probably go for "delete". - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the "Accident" guideline or the "Accident/Incident" guideline

There seems to be disagreement on this talk page about this, and I'd like to know the scope of the guideline too. patsw (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware it has always been related to accidents/incidents which is reflected in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest then it that be reflected in the title as well. patsw (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Accident and incident article notability if that is agreeable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it would not be a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Airport_articles, it isn't clear whether or not all of the conditions need to be true. For clarity it ought to say something like: "...Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if all of these conditions are met:...". If this was covered above, or if I'm stupidly missing something obvious, please forgive me and disregard this post. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ground collisions

The recent A380/CRJ-700 collision at JFK has highlighted an omission from the guideline. This should really be covered.

In the case of two aircraft over 5,700kg being involved in a ground collision, at least one of them must sustain substantial damage in order for the incident to be worthy of mention

or similar wording may be worth adding. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reading it over I really think these are adequetely covered. For non-light aircraft it says "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport", which I think is a reasonable cut-off for both air or ground accidents.. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Template format

G'day all, a discussion concerning the formatting of the aviation accidents and incidents templates has been initiated at Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011. YSSYguy (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Geological Black Thursday Air Disaster

Special:Contributions/174.47.149.131 has been adding a 1972 accident to a Piper PA-32 N4278R to a number of articles, like June 1972, Tail number and Aircraft registration, it doesnt appear to be notable so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP User has re-added the accident to June 1972, I have raised it at Talk:June 1972, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it as well - it fails WP:AIRCRASH among other inclusion standards. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change AIRCRASH

With some recent debates like this one about this guideline, which, despite its simplicity is still confusing people, I think it may be time to make it simpler yet. The other factor is accidents that don't quite fit but seem worth including in type articles, like the two prototype crashes that greatly affected the development of the Cessna 162. In that case the two accidents involved no fatalities or even serious injuries, but did result in redesigns to the aircraft, so they are included in the type article because they were important to the final design configuration and the length of time to market. I think we can both simplify the inclusion standard consensus and address this last point with one simple change. I propose that for the light aircraft/military aircraft section in Aircraft type articles that we remove the requirement for hull loss/ground damage or fatalities so it just reads:

Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving military aircraft and light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

- Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. In the case of the 162, for instance it resulted in design changes. How about this slightly modified version then:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving military aircraft and light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
- Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a good revision. (The earlier version above is OK too.) The part about the gross weight is only meant for the light civil aircraft. Hopefully that is clear enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, let me clarify that. How about this version:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
- Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - dont have a problem with the idea of the change but the 162 accident is notable to the type article as part of the development history of the type so doesnt really need to be covered by wp:aircrash. That said I would still support the change as above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think the first incident by type would also be included. And also incidents that have their own articles or sections in other articles should be listed. (There are other notability standards which may result in incident articles besides AIRCRASH).. and the last for aircraft which flyable versions no longer exist. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree with those last points. There is nothing more significant about the first (or last) crash on a particular aircraft type unless it results in changes to the design or procedures, in which case it is covered above. If, for instance, the first crash resulted in a design change or an AD then it would meet the criteria. The same would apply if the last crash caused the fleet to be grounded. This consensus criteria is exactly for the purposes of establishing whether accidents should be included in aircraft type or stand-alone crash articles. If a crash is mentioned as the cause of death in a Wikipedia biography article, for instance, then it would automatically meet this criteria, because it involved a notable person. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, so the latest version would be:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
- Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to this, but adding the word "usually" to make "...the standard for inclusion is usually:", because there are going to be exceptions. For example the death of a notable person in a light aircraft accident doesn't always merit a standalone article, sometimes a section on the bio article is the way it is covered (e.g. Colin McRae#Death); in other cases there will be significant ground damage that makes it worthy of an article - e.g. if a light plane piloted by a non-notable person crashes into a crowd killing the pilot and dozens of people on the ground and paralysing but not killing the notable passenger, then it's likely the crash would be notable. However, making the effects on the ground a third bullet, but making it optional (i.e. requiring only one of 'notable person's death', 'significant changes' and 'ground effects') would I think be better. I don't know what the 'ground effects' requirements would be but I think it needs to be more than a single death. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is classed as just an essay and not a policy or guideline I am not sure adding "usually" will change the outcome. Ultimately if people want to argue WP:GNG then it will probably prevail over this essay. Lacking any other traffic on this subject in the last six days I will go ahead and make the change. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

