Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents

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

Tenerife[edit]

The desription of the tenerife air crash is extremely POV and imcomplete. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.62.156 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history of air accidents starts with the balloon inset on the right of the page. But shouldn't there be a mention of the idea going back as first as Icarus. He was the first aviation acident or at least popularized idea of it. User:stan_pressman@hotmail.com--69.238.94.9 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Odds, safety metric == Anyone know how many commercial planes crash relative to how many their is that take off?

That would be a much better safety metric than the "fatality per mile basis". On a single Paris - New York flight I'll travel more miles than for a few years on a car. This could be compared to other forms of travel if there's some statistic available for the average route length in Air/Train/Car travel.

Other Countries[edit]

How do other countries - like say China, Japan, Russia, or the Middle East handle aviation incidents? KyuuA4 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article rename rationale[edit]

It's an incident if no one is killed. The intro section gives accidents examples, not incidents. Later today I'll write a definition pre-intro distinguishing aviation accidents from incidents. BACbKA 16:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) done BACbKA 20:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is not accurate. If the damage to the aircraft is severe, then it is an accident, even if there are no fatalities. The Air France A-340 total hull loss accident at Toronto was exactly that, even though there were no fatalities. That is why the word "accident" is repeatedly used, throughout the official accident report. EditorASC (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Systematization of causes needed[edit]

The article could benefit from a systematic list of accidents and incidents, as well as corresponding common prevention approaches. A lot of this can be refactored from the existing free-form text. BACbKA 20:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article should be a list instead, with a seperate article for each accident. --NoPetrol 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent Intro rewording "Edits for style"[edit]

Please have a look at the last edit, rewording the intro. I do not feel it imroves the style as

  1. in the new wording, it sounds as NTSB is the initial source of the definition of the concept, while the previous edition just gave the NTSB the credit for their wording of a pretty much common sense definition
  2. the ":" and paragraphs breaking the flow unduly (IMHO) expand the weight of the material beyond what (again IMHO) it deserves
  3. also in the expanded form, the second "is:" is more ambiguous (whether it's an NTSB def or just a well-known fact).

The mdash expansion into the words it implies is fine by me, I am unsure it's better that way, but it certainly isn't worse.

What do you folks think? BACbKA 11:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aviation-Safety.net up-to-date?[edit]

The article links to Aviation-Safety.net, which seems to be terribly out-of-date:

  • I couldn't find the recently crashed Helios Airways in the database (database:cyprus operators)- even though they already had a poor safety history before the recent incident (3 people hospitalized for probably the same reason now 121 people died: compression issues). This means that if somebody wanted to personally assess the safety of this particular airline before boarding the plane, he would find there was no problem, and might have been killed because of this omission (The wikipedia didn't have an entry about the earlier incident neither, but then again the wikipedia doesn't claim to be a great source for aviation safety issues).

Further omssions that I found particularly troubling in very limited testing include:

  • MNG_Airlines which is missing here (no safety problems so far, but there should be entries for all major airlines nonetheless), and
  • Birgenair, whose big crash is missing here.

I therefore suggest that we remove the link and add a better source. Peter S. 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, since nobody was against this, I'm removing it now. Peter S. 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent crashes and Well Known Aviation Accidents[edit]

The article lists a number of current accidents which, while I don't wish to diminish the tragedy of the events, will probably in time come to be not seen as all that "well-known". They are only well known at the moment, because of all the coverage they are getting. It's probably OK to leave them in for now, but let's keep an eye on it and remove those that are 'just another crash' in due course. Otherwise we'll just end up with a list of all aircrashes, which isn't what the article is for. Graham 05:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I've searched for a reasonable place to write my view towards the safety of accidents and incidents in aviation. I wonder why plane parachutes has not been invented, Well, i've better surgestions. Mail me on ROMEOELLA2000@YAHOO.COM. or Call, 08033006883, JOHN UMUKORO.

It is redundant to list "well-known" crashes when there are separate articles with lists of them. 69.219.169.88 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of recent crashes, I changed the recent CRJ-100 listing to a CRJ-200: http://news.delta.com/article10336.html -Peyton

If the Air India bombing is mentioned, surely the September 11th should be mentioned, too?

