Apparently a Boeing 727 was deliberately crashed earlier this year for a TV show. A User has created an article (2012 Curiosity TV Series Boeing 727 crash), added the article to the 2012 accidents Template, and added mention of the test to the List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 727. IMO this falls outside the scope of the Template and the List and I reverted the additions, but I was immediately reverted at the List. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I have started a discussion on the List's Talk Page. YSSYguy (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It's probably an "incident" (unless that has a formal meaning) and it's certainly interesting. If we can produce content that usefully expands the understanding of air crashes, then we should have an article on it. If we have the article, we should link it from these articles, categories and certainly the nav template, however we should also make it clear that it's not an accident, and it should be typographically set apart from straightforward "lists of crashes" within them. That may well mean excluding it from short nav lists, like the template.
As an aside, it was described locally as a pointless stunt for the cameras. We've already studied lots of crashes, and we're not desperately interested in the mechanical behaviour of an aircraft built with 1960s riveting, as we would be for one of modern composites. AFAIR, it's also not the first deliberate crash. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Incident" certainly does have a formal meaning within aviation; things such as mid-air near-misses, where there was no damage to aircraft but there was a danger to aircraft and occupants, are classified as incidents. As for previous crash tests, there was the famous Boeing 720 test (which is mentioned in that article's Operational history section and has its own article at Controlled Impact Demonstration), and NASA used dozens of flood-damaged Piper aircraft airframes for tests as well. YSSYguy (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I too agree, an intentional act like this goes into the same category as a movie stunt - it wasn't an accident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Just move it to an "Other" section for significant events involving the 727 that are not accidents or aviation-defined incidents. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a "movie stunt", but a scientific experiment. IMHO, the article should have be included in the relevant navbox. A note can be made at the foot of the navbox that this was not an accident if this is deemed desirable. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This was a scientific test that was paid for by a private company. The results of the impact were documented by a large number of cameras, both inside and outside the aircraft, and selected footage and preliminary results were presented on a television show earlier this year. So this is clearly in the same class as the Boeing 720 test. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
So do we need a "Category:Aircraft crash tests"? I have had to remove incorrect categories from the page a few times already. Roger (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There is "Category:Experimental aircraft" but it contains only aircraft that were built as experimental types - not "standard" aircraft that just happened to be used for experiments. In the strictly legal sense of course all new aircraft types begin their existence as "Experimental aircraft". Roger (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That may well be how the FAA pigeonholes them. However, I don't think our categorisation need be determined by the current regulatory regime in one country, as our content ought to reflect the whole world and a broad swathe of its history too. bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The FAA is unique in the world in considering amateur-builts as "experimental". It doesn't broadly fit the concept, as most aircraft are built from well-tested kits that don't produce anything very experimental in nature these days. We avoid categorizing any amateur-built or kit aircraft as "experimental" as too US-centric and out-of-step with the rest of the world. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There's nice footage of the New Zealand Mosquito recently stooging around over Auckland with a T11 Vampire and Spitfire. Entitled "Flying DH Mosquito KA114". Moriori (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Category for civilian/unarmed aircraft that were shot down and/or were fired up on
Some editor created this today. I don't think this is notable enough for a stand alone and would redirect it to the article on Khomeni. Anybody else have opinions on this and what to do?...William21:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Need more eyes to look at what is a bit of a contentious issue in assigning a name to an aircraft-oriented article. FWiW (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This crash meets the criteria we have for a crash article. While it was a cargo plane crash, it did kill people on the ground. That said, I'm going to make a couple of comments.
1- I've created over 30 crash articles but I wouldn't do one on this accident. This is a current event and descriptions of what did or didn't happen in this type of crash can change rapidly. Throw in all the IP editors who will want to constantly tweak it or put in a differing version of events, I rather avoid the drama.