The article reads, for example:

Accidents and incidents. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if:

  • The accident caused human fatalities.
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
  • The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry

But, to me this is not so explicit, in that it does not say if all criteria need to be met or just one. Danrok (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same question as Danrok. Currently, in the Aircraft section there is an or after the first two points. Which means, for example a serious damage to the aircraft aka every remarkable dent would give the accident notabiliy? Whoa. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For large civil aircraft the "or" is there to show that any one of these parameters would qualify. Serious damage to the aircraft does not include dents, but would include hull loss or the need for depot level type repairs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CGI-type images

A number of accident articles use CGI type images used to give an impression of the aircraft/crash, the one at Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 I notice is now at a 45 degree angle, it was different before. I believe that the use of such images is really original research and could give a misleading interpretation of what actually happened. Should we remove such made-up images in air accident articles? MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to draw a map to illustrate an aspect of an article - since these can be compared to published maps - it's another to create an image purporting to accurately portray a crash. Unless it was produced by a Reliable Source. Changing a photo to make it more dramatic doesn't sound like taking a NPOV either. Sticking with stock photos of similar airframes is safer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these are WP:OR unless they come from a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied these comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force to gain a bit more exposure. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR says "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1]" If you don't consider accident reports and photographs to be reliable published sources, you don't understand the rules about WP:RS. 17:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Better tell the people who voted to delete the picture of the Chengdu J-20 on the grounds that any Wikipedian could make a drawing of the aircraft... But yes, these could well be misleading and should be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No more misleading than any other illustration, and there are plenty of others here on Wikipedia. Anyone seen these before, they both pre-date my images.
Made by a Wikipedian
Made by a Wikipedian
Read the sources from Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, the NTSB report says "WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE." Combined with what the plane actually looked like it's pretty easy to see this is not just some unresearched postulation:
In short, like the folks who made those other images, I've made free versions of the kind of thing one sees in school books to the same standards. WP:IUP is the rule which applies to images, and using the same sources cited in the article isn't WP:OR. To make the PSA 1771 image OR, I'd have to have added smoke or shown it hitting at a shallow angle. Anynobody(?) 01:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to be getting duplicated - I have responded at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#CGI-type_images. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Aeroflot Tu-134 accident

I've nominated the article for deletion, as failing each of the three criteria included in WP:AIRCRASH. You're invited to comment on the matter. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to Airport

There is a growing trend to associate incidents with an airport where the aircraft involved was only destined for said airport. No other connection with the crash would warrant its association. I suggest adding a qualifier under "Airports" which stated something to the effect of * Some aspect of the accident occurred near or on the grounds of the airport. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It has been discussed before (for example, see Crashes and airports (Nov 2012), Accidents/Incidents (Feb 2012)). I think there were other discussions as well. The general consensus is that we don't add accidents or incidents to airport pages unless the accident actually occurred on or near the airport. It's pretty obvious that aircraft involved in accidents thousands of miles away from an airport aren't notable - even if that airport was the point of origin or destination for the flight. It never got added to the project guide on the grounds that it was common sense, but if this issue keeps coming up maybe we do need to add a note to clarify this. I would support that. Let's see what other editors think. SempreVolando (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though per WP:AIRCRASH, that contradicts it. It is notable if it involves fatalities, a hull-loss, or a change in procedure. That's my $0.02. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an accident on the other side of the world is not notable to the airport however notable in itself, took the liberty to change the wording of aircrash per previous discussions to Accidents or incidents at the airport should only be included in airport articles if: main change is "at the airport" which to clarify is also meant to include on final approach or departure but not tens of miles away. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others. Why would the incident be included if it didn't happen at that location? If someone was killed in a car crash on the way to the airport, you wouldn't include that, so why include flights? --JetBlast (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some, like the United Airlines Flight 93 are still notable, but maybe not some of the '70's and '80's that happened over the Pacific. OK? WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I dont understand as far as I can see UAL93 is not notable as far as airports are concerned as it didnt crash anywhere near one. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the clarification on this issue. A testament to the ability of Wikipedia to legitimately consider other points of view and arrive at a consensus. Cheers! 50.0.103.34 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of criticism from ALPA based on questions designed to raise doubts about the real cause of the crash or to divert blame from the pilots. Does ALPA's criticism help the reader to understand better the crash or even the investigation? 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents&oldid=565544182"