Talk:2024 in aviation

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Importance?"

As is obvious, there are a lot of events here tagged as dubious importance, and I was wondering what standard should be used to try and determine what is run-of-the-mill and what is notable. I'm hoping this section can be a general header, and then specific cases can be replies to it. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger death: I've looked through the 2023, 2022, and 2021 articles and found no other instances of a passenger death being considered notable in-and-of-itself. A search on Google for "Plane passenger dies" gives news articles from the January 2nd 2024, December 2023, November 2023, October 2023, September 2023, and April 2023. (I can't be bothered to link them, trust me please). I therefore don't think that a passenger dying is, in itself, notable enough. I have taken the liberty of the entry about a man found dead in the toilet of a plane headed for Tenerife, although I have left the man found dead in engine cowling as that seems more unusal so want to leave it to discuss.

I therefore propose that the rule of thumb be that passenger deaths not be considered notable for the purposes of this article SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Aviation: I've skimmed the 2023, 22, and 21 articles, and generally they do not involve crashes of general aviation aircraft unless there are other exceptional circumstances, such as a massive search effort or the plane being escorted by fighters. I just find it interesting that GA crashes, even with 4 victims, is argued as non-notable, but a CL-145 crashing with 2 casualties, or 2 fighters colliding during training with 0 is. I'm not reccommending anything here, I'm just pointing it out and asking for suggestions SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For general aviation, as I commented in the discussion last year, there are literally hundreds of GA accidents with fatalities each year, so an accident would need to be notable for some other reason to be included here. It has been suggested that any accident notable enough to have its own article (in accordance the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH) should be included. I mostly agree with that suggestion, though I'm not totally convinced about accidents that derive their notability solely from the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page when there are no notable aviation-related factors. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my note below, you can use the criteria already laid out at notability in accidents. It suggests that light and military aircraft generally are not notable, but large aircraft are. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft orders: This doesn't seem to be a problem on this article yet, but if the rest are anything to judge by it will be. Do large orders of airliners count as notable? IMO they probably should because they're big and aviation-related, but that's just a gut reaction. Thoughts? SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B-1b Crash: This one is more specific. Someone removed the B-1b crash at Ellsworth AFB saying it should "go in the military aviation article". I'm assuming they meant this article. While it does fit there, I don't think the articles are mutually exclusive. This one is broader in scope but narrower in time (Aviation, 1 year), and that one is narrower in scope but broader in time (Military aviation incidents, decade). IMO nothing in there means that an event can only be in one. Additionally, I also feel that a supersonic, intercontinental nuclear-capable bomber crashing should probably count as notable. On the military aviation article there are only 3 incidents involving a bomber listed, and one was an accidental bombing, so it feels rare enough to be notable as well.

I've re-added the incident, but left the disputed importance marker, with a note to look at the talk page.SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this here. I tried last year to trigger a similar discussion (Talk:2023 in aviation#Criteria for inclusion on this page) but participation wasn't wide enough to reach any form of consensus. Let's hope this time will be more fruitful. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw this, but only casual editor of this page/topic. Looking at the page there is WikiProject Aviation - they have pages on general notability and notability in accidents. Perhaps all "aviation accidents by year" articles should have these links commented in the main page, and posted in the text? Are these guidelines acceptable? I suspect if not, the best thing is to open a discussion at the aviation project page directly, and then put a link to that discussion on this page. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored some {{importance-inline}} tags on a few run-of-the-mill events that don't meet the WP:AIRCRASH criteria and that fall under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As I said on the talk page of the IP user who removed these, if we were to add anything and everything aviation-related that happens during the year, we'd be left with a useless mess that would interest almost nobody. If we consider the encyclopedic value of what we add, we'll hopefully end up with something useful when readers look back on these pages in a few years time.

I'd be grateful if other uninvolved editors would give their opinions on these events so that we can reach consensus on whether any of these are encyclopedically notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the CH-53E Super Stallion Crash in San Diego fit into this article?

