Jump to content

Talk:American Airlines Flight 191

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.230.248.85 (talk) at 12:10, 27 December 2016 (Attention drawn to dead link.~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleAmerican Airlines Flight 191 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
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 18, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

amount of man hours

this was taken out by someone today -

"Macdonnel Douglas the manufacturer advised airlines to remove the engine then remove the pylon but American Airlines developed a shortcut by removing both as one unit, using nothing more advanced than a forklift truck, this procedure saved 200 man houres and $1000's for each of the airlines 40 DC-10's, however it had problems, if the forklift is in the wrong position the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points."

I didn't put it i.. but i'm wondering whether that is an accurate figure on the manhours etc. if it is ..i would like to see it put back in the article -- maxrspct ping me 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the NTSB report... I think the number is there. --J-Star 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Hey, my move was not whimsical, I was attempting to follow a wikiproject naming convention for disasters. Speciate 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion

Hi everyone, I'm, being bold and deleting content in this article that I always thought should not be there:

  • Lindsay Wager: The "source" for this trivia is the IMDB database; in this case this unsourced trivia present on her IMDB page does NOT meet the standards for WP:RS.
  • I deleted this: Another flight with the same number, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, crashed at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 1985. Most recently, Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, operated by Comair as Flight 191, crashed in 2006 killing 49 people. All three carriers have since retired the flight number 191, as is currently customary after major accidents on most airlines. However, United Airlines still uses 191 as an active flight number. In addition, Puerto Rican airline Prinair also had a fatal flight numbered Flight 191. The only fatal X-15 crash was also Flight No. 191. >>> I mean seriously, WTH? The fact that two different flights, different airplane types, but same flight number crashed means...nothing. It doesn't even qualify as trivia, it is meaningless numerology.
  • Deleted the statements that some guy had psychic powers and predicted the crash of AA 191, and (even more incredulously) that the FAA took him seriously. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted "The Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation issued a 1979 pamphlet by Kenny McComas titled The Sad Fate of Flight 191" >>>completely non-notable
  • Deleted "This crash was mentioned by the character Casey Singleton in Michael Crichton's Airframe and "An episode of Cold Case Files also featured the crash of Flight 191. The episode concerned a man who blamed a woman's death on this plane crash, but she was never listed to be on the plane." >>> non-notable tangential trivia.

Citations needed

I added {Unreferencedsection} tags to most of this article...simply stating facts which are true is not sufficient; EVERY statement of fact should have an in-line citation as to its source. For an article like this isn't that hard to do so: almost every statement of fact can be sourced by the NTSB final report. Please look at 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash for what is required for a encyclopedic article (I actually think there should be even more). Also, I record every Seconds from Disaster and Air Emergency that is on, but they are NOT source material: statements like According to the History Channel program "Crash of Flight 191... are not acceptable. We need a primary source. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while sourcing is badly needed, something like this [1] source, which I removed, is not. Pure tin-foil-hattery. Lipsticked Pig 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated most <ref> to {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. The NTSB report is the source for most of the article, but do we really need to put a reference to the report on every statement? Does it improve the article? Nisselua 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the citations in this article are very poor, and I'm not sure why the unreferencedsection tag was actually removed. The entire "accident" section, for example, does not cite a single source. --24.190.217.35 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of crash is irrelevant to definition of "deadliest"

Guys, look at Continental Airlines Flight 11, SilkAir Flight 185, EgyptAir Flight 990, PSA Flight 1771 (and many others). The fact that a civil airliner crash was the result of a criminal act does not mean it wasn't a "crash". The NTSB investigates these accidents, and when evidence points to a criminal act the process is handed over to the FBI. 9/11 was a unique case: the NTSB participated in the investigation, but did not (and never will) issue a report; nonetheless they were airplane crashes. We include fatalities on the ground in crash infobox (rightfully). Both aircraft that struck the WTC caused more deaths than AA 191, regardless of the cause. The lead in this article should convey that this accident was the worst domestic (US) crash apart from the 9/11 attacks; this gives the reader the proper historical perspective (worst crash, apart from a unique event). I don't think that this is too wordy or nitpicking. Lipsticked Pig 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Booth ‘psychic’ prediction

