Talk:2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Location[edit]

Re: User:Mjroots's revert of my change.

I'm not sure why WP:UE was invoked, but the Channel Islands are an archipelago of several islands in the English Channel. They are not a single state, country, territory or dependency (they're a bit like the West Indies, but smaller).

There are two Crown Dependencies located within these islands: the Bailiwick of Jersey (commonly called just "Jersey") and the Bailiwick of Guernsey (commonly called just "Guernsey"). The Bailiwick of Guernsey comprises the sub-jurisdictions of Guernsey, Alderney and Sark. Alderney, the location of this incident, is correctly addressed as "Alderney, Guernsey" (note that the link is to the Bailiwick and not to the sub-jurisdiction). That is not to say that the current description of "Alderney, Channel Islands" is wrong, but it’s a bit like addressing Kingston, Jamaica as "Kingston, West Indies". So I think it would be more encyclopaedic to change the location in this article to "Alderney, Guernsey". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Displaying as Guernsey is liable to cause confusion, as most people (if they don't follow the link) will think of Guernsey rather than Bailiwick of Guernsey. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Per David Biddulph - the vast majority of people will think of the Channel Islands as a geographical one entity. The legalities of the two Bailiwicks need not concern us here. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: as this is an encyclopaedia though, don't you think we should strive to educate them, rather than reinforce their ignorance? And you didn't explain the reference to WP:UE. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought I had. In plain English, the term "Channel Islands" means the group of islands in the English Channel to 99% of people. The legalities of the Bailiwicks are best left to the Guernsey and Jersey pages. We also need to avoid WP:EASTEREGGS. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why you don't want to be accurate about it rather than pander to ignorance. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: if you think that, don't you think we should use the full "Bailiwick of Guernsey" then? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy with Channel Islands. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you be happy with Kingston, West Indies? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly "Alderney, Channel Islands" seems wrong. As has been noted, the Channel Islands are not an administrative entity - it is purely a geographical term. I suggest using "Alderney in the Channel Islands". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that suggested rewording. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

None of the terms in the name of this article seem very likely to be search terms for anyone looking for this story and If Emiliano Sala hadn't been in the plane, this article would probably never have been created. For those reasons, I think we need a better name - something with "Emiliano Sala" in it. Something like "Emiliano Sala plane disappearance". Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that had there not been a Wikinotable person on board, there would be no article. Only a very few General Aviation accidents reach the threshold for notability. The current title is in accordance with WP:AVIMOS. Should the aircraft be found, the last word can be changed to crash or ditching, depending on what evidence there is regarding the loss of the aircraft. I don't think that there's a problem with not having Emiliano Sala in the title, given the number of page views the article is getting and that it is linked from the lede of his article. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So as per WP:NOTINHERITED, should this article exist? It's only notability is there was a notable person onboard. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Joseph2302 - as I have already explained on your talk page, this event is notable enough to sustain an article. Your WP:PROD was challenged. WP:AFD is your only option, but you'll be flogging a dead horse. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Being reported on BBC that the aircraft is largely intact, which would suggest a ditching rather than a crash. I suggest that we hold off any move for now, pending further information. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently BobNesh disagrees. Oh well, c'est la vie. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree about ditching. But it's going to be a grey area, even with the aid of survey data/ images. This may well not be decided until AAIB officially reports. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Also note the radio notes, the pilot had to drop the altitude suggesting there was something wrong with the aircraft, my hunch the pilot might of tried for a water landing.. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, especially as the final altitude of 2,300 feet was well below the 5,000 feet requested. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed to something along the lines of Emiliano Sala plane crash? I think this makes more sense than the present title: the John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash article is not called the 1999 Piper PA-32R Saratoga II crash. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, per my opening remark in this section. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As Sala was not the only person into the airplane, we must be respectful with the pilot and his family. What I am trying to say is that we are not including him if we name the article "Emiliano Sala..." or something like that. -- Gatitocheesecake (talk). 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

Deeday-UK has reverted my reversion of the change to the order of the sections in the article he made, claiming WP:AATF applies. I see nothing there that gives any instruction as to which order aircrash articles should be arranged in, only as to the order in which things should appear in article titles (which this article adheres to). It makes sense to me to introduce the aircraft before the event so that the reader fully understands what type(s) of aircraft the article is about. I suggest that this article is returned to that order. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In his edit summary, Deeday-UK refers to WP:AATF/Page content, which doesn't exist, but presumably he means WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, David Biddulph, that's what I meant. I've now created shortcut WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC pointing directly to that page. As for the matter itself, the Aircraft section typically contains a lot of rather nerdy details that have little bearing on the event itself. The aircraft type is always mentioned in the lead, so the reader already knows what machine we're talking about. Having to wade through serial numbers, years of manufacture, previous owners etc. to get to the details of the accident in question does not seem ideal to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019[edit]

sala is now comfirmed as dead. Please update this article 2600:1006:B04C:5CD7:2190:9A47:867F:642 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Article revised using BBC article as reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Grey market charters[edit]