2- Crashes like this in certain parts of the world, cargo planes with or without casualties, just are not notable to me but in some very limited instances. What's this article going to be- A couple of days of news articles at most and a statement that the crash is under investigation? In all probability we won't ever what the crash cause was. So the story the article presents is an incomplete one and mostly a news report. That's my opinion....William23:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds logical to me. I noted that different reports had different air lines named as the planes operator. I have updated the Maya-Maya Airport, Il-76 aircraft and Aéro-Service airline pages about the event though. I'll keep an eye out for major changes in the reports. - 220ofBorg01:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Remember that the Congo crash subjects need articles in French on the French Wikipedia. If you know French, and see one that doesn't have one in French, please create an article on it WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
DRV
I have asked at WP:DRV for the Cargolux Flight 7933 article to be relisted in view of new information now being available. Relisting would allow for the article to be expanded and a new debate on whether or not to keep the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The program said that there was a rudder failure that happened on the NW flight. Another happened on an Air France flight. Because the AF failure happened the NTSB felt it needed to take action. So the NTSB recommended attaching tail plugs in the event another failure would occur - it prevents rudder from moving too far in either direction - FAA issues Airworthiness Directive which required all B747-400s to receive the tail plugs. Also the program also says that the Airline Pilots Association, in 2003, awarded the crew the Superior Airmanship Award.
The article on AFD said it was October 9 2002 - So http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021018X05344&ntsbno=ANC03IA001&akey=1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6D5yo0xAF says that it describes the October 9, 2002 incident. It says: "As a result of this incident, the airplane's manufacturer has issued Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated July 24, 2003, which recommends operators perform an ultrasonic inspection of pertinent high-time lower and upper rudder power control modules. The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), "Airworthiness Directive; Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes," published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2003, which would make this inspection mandatory on affected airplanes."
Mentions "On August 30, 2006, we issued AD 2006-18-17, amendment 39-14756 (71 FR 52999, September 8, 2006), for all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That AD requires reviewing airplane maintenance records, doing repetitive inspections for cracking of the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs), replacing the PCMs if necessary, and reporting all airplane maintenance records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. That AD resulted from manufacturer findings that the inspections required by the existing AD (AD 2003-23-01, amendment 39-13364, which AD 2006-18-17 superseded) must be performed at regular intervals. We issued AD 2006-18-17 to detect and correct cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCMs, which could result in an uncommanded left rudder hardover, consequent increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing."
Does anyone know where I can find this on the internet? A user created an article on this crash and I want to flesh out the cause section. Right now I'm using David Gero's Aviation Disasters but it would be more interesting if I could quote the report. The pilot falsified his application for a first class medical certificate and suffered a fatal heart attack that resulted in the crash....William11:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
While fleshing out the article more, adding references and further information about the pilot's heart condition, another editor came in and added four words to the article. When I went to save the hour's worth of work I did to the article, I got an edit conflict notice. I tried to go back to the page with my work but the page with my work was gone. An hour's work down the drain and I'm a writer who doesn't like doing the same work twice. All for the words 'in California' and 'in Georgia'. The pilot/President of the Airline lying on his application for a first class medical certificate sounds a whole lot more interesting....William13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I did that and it wasn't there anymore. The words added are unnecessary. I can mention dozens of articles that don't say what state an accident's flight was going to and from. An hour's worth of work lost for nonsense....William14:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes 'back' retains what you were working on, sometimes it doesn't (Firefox). It's weird. One rule of thumb though is to always hit 'preview' before submitting, as the preview screen [i]will[/i] retain your work... - The BushrangerOne ping only22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Air France Cargo B747 rudder hardover event
The Mayday program for Northwest Airlines Flight 85 said that there was an Air France Cargo B747 had a rudder hardover event and had to make an emergency landing (I made notes of the Mayday program at Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 85). It was discovered that the root cause was a manufacturing defect. It took place four years after the NW85 events. It did not say what country the Air France Cargo plane landed in. I checked BEA (France) records and couldn't find an incident report, so I assume the Cargo plane landed outside of France. This incident and the NW85 one contributed to the formation of anotherairworthiness directive.
How can I find a record/report of this incident?
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If it happened in some third world country that doesn't record incidents there may be no published record, especially if the country of registry (France) didn't record it. . - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Operation Entebbe
Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
When is not operated by "operated by"?
In the recently-created List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia I have come into a bit of conflict with its creator as to what constitutes an aircraft operated by an airline. I removed two types from the list that are not actually operated by Virgin and are not on its AOC, but are operated by other airlines; and the List's creator reverted my edit and rewrote the lede to accomodate his/her opinion. Notwithstanding the fact that I have nominated the list for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia), this may have implications for other lists of this type so I am seeking the opinions of others as to what constitutes "operated by". YSSYguy (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops sorry I just read the article after you nominated it for deletion and deleted the leased aircraft, I wasnt aware of you note here. But "operated for" wet-lease is not the same as "operated by", the aircraft are not owned or flown by Virgin Australia so cant be part of the fleet. Nothing wrong with a mention in the main article as to what is a codeshare arrangement but to list them as part of the fleet is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It's usually helpful to keep a close eye on the scope of lists, but in this case I think some mention might be appropriate. If somebody holding a Virgin Australia ticket can board an airliner, but we take a hard line against any mention of that airliner on our list, that's... not helping our readers. It might be a good idea for a list article to mention the existence of any codeshares, wet leases, &c even if it doesn't go into exhaustive detail - just a sentence in the lede.
