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.

F-4 crash, Wisconsin Air Guard, May 21, 1986.[edit]

The Wisconsin State Journal did an excellent summary of all military air incidents in Wisconsin in 2011 after the F-16 crash.

I was searching for the RF-4 crash of May 21, 1985. It was not on your military database.

A review of the newspaper article may provide data on other crashes. Keep up the good work.

Robert P. Walsh

Link to Wisconsin State Journal article. (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Click to come to the image page:

2016 Elko, Nevada air-ambulance crash[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I am not a member of this WikiProject, but an incident occurred yesterday that I believe warrants an article. Here is an article from a reliable source to start you off: (NBC News) I am well aware of the "Not News" policy on Wikipedia. Here is why I believe this incident is notable: The aircraft was destroyed, and four people were killed. The incident caused damage on the ground as well. The incident is similar to 2006 Mercy Air Bell 412 crash, with an even larger loss of life this time. I have already added this incident to the Current events portal. To all editors here, thank you for all you do on and for Wikipedia! Juneau Mike (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The ref and the refs linked in that article show that this was a Piper Cheyenne on an air ambulance mission that crashed. The Cheyenne is a light aircraft and crashes of light aircraft, especially on medevacs are very common events, similar to car crashes that kill four people. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that indicates there will be any lasting effects from this accident, such as changes in regulations, Airworthiness Directivess etc, as a result of this accident. See WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ahunt, I understand most of your reply, even though I tend to disagree on a couple of points. Crashes of the Piper Cheyenne may be common, but I believe air ambulance crashes are not. Likewise, I acknowledge that crashes on the roadway that kill 4 may be common, but similar to this incident, how often do ground based ambulances crash and kill four people? I believe that air ambulance crashes with multiple fatalities are very rare, and notable. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This is another medevac flight that killed multiple people.[1] It was determined that the pilot was under the influence of marijuana[2] and the plane ran out of fuel. That crash has no article. WP:NOTNEWS is the rule here.
BTW the article above killed two people who belonged to our church parish.[3] My wife spoke to Ilomae Bialak the same day as the accident. That was a very weird time personally at my home. The wife of a blog owner who I sometimes wrote for passed away, plus the accused killer of our church pastor's mother was arrested. All in a matter of 4 days....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Sadly in the US medevac crashes, both fixed-wing and rotary-wing are very common. It has long been identified as an issue in that segment of the industry, for instance see this.- Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. That is why I brought the topic to this WP, instead of creating the article myself. I believe it would have survived an AfD, but consensus means a lot more to me, Notability not so much. Notability is important, to be sure, but consensus of the Wikipedia community is more important. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence - new fields suggestion[edit]

Dear project members. I have submitted a proposal to include two more fields to the Infobox aircraft occurrence, see here. Please visit the infobox's talk page and voice your opinion. Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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[4] 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[5] and here[6]. 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)

2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash[edit]

I and other editors have removed the mention of this accident from the aircraft type article and now it has its own stand alone article. It was removed from the aircraft type article because it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. It was a Beechcraft King Air 200, so a light aircraft, it clipped a shopping centre and crashed in the parking lot, the crash killed five people (all occupants of the aircraft). The aviation press is reporting that the accident was due to an engine failure. There is no indication at this point that it will lead to any changes in procedures, ADs, etc. Any thoughts on notability of this accident? - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable as a number of beechcrafts have had multiple deaths in Australia before, and as the Victorian politicians point out it is their worst for 30 years - the accident against the sheer volume of Melbourne and essendon traffic, and this accident make it significant in Australian terms - I would be hesitant to make judegments before the ATSB have made their pronouncement in 28 days - it might not seem much to overseas/non australian perusal from the sources you have accessed to date - you might come to the judgements like above - but really pre-empting notability from the limited material available seems a bit short on what might happen, the ATSB is usually never quick on their findings, and there are a range of issues that arise - it might not just be a clip or engine failure - JarrahTree 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that we don't keep articles on non-notable events in the hopes that they might become notable at some point in the future. Instead we wait until they become notable and write them then. One question to ask is "is this just the usual media bias that all aircraft accidents get sensationalized". The comparison is to ask "would Wikipedia have a stand-alone accident article if it had been a car that hit a shopping mall and the five occupants of the car died?" - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if aviation/accident notability can be argued for the tag to be removed - the australian context is quite marked - the airport buffer zone has been an issue locally in essendon for over 20 years - the national safety regulator and accident investigation - both bodies are in specific context with this accident - some accident events on highways, railways, light aircraft are sufficiently contextualised in the australian project to actually have stand-alone and survive, from what I can see JarrahTree 14:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See my comment below on the subject of airport or country notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction is that it is not really notable for a stand-alone article or a mention in the type article, note this is my own criteria!