The rules are discussed here. It is illegal for a private pilot to carry paying passengers, but sometimes the rules are bent or broken.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Passenger's concerns while in flight[edit]

The article on Emiliano Sala includes the fairly important matter of his message to friends while on the aircraft, saying that it felt like it was falling to pieces, and that he was scared. If that's worthy of inclusion in his article it's worthy of inclusion here, with this article then ideally being summarised in the section of the Sala article that deals with his disappearance and death. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The audio and transcript of the WhatsApp message were originally published here in the Argentinian media. Sala says "Estoy acá arriba del avión que parece que se está por caer a pedazos." "I'm up in the plane that looks like it's about to fall to pieces."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to take care about the about the fall to pieces translation he may have just been comparing it to the previous aircraft that had transported him on the same route an Eclipse. Its is not clear but he probably flew back to Nantes on the Malibu rather than the Eclipse so it may not have been his first trip in the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled as to why there was no mayday call. This would suggest that the plane failed too suddenly for one to be sent. The media has assumed that Sala sent the WhatsApp message while on board the Malibu, with the source saying "les envió un mensaje de WhatsApp a unos amigos en pleno vuelo" "He sent a WhatsApp message to some friends in mid flight." He also said "Papá, ¡qué miedo que tengo!" "Man, it's getting scary!"--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Formal identification[edit]

Leadenly stating that the coroner "formally" identified the body is an example of the sort of language to avoid in an article. It's a coroner's job to formally identify bodies, so there is no need to state it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Coroner says "confirm the identity of". Maybe we should follow that? "Identify" just used on it's own seems a little too informal and possibly even ambiguous. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
As you said above, It's a coroner's job to formally identify bodies, so what's the problem here? In my experience, "formal identification" is an acceptable term that carries more weight. The wiki article for coroner uses the terms "confirm the identity" and "legally identify" so maybe we could work one of those two terms in if you prefer, but the current wording "where it was identified as that of Sala" just doesn't sound right. I can't find anything about coroners' duties on the British gov. website but the NI gov. site has a section on "Identifying the body", see [1], which states "If the Coroner orders a post-mortem examination then a member of the family will be asked to formally identify the body." So a member of the family does the formal ID (obvs!) and it's the coroner who arranges for that to happen, prior to the post-mortem, which is bound to be required in this situation. Unless we want to draw attention to the gruesome fact that a member of the family had to look at the body and say Yes that's our Emiliano, then I think we should probably summarize it by stating that the coroner formally identified the body. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, that by saying the same thing twice, we may annoy our readers. Good writing dictates avoiding tautology. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The description of legal procedures requires a degree of accuracy. I tend to agree with Rodney Baggins that "where it was identified as that of Sala" does not sound at all right. I'm sure that might equally annoy our readers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see how stating what someone does as part of their job can be described as a tautology. That seems to be a bit of a stretch in semantics. It's as if saying "the car mechanic carried out an annual service on the car" is a tautology simply because carrying out an annual car service is a common part of a car mechanic's job! I would also point out that the process is usually bold-revert-discuss not bold-revert-revert-discuss, and MarchOrDie has twice removed the word "formally" from the text despite the ongoing discussion. Maybe we should involve the person who originally included this information in the article and see what they think? @Nigel Ish: do you have an opinion on the matter? Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed something else. Original wording (just prior to MarchOrDie's first revert) was: "The body was taken to the Isle of Portland to be passed to the Dorset coroner,[33][34] where it was formally identified as that of Sala.[35]" This sentence does not explicitly state that the coroner formally identified the body. It implies that the body was formally identified at the coroner's office, presumably by a member of Sala's family at the instruction of the coroner. So, again, I don't see a problem there. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Mmm. Maybe a car mechanic isn't the best comparison. Maybe a judge is a better one; would we say a judge formally sentenced someone? Or a policeman formally arrested someone? No, because these are formal acts, done by people whose job it is to do them. Likewise, saying a coroner, or their office, "formally" identified someone who had died, is indeed a tautology. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Map co-ordinates of crash site[edit]