If we really have to have a list-of-airliners article (I'm not sure it's wise in many cases), then saying "Some RandomAirline flights, including all flights to Elbonia, are actually operated by Elbonia Air" at the top of the list could clear up any possible confusion, and keep readers informed, without the list getting mired in unnecessary detail. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree a mention as Bobrayner suggests in the main article (or list) would be appropriate, we normally do mention codeshares and the like.MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that too, codeshares should get a text mention in the article, but there is no need to include aircraft operated by codeshare partners as operated by the main carrier in the article. They should be listed in the article on the codeshare partner airline, though.- Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ethiopian Airlines, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Request for a third-party opinion on Red Tails disagreement
There is information available on Airbus and the environment that could update current information provided on the main Airbus page. I’d be very grateful if someone could look at this and update it appropriately. I’ve provided the details in the Talk page of the article, but don’t think it would be appropriate for me to edit the article directly as I work for Airbus.
Just as a heads up, I'm archiving the BEA's Air France 447 materials, posting archives at Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive directory of AF447 final report files - This is so in the event the BEA site goes down, all of its materials will still be available to Wikipedians. I am archiving material in English, French, German, and Portuguese so that all Wikipedias can benefit
I also archived all of the Brazilian Air Force materials except for the still pictures of the recovery effort (I'll do that at a later point)
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I have got all the tables working correctly can someone wava a magic wand over the layout as I am unable to make sense of where the tables sit.--Petebutt (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Acessibility issues with accidents and incident templates
There are accessibility issues with templates in the series including {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011}}. The use of emboldening and small caps alone to differentiate data is meaningless, for example, to people hearing the articles, using assistive software. We should use markers like daggers or asterisks, as well as or instead of such formatting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added the Wikiproject Aviation header to the talk page. Does this page look fishy to anyone else? It's mostly cited to one page, and while I believe that US->Cuba hijackings were relatively common at one point in time, 30 in 1969?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Proving a negative is very hard but you can check the hijackings listed against Google News Archive and see if there are news reports on them there. Don't forget Aviation Safety Network also. Good luck....William11:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Whilst none of the recent incidents affecting the Boeing 787 are notable individually, collectively there may be enough notability to sustain an article. This was done with the SAS Fokker undercarriage problems a few years back. 2013 Boeing 787 grounding might be a suitable title. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think one could make a pretty convincing argument that the faults and the grounding pass the GNG; but the GNG isn't the only factor. Would it be easier to maintain neutral, balanced coverage &c if it was in the 787 article or in a separate article? I'm not sure. bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A standalone article sounds like recentism. Weren't there more DC-10s in service in 1979 than there are 787s today? How about other aircraft being grounded either temporarily or permanently? I know of at least Soviet era airliner taken out of service and another one grounded temporarily....William14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Bit late for this discussion, but New Scientist magazine just published a full-page item on the battery problem: Marks, P.; "Not cleared for takeoff", New Scientist 26 January 2013, p.22. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Not late at all, suggestion was to wait, which was reasonable. AFAIK, the aircraft are still grounded a week on. Maybe it's worth considering a stand alone article now? Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a stand-alone article. The early 747s were grounded because the JT9 engines weren't strong enough to support their own weight and were going out-of-round, there is the afore-mentioned DC10 grounding and the A380 wing rib cracking issue. Having it covered in detail in the 787 article is sufficient IMO, as another instance of delays experienced to the type - after all, there are still quite a few undelivered airframes sitting around requiring fixes due to the other identified electrical, fastenener, and other production issues as I understand it. YSSYguy (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! Air traffic management is currently a disambiguation page with a large number of incoming links. However, it does not appear to be a truly ambiguous topic. Rather, it seems like a topic for an umbrella article covering the relationship between the four areas of air traffic management listed on the page. If this assessment is correct, please help convert this page into an article properly addressing these topics. If this assessment is incorrect, please help fix the incoming links so that they are directed to the correct aviation-related topics. Cheers! bd2412T03:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought I knew how aircraft splitter plates work, otherwise I wouldn't have started the article, but looking for citations on the net has led me to doubt my understanding of the topic, I've now reduced the article to what I can be sure off, I would appreciate any help in correcting and expanding it.--KTo288 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there a discussion or a guideline in which it is explained how to use aviation accident reports and how to do so in conjunction with secondary sources or media reports?
