Jump to content

Talk:LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.209.165.98 (talk) at 18:39, 2 November 2011 (→‎Fate: Investigation not concluded yet.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Airlines Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airline project.
WikiProject iconPoland Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How many crew members?

According to press note on the official LOT Polish Airlines website, there were 11 crew members, not 10, link (in Polish): http://www.lot.com/web/lot/press-info/-/asset_publisher/kJ6c/content/komunikat-01-11-2011 82.210.148.225 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated and added the reference to the LOT press release. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Fate

What about the fate of the aircraft? Was it written off? I don't think so. As stated in Aviation Safety Network (click here), it only sustained minor damages, what makes the entire article to be removed from Wikipedia. I wonder why this reference is not included in the article...--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its an intentional exclusion. But I must say I think its highly unlikely that anyone at this point can say its "minor". These things take time to determine, it's only "minor" in the fact that the plane didn't break into many pieces. (BTW don't read this as an endorsement for the article, I'm still on the fence.) Ravendrop 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fate is not clear at the moment. Yet, there are articles for many emergency landings where the a/c was repaired and returned into service - Air Transat 236 for example. Any other reasons for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.244.235 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those articles should be deleted too. WP:AIRLINE guidelines states that an accident is worth including only if a hull-loss, a deadly accident, or an event that changed the procedures occurred. Neither of them is fulfilled here. And let me tell you that there were indeed changes to procedures after Air Transat Flight 236. Which procedure changed following the LOT event?.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is to early to make any judgments on whether the incident changes any procedures or not. Once the investigation is concluded and a report is released then this can be judged. If the final report does not bring about change then the article should be deleted until then there is no reason to as the article gives links to information.