This is covered in one of the extras on the R1 DVD release of Premonition (2007 film). It shows an interview with this Booth guy, claiming that a vision of this crash came to him in a dream, and it also shows an interview with someone identified as "Jack Barker, Former Public Affairs Director, Federal Aviation Administration". A Google search indicates that the FAA did at one time have a spokesperson named Jack Barker, though I can't find confirmation that he held the title "public affairs director". In any event, on this DVD the guy says that when he worked at the FAA, he received a call from David Booth talking about this dream. He goes on to say, "it hit me as to how accurate he [i.e. Booth] was; what he dreamed was in fact basically what happened... In the 30 years I was with FAA that was the only time anybody ever called in with any kind of a dream like that, that I'm aware of". It would be interesting to debunk this by doing a FOIA request of the FAA to see what notes were made by Barker about this matter. Some other references to David Booth were deleted from the article on July 10 2007 [2]. It's misleading to put this sort of info under the heading "Close calls and premonitions" but there may be some NPOV way to mention this in the article. --Mathew5000 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) An episode of Arthur C. Clarke's "World of Strange Powers" Ep.1, titled "Warnings from the Future" (3 April 1985) interviews both David Booth and a man reported to be an official from the FAA named Paul Williams. Williams states that he took a telephone call from Booth on the day prior to the crash, claiming it was notable since it contained details that mapped onto the unique nature of the crash in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croessus the king of lydia (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would like to take the time to thank every one involved in the writing of this article concerning American Airlines flight 191 . Over the years I have read countless articles as to what had transpired that day . What you writers have compiled is by far the most accurate report that I have seen yet . I know this because my families name was Courtney ! This disaster has touched me in several ways . Many years later I had learned that a good friend of mine of 20 years had lost his cousin in an airline disaster . He was telling me of his injured cousins suffering of being burned alive in what he termed as a plane crash . He then went on to tell me how this cousin clung to life for a short time with most of his body chard. With tears in his eyes he continued telling me of his cousin . I was 21 years old listening to one of my best friends poor his heart out. I knew his cousin ! It seems that this cousin was one of our employees he was 1 of the 2 men that perished on the ground that day .(Both men where employees of Courtney Velo) .

In any event I thank you for the attention to detail that one just doesn't see anymore . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.116 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type?

The accident template includes a heading called "Type". It was recently changed from "Engin eseparation" to "Metal fatigue". I think this heading is... vague to say the least. This accident - as with so many others - cannot be described or categorized in 1-3 words like that. It was an engine separation that led to loss of flight controls, induced by mechanical damage caused by faulty maintenance procedures which over time caused the weakened pylon to suffer from metal fatigue that eventually caused it to fail.