What about in consideration of the original language report versus the English version?
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Accident reports issued by national authorities such as AAIB, NTSB, MAK etc are reliable third-party sources. English language sources are preferred where possible, but there is no bar to a foreign language source being used. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone! Per a recent discussion, the military installation (formerly military structure) infobox will now be incorporating airport information in it, to remove the need for two separate templates on airfield articles. Currently, work is going on here to incorporate the parameters that have been on Template:Infobox airport, but if people could help out and make sure that it is a seamless transition, that would be great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a exact duplication of the airport infobox, it is a rationalisation of the parameters where there is overlap or complexity, incorporation of others such as to incorporate the Military test site infobox. And lastly generate a consistent style within the infobox.
the airport infobox displays location identifiers but doesn't suppress them all when not appropriate, it doesn't allow for an aerodrome facility other than helipad or runway (eg airship masts and flying boat slipways), and the runways are set out as a table which is not useful for WWII-era grass fields.
Wheel track dimensions in Template:Aircraft specifications
I recently suggested in the Talk that various dimensions of aircraft wheel tracks be part of the specifications. There are various other arcane factors in the specifications; why not some of the wheel-related dimensions? Please see my suggestions, and I'd appreciate comments and input. Thanks, - Peter Ellis - Talk12:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Star Alliance (*A) - Airlines being courted/considering membership
Hi. A good number of articles use planespotters.net as a source. Personally I don't think this is a credible source. What are peoples opinions please? --JetBlast (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Did Georgia and/or Ukraine leave the Interstate Aviation Committee?
The website of the Interstate Aviation Committee still says Ukraine and Georgia are members of the IAC, even though Georgia left the CIS, and an editor said in his edits that both Georgia and Ukraine left the IAC.
Because of WP:V Wikipedia still has to say Georgia and Ukraine are part of the IAC unless one can find (a) source(s) explicitly saying that Georgia and Ukraine left the IAC. Does anyone have knowledge of such sources?
I have made some changes to this diagram, but am not sure if I have got it right yet. The discussion started on the above nomination page is continuing on its Commons talk page. Please feel free to join in the discussion, hijack/revert my changes, etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
In 2011, an ATR-72 of Aer Arann was involved in an accident at Shannon Airport. Discussion at talk:Aer Arann reached a consensus at the time that the accident was not serious and therefore not worthy of inclusion. The AAIU released their final report (link may not work for everyone, so can be accessed via the AAIU home page), which states that the aircraft was damaged beyond economic repair, thus meeting WP:AIRCRASH. I've re-opened the discussion at the Aer Arann talk page, please make your views known there as to the inclusion or otherwise of this accident in the Aer Arann article. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
File:A scaled down model of Brahmos-II at Aero India 2013.jpg
(ec)I think redirecting to Ground proximity warning system might make sense. Everybody who has seen the "Air disaster" genre tv documentaries that seem to be very popular on certain channels, has heard the "Terrain, pull up!" voice and some might come looking for information about it here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Trouble is, there are lots of ways to get in a situation where you need to pull up. GPWS is only one. If anybody can find sufficient encyclopedic material, an article on Pull up procedure (aviation) or similar might be worth creating, but "pull up" itself is just ordinary language, like say "turn to port". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed - no need to delete this as it obviously fails the required threshold or originality for copyright anyway. I just fixed the tagging and it can now be moved to Commons if required. - Ahunt (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone swing by Patrouille Suisse please, there's an editor insisting on adding unreferenced and badly-written info which I believe doesn't belong. If course if you think it does belong, feel free to leave it in, but please tidy it up. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Its probably the same guy who trashed the Swiss Air Force article which is reaally bad nobody so far has the time and effort to sort it out! MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
and Flieger-Flab-Museum, but we got that one sorted out on the talk page. He is Swiss and by his own admission doesn't speak much English, so it seems to be at least partly a language issue. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I've suggested to the user (on his talkpage) that he seek assistance from a German-language volunteer at the wp:Local embassy. He's a Swissgerman speaker with a little English and less French. He should be able to work on the .de articles, and then a volunteer can translate from there. LeadSongDogcome howl!21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Have tried to remove some of the bloat and tidy up Swiss Air Force but I suspect it will be reverted! some sections still need to be re-written into English and it repeats the same text in various badly translated versions, any help keeping an eye on it appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
For Wikipedians in Moscow: Edward Snowden's airplane to land at SVO Airport at 5:15PM Moscow time
Are there any photographers who take pictures at Sheremetyevo airport?