These are given above the infobox as 49° 47′ 24″ N, 2° 42′ 36″ W. I'm not quite sure how this has been sourced, and it estimates the crash site as around 22 miles from Alderney.[2] This doesn't chime with the reports of the plane being seven miles from Alderney when it went missing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I share your concern. I've removed the bogus coordinates. Plenty of time to get proper ones. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"Bogus: fake, faked, spurious, false, fraudulent, sham, deceptive, misleading, pretended"... The co-ords were not "bogus", they were based on the GPS pings from Geo Ocean III while it was above the wreck and operating its ROV. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The map gives the co-ordinates as 49.79 N, 2.34 W. This is also an estimate but it is needed, otherwise the red dot will not appear on the map.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Various sources say that contact with the plane was lost near Casquets lighthouse. This is at 49° 43′ 19″ N, 2° 22′ 37″ W, which is indeed around seven miles from Alderney.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The AAIB image has an easting and northing, if anyone can translate them. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Assuming AAIB use a natural origin there, would this source be suitable? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Martinevans123: what do you get if you run those coordinates through that source? Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Not sure if this is given by referring to the Ordnance Survey National Grid. On the screenshot of the wreckage, the easting is 520812.80, and the northing is 5518513.32. Using the converter above, the Casquets lighthouse is Easting: 372704 and Northing: -19970, so the screenshot isn't using OS Grid reference.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I get an error message for the northing which says "Value must be less than or equal to 1400000". If I trim the first 5 from the northing I get "Please enter six numbers for both fields." And if I do that, I finally get: Longitude: -0.133806, Latitude: 54.547460. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
            • From the UTM-zones map in Easting and northing we can see that the location we are interested in is in the "30U" square. If we combine this with the Easting and Northing coordinates on the seabed image we get "30U 520812.80 5518513.32". If we enter that into the "Position:" box on the form on this webpage and click "Calc" we get "49.8186992, -2.7106768". On Google maps that gives a point about 14 nautical miles WNW of Casquets lighthouse. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
              • Ironically, 49.8186992, -2.7106768 is very close to the figure that was removed at the start of the thread; it works out as 49°49'07.3"N 2°42'38.4"W. This is around 22.7 statute miles/19.7 nautical miles north west of Alderney.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
              • Very convincing. Can't be deemed WP:OR, can it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
For context, the coordinates were originally taken from the constantly updated gps location of Geo Ocean III while it was static above the wreck site operating its ROV. Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that's a slight complication. How far could the ROV roam? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it won't go far... It does however explain the slight variation between the co-ords I originally gave (49° 47′ 24″ N, 2° 42′ 36″ W) and the one that you guys have calculated above (49° 49' 07.3"N 2° 42' 38.4"W). I added the original co-ords in good faith as the pinged GPS location of the vessel at the time of the wreckage discovery; its speed at the time was a fairly steady 0.2 knots, consistent with manoeuvering to maintain its position. Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Neil S. Walker for explaining this. The reason why I questioned the original co-ordinates is that they were given above the infobox with no explanation of how or where they had been obtained, leading to a WP:OR issue. The ping of the ship's GPS position is very useful, while the screenshot of the wreckage taken at 16:18:10 on 3 February 2019 is probably the more reliable and verifiable figure, as it comes direct from the AAIB. Incidentally, Wikipedia now has a far more accurate location for the crash site than the news media. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── - Now that we've got the coords verified by a very reliable source, can they be added back to the article and the map adjusted accordingly? Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move.. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crashEmiliano Sala plane crash – "2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash" does not indicate the significance of this article. The plane crash is only notable because of Emiliano Sala's death in it (the Wikipedia article on the Piper PA-46 states that "As of January 2019, 225 accidents had been reported in the Aviation Safety Network wiki database, including 106 hull losses, causing 219 fatalities", yet this seems to be the only case which has a separate stand-alone article). Therefore I believe that renaming the article is appropriate. Just for comparison, the John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash article is not called the 1999 Piper PA-32R Saratoga II crash. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest "aircraft" not "plane". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: Sala was not the owner of the plane or the pilot, so the comparison with John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash is unsuitable. I would stick with the current title. See also LaMia Flight 2933.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: as per User:ianmacm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. No-one is going to search for the current title, but titles similar to that proposed are widely used by the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there any similar articles already named like this at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest it only matters if we want article naming to be consistent. Three of those seem to be close enough to this one to suggest at least a valid precedent. But yes, other crashes exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've created a redirect from Emiliano Sala plane crash to this article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the list of similar examples above. The notability of the crash is that Sala died, not the type of plane. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – redirect is sufficient. Anyone searching for this crash will probably type in "Emiliano Sala" and land in his biog. first and then follow the link from there anyway. Another example for comparison is Sabena Flight 548 in which the notable victims were the entire U.S. Figure Skating team and their coaches, judges, manager. Might not have been notable otherwise but is not called "1961 U.S. Figure Skating plane crash" or similar. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rodney Baggins: what would be your policy-based argument for using a redirect when we could follow WP:COMMONNAME directly: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above."? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not denying this is a toughy! I still think the redirect would be sufficient, and I would echo what Deeday-UK says (below): putting Emiliano Sala plane crash in the search box takes you straight to the right article, it doesn't take you to the interim redirect page, so I can't see a problem with that. Naming of these articles is bit of a minefield. It could equally be called 2019 English Channel plane crash. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Unless we get another one, of course. I'm sure you meant to suggest aircraft instead of plane, didn't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rodney Baggins: it's not just about searching, it's about the common name as used by the reliable sources. We should use the name used in the sources and not make up our own, particularly counter-intuitive, name. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the most similar article I can think about is 1993 Zambia national football team plane crash. I'd therefore be inclined to support a move, but no objections if it stayed where it was given that that is how the majority of plane crashes involving non-celebrities are listed. GiantSnowman 11:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It makes more sense to me to leave the 'Mr XYZ plane crash' format to those cases where the notable person was also the pilot (such as for the already mentioned John John Kennedy and Graham Hill accidents); that circumstance is what makes those events really 'their' crashes. All other cases are more generally air accidents involving notable people (more examples spring to mind: Jenni Rivera, Rocky Marciano etc). Searchability is not a problem, once the redirect exists (putting Emiliano Sala plane crash in the search box takes you straight to the right article). --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Deeday-UK: I'm not sure why you think this article should defy WP:COMMONNAME because Sala wasn't the pilot. Look at the article names used in the sources, we should be following them. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly because I dont think we should be using "plane crash" like tabloid names but then I dont like crash in the current name either it may well have been a ditching!. Perhaps left alone for now with the appropriate redirects in place. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A more radical/ conventional alternative would be "Death of Emiliano Sala". I realise another RM would be required. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It would be better than the current RM suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I'd been thinking along those lines myself... Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've also wondered whether the word "crash" is presupposing that the plane crashed, but taking all of the evidence into account so far, it is unlikely to have been a water landing. The pilot usually has enough time to indicate this to ATC, eg US Airways Flight 1549.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the timeline of ATC communications entirely clear? But the salvage team was surprised at how intact the aircraft wreckage was. Maybe this should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair comment, another reason we might need to look at Death of Emiliano Sala is that there could be a far more reaching legal events surrounding the death (but that is pure speculation at this point). MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, the phrase "plane crash" should not appear anywhere in it, except when used in article titles by sources. Secondly, the article title is exactly how it should be per WP:AVIMOS. There is no good reason to alter it. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: but per WP:MOSAT, it seems that WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:AVIMOS, and the current title doesn't come anywhere near being the common name, particularly as it omits Sala's name. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the proposed title is the common name. It seems to me to be WP:MADEUP. Another objection is that is it very poor grammar as suggested. Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The WP:MOSAT advice says: "the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain"? There certainly seems to be a direct conflict here, but not sure abut the "trumps" bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: you missed the key bit; of these project naming conventions the full sentence is: "This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia." -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, ok. But "using specialized names" is something that's common across very many aviation accident articles. I don't actually see that it's "controversial". It allows for some degree of consistency. But who exactly gets to judge in this "outweighing" bit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Crowdfunding campaigns[edit]