So how the heck do we label this? Multifactored mechanical failure?--J-Star (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual cause of the crash was an inadvertant design flaw in that the triple/quadruple redundant hydraulic lines ran in parallel through the wing in close proximity to each other such that mechanical/impact damage to one line was likely to result in similar damage to the others. Losing (literally) an engine should not have been a problem, the aeroplane was quite capable of being flown after the loss, indeed the pylon is designed to allow the engine to fall away if it is vibrating dangerously. It was the resultant destruction of the hydraulic system that caused the crash. This was avoidable if the hydraulic system had been better thought out when it was being designed.
The same misunderstanding of the purpose of redundancy was also designed-into the DC-10's other flight control lines, resulting in the earlier Windsor Incident, and the subsequent Paris DC-10 accident. In both these earlier cases, the result of the initial failures, i.e., cargo hold door latching failure, would have been non-events if the routing of the hydraulic lines had been thought out more sensibly. The same applies to AA Flight 191. If the hydraulic lines supplying the slats had been routed better then damage to one may have left at least one system still with fluid in it. Better still, would have been not relying on hydraulic pressure to keep the slats extended during such critical regimes as take-off and landing. If both the slats had remained in the extended position then it is quite likely that the DC-10 would have landed safely.
However, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's probably unfair to blame the designers for what would probably have seemed a too unlikely combination of failures. Having the rear pylon attachment fail (due to the maintenance errors) causing the engine at full power to pivot around the front attachments and then going up and then rearwards over the wing must have seemed extremely improbable at the time.
But if you are designing in multiple redundancy, better make sure it really is redundancy - it's no good putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. Route the lines as far away from each other as is reasonably practicable. And that includes wiring for multiple redundant electronic controls as well. Otherwise it isn't really redundancy. 'Belt and braces' is the idea - both keep one's trousers up, and if one fails, the other still does the job, and you don't end up with (figuratively-speaking) your trousers around your ankles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the damage to the pylon wasn't strictly speaking a fatigue problem. On the accident aircraft the engine/pylon assembly had been removed using a forklift and a shift-change of personnel had taken place while the engine was being removed. The engine was still attached by the rear wing pylon mounting with the weight taken by the forklift's forks. While unattended the hydraulic pressure in the forklift's system leaked slightly allowing the forks and engine to gradually descend a few inches, with the result that after a while the weight of the engine/pylon was supported by the rear mounting only. At some time during this period the rear pylon mount failed resulting in a crack. This was not noticed at the time. Later, after the accident, when the unauthorised method of removing the engine became more widely known outside the airlines it was discovered that similar damage had occurred to other aircraft. On at least one occasion the forklift shifted slightly under the weight of the engine/pylon assembly resulting in a loud, pistol-shot like, 'crack' sound, that was heard by the maintenance personnel. On investigation, the pylon mount was found to be cracked and unsafe. So, in the accident aircraft the original damage to the pylon was really caused by an over-stress, as it was subjected to around three times the design load when the forklift stopped supporting the weight of the engine/pylon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Nance Paragraph

I deleted the recent addition of accusatory language regarding John Nance. The editor who made that addition may be correct that Nance has an agenda, but it is also clear that the editor has an agenda.

If there is legitimate concern as to the credibility of this source, my suggestion would be to remove the paragraph about Nance entirely as it doesn't seem to be germane to this particular crash anyway. Janus303 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I went ahead and removed it. If it belongs at all, it certainly doesn't belong in the NTSB investigation section. Janus303 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the original comments, about John Nance's views on Airline Deregulation, should not have been included in this article. However, I didn't think it appropriate to remove it myself. So, I added information about how wrong Nance was, since the subsequent stats of airline safety have turned out to be the opposite of what Nance predicted in his book Blind Trust. It is unfortunate that you view my stating the truth about historical facts of airline safety, as "an agenda," but so be it. Isn't that compatible with the agenda of Wikipedia-----to be as historically accurate as possible? EditorASC (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

This article cites virtually zero references and reads like a poorly written story or magazine article. For example:

"The weather was clear, with the wind northeast at 22 knots (41 km/h). At O'Hare Airport in Chicago, one of the world's busiest, traffic was heavy but normal for a Friday afternoon which marked the beginning of a Memorial Day weekend."

This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Most of the article should be rewritten. Two examples of proper encyclopedia articles regarding major airline crashes are TWA Flight 800 and American Airlines Flight 587. This article, as it stands now, is rather horrendous.

--24.190.217.35 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at 3 of the 4 Flights pertaining to 9/11. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much needs to be re-written. There is a lot of duplication of statements in the "Accident" section and the "failure detail" section. I am electing to merge most of the "failure detail" section into the "accident" section, and/or other sections, where appropriate. I took about 3 hours to rewrite four paragraphs of the "Accident" section, and will begin to work on the "failure detail" section when I get more time. Mostly to remove information there, which is already elsewhere. EditorASC (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tower audio

Why was the tower audio excised & replaced with a transcription? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

additional questions

What were the Flight 191 prior flights that day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David handle (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

Just noting some addication sites here:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR79-17.pdf

KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 copy edits

I feel like "air load" was self-explanatory to me, and I'm not sure if a definition could be concocted. I will work the other info into the article. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:American Airlines Flight 191/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

Templates to use
  • {{Fixed}} —  Fixed
  • {{Added}} — plus Added
  • {{Not done}} —  Not done
  • {{Not sure}} — Not sure
  • {{Doing}} —  Doing...
  • {{Isdoing}} —  Example is doing...
  • {{Tick}}, produces the tick alone — checkY
  • {{Cross}}, produces the cross alone — ☒N
  • {{Done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Done}} —  Done
  • {{Not done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Not done}} — ✗ Not done
  • {{Thank you}} — Thank you
  • {{Resolved}}, tick with additional message —
    Resolved
  • Disambiguation & redirect issues. See "Dablinks" in the top right of this page. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uncommanded"? Maybe use another word? (See Investigation)
  • "reached a bank angle of 112 degrees (partially inverted)" I know that this means, but is the reader if not a math person?
  • "Sales of the airplane would never recover." only mentioned in the lead/not sourced
  • Unsouced weather statement in Accident
  • "Everything appeared normal until just after VR (rotation speed), when the number one engine and the pylon assembly that attached it to the wing separated from the aircraft, ripping away a 3 foot (0.91 m) section of the leading edge of the left wing in the process" Run-on sentence/confusing.

Comments

  • It says "a three foot section", "159 knots, six knots higher", "124 knots to 159 knots". These need metric equivalents.
  • It says "footage". The word 'film' would be more plain English.

Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done conversions applied as they were already partially implemented, footage->film. N419BH 19:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? It's been a few weeks since last comment, the review should be fully written out by now so concerns can be addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged DQ last week, he said he'd get to it. He just got the admin bit so he's likely busy with that. I'll give him another poke on his talk page. N419BH 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, totally spaced on this, working on it now. I've stopped my listing of individual details that need to be fixed because I see that the article is mostly sourced by one source, and there is no second account of the incidents, is the info not available, or not sourced in, or conflicting? -- DQ (t) (e) 18:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With aviation accidents the final accident report is usually utilized as the primary source, with news coverage providing for secondary sourcing. The technical aspects of the accident, as well as the accident sequence, are most authoritatively sourced by the final report. See United Airlines Flight 232 another GA of mine with a very similar sourcing structure, though that article benefits from the first hand accounts of the surviving crew. I will begin working on the specific bullets listed here. N419BH 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost two weeks since the last comment. Are we any closer to a decision? WP:There is no deadline, but you're at the top of the list at WP:GAN/R#Old_reviews. If you need help, feel free to ask for it at WT:WikiProject Good articles. If it's a case of real life conspiring against you, then these things happen—there really is no deadline—but no one wants to see the review just forgotten. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • N419BH, i'm sorry I have really failed in getting this done for you. At this time I would recommend another reviewer taking this on because I won't have time this week as I have exams and some personal things to deal with. Again, sorry about this and hope to see you around. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review in the next couple days so that we can finally wrap this up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here are the issues I found:

  • I'd re-add the first cite to the end of the paragraphs that don't have it in the accident section.
  • Using modifiers like "should have" and the like is discouraged unless you're quoting something. I see that a few times in the investigation and I can't tell if that's the article saying it or the safety board.
    •  Done Cited to the NTSB It's both the safety board saying it and the FAA, though you're right in those two sentences it's not a direct quote. Transport category airplanes are required by law (14 CFR 25.121 to be exact) to be able to lose an engine at V1 and still take off, climb to a safe altitude, and thence return to a safe landing. N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Management was aware of this." I'd prefer a cite here, ideally a separate one, though if it's the first ref then that's alright.
    •  Done removed. The article elsewhere mentions that McDonnell Douglas had advised American (presumably American management) against performing the procedure. That particular sentence sounds more like blame deflection than an encyclopedic sentence. N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Officials at Los Angeles International Airport, the destination airport, were careful to keep the arriving news media away from passengers' relatives, who were waiting for the arrival of Flight 191." any reason as to why? also cite needed.
    •  Done simply removed. It's common practice when an airplane goes down but isn't exactly reported on...making it hard to cite. Not exactly material to the accident, more drama than anything else N419BH 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple paragraphs in the aftermath section are missing cites.
  • "Of the three first-generation wide-body aircraft—the Boeing 747, the DC-10, and the L-1011—the 747 is the only one still in production. The DC-10 and its modern variant, the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, is now primarily used as a cargo aircraft. The Lockheed L-1011 is hardly used any more; a few examples fly with the Royal Air Force as tankers." this paragraph doesn't seem necessary to me, especially since the next one notes when it stopped being used.
  • Ref #3 needs a title.
    •  Done already has one
  • Ref #15 needs a publisher.