Edward Snowden's plane is landing at Sheremetyevo at 5:15PM Moscow time: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1267261/snowden-leaves-hong-kong-commercial-flight-moscow - I'm not sure if that would be helpful to articles about Edward Snowden, but anyone thinks so, there's the hint: you can photograph Snowden's airplane as it lands
It's Aeroflot Flight#213 (as stated by the Hong Kong news article) - Aeroflot's website says
SU213: Hong Kong - Hong Kong International (HKG-1) Moscow - Sheremetyevo (SVO-F) 10:55 (UTC+08:00) 23.06 Departed
The Guardian said at 1:25 BST that the plane should land in Moscow in about 45 minutes. He will be in the transit section of the airport (SVO-F) as he does not have a Russian visa. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Closed already. And a bite back at you personally by another involved party, which if coincidence is remarkable for its timing. You have my sympathy. Do let us know if you still need a hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny how no-one at ANI felt there was any hint of a "personal attack". Arbcom is this way. Do something about it if you feel it's a miscarriage of justice. Plus the bad faith insinuation above is unnecessary, please act on it or remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Assessment and template
There's something seriously wrong with the "class=" parameter in the assessment template. For all I can tell, it's ignored completely in favor of this, which amounts to a counting of B-class criteria. The mere fact that an article hasn't been assessed for B-class yet dooms it to Start-class (see Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport for an extreme example) while conversely a grammatically-correct one-line stub with an infobox and an inline citation for its meagre content would be considered C-class. Now this suggestion via the number of criteria is surely nice, but is it really meant to override manual assessment and render it meaningless? If so, it should be better-documented that for this WikiProject a C-class article is one that fulfills three or four of the B-class criteria, no more and no less. Having just wasted the better part of an hour on figuring this out, I'd strongly advocate complying with how the rest of Wikipedia handles the class= parameter and allowing it to override the B-class criteria count. Huon (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In my experience with B-class checklist template assessments, the checklist does not override a "|class=stub", nor a "|class=B" setting, no matter the number of checklist items ticked, and that it is only a combination of "|class=start" and the B checklist that comes out as C or B ratings. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive editor is back
Some of you may remember the issues I had with Stodieck (User talk:Stodieck) some time back. The user was eventually banned for a considerable time. For more see my record of the dispute or, if that gets corrupted, the associated diff. Well, this user is back, abusing me (and others) again in style. I am reluctant to see a permanent ban as this editor otherwise makes many useful contributions. However any word about acceptable behaviour from me will only inflame. Would somebody, the more folks the better, try to cool the guy down before I am forced to ask for that permanent ban? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we have a discussion re the notability or otherwise of this incident? I notice that it has been added and removed from the BA article, with one editor adding the incident in good faith as notable enough to mention, and another removing it in equaly good faith as non-notable.
Given that the incident appears to have affected both (i.e. all) engines, I'd say that the incident is notable enough to cover under the articles on the airport, airline and aircraft type, per the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. I'm not yet conviced of the case for a stand-alone article, but that may change as more facts become known. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article on the incident is well on its way to snowy delete right now at AFD. It's not a hull loss, so it doesn't merit a mention in the BA article IMHO....William13:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
And so it was. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe we'll have to wait until the AAIB report comes out to assess the true seriousness of this one. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Of the 6 incidents and accidents included in the section, 3 are hull loses. This latest incident is serious enough to be included in my opinion. Cloudbound (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Initial report
The AAIB have released their initial report. I believe that it shows that the accident is serious enough to be covered, but not by a stand-alone article. Please read the report and comment on the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, could someone please refresh my memory about whether www.aviastar.org is kosher or not? IIRC it is one gigantic copyright infringement, or am I mis-remembering the situation? YSSYguy (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Bushranger, your memory is better than mine - perhaps I'd better stop remembering stuff related to aircraft maintenance and start remembering WP-related stuff errmm, perhaps not...
