Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Help needed at formatting names on list and on death image montage[edit]

Click to come to the image page:

Mayday (TV series)[edit]

A lot of accident articles have a link to Mayday (TV series) normally under a heading of dramatization, as Mayday is an entertainment programme I am not actually convinced that the programmes are notable to the accident. Perhaps we should consider removing mention of mayday in these articles as the fact that an entertainment programme is produced is not that uncommon as they fill more and more series of programs. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been talk concerning Mayday episodes in the past. Here is one case[1] about whether it was a reliable source. There were categories for crashes that were made into Mayday episodes, but the cateogries were deleted at CFD. Check here[2] and here[3]. I've done a great deal of work on List of Mayday episodes but don't care one way or another whether the crash articles make mention of the show....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Because they are dramatizations and not strict documentaries I have concerns about linking to Mayday from aircraft accident articles. I would be happier if they were not linked. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not think there would be any difference if they were removed from the articles. It is likely that people who follow aviation already know about the show's existence and the incidents they have covered. However, some episodes raise questions like "Massacre over the Mediterranean" (Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870). I believe they should be mentioned but NEVER used as a direct reference to add parts to the article as the show focuses more on Dramatization.
Also, dramatization/in media sections are not solely sections for the Mayday show. Some crashes have been covered on numerous programs such as Seconds from Disaster and Why Planes Crash. It is just that Mayday is the most common. Tntad (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have run its course. Unless someone objects aka restarts this discussion, I am going to remove the Mayday episode links in crash articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Mayday is certainly not an entertainment programme. It's more or less a documentary series. Sure there is some "dramatization" of the events, but they always present the official investigations' findings. That's not different in any way to any other of the documentary series on aircraft accidents. I can even see how one could make such a documentary without any dramatization/reconstruction. Almost no aircraft accident leaves video footage of the actual pilots in distress. Also Mayday is/was never used as a source, there was just mention in the relevant articles that the episodes exist. It's absolute not uncommon to mention media coverage of aircraft accidents. Heck, US Airways Flight 1549 even mentions they made a feature film about it. And that is even more fictionalized.Tvx1 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Mayday is has been used as a source. Check out some of my edit summaries for Trans-Colorado Flight 2268. There have been other instances too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No reason not to include Mayday links. it's a valid treatment of subject and investigation even if dramatized in parts. Some include interviews with actual participants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So, could you tell me as na outsider, is here a consensus or not? WikiHannibal (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So where are we with this? I still can't see a clear consensus which supported the removal of this. So if no-one objects I will reinstate the information (save of course where Mayday was used as a source).Tvx1 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I object it is not noteworthy to the accident in nearly all cases and I am not sure it is a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
How is it any less noteworthy than any other coverage which is mentioned in the "In the media" sections in aircraft incident articles? And as I have explained before, there is no intention to use it a source, so that objection is off the mark. Sully (film) is mentioned in US Airways Flight 1549 and that feature film isn't a reliable source either.Tvx1 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
To sell programmes the Mayday serious has made and sensationalised a lot of accidents, so many that we should mention why Mayday hasnt made a programme about them. The media section of the Flight 1549 is not the best example of encyclopedic content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This is just the sort of absurdity I'd expect from the self-appointed Sky Gods of Wikipedia. Yes, let's ignore the show that relies on official transcripts, actual investigators, real experts, and eyewitness testimony in favor of erroneous news articles because one guy saw one episode he thought seemed sensationalized (I can't believe anyone would think this, of all shows, is at all "sensationalistic") when it's a very science-focused show. Anything that smells of scholarship must be killed. I'd name the many, many, many episodes that are purely science-based but I'm going to get shouted-down and yelled at for incivilty anyway. Telcia (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that this has been raised again at Talk:British Airways Flight 38 after I removed some none noteworthy mentions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's worth noting that, despite the claim on the Flight 38 talk page, there is clearly no consensus above on whether "In culture" references should be included or deleted. Many aviation incident pages have had these sections for years without complaint, so there is long standing precedent for keeping them. Therefore, any single user who takes it upon themselves to mass-delete these references will be reverted until consensus is reached. Obviously, I vote in favor of keeping them in any consensus building discussion. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments about the Knute Rockne crash article...[edit]