Actually, none of the specific airliner incidents should be mentioned. Separate articles already contain lists of the incidents. If every air disaster is going to be listed in this article, then that is unnecessary as a few articles already list individual incidents according to year, location, incident type, etc. 75.34.33.118 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced the contents of this section with links to lists of Commericial Airliner incidents. Listed incidents can be found in those lists. KyuuA4 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this list is being regenerated under "Specific Events". KyuuA4 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Iran Air Flight 655, shot down by the U.S. Navy over the Straits of Hormuz, the only crash in the article to reference how many children were killed? That reference seems to be unnecessarily political, and I've deleted it for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.171.49 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific events[edit]

Commercial airliner accidents - by plane type?[edit]

How about having a list of accidents sorted by plane type, eg. all 747 accidents in one spot, all A320 accidents in another etc.? Peter S. 11:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial airliner accidents - by manufacturer?[edit]

Following Peter S. request, i think this could be interesting.

Lost[edit]

I can't believe someone actually tried to put the plane crash from Lost on this page! Don't forget Die Hard 2! Dyslexic agnostic 19:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe we need a list of fictional aviation accidents? :-) Peter S. 12:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worst continent in the world to fly from[edit]

The worst continent in the world to fly from is Africa. In 2003, it generated only 3% of all the flights, but accounted for 28% of all the aircrashes.

Fact of the day at http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/qi/. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Gimli Glider was not a disaster and should not be on this list. Thoughts?

John


==============[edit]

Did the name of this page change, from "Air Disasters" to the present "Accidents and incidents in aviation?" If so, then the name change of the page, solves the above question. John is right: Gimli was not a disaster; it was a superb example of how super pilot judgment and skill saved the day.

1858 PDT, July 5, 2006

--EditorASC 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hindenburg[edit]

how about including the hindenburg disaster in the list of well-known aviation accidents? seems appropriate to me. User:Muschrott Mar 27, 2005

Added. Also, since it seems rather central to the theme of the article, it would be nice to see this entire section expanded, and perhaps grouped. Something like "Pre 1900, 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960, 1960-1980, 1980-2000, 2000-2020, etc." (by decade would be too many categories(?)) I think a reasonable goal would be 10-20 entires per period. This would make a nice reference/redirect feature for the page. Al Biglan 22:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Payne Stewart Crash[edit]

I'd like to propose a correction to the language describing the Payne Stewart crash. The text is currently:

......crashed in South Dakota with no survivors; it is believed that all on board died from lack of oxygen when the plane suddenly lost cabin pressure early in the flight, while the plane was on autopilot.....

The accident investigation concluded that pressurization was gradually lost, causing hypoxia, which is insidious and hard to detect by those experiencing it. Thus the pilots never activated their own back-up oxygen masks or descended for a landing. It's a small change, but an important one to pilots; I'd like to replace 'suddenly' with 'gradually'.

-ShellBell-


Quotation[edit]

"Flying is not inherently dangerous, but to an even greater extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity, or neglect"

Does the above sentence add anything to the article? -FredrikM

Yes. Graham 04:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since somebody decided to edit out the quotation without further discusion, I've added it back in. Here are my reasons. The quote is familiar to all aviators, it is pertinent to the article, and it adds a little colour and interest. WP doesn't need to be dry, and this helps introduce the topic. Ask yourself the opposite - what does the article GAIN by NOT having it there? Graham 22:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That quote is also in Air Disasters by Stanley Stewart - Arrow - 1986/89 - ISBN 0-09-956200-6
In World War 1, as aircraft came into wider use, attempts were made to reduce the accident rate. Reports of incidents were circulated amongst airmen to help improve knowledge. One RFC summary admonished that ‘accidents during the last three months of 1917 cost £317 10s 6d - money down the drain, and sufficient to buy new gaiters and spurs for each and every pilot and observer in the service!’ A statement on flight safety pronounced at the time clearly outlined the problem. ‘Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.’ The same comment is as valid today as it was then, and over the years much effort has been expended in overcoming the problems
On the subject of books I can also recommend: Aircrash Detective: the Quest for Aviation Safety: An International Report by Stephen Barlay - 1969 - Hamilton - ISBN 0241015081 which has information on some of the lesser-known aircrashes prior to 1969.
Ian Dunster 10:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The quote comes from Captain A. G. Lamplugh, CBE FRAeS MIAeE FRGS - he was the head of the insurance firm; The British Aviation Insurance Group (BAIG), and later went on to help form British Aviation Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Air disasters[edit]

I believe that Air disasters should be converted to a redirect page to Accidents and incidents in aviation. The latter article is already well established, and provides a plethora of links to topics on the NTSB, individual incidents, etc. The creator of Air disasters can be a useful resource in filling in any gaps in the information that already exists. Any other thoughts?--Brianvdb 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good mate, but can u give me some time to finish some more work on it then i will probably merge it... ok, sound alright?