Much worse than just the 184... and disregarding user pages (maybe a note on each is required, I don't know) - there might be some overlap as well. (links are to search results)
While I'm a blogger who has done original reporting on a few limited occasions(Two LPGA Golf tournaments and the mishandling of disaster food stamps after a hurricane struck Florida in 2004), I do understand why most blog posts are not considered WP:RS. Your edits are fine IMHO....William17:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"Please read WP:SPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources) where it clearly says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Your assumption that "a blog is not a reliable source" is clearly wrong for some blogs. We can also see from http://theaviationist.com/newsstand/#.UewdD421GmA that this is one of those blogs, as this persons work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Therefore, it is a reliable source." Benboy00 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Benboy00, in this case the blog author has been widely published in field and so the blog should be considered a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
OK I saw that most of what was mentioned as being published are copies or references of his posts on the blog and one or two articles so widely published is probably pushing it a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I suspect what Ahunt (and I) refer to is actually his 4 published books, as well as his numerous mentions on popular sites such as Wired, Gizmodo, and The Guardian, which must number at least 100 (I scrolled through it, and it seems like it would take too long to count, so I'm estimating). One of the things I did notice from skimming is that Gizmodo identifies him as "Military expert David Cenciotti", and Business Insider has a profile on him that says "He is the founder and owner of The Aviationist, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs" (http://www.businessinsider.com/author/david-cenciotti#ixzz2Zifx09Tv). Surely this is enough proof of his published expert status in a relevant field? Benboy00 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I say that it is notable enough for an article, given that the Super Puma is a large helicopter, four deaths and the subsequent temporary grounding of all North Sea Super Pumas. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, the accident is notable enough for an article. What is the correct procedure here to review the decision not to promote? Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but if an editor feels that it meets notability guidelines, they can always elect to move it. If there is no action on the article in 6 months it is subject to bot nomination and deletion. I did glance at it and if moved it needs some cleanup and pruning. The decline decisions at AfC are an issue since it takes one person to reject something and we do make mistakes. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Certainly a notable subject but the article would need a lot of work to make it suitable in my opinion, we dont need the list of victims and we dont need the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder and some of the stuff in the USAF report section needs some rework and moving about, and most of the legacy stuff is not needed. That said it could be just moved into main space and I am sure it can be sorted out. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
A number of edits by User:Amelie100 on 19 September seem to be mostly information copied directly from the masterplan for the airport. This includes general information about the local area and economy beyond the scope of this article, as well as a lot of repeated and unnecessary sections. The article is in desperate need of attention, as in its current state I would question whether it meets WP:REL. These changes should be reverted or the article significantly cleaned up and revised to bring it back to standard. Dfadden (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say "possibly", maybe even "probably", and "we'll shortly be getting one whether it is or not"...but seriously, I'd say this smells like a very likely notable one. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly what I came here to ask about. A quick search on WP revealed no page on it as yet, at least that I could find. Is there a section among the skydiving pages for accidents perhaps? I have source with 11 dead [7], so seems notable & aircraft destroyed too. hi Mjroots, long time no 'see' :-) 220ofBorg00:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Going by the criteria there, which make no mention of the number of casualties in regard to notability of 'light' aircraft incidents/accidents, I would have to agree with Ahunt. 220ofBorg01:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Mjroots, my main thought was that if the crash had no standalone page then it was at least good enough to have a mention on the PC-6 page. :-) 220ofBorg07:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like consensus is that it's notable. so we're in need of a title. Although the accident occurred in Marchovelette, it is beimg widely reported as "near Namur". Would "2013 Namur Pilatus PC-6 Porter crash" be a better title than "2013 Marchovelette Pilatus PC-6 Porter crash"? Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Shorter is better, but if the longer title is the one in common use? We can't get away with just ... Belgian ... ? The Australian source I posted says 'Fernelmont'. 220ofBorg07:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Spain Pilatus PC-6 crash which concerned a PC-6 on skydiving ops that crashed after its wing failed. Is the type susceptible to wing failure? I don't know. Is it because skydiving aircraft tend to be flown aggressively and the wing failed in overload? Maybe, but again I don't know. We will have to wait and see. As far as number of deaths goes, I have never subscribed to the "deaths=notability" argument; I also recall a fair few occasions where skydiving a/c have crashed and killed more than ten people. YSSYguy (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