I'll put the article on hold, and will pass it when these issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sales of the airplane would never recover" - I added citation needed. By the way, why here (=enwiki) GA nomination are announced only on talk pages? Bulwersator (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Hard to substantiate without interpreting data...aka Original Research, so it's been removed. The other claims in that paragraph are substantiated later.
They are both on the talk pages and at WP:GAN. It's just easier to put on the talk page instead of the other one due to the sheer quantity of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; everything else checks out now so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further unsolicited comments

Having just wandered by, I thought I'd mention the following:

  • The footnote needs a reference  Done...kinda...the ref tags aren't playing nice together. Know how to fix?
  • The lead should not have any references in it (since it should be summarizing material from elsewhere in the article)  Done

Cheers -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Notable victims section

The Notable victims section shows a complete lack of respect for the victims of the crash. Every victim should have their name listed, or none at all. Whose idea was it to setup a list of "people who matter" and just ignore the rest?

If no one can come up with a reason as to why this section should stay, I'll be removing it in about a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.242.222 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a bit problematic. I'm bringing it to the BLP noticeboard. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP issue, obviously. If you can source a list of all victims, others might permit its inclusion. But it certainly was news that some famous-enough people were killed in this crash, so it is certainly reasonable to list them at least. I would also point to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And who determines if a person is "famous-enough"? Is there a mathematical formula to determine if someone is "famous-enough"? Do you have to be a certain race to be "famous-enough"? Do you have to be a certain sex? How about money? Are you only "famous-enough" if you have more than a certain amount of money? You can see how the "famous-enough" comment is difficult to define.68.63.242.222 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We deal with this question constantly on Wikipedia, so acting as if it is an imponderable and unanswerable question for us is futile. We have plenty of answers for this question. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we list only "notable people", which in this context means people who have biographies on Wikipedia and that they are notable for things other than having died in this accident. Listing everyone who dies in an accident runs afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not just a morgue list. That's why notable (not in an exclusive sense) people are included. However I'm not against a full victim list but a link to one would be better. If you don't have a full list how can you argue for it's inclusion? -- maxrspct ping me 21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

In the sentence, On the day of the accident, the records had not been removed from the aircraft, as was standard procedure,, it's not clear what the standard procedure was. Was it standard procedure to remove to records, or to not remove them? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft maintenance records are not normally carried in the aircraft because if the aircraft crashes the records will be lost too. The text probably needs clarifying. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engine not directly linked to Stall

There's a sentence in the introduction that implies that the stall of the damaged wing was linked in some fashion to the engine having separated: As the jet began to climb, the damaged left wing, with no engine, produced far less lift (stalled) than the right wing, with its slats still deployed and its engine running at full takeoff speed.

While the separation caused the damage to the wing, it was the damaged which caused the premature stall, not the fact that there was no engine. The engine statements are factual, but they are not causal to the stall, and this is implied by the text as written.

I'd suggest it would be appropriate to remove the references to the engine, leaving something like:

As the jet began to climb, the damaged left wing stalled prematurely, producing far less lift than the right wing, with its slats still deployed.

MadScot (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that! - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link from note 11 is dead ('404 error'), so the picture can't be retrieved.188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_191&oldid=756887355"