Ok, I merged the two pages, and added some new features to this page also... The NTSB section and a photo gallery that can be added to at any time== :)

that works great!

merge[edit]

shouldn't the article be merged into:

List_of_accidents_and_incidents_on_commercial_airliners_grouped_by_year

Marminnetje 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, NO!

This page is clearly of an above order the two pages work very well with each other i think.

That's why they should be merged. Marminnetje 14:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

manufacturer list inaccuracy[edit]

In the safety section: "In modern times, two major manufacturers still produce heavy passenger aircraft for the civilian market: Boeing in the United States of America, and the European company Airbus."

What about Brazilian manufacturer Embraer? Ahfretheim (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

issue with causes[edit]

The percentages in the causes section equal 108%. It is impossible for ANYTHING to equal over 100%.

Not true. Professional sports people regularly give 110%. Stevage 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
=========[edit]

I added studies by Boeing, which shows the rate of crew error (as primary cause of accidents) to be continually declining.

EditorASC 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a BIT much...[edit]

Is there really a need for THAT many entries under the Well-known aviation accidents heading? The section is longer than the rest of the article and has FAR too many entries, some of which carry as much detail as the article on the specific crash itself. I propose either of 3 things:

1) Making this section its own page (though there already seems to be similar pages, under the "See also" section...

2) Keeping a maximum of 7-10 of the most well-known and/or significant of plane crashes

3) Keeping the entire list as is, but make the details more consistent. Details should include nothing more than the name of the plane(s), where it crashed, how many deaths/survivors, and a small explanation of how the crash occured. There is no need for a minute-by-minute description of the events that led to the crash itself, as is the case with many of the entries. --Crabbyass 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category naming?[edit]

Military "accidents"[edit]

It doesn't seem appropriate to put military helicopter crashes in the same article - that group of helicopter crashes in the Iraq war just seems way out of place. How to divide them up, "Accidents and incidents in civilian aviation"? Stevage 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see quite a few other problems with the article as it currently stands. In a while I think I'll be bold and chop out some of the dead wood. --Guinnog 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th details[edit]

This is how the September 11, 2001 attacks are currently described in the article:

"The worst aviation-related disaster of any kind was the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001 after the intentional crashing of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. 2,974 people were killed, mostly occupants of the destroyed buildings and rescue workers, also making it the most devastating terrorist attack in the world."

There's a disconnect here. The attack on the Pentagon and the crashed plane in Pennsylvania aren't mentioned, but the deaths that occurred there are counted. I'm willing to agree that they're separate, but in that case the number of dead would be 2,603 (not counting 40 in PA, 125 at the Pentagon, and 24 still listed as missing). My preference, however, would be to add the Pentagon and Shanksville to the sentence. -- Plutor talk 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safest form of transportation? (Safety section)[edit]

The elevator article says they are the safest form of transportation. Maybe elevators "dont't count"? Might be worth making a note about it though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.5.46 (talk)

I agree with this sentiment. Saying air travel is the safest form should have supporting data. It should also be specified that advanced design, maintenance, safety devices and air traffic control contribute to this record, followed by referenced data. Or maybe the sentence should just be removed.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need good citations for relative accident rates between modes of travel.[edit]

The citations previously given do not provide any support for the concrete numbers claimed in the Safety section, and so I removed them:

  • [1]: only relevant information is "Statistically, trains remain the safest form of transportation after airplanes."
  • [2]: the only concrete numbers given relate to rate of decrease in auto fatalities year-over-year; different modes of transportation are not compared at all.