MilborneOne nominated that on. It may be that a better approach would be to have an A&I section in the article on the aircraft type, with an edit note similar to that on the PA-23 A&I section (i.e. vast majority of pilot error articles not mentionable). Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. If it does turn out that an AD of some sort is issued, or if the type is banned from skydiving ops, then we can have an article, or perhaps one covering both crashes if they are tied together by the accident report. YSSYguy (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I am not seeing any more notability with this accident than with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Spain Pilatus PC-6 crash, which was deleted for being non-notable. Skydiving aircraft do tend to be flown more aggressively and failures are not that uncommon on them. The manufacturer is usually quick to blame the operators for exceeding load factors over a long period of time, causing the failure. The accident investigation usually turns this up as the type of failure mode is usually repetitive, but let's see what they come up with. In the meantime I would respectfully suggest that if the last crash of this type on this same kind of op was not notable then this one probably isn't either. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of the notability claimed for the Spanish accident was that it was involved in filming a television advertisement at the time, that said this would appear to be a similar "wing failure" accident so perhaps needs some discussion on the PC-6 article when we have more information. Not an excuse but this particular aircraft had been re-built from a crash before and was not exactly operated in a benign environment and had previously been used as a crop sprayer for its first fourteen years since being built in 1969. It will not stop somebody creating an article but I dont think it is notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
An AfD delete only means that the subject is not considered notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. In the case of an aircrash, it doesn't mean that we can't mention it at all on Wikipedia. Structural failure of a wing in flight is a different kettle if fish to pilot error. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Depends on the pilot error. A medical evacuation flight that crashed in 2011 had a contributing cause of the pilot having marijuana in his system. Don't hear that one too often....William12:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I dont think it has been discussed, looking at the state of it it is a bit of a dumping ground of random bits of information it could do with a re-think and re-work on most of the content. Perhaps needs a discussion on what should actually be on the page first. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that the right people to ask are probably already watching this page or if not at WP:AIRCRAFT, perhaps wait for the minute and see if anybody else comments. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I agree most people interested will be watching here . I think the article coverage is basically okay, just needs a clean-up and rewrite. - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest some more topics for inclusion and onward linking: Aircraft design and manufacturing, air safety, legislative and administrative frameworks and organizations, Aircrew and training/qualifications, aerobatics. There are probably a good few more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel that general topics are often under-served and sometimes they're just a loose collection of snippets. It's easier for editors to focus on one narrow or obscure topic, but when faced with something very wide, incremental edits only get you so far, and many editors will have the "Where do I start?" problem. And for people who want to accumulate DYKs / GAs &c., it's very hard to score those points on such a general topic. So, for instance, United Airlines Flight 232 - one specific flight which lost flight controls - is more detailed, higher quality, and better sourced than Flight control surfaces - which Aviation doesn't link to (nor do Bomber or Airliner, both of which are preoccupied with listing specific aircraft). So, um, this is a common problem and I think it's important to focus attention on the more general articles like aviation. I think steelpillow's list is a great place to start. bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Aircrew needs some love too? It currently has two short sentences and a list; zero sources. Personally, I'd consider it top-importance but it's already been assessed as list-class. bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a few first ideas - aviation appears to have two main defintions, the operation of aircraft, the design, development, and production of aircraft:
Operation of aircraft
Civil aviation
General Aviation (Training/Recreation/Agricultural/Business/Air Charter)
Air Transport (Airlines/Cargo)
Air Traffic Control
Sport (Gliding/Aerobatic)
Specialist use (Emergency Services/Coastguard)
Military aviation
Military operators (Types of user)
Military use of aircraft (Air warfare/Humanitarian/Training)
Air safety
Legislation and licensing (Aircraft, Aircrew and Operator)
Accident and accident investigation
Design, development and production of aircraft
Aircraft design and manufacturing
Aircraft manufacturers
