Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.|
The section does not show any of accidents in the 1940s and 50s and all but two in the 60s. A starting point could be wikis own Article Air France see: Incidents and accidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xigan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be wrong to update this to state it as Terrorism/Hiijacking like the other flights of 9/11 or commenting that it was an attempt at purposeful collision? Alexkraegen (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just read these articles and feel at least one incident has been omited. I lived in Malta from 1953 to 1959, and while at High School remember a flight crashing in Italy, probably in 1953/4. It may have been a Royal Air Force flight but I know it was a transport plane as family members of classmates were on board. If any one can shed some light on this I would appreciate it.
- An RAF transport flight crashed into the sea between Malta and Italy in 1955, killing 48 people, might that be it? There is some information about three quarters of the way down this page, but not much.--Jackyd101 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Oceanic Airways Flight 815 is either vandalism or a result of confusing TV for reality.
I added a picture. A friend of someone I know died on Flight 77 so I hope the image isn't deemed in poor taste. I feel a bit conflicted about putting in glowing picture detail how people I mourned died.--T. Anthony 12:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree on a standard collation here, please? Accidents and incidents should either be listed chronologically under each heading, or sorted in nondecreasing order of flight number (with chronology used to break ties). I don't particularly care which, but we should pick one and stick to it. —LX 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, that was the first thing that I noticed when I came to this page, the random collation. My preference would be chronological. Anyone else want to weigh in? -- Kaszeta 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What does the use of these icons bring to the article - how do they improve it? /wangi 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will remove them, for many airlines the flag icon is irrelevant. Thanks/wangi 09:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that taking the flags away could create confusion about Taiwan's national airlines, oddly named China Air. --Torchpratt 12:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there is someone out there deleting information about the incidents and accidents Qantas had in its life (jet engine or not) or posting opinions on the actual article page. Please stop. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to standardize this list, I'd like to make the following proposals:
1. All aircraft of the same type should be designated the same throughout the page. (I.E Don't do "Boeing 737-400" and "Boeing B-737-400"). It only creates confusion. The same should be done for causes/types. Don't say "Water Landing" for one occurance and "Ocean Ditching" for another, unless the two are so completely different as to warrant a new class of cause/type.
2. The location of the accident should list the closest airport or city to which it occured. Do not specify detailed information such as "the hill close to" or "crashed through the building at the end of the runway at" this only distorts the table.
3. Capitalize where it has been capitalized, try to keep the look and feel of the information uniform throughout the page.
4. Of course, it's open to suggestion if there's something you feel should be changed. It would just be nice to have it changed throughout the entire page instead of only at one occurance.
--Resplendent 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support your item 3 comment. Re: items 1 and 2, I agree that standardization is important. However, it must be noted that most of the information is provided in the same format as the original source. It would be good if all aircraft type were reported the same way (B-747 vs B-747-400 as you note), but that is not done, for example, in the NTSB incident database, which is the source of the data. Similar comment for the location of the accident. I am not sure if we Wikipedians have the right to, or morally should, change the source data. That would border on personal research, which is frowned upon. Comments anyone? Is this topic dealt with in the various Wikipedia style guide and standards articles? Truthanado 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Fatalities or not
The NTSB database (and other sources) typically includes whether the incident involved fatalities or not. Many of the incidents listed in this article do not involve fatalities, and readers may not understand that. I suggest, therefore, that each incident include a tag (Fatal, Non-fatal) to indicate whether any one died from the incident. I'm not suggesting we get moribund and define how many fatalities there were for each incident, although that is also a possibility because that data is also available. In the meantime, I have added a sentence near the beginning of the article indicating that not all incidents listed involved fatalities. Comments anyone? Truthanado 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's change "Cause" to "Cause / Result"
I agree with Truthanado. Let's not be morbid, but let's try to add real, meaningful statistics. Based on info published in today's Taipei Times, I updated some of the China Airlines info, and I tried to add some beef. Honestly, this list is kind of dry, and there are a lot of question marks. The message that "not every incident had fatalities" is wonderfully reassuring, but there's no data in the chart to back that up. The brave Taiwanese pilots saved everyone on that plane yesterday. And, I'm pretty sure they jumped out of the cockpit windows just before a huge explosion sent a black fireball into the sky (but the video is a little unclear. Something fell from the windows!). Another question I have is these planes that were hijacked. What, that's all we get? On the other hand, "Midair collision" pretty much speaks for itself. And the name of this Wikipedia entry is so long that it uncharastically wraps unfashionably to an unwanted second line. Can we "tweak" a few things around here? --Torchpratt 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the addition of a new column with "Injuries/Fatalities" would be warranted. Example Usage: 124/0 --Resplendent 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first column header in the tables be "Flight number" instead of "destination"?
lallous 12:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Sorry, I misread "designation" for "destination".
Air France - Concorde?
Although it was not a regular scheduled flight, shouldn´t the crash of Air France´s Concorde be listed under Air France? After all it was operated by AF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Egypt Air in Tunis
Egypt Air, Crash in Tunis, Tunisia, on the Nahli hill, 4 miles from the airport. It was in 2002
you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir#Incidents_and_accidents