This article is semi-protected and thus I can't edit it, but the section of the article which says that Sala's family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to find the body of David Ibbotson is incorrect; they started a crowdfunding campaign to find Sala, but the campaign to find David Ibbotson was launched by his daughter - nor can I add the link to the gofund me page as a link as it's blacklisted! Can someone who has appropriate privileges please update? Dafyddybryn (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Dafyddybryn. I have updated it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a few words about the funding campaign launched by Sala's family, but they have now been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As of 13 February, the fund stands at £235,935 of the £300,000 goal (screenshot). However, it has been pointed out by experts that if his body is not trapped in the wreckage, it may be very difficult to find.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

David Henderson, and BBC News video of N264DB from 2015[edit]

Football agent Willie McKay says that he arranged the flight for Sala, but was not involved in selecting the plane or pilot.[5] The flight was arranged through another pilot, David Henderson, but somehow the job was given to David Ibbotson instead. Henderson can be seen at the controls of the plane that was lost, N264DB, in this BBC News video from October 2015, starting at 1:14. Henderson seems to be familiar with the plane, and gives a guided tour of it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: The BBC News source here gives the impression that David Henderson may originally have been the intended pilot, but he passed on the job to David Ibbotson for some reason, possibly due to not being available himself at short notice on the Monday evening. The exchange of text messages is also revealing: "7:56pm- Sala: "How much will it cost?" 7:56pm-McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing." This suggests that Henderson/Ibbotson knew about the rules on flight sharing, and that it would not be legal for Ibbotson to make a profit from the flight.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)