Note the history of aviation already has a detailed article so doesnt need to be repeated, the others just need an introduction into articles that I hope already exist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I will help where I can, but I have current commitments elsewhere, especially Early flying machines. On the structure, I would suggest: Air Traffic Control belongs under Air Safety, "Operation" would be better titled "Aviation sectors" and Air Safety moved out, the design and manufacturing bit is just about the "Aircraft", we don't need both Manufacturers and Manufacturing, while Aeronautics, Aviators and Aerodynamics are missing and finally even the History needs a section title and a "main" link, however brief. This would give a structure something like:
History
Aviation sectors
Civil aviation
General Aviation (Training/Recreation/Agricultural/Business/Air Charter)
Air Transport (Airlines/Cargo)
Sport (Gliding/Aerobatic)
Specialist use (Emergency Services/Coastguard)
Military aviation
Military operators (Types of user)
Military use of aircraft (Air warfare/Humanitarian/Training)
Air safety
Legislation and licensing (Aircraft, Aircrew and Operator)
Air Traffic Control
Accident and accident investigation
Aeronautics
Aviators and aeronauts
Aircraft
Aerodynamics
Aircraft design
Aircraft manufacturing
As for process, at least initially for the main reorganising, I'd suggest something less formal while we rearrange the current content under a new structure and create something readable for each section (if only a one-liner and a Main link). Subsequent polishing of the sections can then be taken a step at a time as volunteers allow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Steelpillow:, MilborneOne: I'm not too sure about Steelpillow's proposed structure. For one, "Aeronautics" should replace "Aircraft" and "Aviators" should be moved to the bottom (or it could be omitted and the article Pilot (aircraft) could be linked early in the article). I consider MilborneOne's "Operation of aircraft" to be more coherent and compact. My proposal would look something like this:
History of aviation
Aeronautics (copied and tweaked from Steelpillow's)
Aerodynamics
Aircraft design
Aircraft manufacturing
Operations of aircraft (copied from MilborneOne's)
Civil aviation
General Aviation (Training/Recreation/Agricultural/Business/Air Charter)
Air Transport (Airlines/Cargo)
Air Traffic Control
Sport (Gliding/Aerobatic)
Specialist use (Emergency Services/Coastguard)
Military aviation
Military operators (Types of user)
Military use of aircraft (Air warfare/Humanitarian/Training)
Air safety
Legislation and licensing (Aircraft, Aircrew and Operator)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Access to books in this field would be helpful, especially to clear content, as this contributor has heavily taken from book sources, but there are also articles that draw from online sources.)
I have just come across Pilatus SB-2, which has an image of a scale desktop model in the infobox. This really doesn't sit well with me, but is there a formal guideline/policy against this? YSSYguy (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If it's the only/best image available to us and it's clear that it's a model both in the image and in its caption then what's the problem ? DexDor (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't ideal, but it is better than no image at all. The caption should specify that it is a model for clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. The caption there states model. The other option is to put model image elsewhere in the article. But that would probably seem odd with no an image in the infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think it should go in the info box when there is no better image. We have done that for some proposed projects that never got built. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
How do we treat the transition from early to pioneer? You are invited to join the discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Early flying machines and the pioneer era
Criteria for types following new trends
The modern boom in UAV and VTOL technology demonstrators is prompting more and more edits like this one. On the one hand such edits are often blatant self-promotion of something not very notable, on the other hand these craft are obviously out there. In this fast-changing world, should we be showing a bit of latitude by allowing such aircraft in our lists, or should we be ruthlessly pruning back to those mentioned in reliable third-party sources? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What if it hasn't flown as claimed, or if the claim cannot be verified? Promotional materials can be photshopped, the fact that figures are simulated can be hidden. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
On 25 October, a Fokker F27 lost a propeller blade, causing the failure of the complete propeller hub and gearbox and severe damage to the fuselage of the aircraft. The aircraft subsequently made an emergency landing at Paris CDG with no casualties. The accident is being discussed at Pprune. The French BEA have classed this as an accident.
I know Pprune is not a reliable source, but it is a good source of reliable sources. I'd like to start an article on this accident, but thought it best to run past members of this WP to see whether there was consensus that it would be able to sustain a stand-alone article. Opinions please. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Today four different editors started articles on the Kazan plane crash. Surprisingly a Ryan kirkpatrick sock wasn't one of them....William18:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Are single aircraft notable.
E.g is it possible to make an article for an aircraft e.g. N123AB if it was famous for something like being the last of its type, or carrying someone important?
Nathan121212 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I found this loose string of text underneath today's deletion log template, I don't know where the IP was trying to place it but evidently on the Talk page here is better than there: In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Spyker_V1.jpg#File:Spyker_V1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