Looking for sources of real numbers, I was able to find the following (from the U.S. govt.):

  • This page has real stats on auto fatalities in the U.S. on a per-mile basis, indicating more like 1.5 than 0.96 per 100MMT: [3]
  • This includes the same data, alongside airplane fatalities, but per 100K takeoffs, so not directly comparable: [4]
  • For rail, the most up-to-date data seems from this source is from 1998: [5]; It's on a per-100MMT basis, but isn't a good comparison since it is not normalized by number of passengers per vehicle. (the statistics seem to be higher than for cars, but there are likely to be way more passengers per vehicle-mile than in a private auto).

Any data from such sources included in the article should be clearly indicated as U.S.-only, not worldwide.

Where did the numbers in the article come from originally? They definitely don't seem to agree with the BBC statement that planes are six times as safe as driving.

If we can't find a source for concrete statistics, there's no way to ensure their accuracy and they shouldn't be in the article.

--Speight (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's reemphasize this!!! People are adding statement without cites. If you can't cite it, don't add it. I think I'll start removing uncited stuff if people don't follow through. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Safest per mile"[edit]

What kind of way is it to measure travelling safety after how many miles you travel? Obviously this gives air planes a huge advantage since they are much faster than both cars and trains. It seems to be that the most relevant way would be to measure per travelling occasion. notwist (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it should be measured by time spent (e.g. "fatalities per million passenger hours spent on transport medium"). Cars are very safe when fatalities per journey are considered since most journeys are short trips within a city at low speeds with a low chance of fatalities occurring. --SmilingBoy (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Film and Television Productions Depicting Aviation Accidents[edit]

I would like to create an entry for films and television shows that have realistically depicted aviation accidents, particularly films like We Are Marshall, and Cast Away, as well as Lost (TV series). Does anyone else think this is a good idea? ("List of Aviation Accidents Depicted on Film and Television" might be a good name.) --Radical Mallard 4:14 PM EST 5/19/09

"List of Aviation Accidents in Fiction" might be preferable. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.230.129 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger jet flying through volcano ash cloud?[edit]

It was discussed on a PBS (Discovery?) special. It was in the Phillipines, at night. The cockpit crew described it as blackness with specks of light flying at the plane, and the reenactment in the TV special showed something that looked like Star Wars' "hyperspace" or that classic 'starfield' screen saver. What flight was that? --98.232.178.38 (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 9 MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many deaths in advanced countries, like America? How many deaths in small airplanes vs large one? Stats have to be specific to be useful[edit]

these statistics lump together unrelated data - to be useful they ought to break down different groups and situations. Lots of deaths happen in Africa because of poor plane maintenance. Lots of deaths happen in small personal airplanes in America. When you lump everything together, you don't get a useful estimate of the danger of flying on a major American airline. Neither do you get a useful estimate for Africa, for small airplanes and for various other situations. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll table ACRO does not match[edit]

The table of deaths per year given in section "Aircraft Crashes Record Office (ACRO)" does not match with the table on the site it is linked to (currently footnote 9, http://www.baaa-acro.com/Liste%20des%20deces%20par%20annee.htm ). For most years, the deviation is small or even zero, but for 2001, the table on the acro site names 1535 victims instead of 4140 as in Wikipedia. Probably, the ground victims of 9/11 were later taken out of this statistic. Since the list on the page is sorted by victims, here is the comparision sorted by year:

year ACRO Wiki
1999 1'139 1138
2000 1'582 1582
2001 1'535 4140
2002 1'415 1413
2003 1'233 1230
2004 771 771
2005 1'461 1459
2006 1'295 1294
2007 973 971
2008 884 884
2009 1'106 1103
2010 1'120 1115
2011 828 828

I did not check the number of accidents, though.193.52.24.11 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that ACRO does not take into account all fatalities only those realated to "an event in which the aircraft has suffered such damage that it is not in a position to be used anymore and that it is removed from service" as metionned on their website. I think this should be mentionned on ACRO section as we can mislead this number as the total fatalities related to air accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.241.110 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture is insufficiently captioned[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, the picture of ejecting pilot in this article would never be adequate without a text describing of the person's sexual orientation, opinion on abortion and pet dog name. I hope you do read me so far) Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way better. I really appreciate your understanding. Ukrained2012 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on ACRO[edit]

