User talk:Centpacrr

US Airways 1549

This sentence has been removed. It was previously moved, and can still be found, in the aftermath section. This sentence does not belong in the introduction to the article... it is minutiae. The introduction is a place for broad information about the incident, not the insurance disposition of the plane. Thanks.

"The almost ten year old airplane (N106US, c/n 1044) was written off."

Re: Rescue: the tugboat did not arrive until 4:30 after all the occupants had been rescued

The tugboat mentioned is actually a Former Coast Guard Buoy Tender named the LT Michael P. Murphy. In the pictures its up beside the cockpit on the right hand side of the aircraft. It is the only personal boat to respond. My accout is posted on my web site at http://www.ussnewyork.com/wordpress/?p=223 with pictures and is as follows

Miracle on the Hudson January 15th, 2009 Filed under: New York Metro — skoen @ 11:57 pm I was warming up my boat, the M/V LT Michael P. Murphy, today at Linclon Harbor Yacht Club, getting it ready for the big freeze tomorrow when I heard a call on the radio “Airplane down in the North River”. I’m figuring a Cessna or the like and I put it full ahead and head out into the river to see if it’s near me. I look to the North and I see a tail sticking out of the water, a big tail, 757 possibly. The aircraft is about a mile away so it takes me a few minutes to get on site. As I approach there are 4 NY Water Way ferries maneuvering to pick up survivors who are both on the wing and in rafts. I have a 46 ft Ex USCG Buoy Tender with a white angled stripe on the side which is low to the water so I pull up beside the cockpit on the right side of the AC and slide aft to pick up victims.

There are 2 men standing on the wing in waist deep water, one is trying to keep the raft from floating away by holding onto the emergency exit and the rafts rope. He is not trying to get on the raft but just protecting the 14 people that are. They look cold wet and shaken. He looks worse. I maneuver back to the wing but I am reluctant to keep my engine in gear in case someone goes in the water, so I have one of the ferries pin me to the side of the aircraft so I can grab the closest man and pull him on board. He says “Thank You” and “Please help the others” and climbs aboard the ferry to get warm. Its difficult for me because I am the only one on my boat, I have to run from the pilothouse to maneuver then aft to assist rescue. As more assets arrive everything is moving up and down with the waves and it gets a little rough.

At this point the ferry and my boat have twisted around and people are getting on his rescue ladder, which is kind of like a cargo net. I abandon my boat and climb aboard the ferry to assist. The hero with the rope finally jumps into the water and slithers aboard the raft. Everyone on board says “him first” so he tries to climb up the ladder. At this point he is extremely hypothermic, his limbs are shaking and he needs help. I climb down beside him and start pulling him up, first by the arms, then the belt. Finally he gets topside. I stay on the net and keep pulling the others up. The raft is moving in and out, I am more worried about someone else going in the water so I let go and wait for the ferry captain to gently nudge us back in. The Coast Guard is on the other side of the raft so it’s now a choice, Warm Ferry with a climb or another raft with a motor. My hands are so cold they quit working and are just claws, but that works in this situation.

As the last victim climbs up I loose my glasses, I can see them below me on the net, I figure, just payment for 150 lives and climb up.

Scott Koen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for passing along that fascinating first hand account. At the time I posted the comment, the only tugboat about which I had been able to find any then documented report ("One Tugboat's Race to the Rescue" The New York TIMES Cityroom Blog, January 16, 2009) was one called the CO which according to the TIMES account, had come up from Governor's Island and arrived on the scene about 4:30 pm after all the passengers had already been rescued. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Reference to your boat and a link to your account has been added to the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)_

New mailplane article

Hi again Centpacrr

Just thought I'd give you a "heads up" to a new article on the Ryan M-1, since I know that it touches on a couple of your areas of expertise. :)

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added an image of Charles Lindbergh and his Ryan B-1 Brougham (NX4215) from my collection of original Lindberghiana photographs. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Many thanks! I really hate to bring this up, but I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of that photo. Do you know who took it and/or when and where it was first published? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know in how many publications that it may have appeared because I scanned it from an original period photographic print in my collection of Linberghiana. The print is marked only as a Ryan Co. publicity photo taken and distributed to the media for that purpose in 1927. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, this means Wikipedia almost certainly can't use it. If it was first published in the United States between 1923 and 1978, in the normal course of events, it will enter the public domain after 95 years (but see below for exceptions). This photo can't have been taken earlier than 1927, meaning that (assuming that it was published at all during this time), the earliest it can enter the public domain is 2022.

On the other hand, if the photo remained unpublished, its entry into the public domain depends on whether it was the work of a private photographer (and Ryan just bought a print, that you now own), or if it was a work for hire carried out by a Ryan employee or contractor. If the former, it will enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death (which is why I asked if you knew who took the photo). If the intellectual property belonged to Ryan or the identity of the photographer cannot be established, copyright will last for 120 years from the date the photo was taken, and it will enter the public domain in 2047.