I've renamed the article on this crash and purged a clearly incorrect flight number from every Wikipedia article I could find with it. I've also made some new comments on its talk page. This is an important crash in U.S. aviation history; sadly, its article could stand a lot of work. Is there anyone here who might be willing to help with that? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to alter inclusion criteria for entries in the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft[edit]

A proposal has been put forward to alter the inclusion criteria for entries in the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. The proposal affects aircraft types that first flew before 1921. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format#Proposal for inclusion criteria for pre-1921 aircraft....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just created a stub article for the Bronson Cutting crash...[edit]

...but right now it only has a lead, an infobox, and a bibliography of potential sources. It really needs a lot more work to make it a proper article, but I don't think I can devote the necessary time and effort to this task. So I'm asking for help from anyone else who might be interested and motivated on the subject.

The accident is most important for the political and regulatory consequences that stemmed from it. The crash itself is certainly notable and interesting in its own right, but when examined purely as an aviation accident, it wasn't especially remarkable for its time. On the night of May 5, 1935, an eastbound transcontinental TWA DC-2 flight, Flight 6, took off from Albuquerque for its next stop, Kansas City. Both the flight crew and TWA's dispatchers had cleared the flight to depart, despite the fact that the transmitter on the plane's two-way radio had been malfunctioning, preventing the pilots from asking ground facilities or anyone else for information or advice. Making matters worse, the weather forecast for Kansas City turned out to be overly optimistic, and conditions deteriorated to the point that it was impossible for the flight to safely land there, though they may have tried an approach anyway. Eventually the flight, facing a critical fuel situation, headed further east toward an emergency field at Kirksville, Missouri, but the weather there wasn't much better. Just before the accident, the DC-2 was flying at near ground level under a very low ceiling, through darkness and patchy fog, trying to keep the ground in sight on its way to the Kirksville field. As it banked to avoid an accumulation of ground fog, its left wing dragged on the ground, and it crashed only sixteen miles from its goal. Investigators from the Bureau of Air Commerce, which oversaw U.S. civil aviation, found it had less than half an hour's worth of fuel left in its tanks. Out of thirteen people on board the plane, five were fatally injured, including both pilots. The Bureau found the actions of TWA personnel to be important factors in the crash and cited several violations of regulations by the company.

One of the dead was U.S. Senator Bronson M. Cutting of New Mexico. He had been a progressive Republican ally of Roosevelt, but the two had a falling out, and in 1934 Roosevelt backed Cutting's Democratic challenger, Dennis Chávez. After Cutting barely won a very close election, Chávez, with Roosevelt's continued support, contested the results in the Senate, claiming that Cutting's margin of victory came from legally disqualified voters. Cutting had visited New Mexico to secure affidavits for his case and was on his way back to Washington when he was killed. These circumstances, taken together with the 1933–34 Air Mail scandal and other complaints about how the Roosevelt administration had been failing to meet the growing needs of U.S. civil aviation, made the crash into a major political issue. Senator Royal S. Copeland formed a subcommittee, the Copeland Committee, to independently investigate, not just the accident, but the Bureau of Air Commerce's overall management of air safety. TWA refused to accept blame, stating that the regulations it had been claimed to have violated were promulgated in such haphazard fashion that it was unclear whether they were even in force. The Copeland Committee's hearings and report mainly sided with TWA against the Bureau, but the report was especially controversial for its bias and apparent refusal to even mention any contrary evidence. In the end, this political battle helped precipitate the 1938 replacement of the Bureau of Air Commerce by the newly formed Civil Aeronautics Authority.

I've found several sources which would be useful in fleshing out the article, which I've listed in the bibliography and describe in much more detail on the article's talk page.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Waddesdon Manor air incident[edit]

This accident happened today and naturally an article was quickly created. We have a Cessna 152 and a Guimbal Cabri G2 helicopter, each with two on board, that collided, with all four occupants killed. Naturally the media are all over this, but it doesn't seem particularly uncommon or notable. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)