The numbers of accident and deaths per year seem to differ in various places on the ACRO website. For example, looking up the number of crashes in 2009 here:

http://www.baaa-acro.com/general-statistics/crashs-rate-per-year/

shows 162 of them. However the wiki linked PDF on the same website lists 133. Admittedly the PDF says "accidents" rather than "crashes" so one could take it to be more inclusive, but then that number should be higher rather than lower. I'm not sure what the reason for this discrepancy is, but I'd tend to trust the database search tool more. Also, the PDF only runs up to 2012. Does anyone have any deeper insight on this? I wasn't planning on spending much time on this page, but thought it deserved to be brought up at least. Laanders (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional acts are not accidents - in the US anyway, and the US section mentions only incidents[edit]

I am not accustomed to seeing intentional or criminal acts defined as accidents. AirSafe says this is not the custom among the FAA, NTSB, and industry, though my reading of the Annex 13 reference does not seem to exclude them. Is this really the custom worldwide?

Also, in the country-by-country investigation section, the US section says the NTSB investigates incidents. Only incidents involving paid carriers under Part 121 and Part 135 (and international carriers under... I think it's Part 127? Part 126? I used to dispatch them and I can't remember!) are investigated by the NTSB, as are all accidents (except those involving intentional acts and non-fatal, non-commercial accidents). The latter are investigated by the FAA, and the former are investigated by the FBI, or at least that was the case in the mid 1990s. Non-fatal general aviation accidents were also investigated by the FAA as of in the mid 1990's. I learned this through several safety seminars given by the FAA and NTSB around that time. I know the FBI still investigates all intentional acts. I might have some of the details wrong, but generally this is how it's done in the USA. There are several investigating bodies, and incidents are very different from accidents. (So fix it, right?) I don't have RS right now though. If I have time over the next week I'll look into that. Busy US holiday yesterday - personal stuff... I'll get back to it. Dcs002 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents are explicitly defined and not really covered here[edit]

I just added the ICAO definition for incidents to the lead, but I don't see incidents covered in this article. I think we should either give some coverage to incidents or move the article to Aviation accidents. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation an 'incident' is an event that may or may not result in an accident.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aviation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aviation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll + Colon heading? What's up with that?[edit]

I've never seen that on Wikipedia before, and I'm fairly certain that's not how an article's supposed to be written. Shouldn't it be formatted into a table? Or otherwise move away from having the death toll at the front of each paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidowXTracer2Cute (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aviation accidents and incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 or Tenerife?[edit]

Um, ground fatalities don’t usually count (depending on the amount of said ground fatalities). Plus all of the flights involved in the 9/11 attacks carried less than 100 people (including the hijackers). What would be the best thing to do to make this less confusing? Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt appear to be confusing, clearly 9/11 was the largest loss of life in an aviation-related incident or accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems perfectly clear to me. The articles name is "Aviation accidents and incidents". 9/11 was incident and Tenerife was an accident. - Samf4u (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The definitions used in the article, including accident and incident, are solely in the context of civil air transport—that is, aircraft operated by passenger air carriers.—Finell 05:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both MilborneOne and Samf4u about 9/11 being the real deadliest aviation disaster. Because of this, I have to do a lot of major editing involving a massive amount of re-numbering aviation disasters and a lot of trivia editing (if any). I have already done some of this major editing, but this is still likely to take a while. I apologize if this ends up turning out as disruptive editing, but hopefully it will make things less confusing and more clear. I’m nervous that this might backfire though, so if it does, than I am extremely sorry.Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to seek a clear consensus on the matter before embarking on such large-scale changes. See my comment in the next section. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 terrorist attack does not belong in this article[edit]

The 9/11 terrorist attack does not belong in this article, in my opinion. This article is about civilian air transport equipment malfunctions and crew errors. The 9/11 terrorist attack was the hijacking of aircraft and deliberately using the planes as weapons. The aircraft functioned as designed and the terrorists who took command of the aircraft did essentially what they intended (except the one failed attack that some passengers foiled, and crashed the aircraft in doing so).

