Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Deletion of Air Canada Flight 190 and Asian Spirit Flight 321

I don't understand MilborneOne's repeated deletion of Air Canada Flight 190 and Asian Spirit Flight 321. Both clearly meet the dedicated guideline WP:ADL. In the AC case, there were several serious injuries, which qualifies it explicitly as an "accident", and it received wide media coverage. The Asian Spirit accident involved substantial damage to the aircraft (definition of an "accident") or at the very least "an occurrence... that affects or could affect the safety of operations" (definition of an "incident") and was covered by the news media. --MCB (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note repeated deletion is twice! Using the same guidelines as MCB and to quote from WP:ADL in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. Neither is true in this case. As I have removed it (only) twice I have refered it to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force for comment. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the guideline. It covers both accidents and incidents. An accident is defined as an occurrence "in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage". An "incident" is defined as ""an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations" of a flight. If you look through the contents of the article, many incidents are included as well as accidents. The Air Canada flight indisputably incurred an accident (due to serious injuries), and is being investigated as such. The Asian Spirit flight's overrun was probably an accident (due to substantial damage to the aircraft; take a look at the photo in the news article!) but even if not, it is indisputably an incident, and is being investigated as such. (As a rule of thumb, if there's an ASN write-up plus media coverage, it almost certainly qualifies.) --MCB (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MCB is correct, MilborneOne. WP:ADL states that so long as the entry is linked to a separate sufficiently-referenced article and either caused death or severe injury to a passenger or substantial damage to the aircraft (an accident) or consists of an unexpected occurrence that either effects or could effect operations safety.

Based on that definition, I'd have to argue that both flights merit inclusion: the Asian Spirit flight definitely meets the "accident" standard, since the plane crashed on landing, causing "significant" damage to the right propeller and landing gear; plus, there has been no word released on whether any of the passengers were injured, although I'd so. The Air Canada flight definitely qualifies as an accident since there was a considerable number of passenger injuries, including 5 listed as "serious".

Aside from the accident qualification, they both clearly effected the safety of operations; by safety of operations, I'm guessing they would consider crashing one of their planes on landing or injuring half their passengers to be a fairly strong affect on the safety of their operations.

These guidelines are more tailored to exclude minor, relatively common problems in-flight that don't pose a strong risk to anyone's safety, like engine flameouts and passenger medical problems necessitating a divert to a closer airport. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur, seems pretty clear that even if you apply a very strong standard to the term accident, Milborne just didn't read down to the definition of incident. Deiz talk 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I agree that they are accidents or incidents according to the ICAO definition - but this page is only for Notable accidents and incidents - which they are not. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

'but this page is only for Notable accidents and incidents' Que? The title of the article is "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft", Not "List of notable accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft". 82.69.27.224 (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this article the word notable was removed from the title when the inclusion guidelines at WP:ADL were agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Location style

After adding some countries to entries in the article User:LeadSongDog has noted that it is not necesary and that a guideline exists. Appreciate if somebody knows of a guide related to locations. At the moment the article does not have a consistent style, sometime mentions the country, sometime just the airport. I would suggest that entries should follow the same style. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some consistency is needed, but we also have to worry about overall size, as we are already much bigger than recommended. I would therefore recommend that we include the country in cases where it would not be obvious to an average, reasonably educated English speaker. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok sounds reasonable, I still have a problem sometimes with the assumption that anything in North America is always obvious!! MilborneOne (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we seem to be somewhat overly NA-focused, perhaps because that's where we have the most editors and/or readers. I would still try to guess at what the "average" person (on the Clapham bus, which is outside NA ;^)) would know, and where we don't specify the country, it is no more than one click away. Crum375 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your comments MilborneOne (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New candidate for entry

I think that the Canberra air disaster, 1940 is a notable candidate. Three members of the federal cabinet died, and it arguably led to a change of government the next year, and also improved the fortunes of future Australian Prime Minister, Harold Holt Grover (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree as it was a military aircraft operated by the RAAF during wartime, no reason why it cant be in List of incidents and accidents involving military aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that category, thanks Grover (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

10 June 1985

This date was the biggest aircraft of USSR history.200 people was killed. But there isn't in the list.Please, put it there.My English isn't big as need to write it. --Sashakarpov (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Sashakarpov

I presume you mean the accident on 10 July 1985, it is not on the list because the related article Aeroflot Flight 7425 has not been created yet. I will create it for you later if nobody else does it first, then it can be added to the list. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I have created the article and added it to the list. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Length

This list has gotten terribly long, and even with the guideline I cannot see any remaining pretense at keeping all the listed incidents really "notable." Is it not time to think of splitting it up into pages by decade (or even by year, in the case of post-2000 incidents)? oh my yes (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's getting very long. OTOH, it's very convenient to have the entire history to date in one page, vs. a bunch of sub-pages. One possibility is to tighten the includability criteria, for example by only allowing more significant or notable events post 2000. One criterion could be accidents/incidents that establish a new safety-related precedent (with a source for that on the linked article). The tightening would have to be proposed and discussed on WT:ADL. The title would also have to change — we used to have "notable" in the title to indicate we only accept the more notable cases, but that was recently removed. Crum375 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We perhaps are too worried about the 100k readable prose length guideline. Per WP:SIZE: "Please note: These guidelines apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages, and naturally do not apply to redirects." In any case the 100k figure is for what are now very old browsers. I wonder though if we couldn't do a better job of the TOC so that the whole history would fit on the initial screen (no scrolling needed to pick a year). WP:SIZE also suggests a possible transclusion technique for managing very long list articles we might consider. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Suggests using the 'cats' instead of this incredible long listing without any kind of priorisation - reserve this entry as a place to mention the extraordinary instead. Jcs45 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PC-6 accident

I removed the 30 May entry for the Spanish PC-6 accident as not notable and a was not a commercial flight. It was removed previously by another editor and added back in by original poster with the summary that it meet the criteria as a civil aircraft carrying fare paying passengers. I consider it to be a general aviation flight and not a commericial flight as it was carrying skydivers - most fare paying passengers dont normally jump out of commercial aircraft. Didnt want to remove it again without comment from other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add if it is considered notable then it should really be on List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't claim any familiarity with the structure of aviation in Spain, but that's a pretty standard distinction elsewhere. Moving it. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

August 12, 1957

I just caught the end of a show here on history television on a crash in Canada that took place on August 12, 1957. 77 (I believe it was) people died. Someone may want to add that to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)