Talk:Swissair Flight 111

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swissair Flight 111 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Aviation: Accidents GA‑class

	Aviation portal 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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Canada: Nova Scotia GA‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.

Disaster management GA‑class High‑importance

	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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland GA‑class High‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2008, September 2, 2009, and September 2, 2010.

Swissair Flight 111 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 21, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 10, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

until?

~~The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) did not release its preliminary report until August 30, 2000 and the final report was delayed until.~~

~~Until when?~~

~~Any update on the lawsuit?~~

2003-02-24 is the last update date on the TSB report. Ref 18 speaks to the end of the lawsuit.

Future of the article

I'm hoping to get this article FA-status, and as such am in the process of re-writing/adding/updating it. See:Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:The perfect article, User:Trevor MacInnis/Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I have the TSB report, but would like to know about any reputable websites/books with other information. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sone things we need:

images that are not Non-commercial licenses.
1. check [1],

[2], [3], [4]

something about how big the investigation was (for example, I know they invented new ways of investigating, but can't find a reference for that fact,)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor MacInnis (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T04:09:24

The TSB report goes into the techniques used at some length.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

I've made some minor tweaks but in general I think it's a very good article deserving of the title. Having seen the National Geographic documentary on it, I feel this article provides good and detailed coverage of the accident, without using too much technical terms. BabyNuke 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Note, I've have listed it under "Engineering and technology - Engineering failures and disasters" BabyNuke 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing?

The article states that the aircraft was a Macdonald Douglass product, so I am wondering why was Boeing involved in the investigation and compensation of victim's families? AbstractClass 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing bought Mac Doug in the years between the construction and loss of the a/c.LeadSongDog come howl 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing and impact acceleration

I believe that Boeing had purchased McDonnell Douglas around 1996/1997 so that's why Boeing was involved in this.

I really wonder, though, what was the source for the figure of 350 g's as the impact acceleration? That sounds awfully high. It would imply that objects traveling at the plane's speed (300 kts) came to a stop in about 3 meters. Is there a decimal point missing in that figure? I couldn't find a reference to it in the TSB report. Sean Breheny 209.6.248.221 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who inserted that number in the article, but I just watched the documentation "Air Crash Investigations - Fire on Board" and this figure was mentioned their too. But it also looks kind of strange to me. --80.218.149.71 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas says the buyout 1997. The TSB report 1.13.3 says "in the order of at least 350 g's". This number makes sense, water is an incompressible fluid of much greater density than that of the aircraft, so in impact the water has to be moving at the same speed as the front of the impacted a/c. Compare the mass of water displaced by a cylinder the size of the a/c cabin at 1 tonne/cubic metre to the mass of that cabin.

Delta-v = 300 kt * (1 - m_cab/(m_cab + m_water))

LeadSongDog 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

Section should be more extensive. This is the whole reason for doing the investigation.LeadSongDog 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

I've bumped the importance scale on Wiki Project Switzerland to high in accordance with the guidelines. The worst and last major accident in the history of the flag carrier, necessitating the largest and most expensive crash investigation effort in Swiss or Canadian history, dominating news coverage for week, likely contributing to the demise of the carrier (previously regarded as one of the safest in the world). This has to be at least high if not top importance.LeadSongDog 20:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Need a good cleanup. Given the number of refs to the TSB report, I think Harvard style would be best for this article. Objections? Volunteers?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Nelievsky said: I fail to see how a user created CG image can be more important that the actual plane image, even with an old livery.)

It's not about the "importance" of CGIs or photos, however the reason livery is important simply boils down to accuracy, the CGI shows the plane as it looked at the time of the incident. Using the 1992 photo is likely to give those who don't know better the impression that the plane looked in 1998 as it did in the 1992 photo. (PS You may not know but many photos on this project are user created as well.) Anynobody 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CG graphic beats the real thing in terms of "accuracy"? Are you kidding me? I do know that many of the photos on this project are user created as well. So? What's your point? Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a CG image of the aircraft at NIGHT??? You can't even see any detail in this image, it's just like looking at a black box with a few windows and a tail logo. Might as well not even have a picture on here. Crk112 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1992 photo copyright question

I recognize the photo from Airliners.net, which says Photo Copyright © Christian Waser, all rights reserved. Airliners.net is not affiliated with any entity mentioned or pictured herein. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. I feel awkward asking this given the disagreement regarding the infobox image, but can you provide some kind of proof that Christian Waser authorized usage of his photo? (All rights reserved is incompatible with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license) Anynobody 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume that there's a copyright issue with that image??? You should really feel awkward asking this. The image was uploaded with propper permission from Christian Waser. Feel free to contact him if you insist. Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the above and to be consistent, I have applied "class=GA" to the WP Canada banner. I have not re-assessed the article before doing so. PK T 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notable victims

Klaus Kinder-Geiger, notable physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.142.242 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write a Wikipedia article on him? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swissair Flight 111 article

Under Para 2 of TSB Findings states: Arcing from wiring of the in-flight entertainment system network did not trip the circuit breakers. While suggestive, the investigation was unable to confirm if it was this arc was the "lead event" that ignited the flammable covering on MPET insulation blankets that quickly spread across other flammable materials. This statement is incorrect: Ethylene tetrafluorethylene (ETFE) wires do not burn hot enough to ignite an insulation blanket. This was the wire insulation type used on the entertainment system wires. The ship's wiring insulation (Kapton) has repeatedly ignited insulation blankets because it arcs at 10,000 degrees, enough to melt titanium.The record shows numerous insulation blanket fires started with Kapton insulation arcing, whereas FAA tests prove that ETFE (entertainment wires) do not burn or arc at temperatures high enough to ignite the insulation blankets.63.167.255.152 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, did the article misinterpret the TSB report or is there an as-yet-uncited FAA test that contradicts it?LeadSongDog come howl 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response, IP appears to have moved along.LeadSongDog come howl 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits and Compensation

"Swissair and Boeing offered the families of the passengers financial compensation. The offer was rejected in favour of a $19.8 billion suit against Swissair and DuPont ..."

The article states correctly that the punitive lawsuit was dismissed in 2002 but makes no mention that over $13 million was paid to victims' families. Worse, the paragraph wrongly implies wasn't any compensation.--TL36 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, does the source used for this paragraph say that $13 million had been paid? If not, another source is needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source

See "Swissair Gets A for Caring; Families Praise Heartfelt Assistance." The Washington Post. September 12, 1998. Financial D15. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities

Final tally of passenger nationalities
Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total
France	41	0	41
Switzerland	31	13	44
United States	110	1	111
Others (including 13 passengers with dual nationality)	33	0	33
Total	215	14	229

Ugh. That nationalities info box is just horrible.

Can we make do with this version. It conveys the essential information that most of the victims were French, Swiss or US citizens.

82.1.57.194 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why no mention of US navy assistance

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=286

Incorrect location

In the History/Flight and Crash paragraph, the location is incorrect and appears to be onshore and approx 7 nautical miles from the crash site. From the reference, debris field is as follows: Northwest corner - 63 58.6134' W, 44 24.6973' N Northeast corner - 63 58.2366' W, 44 24.6906' N Southwest corner - 63 58.6088' W, 44 24.4173' N Southeast corner - 63 58.2321' W, 44 24.4205' N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.132.217 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]