If you want to talk about aircraft involved in the loss of life and serious injuries, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. But, with the exception of 9/11, this article does not discuss the loss of life from deliberate acts, be they hijackings or military operations.—Finell 04:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article currently neglects to mention, or adhere to, the exception given in ICAO Annex 13, "except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons". As an illustration of this definition, the 9/11 attack is clearly incorrect. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Burninthruthesky: I respect your opinion, but as 9/11 always held this position for who knows long, I disagree. Plus, EgyptAir Flight 990, (which might have been a deliberate crash but is disputed), is discussed. Also, (I don't want to be mean/rude or anything) don't call United Airlines Flight 93 "the one failed attack that some passengers foiled, and crashed the aircraft in doing so." It sounds very disrespectful to the passengers and crew of UA93, excluding the hijackers. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Annex 13 is a legal document describing a country's obligations following an aviation accident. For example, an investigation by the relevant authorities. The NTSB issued this statement saying they would not issue a report. If there are better reliable sources saying the attacks fell under the ICAO definition, the material should stay. I am not yet convinced.
P.S. the comment you quoted above wasn't mine. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Air Littoral Flight 701[edit]

Very minor incident with just 1 casualty. We're not covering every car crash either, even though those often have more victims. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a daft idea to merge it here but I see it has now been redirected to ATR 42 so presume that this request is void. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that, too, and reversed myself. The redirect has been undone, but that is indeed a much better merge target (in fact, no merging is necessary as the accident is already listed there). --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents incidents on commerical airliners listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of accidents incidents on commerical airliners. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Lockheed L-188 Electra[edit]

The Lockheed L-188 Electra had a particularly poor safety record and perhaps should be referenced in this article.

Of the total of 170 Electras built, as of June 2011, 58 have been written off because of crashes and other accidents.[58] In an 18-month span, these accidents occurred:

February 3, 1959: American Airlines Flight 320 en route from Chicago to New York City crashed on approach, killing 65 of 73 on board.[59][60]

September 29, 1959: A Braniff Electra (Braniff Flight 542) crashed in Buffalo, Texas, en route to Dallas, Texas from Houston, Texas. All 29 passengers and five crew members died in the crash. The Civil Aeronautics Board blamed the crash on the "whirl-mode" prop theory and in-flight separation of a wing from the aircraft.[61][62]

March 17, 1960: Northwest Orient Flight 710, en route from Chicago to Miami, Florida, broke apart in flight over Perry County, Indiana, in the second "whirl-mode" crash. All 63 people on board were killed (57 passengers and six crew members).[7][63]

September 14, 1960: An Electra operated as American Airlines Flight 361 caught its landing gear on a dike while landing at LaGuardia Airport. The aircraft came to rest upside down. There were no fatalities among the 76 occupants (70 passengers, six crew).[64][65]

October 4, 1960: Eastern Air Lines Flight 375 crashed on takeoff from Boston, Massachusetts's Logan International Airport, killing 62 of 72 on board. The crash was eventually determined to be the result of bird ingestion into three of the four engines.[66]

June 12, 1961: KLM Flight 823 crashed short of the runway at Cairo killing 20 of the 36 on board.[67] 96.242.191.180 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Kolef96.242.191.180 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dont believe it is relevant to the bigger picture about the history of aircraft accidents. Unless you have reliable sources that the type was a significant milestone in making aircraft safer or a breakthrough in investigation technique. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

This is a section for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which is getting an absurd amount of edits and revisions that are wholly biased and inaccurate. This page is about aviation, not geopolitics. There must be a neutral stance in all issues. And no, that neutral stance doesn't involve zeal! I have personally edited the MH17 section so that it sounds pretty neutral, taking an excerpt from the primary Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Wikipedia page. Further discussions and talks of edits should happen, here. Mbman8 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics: Presenting Incidents Relative to Total Number of Flights Taken.[edit]

Current statistics show how the number of incidents/fatalities varies from year to year. How about also showing how these numbers compare to the number of total flights in a given year?

For example, 1971 and 1993 both had about 270 flight incidents. It’s highly unlikely however, that they had a comparable number of total flights.

If 1993 had way more flights than 1971 but still had a comparable number of incidents, then it means flying was way safer in 1993 compared to 1971. Having the tables/charts show the total number of flights per year would help make this more obvious. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Crash, not accident[edit]

I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

To keep the conversations in one place, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Crash, not accident. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents&oldid=1199222201"