There are three ways that I can immediately think of that this may now be in the public domain:

1. We can find out who the photographer was and can establish that she or he died before 1939

2. We can establish that the copyright was allowed to lapse when it came up for renewal 28 years after first publication (1955?)

3. We can establish the first publication of the photo and show that it was published without a copyright notice.

Failing that, unfortunately, it will have to go.

Needless to say I'm embarrassed that I have to say this after you kindly agreed to contribute to an article that I invited you to! :( --Rlandmann (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I've tagged the image as needing both source and license data. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the 1927 Ryan publicity photograph with an original digital "watercolor" illustration based on the scene in the photograph. This is now a derivative work that I created and to which I own the copyright. You are welcome to add it to your Ryan M-1 article if you care to. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

You can certainly release your derivative work under whatever license you choose, but it doesn't get us around the fundamental problem that the work you've based it on is almost certainly protected by copyright at present. (In other words, anyone seeking to re-use the work would need to adhere to the terms of your licence and obtain a licence from the copyright holder of the original image). Take a look at our article on derivative works, in particular the section on "When does derivative-work liability exist?". This image still embodies a substantial amount of the underlying work. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had previously read the derivative work article and we apparently interpret derivative-work liability differently. My digitally created "watercolor" image is my own original colorized artistic interpretation of the scene depicted in this publicity photograph which is, I believe, sufficiently different to be an copyrightable in and of itself. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not questioning that your "remixed" version constitutes a derivative work and that the copyright protecting your additions to the work belongs to you to license as you please (although it's debatable whether they include sufficient originality to be copyrightable, but I'm not arguing the point).

17 U.S.C. § 106 provides: "...the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work..." Only the owner of the copyright in the original image can authorize derivative works based upon the image, and you haven't obtained that permission.

The law provides exceptions, however, when the derivative work is fundamentally repurposed ("transformed"). Parody is the traditional example of this and in recent years, material archived by search engines has become another. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

I happened to notice that your talk page has become very very long and you might want to set up automatic archiving. This is possible by using one of MiszaBot's bots. You could paste the following template {{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 60K |counter = 10 |minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadstoarchive = 2 |algo = old(14d) |archive = User talk:Centpacrr/Archive%(counter)d }} into the top of your talk page. Further instructions are available at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo in order to understand the variable settings. You might also want to add an archive box to the main talk page. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you took my advise. I took the liberty of adding an archive box for you, ready for the bot to do its work which it does every 3-7 days. Add more pages as you need them in the same format - remove if not happy. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

I would advise against using such a big file as 250k, up to 100k is reasonable and loads in a reasonable time, maybe 150k, but it's up to you. ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that MiszaBot did its first run but for some reason, possibly because no initial page had been created, it archived into oblivion. I have created 2 archive pages and put the archived contents there for you. When I set mine up I had already done some manual archiving so there was already an archive 1 page to continue on from. I don't see any reason why the bot should not deal with it properly from now on but I will observe it from here on the next run it makes in about 8 days time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Image

If you're interested in continuing the discussion regarding the use of your image in the Replica section on the Spirit page, I've started a new section. If I were you, however, I'd drop the matter entirely. Rklawton (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversion without discussion - especially after civil invitation - could get you blocked. Please take up the discussion on the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already responded on the SoSL talk page. I do not, however, consider "If I were you, however, I'd drop the matter entirely." or your image is "crap" and "self promotion" to be much of a a civil invitation. If you review the histories of the SoSL and Lindbergh articles you will find that I have made more than 620 edits and contributions to these articles over the past year including providing many images if unique articles of Linberghiana from my collections. There was no image at all linked to this page until I linked them less than an hour ago. If you think that the image of G-AUIX has a greater connection to Lindbergh than his own B-1, then please make your case instead of just continuing to revert the original link and substituting an otherwise irrelevant one. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Colgan/Continental Flight 3407

I was debating whether I should upload the approach plate or not for that article. I was thinking the approach was becoming more relevant after learning of the weather and hearing the controller audio. One minor nitpick, the chart you uploaded expired before the crash. The chart effective dates suggest it is still valid but they omit the time the charts are effective on those dates. The chart expired that morning at 0901Z (4:01am EST) and was not valid at the time of the crash. I don't think there were any changes on the new chart so I'll leave it up to you whether it is worth adding the 0901Z 2/12/09 to 0901Z 3/12/09 chart instead. Skywayman (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This ILS approach plate is the most recent one that I have for Rwy 23 at KBUF. It was added by me to the article as much to indicate the location of the outer marker ("Klump") -- the approximate site of the accident -- with respect to the airport as to demonstrate the profile the ILS approach for Rwy 23. While what I see on this plate seems consistent to me with the approaches being flown by the Delta and US Airways ("Cactus") flights that reported rhime ice that I heard on the ATC tapes from Buffalo Approach Control, the plate as I posted it on Wikipedia is certainly not there to be used for navigation. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Flight 1549 Awards, New info http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyplan196040981feb19,0,5595967.story Thanks Scott