  • Was it a commercial scheduled flight? - no it was a private charter
  • Did it hit something notable? - as far as I see the shoping complex is not noteworthy.
  • Did somebody notable die? - sadly five deaths but from what I can see none would have a wikipedia article.
  • Did the rules and procedures change? - we dont know but if it was an engine failure on take off probably not.
  • Other factors like "Did it kill people on the ground?" - sometimes this can up the notability for military aircraft but not always light aircraft but fortunately didnt happen here. Not convinced that a common twin like a King Air has a problem but it may be related to how the Australians fly or licence the type but I have not seen anything yet other than bad luck. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Again - local context does actually look at some of that differently

There have been an ongoing issues about 'buffer zone' - so it is not relative to what it hits or not, but the extent to which melbourne and essendon facilities might be different in proximity compared to similar installations around the world or not

Charter flights to Tasmania are inherently interesting in that traffic control in Tasmania has ceased/retreated to Melbourne, technically making anything crossing the Bass Strait (or about to) different from other australian facilities

the Australians - there are significant issues as to a range of conditions to flying in Australia due to impending changes to staffing levels of the administrative structures of the national air services bureaucracy - not that this accident has anything to do with that - but really, applying 'universalist' arguments to something like this in Melbourne does miss the point somewhat, and, even if there is insufficient notability for aviation project - it is definitely notable for australian project as there are a range of issues surrounding aviation safety in Melbourne, regardless of the findings by the ATSB (or the relatively low status for the earning of the aviation accident tag) JarrahTree 14:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "airport buffer zone" arguments go, if that is the case than I would definitely support the accident being added to the article on the airport, but not a stand-alone article or the aircraft type article. In other words it could be notable to the airport, but not the aircraft type. The same goes for the country. It is it is notable to the country , the state or city it could be mentioned in those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The Melbourne/essendon articles are less relevant - the nature of transport across Bass Strait (which was the planned flightpath) has historically had a range of issues which have had wrecks and disasters over time - some which have sustained notability simply by the ramifications. I can see and hear what the aviation/accident argument is, and obviopusly commendable guardians of threshold of notability for your way of seeing the world. There are, and probably will be sufficient issues arising from this article to remain in Australian /Victorian /Melbourne context regardless of the arguments to pull it from your project tag. JarrahTree 14:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record I am not suggesting we pull it from the project tag or even that it go for WP:AFD. My past experience with AfD on aircraft crashes is that they are always kept, just because people jump on it with, "the press covered it" arguments. It is almost impossible to get an aircraft crash article deleted here on Wikipedia for any reason. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Also note that a lot of the issues raised by JarrahTree if notable would sustain an article, so if Bass Srait route has issues raised by reliable sources then it could achieve an article and the same for multiple Australian King Air accidents and the airport buffer zone would be in the Essendon Airport article (nothing at the moment), none of which requires the existence of a stand-alone article on the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That was my thought, too. This should be elsewhere and perhaps redirected there. In many ways this article continues a bad precedent that "any aircraft accident gets an article, no matter how non-notable it is". - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 with doing away with the dedicated article and instead keeping/expanding the entry in the Essendon Airport article, where it fits perfectly, together with many other similar accidents (one even involving victims on the ground), none of which is notable enough for a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)