Judging it has 5 deaths and is a significant millitary aircraft that went missing and was found crashed, i believe it could be included in this article. However i cannot find an exact date for it, multiple sources say different dates and times. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

run-of-the-mill incident

emergency landings should not be included in this article (in my opinion), they occur almost everytime and its not worthy to include them in. TyHaliburtn (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm

Why should we not note the UA incident? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because such incidents happen regularly and there was nothing special about this occurrence. They might be newsworthy, but see Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 28th Piper PA-35 Incident Not being listed

The Piper PA-35 incident is listed at the bottom of the page as the deadliest civillian crash. However when you go to the date that is stated it does not list it at all, should the event be added to the list or be removed entirely from the bottom of the page? I would say the first one but im looking for some answers. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the usual WP:AIRCRASH criteria, it doesn't have its own article and is not notable enough to warrant one. Furthermore, its current status as deadliest civilian crash of 2024 is statistically unlikely to last until the end of the year. I'd also note that we don't actually have a reliable source stating that it is the deadliest crash, we are working by deduction (which is, technically, WP:OR). All that said, I'd be tempted to leave it for now and review our position depending on how good a year for aviation safety 2024 turns out to be. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is Non-Notable

I guess we are removing everything according to Rosbif73. Apparently everything is non-notable and is a run-of-the-mill incident. By all logic here, everything is run-of-the-mill because all the crashes listed are deaths under 6. No major plane crash has yet to happen in 2024. Also i hope you are aware that if a flight has an article, it meets the requirements and is newsworthy for it to be created. I won't be editing because it will just end up getting reverted and the response being "non-notable". TyHaliburtn (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is non-notable, but events that occur dozens if not hundreds of times a year have little to no encyclopedic value. Try the WP:10YEARTEST: imagine yourself in 2034, looking back at this page, and ask yourself whether the events in question were really notable and whether they have any lasting relevance to the aviation industry.

I am well aware that a few of the recent GA accidents have articles of their own, but I'd be very surprised if they survive the AfD discussions that will inevitably take place once enough time has passed to see if they have lasting effects or continued coverage beyond the initial news cycle. Almost any event that involves even a single casualty is newsworthy, especially in local news sources, but newsworthiness is not sufficient to give encyclopedic value. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of just adding the importance-incline. Some people think is notable and some don't. TyHaliburtn (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, we are going to have to decide whether to keep these incidents or not. I believe that the incidents with minimal or no injuries and.or damage and the general aviation accidents are far too common and are forgotten quickly after they happen. I would say all incidents that have been tagged with the importance tag fall under these issues. If you were to search up any of those incidents, I would be surprised if you could information that is not from the first day or two after the incident (from agency's not obligated to investigate the incidents like investigation agency's). As mentioned by Rosbif73, these incidents happen dozens perhaps hundreds of times per year and don't have lasting effects or coverage and fail the 10-year test. TL;DR: Adding the importance-inline is only a temporary solution and these incidents aren't notable enough to be permantly on this article.RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian IL-76 Transport Crash

This is the second crash of an IL-76 that killed 15, would this be considerably notable? I was thinking about adding it into the listings but i just need clarification for now. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a separate page, List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present), and today's IL-76 crash is already listed there. I also see that a specific article has also been created at 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash. There's no hard-and-fast rule for including military crashes here (indeed, we have enough difficulty agreeing on which civilian accidents to list), but if you think it deserves to be added then there's no harm in being WP:BOLD. I won't revert it, but if anyone else does then please respect WP:BRD and wait for consensus to emerge before adding it back again. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, im fairly new to editing so ive been looking for guidelines here and using the Wiki Teahouse, i thank the expirenced people who have helped me learn. Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 35

This type of aviation incident happens all the time and Wikipedia is not news. The article itself is nominated for deletation. I think, like other events people removed from this article, we should erase it. Thoughts? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its article might get deleted doesn't mean we remove it from here TyHaliburtn (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he gave more than one reason CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was, at best, newsworthy, but definitely not encyclopedic. It is already tagged (by me) in this article as being of dubious importance, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and I would strongly favour removing it (and several other minor incidents).

The existence, or deletion, of a separate article is not directly a reason for including or deleting it here. An event that meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT is more likely to be worthy of note here than one that doesn't, but there are events noted here (maiden flights, major aircraft orders, for example) that aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, and equally there are events that meet GNG for other reasons but are not notable from an aviation point of view. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should we remove it or leave it? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is clear, I hope! It would be good if other editors weighed in so that we have a stronger consensus to delete this and other non-notable incidents. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i have decided that more people like the idea of having them removed so i'll remove them. TyHaliburtn (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded text

I have added bolded text on more fatal crashes and in my opinion enhances it for readers to read through the long page more quick. TyHaliburtn (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Thoughts on adding incidents or anything involving 2024 in aviation with an article? TyHaliburtn (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]